UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: John Horam

  • John Horam – 1978 Speech on the M25 Motorway

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Horam, the then Labour Under Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 2 November 1978.

    I must confess that junior Ministers do not always welcome Adjournment debates, particularly junior Ministers at the Department of Transport. We have had only two days of this Session so far but this is already my second Adjournment debate. But I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for raising this issue tonight, and I think that we all agree that he has done the House a service in doing so. Perhaps that explains the unusually high attendance for an Adjournment debate.

    The Government have said continuously that we welcome more parliamentary discussion of the national road programme. This is clearly not a matter suitable for debate at local inquiries. I am therefore glad that the hon. Gentleman has provided an opportunity for the House to discuss the M25 in particular, and I welcome the chance to make the Government position clear.

    The question of priority has been to the forefront of the minds of those hon. ​ Members who have spoken. We said in our White Paper on roads, published in April, that we attach the highest priority to the completion of the M25. We mean what we say. We intend to give the work on the M25 all the available resources in terms of manpower and attention that it requires. Whenever the question of the M25 comes up, it gets first priority for available manpower and resources. That must be plain to all hon. Members, and it is the position that I want to establish.

    In reply to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), let me say that there has been no avoidable delay at all in sections of the M25. Of course, public inquiries take time. All the statutory procedures must be gone through, quite rightly, but there has been no delay due to any failure on the part of the Department to give this the highest priority. I assure the hon. Member of that.

    I hope, therefore, that I have established beyond doubt this evening, once again, the Government’s complete commitment to building the M25 as fast as we possibly can.

    Mr. Townsend

    Is it not possible, though, to bring forward the completion date?

    Mr. Horam

    The answer is “No”. Of course, we shall bring the completion date forward if it is possible to do so. But the major factor in determining completion dates is the progress of the statutory procedures and public inquiries. Everything else is done as quickly as possible, because it is given top priority, frankly, in the office and so forth. Therefore, I think that it is simply not physically possible to bring it forward. If there is any way in which we can save time, of course, we shall.

    But in the nature of things, there is a great deal of public interest in this matter, and there are bound to be long public inquiries. They cannot be avoided, and rightly so. Therefore, I think that we are probably stuck with the sort of timetable that we have now, which is probably fairly realistic in the circumstances. I think that we must avoid delay on that, but obviously I cannot promise that we shall bring anything further forward than we have already said.

    Let us look at the advantages of the M25. The Greater London area, 35 ​ miles across, is a great obstacle to through traffic, including traffic to and from the east coast and Channel ports and Tilbury docks, and the first advantage of the M25 will be to provide a way round this huge area. It will also provide a convenient link between Heathrow and Gatwick and from these airports to the M4 and the M1. