HC Deb 29 June 2004 vol 423 cc34-56WH

2 pm

Mr. Patrick Hall (Bedford) (Lab)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a number of issues relating to transport in the eastern region. I am also pleased to note the presence of several hon. Members from the region. My hope is that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), will hear a number of worthwhile contributions that will leave him in no doubt that the eastern region has strong advocates, and that the needs and aspirations of its people should be heard, recognised and acted on by the Government just as much as those of people from other parts of the country.

It has not always been so. I note that the debate on the eastern region that took place in the House on 11 November 1998 was, according to the House of Commons Library, the first debate on economic development issues relating to the east of England to have taken place for at least 20 years—the Library did not look further back. It was followed by another Adjournment debate, on transport in the eastern region, on 20 November 2001, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). I pleased to see that he is present this afternoon. Taking into account today's debate, the eastern region is getting a lot more parliamentary attention than it has received for a very long time indeed.

In addition, the creation of regional development agencies and regional assemblies across the country has focused the minds of business, the Government, organisations, institutions and elected representatives on issues that are best considered and delivered in a regional context. Again, that is something that has not happened with regard to the east of England in the past.

Although the region is new and diverse, recognition of its existence—including, increasingly, by its residents—will help to deliver the necessary clout to ensure that it gets its fair share of the cake, as well as helping it to develop the self-confidence to do things for itself. If anyone has any doubts about the need for that, I ask them to consider the challenges and opportunities in the sustainable communities plan, particularly in the London, Stansted, Cambridge and Peterborough growth area, and, on the western borders of the region, the Luton, Bedford, Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area.

The eastern region has one of the fastest growing populations in the United Kingdom. There are currently about 5.5 million people living in the six counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. In land area, it is the second largest English region. Although it is characterised by historic, attractive villages and small and medium-sized market towns in an extensive rural setting, it must not be forgotten that most of the population is urban, particularly in the southern and western parts.

Commentators often refer to the prosperity of the region. It is one of the most prosperous in the United Kingdom, although it is only averagely prosperous in European Union terms. That prosperity is based on gross domestic product per residence, which allows for income brought into the region by commuters to London. However, if we measure prosperity on a workplace basis, the region falls well below the UK, as well as the EU, average. That indicates two key features of the eastern region: first, it relies heavily on London and, secondly, it performs below its economic potential as a region in its own right.

Some may say that that does not matter and the London effect should be welcomed, but that means maintaining and reinforcing the increasingly congested and costly radial transport flows into London. That approach is no longer sustainable, and it is undesirable in terms of quality of life as well as social and economic development. Indeed, although the London effect worked well for many people in the past, it always failed to tackle the fact that there are extensive pockets of relative deprivation, including rural deprivation, and a greater reliance on the car than in other regions because of the weakness of the public transport system and the lack of local employment opportunities. The 20 per cent. or so of households in the region that have no car, and the many people who do not have regular access to the household car, live in a rich region while not particularly benefiting from it. That shows that much needs to be done to reshape established patterns of work, investment and transport.

The potential is there: in tourism there can be no doubt of that, and there is also strong growth in electronics, telecommunications and pharmaceuticals. In my part of the world, Bedfordshire, the importance of Cambridge as an influential focus for growth is recognised through the work being done on the concept of the Oxford to Cambridge arc, which links Oxford to Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge.

That reminds us of one of the issues that featured strongly in the two earlier parliamentary debates that I referred to: the absence of, and the need for, strong east-west transport links. Although we have Stansted, Luton and Norwich international airports, and the major seaports of Felixstowe, Harwich, Ipswich, Tilbury, King's Lynn, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, those have tended to reinforce the north-south London hub pattern because it is there.

If those of us in the eastern region are to tackle social exclusion, invest more to meet public expectations on a range of issues of public services and quality of life, and live up to our economic potential, we must raise our game and be more ambitious, building on our strengths and tackling the long-established strategic weaknesses. Transport is fundamental to doing that. I believe that the key to unlocking the potential of the region as a whole is the sustainable communities plan. Achieving the two growth areas in the east requires up-front commitments to infrastructure investment. Transport is an essential element of that.

The Minister knows that, historically, transport investment in the east has been poor. That is partly because, until now, there has not been a coherent regional voice and the necessary strategic output has been absent. There are existing commitments, mainly for road improvement, to address the needs of the existing population. There is also a compelling case for improvement in capacity and level of service on the rail network, again justified entirely on the basis of existing needs. On top of that there is a requirement to boost transport investment to deliver the growth areas.

Ministers will be aware of the regional planning body's infrastructure bid to the comprehensive spending review 2004, mainly but not exclusively for transport investment. I think that the investment is more likely to happen, and that it will be far more cost-effective, if regional bodies and local councils opt for accelerated rather than mercy trend growth. The region underperforms, and a step change in planned growth is needed to address that. Especially because it needs to be accelerated, such growth must be balanced and it must be jobs-led. If it not, we will simply reinforce the congested patterns of social exclusion and relative economic underperformance that characterise the region.

To avoid that, and the decline that would surely follow, I believe that two things are needed. First, local councils and regional bodies must have the courage and imagination to embrace accelerated growth and they must be positive about the opportunities that it represents. Secondly, the Government must be radical and serious about reforming the formulae used for public spending programmes. We all know that those are normally based on past events; they lack a forward-looking component. As a result, they fail to make allowance for planned growth. Areas growing faster than average are perpetually underfunded and playing catch-up.

That exactly describes the situation in Bedfordshire, where, for example capitation allocations for the NHS have, over the years, remain locked below the investment levels deemed necessary to meet existing needs, never mind planned additional needs. I urge the Minister to take on board this point: sustainable communities will not be sustainable unless the Whitehall machinery is redesigned, and that is his province or that of his colleagues. I look forward to his comments on that.

One golden opportunity reinforced by the growth areas initiative is the east-west rail link. I have long supported that project, which will benefit the region and beyond as well as Bedford and Kempston in my constituency. I understand that following recent positive discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the east-west rail consortium is now hopeful that a clearer way forward will soon be established for the western half of the project; that is, from Bedford to Bletchley, Oxford and Aylesbury. That will mean taking the consortium's existing feasibility study to the next stage. I hope that the opportunity is grasped to ensure that the level of investment committed is sufficient to the task.

My hon. Friend will be aware that parts of the eastern half of the project—east of Cambridge—have already benefited from improved services, with more improvements planned to come into being this autumn. That leaves the missing link between Bedford and Sandy. We cannot have east-west rail without plugging that gap, so action is needed. I hope that my hon. Friend will indicate that the Strategic Rail Authority's regional planning assessment will at last start to operate in harmony with land use and economic development plans. I hope that he will acknowledge the strategic importance of the SRA's taking fully on board the growth area plans and, in that context, use his best offices to encourage the SRA to consider east-west rail as a whole and plug the gap. I would like to see a programme designed to achieve that sooner rather than later. The delay has gone on far too long.

Delivery of east-west rail will spread the benefit of the growth areas as well as addressing existing problems. It therefore has the potential to reduce the levels, such as they are, of opposition to and uncertainty about housing growth. The same can also be said about another project: the Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway. I admit that the building of a new canal is not exactly geared to solving modern transport problems, but the project is integral to creating an attractive environment, boosting land values and developing leisure opportunities. It will help to put the Marston vale, south-west of Bedford, on the map. The project has strong all-party and public support and will contribute to the regeneration of an area that for far too long has been exploited for brick clay and unsustainable landfill. It is time to put something back into the area. The Government need to give strong support to that project, which is entirely consistent with the growth area initiative in that part of the world.

My hon. Friend will also be aware that I have had detailed discussions with ministerial colleagues about delivery of the Bedford western bypass, which is to be developer funded. I am pleased that in the past few months the Government have decided to make additional funds available up front to kick-start the project in the reasonable hope that it will trigger action by developers and landowners to fund the project as a whole. I hope that that will work. We will need to monitor events on the ground closely to ensure that it does. Lack of action would stifle delivery of part of the Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area, which would be unacceptable to all of us.

Clearly, there is much that I have not attempted to address in introducing this debate. The region is large, with 56 parliamentary constituencies. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members say this afternoon. I hope that they will agree that the creation of the regional bodies plus the impetus for growth represented by the sustainable communities plan will trigger activities and a programme of social, economic and transport improvements that have the potential to benefit the eastern region as a whole for many years to come.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton)

Before I call the next speaker, I indicate my intention to start the winding-up speeches at 3 o'clock, I say to the spokesmen for the Liberal Democrats and for Her Majesty's Opposition that I want the Minister to have adequate time to reply to this wide-ranging debate; I hope that they will bear that in mind.

2.15 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con)

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing this important debate. I was very grateful for one line in his speech in which he emphasised the need for strong east-west links across the region. That is something on which I intend to concentrate. I know that when the Minister saw me his heart sank, as he knew that I would raise the question of the A47. Queen Mary had "Calais" engraved on her heart; I think that the Minister will have "A47" engraved on his over the next year.

The A47 has intermittent stretches of dualling between the A1 in the west and Great Yarmouth in the east—a length of about 170 miles. Stretches of the A47 pass through my constituency on either side of Norwich. I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) present; he may try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because he has a constituency interest in the matter.

This is the second time that I have spoken in the Chamber on this subject. On 24 March 1999, I participated in a debate on transport in the eastern region initiated by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), and on 4 June last year I participated in an Adjournment debate on the A47.

The dualling of the A47 is a high priority in Norfolk. Last year, the county council resurrected the old A47 alliance, which is supported by all MPs, all county, district and town councils, business groups, trade unions and many voluntary organisations in Norfolk. There is hardly anyone outside that umbrella organisation. The Minister may also be interested to know that the Norfolk county strategic partnership has undertaken a wide survey, entitled, "Your Norfolk, your day", which has produced some interesting findings about the priorities of the county's population, including a high priority for the dualling of the A47.

It would he fair to say that public opinion in Norfolk is heavily in favour of dualling the A47, and, with local support, the alliance will lobby and campaign to achieve that objective. It could be said that it is Norfolk's own big conversation, and we hope that Ministers will listen. They are aware of the strength of feeling—on 15 October last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) received a cross-party delegation who briefed him on why we thought that the road should be totally dualled.

I want to press this Minister on one general point and one local point. As I said, the A47 stretches from the A1 in the west to Great Yarmouth, and there is concern in Norfolk and areas to the west that the Government have failed to take a strategic view of the importance of the east-west link. One has only to look at a map of East Anglia to see a broken thread stretching 170 miles. The route is important not only for Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, but for the east midlands. Whatever rail and local transport options we come up with, they will be feeble in comparison with the main one. That key route is unable to cope with the current traffic flow, but the Government will fail to achieve their own targets for reducing social and economic deprivation, encouraging economic development and reducing accidents if they continue with the current policy of remedial dualling in selected areas.

There is also the question of the impact of any development on Yarmouth outer harbour, which all of us in East Anglia hope will go ahead. It will be of great benefit to Great Yarmouth and the region. If the project goes ahead without substantial dualling of the A47, we will have a considerable traffic jam at the Yarmouth end of the Acle straight.

Ministers have avoided taking a strategic view and prefer to devolve responsibility—but not necessarily a lot of resources—to the East of England regional assembly while effectively retaining control. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bedford in that many of us have been sceptical about the ability of the eastern region to get what we want for our area. I persuaded the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport to acknowledge that there was a case in principle for the whole of the A47 to be dualled—without committing any money—according to the Government's criteria. That case is still relevant today, and I hope that this Minister will acknowledge that.

I turn now to more local issues. It would be churlish of me or any other Norfolk MP not to acknowledge local commitment and progress on issues in Norfolk relating to the dualling of the A47. I welcome the Government's decision to continue the dualling of a short stretch of the A47 east of Norwich in my constituency from Blofield to North Burlingham. When it is completed, it will reduce the number of accidents on that treacherous stretch of road.

In Norfolk, we are concerned that the important scheme to dual the A47 from Acle to Great Yarmouth may be turned down as a result of the environment assessment undertaken by the Highways Agency, which I understand will be published shortly. Although the agency has assured Norfolk county council that it will keep in touch as the process develops, Norfolk MPs, the council and the A47 alliance are concerned that that does not mean that it will seek the council's views, and it will not necessarily take into account any economic assessment.

The Minister may not be aware that I recently wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, expressing my concerns on behalf of the A47 alliance about the failure to assess the economic aspects alongside the environmental impact of any dualling of the A47 stretch known as the Acle straight. On 7 June, Mr. John Reynolds, the chairman of the east of England regional planning panel, wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport about the lack of economic assessment and the incomplete information on which the Minister was to base his decision.

Will this Minister examine the Highways Agency proposals and consider whether they have taken into account the economic assessment for the dualling of the A47 Acle straight? The Minister will be aware that that narrow, single-lane road is the only main road connecting Great Yarmouth westwards to the rest of Norfolk and the east midlands. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth and I know only too well that a bad accident or a lorry losing its load can block the A47 for hours—for one day on one occasion—leaving Yarmouth isolated on one side. That is unacceptable. Please can we see some action, Minister?

2.24 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing the debate and thank him for his fine speech, which was thought provoking and, indeed, elegant. My speech may not be so elegant and wide-ranging. I have some specific points for the Minister. Some of them may appear to be parochial and sub-regional, but they have regional implications and are not just about my own constituency.

If the eastern region is to be made a meaningful and coherent region, we must have better east-west links. At the moment, it is much easier to travel from Luton to Leicester than from Dunstable to Dunmow. Indeed, the prospect of driving to Dunmow is something at which I blanch, having done it from time to time and taken many hours to do so. We heard about east-west links before, and I shall return to the point.

I thank the Minister for his support in securing a decision to expand Luton airport. That was a wise decision in the pattern of south-east provision and it will be a boon to the people of Luton in terms of employment and prosperity for the future. More than that, it was a sensible decision for the country as a whole and for the region. Most of us in the area are supportive of the expansion. Sadly, that is not the case for Stansted. I do not know whether other hon. Members want to speak about Stansted, but there is less happiness about the possibility of expanding that airport. I leave that thought with the Minister.

Expanding passenger throughput at Luton airport from 7 million to 30 million a year means heavy investment in local transport infrastructure in our subregion. We already have Luton Airport Parkway station, which is welcome, but in future we will need a dedicated people-mover from its platforms to the airport concourse if we are to make that station attractive to people travelling by train or, indeed, by car to the Parkway car park. That is vital, and I hope that the Government will support and encourage Luton in developing a dedicated link of that kind.

We also need to promote and encourage the development of Thameslink rail routes. Last week, I hosted a presentation in the House for Network Rail to talk about the future of Thameslink. We understand that the Thameslink work will start in 2007 and finish in 2012. That is 12 years later than some of us hoped, but at least it seems likely to happen in that time. We will have 12-car trains stopping at many stations, which will make a big difference to those travelling from London to use Luton airport. It will also help our local prosperity.

The next problem in our sub-region is M1 widening. I read in the newspapers—although I do not believe everything I read in them—that, in the Chancellor's consideration of future spending plans, the M1 widening expenditure is at risk. If we do not receive all of it, we should get some. Widening the M1 to the south of Luton from junction 10 is vital. It would take the pressure off the M1 further north, which is, I think, where the bottleneck is. The M1 serves the airport and the economic regions to the south of Luton, which are vital to our local economy. I therefore urge the Minister to press the Chancellor to permit M1 widening at least as far as junction 10.

Widening the M1 through my constituency would be much more difficult. It would be expensive and enormously disruptive, and it would involve a lot of blight. It would be possible to avoid widening through Luton provided that it takes place to the south of the town. The alternatives depend on enhancing rail travel with a park-and-ride station to the north of Luton and a north Luton Parkway station, adjacent to the M1 and linked to a north Luton bypass.

We talked about east-west links. At the moment, going across the north of Luton means going through my constituency, using wholly inappropriate residential roads and causing problems and environmental disadvantages for my constituents. We need a north Luton bypass. It has been talked about and tentatively drawn on maps, but we have not yet had any firm commitment to it. I urge the Minister to take that possibility seriously. Such a bypass would link the A5, the M1, the A6 and eventually the A505. I hope that there will eventually be a bypass on the A505 past Hitchin, Baldock and Letchworth. Then we really would have an east-west link that would make some sense and provide a through route, so that travelling from, say, Dunstable to Dunmow would be considerably easier.

There must be a mesh right across the region. It cannot just be based on spokes from London, with occasional urban blobs drawn on the spokes and no links across. That would not be a region; it would be a series of spokes dependent on London. The north Luton bypass and north Luton Parkway railway station are vital. With them, we can avoid another rat run from east to west through Luton which involves using the M1 as a bypass. People come on to the M1 at junction 11 in my constituency, near the hospital, and use it as a bypass going south and then east. That happens in rush hour in particular. A north Luton bypass that stretched right round from the A5 not just to the A505, but to the airport, would take an enormous amount of traffic off the M1, obviating the need for widening it in my constituency, at least for the foreseeable future. That would save the Government vast sums and would also prevent enormous blight and environmental degradation in the area.

The Minister will be aware that there has been a pretty fierce debate on Translink. There were questions in the House last week. Translink is the scheme to link Dunstable and Luton on an old railway line. Luton borough council favours, a guided busway. I go along with that suggestion and have seen it demonstrated as the only feasible option, at least in the short term. In the longer term, I would like to see the line used for longer distances, perhaps as a light rail system. I know that such systems are expensive and that our kind of conurbation might not have the numbers of people to justify that. However, Luton is to be part of a new housing area; between Luton and Milton Keynes, tens of thousands of new houses will be built. Luton will become a bigger conurbation and will get closer to Milton Keynes. We must look carefully at other transport infrastructures in the area. We may reach a critical mass at which we could justify a light rail scheme using the Translink track, as well as guided busways. I have spoken to engineers, and it is quite feasible to have a guided busway and light rail on the same route.

That is looking far into the future. I like to think that our Government will do that, and not just think about short-term fixes that are commercially feasible only in that time frame. I like to think that they will look at what the country and the region need for their long-term future. I have campaigned for a long time for both schemes—the northern ring road and a light rail system that would cover not just Luton, but other conurbations to the east and west. Those are simply my own thoughts at the moment. I shall continue to press matters in the future. I hope that in time, the Minister and his colleagues in the Government will take them seriously.

2.33 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West) (Lab)

Since my constituency is not actually in the east of England, but is immediately adjacent to it, I am particularly grateful to be able to participate in the debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall). I want to concentrate on one particular aspect that he raised in his speech: east-west rail. I am the chair of a virtual all-party group—it communicates, but does not meet—on the east-west rail link. It links Members from Ipswich and Norwich in the east to Swindon in the west, and all virtual stations in between.

The arguments for an east-west rail link are long standing and have been strengthened by the plans of the Office of the Deputy Prime for sustainable communities growth in the area between Milton Keynes, Northampton, Bedford and Luton. That part of the east-west rail link would both facilitate and support the housing and employment growth that the Government want and for which they are planning.

Some years ago, before the sustainable communities plan, there was an investigation into the likely employment generation of the east-west rail link. At that time, it was estimated that it could create up to 10,000 jobs at 11 locations along the route. If that investigation were updated, I am sure that its employment-generating power would be even higher. It would not simply facilitate and support housing growth; it would provide an alternative route for those living in the new communities to commute to employment in, for example, Milton Keynes and Bedford. It would provide an alternative to using the roads, obviating the need to upgrade the road system, which those in the additional housing would otherwise be using. and it would avoid increased congestion in urban centres in the sustainable communities. That is also important, as my hon. Friend mentioned, in the context of the Oxford to Cambridge arc.

I shall digress into history and remind hon. Members that the war-time code-breaking station that was the precursor of GCHQ was in Bletchley park in my constituency precisely because it was on the then Oxford to Cambridge railway, halfway between Oxford and Cambridge. Most of the original cryptographers were academics from Oxford or Cambridge. That was the ultimate example of early technology spin-off and, as everyone knows, it played a hugely valuable role in this country's survival and eventual victory in the second world war. The model for the Oxford to Cambridge arc is the notion of using the intellectual spin-off from the two cities with the land and labour availability of the middle sections of that arc in Bedford and Milton Keynes to ensure that employment generated by that academic research is captured in the region. The east-west rail link is extremely important to that.

I understand that the Minister is reeling under the repeated demands, not just in this debate but in others, for the upgrading of a transport network that is suffering from the extreme under-investment of the past, and that it is not possible for the Government to meet all those needs immediately or even in the medium term. I know that in the Strategic Rail Authority's forward planning the next part of the east-west rail link has only a medium to long-term priority. However, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, with the sustainable communities plan, there are now additional sources of income for the east-west rail link that do not exist for other competing rail priorities. They come from the ODPM and sustainable communities funding or from developer match funding, because a significant number of developers are willing to make a contribution to the rail link as part of the planning for the various developments that they wish to put in place along the route. As I say, that funding is not available to other rail links. It would lever in money extra to the investment that the Government would be asked to make, increasing its effectiveness.

I want to make a further point about the importance of the Government maintaining the momentum of the east-west rail link. The local authority consortium has, for more than a decade, kept open the idea of reopening the Oxford to Cambridge link and re-establishing the east-west rail link. It kept it open during a fallow period under the last Conservative Government when it seemed that railways were being shut instead of invested in. It has maintained that momentum even though the pace of development has been much slower than it hoped. Silverlink has invested in the Bedford to Bletchley section of the east-west rail link.

In a matter of days, the Bedford to Bletchley service will stop for a month. That is not something to make one feel unhappy; it is actually a great leap forward, if I may describe it that way. It is necessary because investment is being put into upgrading that section of track. When it reopens, the trains will be faster and more reliable, encouraging more people to use the service, which, outside peak hours, is not an attractive alternative to the road, as it is so slow. The trains run at the speed they did 80 years ago, so at present the line is scarcely at the forefront of rail technology; however, it will be after the upgrade. Silverlink is putting significant private investment into that section of track. It does so in good faith, believing that it will be part of an upgraded east-west rail link.

If the Government are to continue to encourage private investment in our transport network, it is extremely important that private investors continue to believe that the Government are committed to reopening the Oxford to Cambridge link in the medium to long term. I urge the Minister to work with his colleagues in the ODPM to progress the east-west rail link, in particular the western section between Bedford and Oxford through Bletchley and the additional service to Aylesbury, and to move it on to the next stage. I also urge him to ensure that the eventual route for the missing link in the section east of Bedford is protected. Forward movement can then continue and commitment from the private sector can be maintained in the knowledge that the Government will deliver in the end, even if not at quite the speed that we might all wish for.

2.42 pm
Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth) (Lab)

I apologise for being late for this debate. I had made a commitment prior to its being selected. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on initiating the debate, which is timely. I am pleased that he secured this opportunity to discuss the current state of transport in the eastern region.

The eastern region has the third largest volume of traffic in the UK, but public provision for transport in the region still falls behind because of past policies, funding neglect, rural geography and the economic history of the area as a whole. In total, 53.7 billion vehicle kilometres were recorded on roads in the east of England for 2002—11 per cent. of the total road traffic on England's roads for that year. Indeed, reliance on the car, lack of maintenance and development of the strategic road network, an incomplete rail service, increasing urban congestion and under-utilisation of our economic assets because of public poor transport connectivity leave the region lagging well behind.

England spent £8.1 billion on transport in 2002. That was a dramatic increase on the £5.14 billion that the Government invested in 1999. However, the eastern region received only a small fraction of that amount. Indeed, in Norfolk, £38.5 million was spent in 1999, but the figure dropped to £34.5 million in 2002. The Budget showed an increase in Government resources, but in Norfolk the figure actually dropped significantly.

Great Yarmouth, in particular, lacks integration and infrastructure, resulting in an inconsistent transportation network in the east. Limited resources are focused on central areas at the expense of peripheral areas and economies. The Government's strategy for delivering a modern, safe, reliable transport system is explained in the 10-year plan for transport. It sets out a £180 billion investment programme covering all forms of land transport. Incorporating the Government's goals in the east will be essential in reducing previous comparative disadvantages. It is vital to ensure that proper funding goes to the eastern region, where it is needed and deserved.

The east of England's regional transport strategy, once released, will provide an initial template for a joined-up strategy. Ideally, it will promote the region's efforts to gain increased funding to meet transport delivery targets. It is essential that such a strategy maximises the economic benefits of transport in our region while developing access, reducing reliance on the car, improving and maintaining the existing strategic network and ensuring better access to it for all who live in our region. Such developments must also seek to reduce congestion, address environmental concerns and promote safety at all times. Access to and development of ports and airports will be crucial in increasing the eastern region's prosperity. Future access to ports and airports should therefore be a central component in determining the transport network hierarchy in the region.

The region is home to four major ports and two major airports, as well as several other smaller ports and airports. Its proximity to the sea makes the port and shipping industry particularly attractive to our economy, and the legion must put forward a unified voice on the continued growth of all ports within it. In the 10 years from 1990 to 2000, total tonnage moving through UK ports increased from 490 million tonnes to 570 million tonnes, and the industry continues to grow. The Government view the private sector as best placed to develop and furnish new opportunities for ports, but port development is increasingly expensive, which means that there must be public investment at some point.

The need for investment in ports is evident in my constituency. In Great Yarmouth, a new proposal is set to service the growing freight and passenger market. Great Yarmouth port handles ships up to 125 m long, and in 2002–03 it handled 600,000 tonnes of general cargo. It works closely with all authorities in the area, and they believe that development is desperately needed to expand the service.

In February 2000, a £38 million outer harbour, EastPort, was proposed. The project involves building a new terminal, increasing quay space and depth to accommodate larger ships and an option to allow future rail connections. There is much co-operation within the area on that possible development. We have received correspondence and continued support from Norwich city council, East of England Energy Group, tourist attractions, other organisations and most MPs in the area. The area wants the development because it is seen as a step in a positive direction, and the project is recognised as vital for lifting the profile of Great Yarmouth.

The authorities completed an environmental impact assessment covering all aspects of the development and the subsequent operation of the harbour. Potential impact areas include construction noise and disruption, landscape disruption and coastal processes, and those authorities are working on those objections so that construction can commence at the earliest possible date. The process is often complicated and delayed, however. The scheme will be a major contributor to regional economic development and, with more than 500 jobs, will provide significant new employment opportunities.

The proposed design would accommodate vessels up to 200 m in length, allowing more general cargo to move through the port. The port will create lucrative trade and tourism links between the UK and Europe and will be ideal for midlands traffic to northern Europe. It would provide the shortest ferry route available to the Netherlands and create close links to the port of Ijmuiden. Ferry companies have also expressed their interest in establishing a roll-on/roll-off service for people and freight. The route is ideally suited for business, short-break and holiday travel between northern Europe and the UK. It is an opportunity for further economic development in the eastern region.

The outer harbour would also improve links internally, forcing the infrastructure to improve in order to maximise its potential. A rail connection for freight would be created at the river port, which is the best environmental option for freight transportation. The East of England Development Agency's report on the East Port proposal is in its final stages and heading in the right direction—towards construction. The construction of the outer harbour will bring great things to my constituency, which suffers from high unemployment and deprivation.

Ironically, Virgin Travel announced 180 job losses today. That is nothing to do with the economy, as it is a business case, but it certainly exemplifies the need for increased employment opportunities in Great Yarmouth and the whole eastern region. The construction of a new harbour will energise the community and improve the Great Yarmouth area. The Government's full support for the project is needed, because the region needs and is entitled to those improvements.

The Government have always aspired to a high capacity road network to accommodate the country's obvious transport demands. The demand for a dualled A47 is not new, as its development was first proposed in my constituency in 1971 with consideration of the dualling of the A47 King's Lynn to Great Yarmouth route. The A47 Acle straight is a vital part of the infrastructure needs not only of Great Yarmouth, but of north-west Norfolk as a whole. It links the region to the rest of the UK. In 1971, the Government pledged their full support for the construction. By 1978, the Government's strategic route approach had been watered down and replaced by proposals to build bypasses on key stretches of the road. In 1988, still without adequate room on the A47, Great Yarmouth produced a document called "Acle New Road: the Case for Dualling", accompanied by a supporting petition signed by more than 20,000 people. The previous Government still did nothing for my constituents, even though the 1989 White Paper included a commitment to dual the A47. In 18 years of Tory government, no fewer than 23 Ministers with the roads portfolio said that there was a definite need for dualling, but the Acle straight was withdrawn from the scheme in 1996. It is now 2004 and the road is still the same—insufficient.

The stretch in question is just eight miles long and is a single carriageway that has been the site of many accidents. Journey times have increased and Great Yarmouth continues to lose business to other towns through failure to dual the stretch. Without an appropriate road into Great Yarmouth, it is difficult to attract and retain investment. The people of Great Yarmouth are not asking for a totally new road, but for the dualling of an existing highway, with as little economic impact as possible during construction. Dualling would affect only 30 yards alongside the existing highway. Widening the road is not an attractive solution because it could take up to 18 months to complete, resulting in road and lane closures and affecting the local economy.

Great Yarmouth needs to be linked to the main strategic highway arteries if it is to overcome the severe problems of deprivation, high unemployment and peripherality that it endures. We must not forget the safety aspects. As I talk about economic progress, people may turn around and say, "Well, it probably wouldn't affect the economic prosperity of the area to have those roads". Yarmouth is probably the only major tourist resort with a significant port that is not connected by dual carriageways and standard roads that go directly to the town itself.

Following a recent survey of the outcomes of the Norwich to Great Yarmouth road-based study, it was announced that there was insufficient information on which to make a decision on the question of the Acle straight. The Highways Agency was asked to undertake three strands of work to investigate the practicalities of managing existing traffic during construction of either widening or dualling options and to assess the impact of delays during construction. That included a plan to investigate the condition and stability of the embankment carrying the A47 across the Acle straight, including the land take required for dualling or widening; to investigate the practicalities of managing existing traffic during construction via the widening or dualling options; to assess the economic impact of delays during construction; and to assess the project environmentally.

We understand that that report is due to be announced shortly with rumours clearly stating that the environmental impact would be too much for the dualling of the Acle straight to take place. I add this point: the road is also having an environmental impact in the town. I think that those considerations should also be taken into account. The most controversial part of the plan involves environmental assessment, as the A47 passes through an environmentally sensitive area. Its ditches apparently support the rare swallowtail butterfly, water voles and hawker dragonflies. My town also tries to support many unemployed and economically disadvantaged people.

There are large earthen embankments built alongside the A47. Authorities are studying them to see whether they are sinking into the marshland. The Acle straight has remained straight and without ditches along the side for all its time and it is certainly a stable area. Those studies, while important, are making my constituents and the rest of the eastern region wait longer for the A47 to be improved.

Despite the obvious benefits of dualling the A47, a recent report that emerged from the environmental assessment of the area states that dualling would cause too much damage to sensitive habitats along the Halvergate marshes. It is vital that the Government think about the long-term economic benefits to my community and the entire region when considering the project. I feel strongly that dualling should be considered with respect to overriding public interest, with the net benefits of the project outweighing the environmental disadvantages.

The Government are also calling for an end to reliance on cars, which is a major concern. Owning and driving a car is an inevitable requirement for daily life in the eastern region, with 84 per cent. of all journeys and 75 per cent. of work journeys made by car. In 2002, 167 million passenger journeys by bus and light rail were travelled in the east of England, which is an increase of only 5 million during the past 10 years. The east of England has the lowest levels of such journeys of all the English regions. Those extremely low levels are caused by the lack of cohesive public transport in the east. We are consistently receiving complaints from constituents about their inability to access and utilise public transport. Services are insufficient and unfairly biased towards central regional hubs instead of more peripheral areas.

In the period 1999–2001, access to buses stood at 79 per cent., which was 10 per cent. below the national average and placed us as the third-worst region for access to buses in England. For example, the 704/705 bus service in the Flegg area of Great Yarmouth has been withdrawn, limiting the ability of residents to travel to Great Yarmouth to use vital services such as doctors and dentists, and for shopping and employment. The closures were cited as necessary for economic and commercial reasons. Many other bus routes are closing, including those that children use to get to school and that the elderly use to do their shopping, and they are being replaced with services that are inefficient.

Norfolk county council received a £2.5 million subsidy from the Government to support rural bus services, and we should congratulate the Government on taking that initiative. However, not one penny of that subsidy was made available for those important community routes or, indeed, for the constituency as a whole. Norfolk county council still refuses to provide funds to reinstate those routes, but representations are currently being made to the Department for Transport. There have been meetings with the county council to discuss the issues, and another is planned with FirstBus.

Railway accessibility also needs serious improvement if the railways are to become a fully functional system. There is currently no direct train route between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft. Links from Norwich to both Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft are slow, requiring a change at either Reedham or Brundall. That makes the journey excessively long, and passengers are calling for the elimination of the change, stressing the need for a short rail link in the Reedham area. The lack of a direct service between Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft also puts increasing pressure on bus services and highlights the need for quality bus corridors between the two towns.

A more co-ordinated and transparent approach is required to address; overall negative trends and poor service provision such as those illustrated by those trends, cases and issues. The East of England regional assembly's regional planning guidance illustrates five major areas to improve future access in the east and to address such concerns. They include improving facilities for walking and cycling; locating and designing housing to enable and encourage public transport; improving public transport provision; and locating public facilities and employment-generating developments where they can be readily accessed. Public transport must be easy to use, in greater supply and affordable, and it must link more rural areas to busy metropolitan areas in the east and the strategic network as a whole.

In conclusion, action must be taken in pursuit of the development of transport in the eastern region. The improvements that I have mentioned, including construction of the EastPort outer harbour, dualling of the A47 highway and the establishment of a more interconnected public transport system would greatly benefit not only my constituents in Great Yarmouth, but all the people in the eastern region, because they would create lasting connections. Those improvements would offer numerous social and economic benefits that would be appreciated by many people.

2.59 pm
Mr. Chris Mole (Ipswich) (Lab)

I, too, start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing this debate. I shall try to give a slightly different slant on the discussion because regional debates should not be just a clamour for a regional wish list. One of my points is that the policy terrain must change as we move further towards becoming a knowledge economy. In that context, I commend the Minister on the development of the Government's transport policies as they have impacted on the east of England. I was the leader of a highways authority for eight years; the massive increase in local transport plan investment is very welcome and is delivering real differences to urban transport measures such as bus priority lanes, cycle ways, improved pedestrian environments and projects such as home zones. It has also encouraged green travel planning, and I welcome the fact that the planning framework has delivered new developments and required organisations taking up new premises carefully to consider travel arrangements for their employees.

In considering the inevitable demands for projects across the piece, the Government must continue to keep an eye on maintenance investment to ensure that we can make the most of existing infrastructure. We need to be strategic, and welcome the East of England regional assembly overview of regional transport planning through the development of the regional transport strategy. I hope that that will be an inclusive process linking the regional spatial strategy and the regional economic strategy to create the right framework for transport in the region.

To return to the point about making the most of existing infrastructure, I ask the Minister to ensure that when proposals are produced the opportunity for online improvements to the infrastructure is considered. Developments such as those on the A140 between Ipswich and Norwich have already delivered significant improvements in the flow and capacity of that—formerly trunk, now county—road. Other initiatives such as variable signing create the opportunity to compound the current capacity of many routes.

Before I turn to one or two strategic schemes that I think are important, I commend the Minister to stick to the new approach to assessment and its framework of considering the costs and benefits, the environmental impact and, crucially, the economic impact when judging the value of a new development, new road or new aspect of transport infrastructure before the go-ahead is given.

Much has already been made of the Oxford to Cambridge arc. I wish to plug briefly the Ipswich to Cambridge high-tech corridor, which, by international standards, is comparable to the size of silicon valley. The development of the eastern end, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) referred, of the east-west rail link is important. We can point to the sort of investment that took place through the rail passenger partnership process, which has pump-primed an effective new service between Norwich and Cambridge. We would like to see that approach adopted on other parts of the network.

I hope that the greater Anglia franchise creates the opportunity for us to have an hourly service between Ipswich and Cambridge, but I can only echo my hon. Friend's positive comments about the importance of route protection if there is to be a long-term strategic opportunity for the region. I have had the misfortune in the past of having to explain to people why bits of rail network cannot be reopened because housing estates have been built on them during the intervening years.

I would like to switch momentarily from passengers to freight. Felixstowe is Europe's fourth largest container port; it is still growing in capacity and has further capacity for transfer of freight to rail. I want to plug the Felixstowe to Nuneaton project, which will see the closure of the Ipswich tunnel in a few weeks as the new 9 ft containers continue their route down to London, across the heavily congested north London line and up to the west. I would like to encourage the Minister to do whatever he can to ensure that what was the Strategic Rail Authority's top freight priority regains that position.

I welcome the Government's shift to an increasingly environmentally sensitive approach while testing the case for economic impact. I continue to support an approach that is selective to key regional priorities, and I commend the bids and communication made by East of England regional assembly members in support of regional planning guidance note 14. If the Minister does that, he will get all our thanks.

3.6 pm

Mr. Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (LD)

I shall keep my contribution suitably short as I realise that it is far more important that the Minister respond to many of the issues that have been raised in this excellent debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing it.

Each region is quite unique in its problems and opportunities. The eastern region is diverse; nevertheless it is represented by some excellent Members who have demonstrated this afternoon that they will work on a cross-party basis on many common issues.

The Government's role in any region is to deliver a safe, affordable and reliable strategic network of public transport services while allowing for a sustainable environment. I hope that the Minister will address the issue common to all contributions today, namely the east-west rail link. The hon. Member for Bedford talked about the importance of plugging that gap, and the matter was also raised by the hon. Members for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey).

I cannot let this moment slip by without the mentioning the need to dual the A47, and I hope that the Minister will explain what role the Government can play in that strategic network. It was also pleasing to hear a certain green tinge, with the hon. Member for Bedford mentioning the canal scheme and the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) mentioning the guided busway.

We had a Committee sitting this morning to discuss delegated legislation that will permit the growth of Stansted airport's capacity to a maximum of 25 million passengers a year. It will inevitably deliver a second runway for the airport, and with the space between those two runways there will be a third in years to come. That is where the Government have got it strategically wrong. Without considering the local and strategic situations, they are saying that we must manage demand.

Although it is pleasing to hear that regional airports are to expand with the support of the public and Members such as the hon. Member for Luton, North, the Government have patently got it wrong with the bigger airports. If expansion goes ahead at Stansted, two scheduled ancient monuments, 29 grade II listed buildings and 700 hectares of land will disappear.

Turning to buses, I hope that the Minister will respond to concerns in Bedford about Stagecoach. Ann Jones, quoted in Bedford Today, said: Bedford is a busy county town but there will be virtually no buses in the evening. Surely this is not in line with Government policy. They want people to stop using their cars but keep cutting the bus timetables". The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website mentions a target to increase by one third the number of rural households with a regular bus service within ten minutes. How close does the Minister think the predominantly rural eastern region is to achieving that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chamber is very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.

3.10 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)

I, too, shall try to be brief. Essentially, we have had a very long Adjournment debate. If someone secures an Adjournment debate for half an hour, a quarter of an hour is normally spent putting forward the case, and the other quarter of an hour is for the Minister's response. Given that Members have made a whole series of points and that, almost without exception, they were highly critical of the Government's performance over the past seven years, it would be ironic, and sad, if the Minister were let off the hook because we ran out of time.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on introducing the debate and other people on participating in it. However, it is worth reminding everybody that we had a full debate in the main Chamber on Thursday about the work of the Highways Agency. Those of us who were present were disappointed that more Back Benchers did not take advantage of the opportunity to raise constituency issues. There was plenty of opportunity for the Minister in that debate to respond to all the points that were made. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) were highly pertinent. He said that the Government do not take a strategic view, and I wholeheartedly agree. They talk about local determination, but they starve local communities of the resources to enable them to take decisions and implement them.

One area in which the Government have not taken a strategic view is particularly pertinent to the eastern region, in which so many of the inadequate roads are connected to small or medium-sized ports. There is obviously also the great port of Felixstowe. The Government's lack of a ports strategy is likely to result in much more container traffic being unloaded at big ports on the continent and then transhipped across to the smaller ports. The Government have not thought through the implications of that for those small ports and the transport connections to them. If the east coast ports benefit ironically, from the lack of international competitiveness that has resulted from the Government's refusal to allow the port of Southampton to develop its container terminal, and as a consequence there is more transhipment from the continent to eastern ports, we must think about the implications for the road network and the people living in communities around it. I just cite that as another example of a subject on which the Government have palpably not engaged in joined-up thinking.

On the individual road schemes that have been mentioned, it is worth pointing out that there are already schemes in the Government's targeted programme for improvements that would cost the best part of £8.8 billion. Many of the schemes that have been talked about today are not even included in that programme, and, at the present rate of spend, many of the schemes that are included will not be built for about 15 years, because the Government are spending far too little on road investment.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) said that the transport network is suffering from the extreme under-investment of the past. In fact, it is suffering from extreme under-investment over the past seven years in particular and the consequences of the present Government's deciding against many road schemes immediately after coming into office on the basis that the best way to stop people travelling was to deprive them of any roads on which to travel. They have now changed their tune a bit, but they have not delivered the investment necessary to ensure that the road infrastructure, particularly in the eastern region, is improved dramatically.

I have taken a careful note of the points that have been made, because they will be very useful to us as we draw up our list of commitments and priorities for the next Conservative Government.

3.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on securing this wide-ranging debate. He and other colleagues have covered many issues in the eastern region, which, as many have alluded to, is very diverse. If we are being strictly accurate, it contains parts of three growth areas, not two of them, as per the sustainable communities plan—the entire south Essex section of the Thames gateway growth area is in the eastern region as well.

As others have pointed out, the area stretches from the London commuter belt of Hertfordshire and Essex to the remote rural areas of East Anglia. It includes urban areas such as Luton and Southend and cities such as Cambridge and Norwich as well as not just those growth areas but other areas that are priorities for regeneration, such as Great Yarmouth, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) alluded, Lowestoft and large rural areas such as Breckland.

The area contains a range of roads and railways of national strategic importance. I take the point made by many of my hon. Friends that the historical relationship with London has resulted in the development of a hub and spoke system. The area is well served by north-south links, but not terribly well served by east-west links, whether by road or rail. I shall return to that point shortly.

As the area is so diverse, there are many transport issues to be dealt with: congestion in the urban areas and on the major roads, as we have heard; public transport accessibility in rural areas; new infrastructure to meet the proposed housing and employment increases; and maintenance of existing infrastructure. I shall deal with some of those in more detail later, but we must remember that the region contains a great many areas of environmental importance. We must always balance the impact on those areas with the need to improve our ability to move people and freight around.

I took to heart what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) said. Collectively, local government and central Government are moving to a far more strategic focus that does not simply mean, as it used to, a regional wish list put together with scissors and paste to replace the localised wish list, but that includes a notion of how improvements in transport infrastructure of whatever sort sit within the wider regional framework and overall strategy. The focus is not simply within regions, but, to an extent, between regions, particularly given the sustainable communities plan—that interaction between the three growth area regions of the east, south-east and London. That is important, too.

I shall resist commenting on the previous speech. Suffice it to say that in the eastern region, as in many others, we must start by repairing the consequences of many years of under-investment by previous Governments of all persuasions. I thought that that was almost a given by this stage. Except for those with strange rose-tinted glasses, everyone, recognises that in public policy terms we, collectively, have failed—probably since the war—in providing public infrastructure investment on any sustained level.

In July 2000, it was right and proper to take the unprecedented step of putting in place a long-term investment framework—the 10-year plan—and, in going beyond that, to consider local and regional transport initiatives. The Government set a framework that sought finally to address the underlying malaise resulting from under-investment throughout the region.

It is important to recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said, that there has been an absence of strong east-west transport links. I was taken by his point that authorities in the area would need the courage and imagination to embrace accelerated growth—that is an important message—and that the Government must be radical in turn And revise formulae and various other methodologies for sharing out resources.

Certainly in the joint work across the Government by, among others, the Department for Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, that work is starting to happen, and it is starting to happen ahead of the significant growth in the area and the pressure that that may put on transport infrastructure. In terms of some very basic lessons about how to readjust and reconsider Department of Health criteria, for example, we must factor in primary or tertiary care not on the back of existing births, but on projections, because the infrastructure has to be there when the communities move in.

The Department for Education and Skills is starting to examine criteria that move away from an approach of, "You show me the children and the basic need case, then we'll sort out the schools infrastructure." I freely say that the ODPM in particular and the Department for Transport are starting to consider that matter in far more detail. They are doing so not simply in terms of formulaic distribution of resources, but by considering in the widest possible policy context how growth area strategies sit with assorted allocation formulae and other devices for allocating resources, as well as how both sit with environmental, social, economic and other factors that comprise a sustainable framework.

The points raised by many hon. Members need to be regarded in a coherent and strategic fashion in that cross-Government context, rather than as part of a wish list under each of those headings that each locality wants, blown up into something purporting to be a regional strategy, which is not really one at all.

We should not start from the premise, as was suggested rather foolishly by the Opposition, that nothing has been done in these areas since 1997. The notion that there is too much money in the assorted transport budgets rather than too little, and that a change of Government will resolve that, is nonsensical. Much has been done in a coherent and strategic fashion. The comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) were well made, not least because I was in Norwich last Friday and heard those points from all and sundry down there due to the fact that he was all over the papers speculating that the Highways Agency report on the A47 will not pay full regard to economic conditions.

Everyone else was bemoaning the fact that, whatever the hon. Gentleman's powers of persuasion, Norwich City is not joining the A47 alliance, but that is by the bye. I did say while I was there, through very gritted teeth, how pleased I was that Norwich City got promoted. I am not really, because my team did not.

None the less, the points about the A47 are well made. However, we need to wait until mid-July for the publication of the Highways Agency report, although the improvements already made to various parts of the A47 are targeted at those areas where the problems have been most acute. I had the great pleasure of going to Norfolk to open a flyover. Several people said to me, "It's flat there. What on earth can anyone fly over?" In the end, it transpired that it was a flyover over a roundabout. At the tail end of King's Lynn, the Hardwick flyover has made a significant difference—people in Norwich told me so.

If the hon. Gentleman means "strategic" in the sense of saying, "Here's Peterborough, here's Great Yarmouth. What are you going to do to sort this road out?" as part of a big bang approach, I would say that that is not strategy. The strategy is to consider each element in turn and deal with the most severe in a phased way. That is what has happened. I do not know whether that makes me the 24th or 25th Minister to say that there is a clear economic case for dualling between Norwich and Great Yarmouth, but it must be taken in the wider context and balanced with other factors. We will have to wait and see what is in the Highways Agency report.

I have said to Labour colleagues on the city and county councils in the Norfolk area, and I extend this to others, that if what prevails in the report is not to people's liking, or they want to discuss the report and its methodology further, I am more than happy to see them after the summer recess.

Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab/Coop)

While my hon. Friend is concentrating so much on the north of the eastern region, I hope he will bear it in mind that east-west links—notably the A414, the A120, the A127 and other roads in the south of the eastern region—are equally impassable for east-west traffic.

Mr. McNulty

I will. I almost use the A47 as a metaphor for the difficulties with east-west road links. I mention it for no other reason than the fact that I was in Norwich last Friday, and I was greatly delighted at the tail end of last July to receive a running commentary from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth on virtually every blade of grass between the railway line and the A47 as well as what should and should not happen to the A47 as we travelled to his constituency from Norwich. I am only grateful that he had other plans and that I travelled back without him and that same running commentary. It was so incomprehensible that I was still reeling from it.

We need a strategic approach to east-west road linkages, and I demur from the assertion of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk that we do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) spoke about those links and the airports, too. I shall not go into the inaccuracies from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) as there is not time, but I shall tell him afterwards that he made a mistake about what this morning was all about.

Is the M1 widening scheme at risk? I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North that we are barely weeks away from the end of term and between now and then we have the comprehensive spending review. Until that review is out, every element of this Government's public spending is at risk. He should not trouble himself too much at this stage with what is and is not at risk, and I urge him not to read or take any notice of the papers on transport matters. There is a rather stunted development among many in the media who comment on transport matters.

Junctions 10 to 13 are already in the programme with a whole range of other improvements to trunk roads and road networks. I do not have time to go through the points relating to the £600 million for the Thames gateway within and without the eastern region or the more than £1 billion of transport improvements throughout the other growth areas—substantially in the eastern region, because Ashford is self-contained in Kent.

I take my hon. Friend's kind words about Translink. By accident or by design, the eastern region did very well out of the major schemes in the last local transport plan settlement, with not only the Luton to Dunstable Translink guided bus scheme, but the equivalent scheme in Cambridge and Huntingdon.

We are getting to a stage where people must prioritise their transport requirements; they should not get too hooked up on the modes. My hon. Friend said that light rail is a bit expensive, but in real terms the cost of light rail schemes has gone through the roof. I know that expectations have been raised, but it is not enough for people to say, "It has got to be this light rail scheme; this bypass; this motorway; this road scheme or the area's dead, or we're going to slash our wrists and skip off to heaven in the morning." It cannot be like that.

We need a substantive public policy debate in each region and in each area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, a mature debate has started and it is asking where people want a region and its sub-regions to go as well as what is needed in the context of the sustainable communities plan. That includes housing growth and health considerations as well as the education and employment opportunities that ultimately spread aver the whole area, and also how transport, among other infrastructure, will help.

The same applies to modes such as rail. People in the region know better than me that there has been much discussion with the Government about the east-west rail link and that consortiums have drafted assorted plans. The last plan I saw was about how to take detailed work forward even more and its likely cost. That is with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Transport. We will consider it and an announcement will be made in due course.

There is a lot happening with transport in the eastern region. Of course, much more must be done across the piece and across modes, whether with aviation, buses, roads, rail or waterways. I would not necessarily include the latter within schemes to be funded by the Department for Transport, although I can see the attraction of it. Far more is being done to drag up the infrastructure to an appropriate level to sustain not only the new growth, but the existing activity in an area that, despite pockets of deprivation, is extremely vibrant and economically active.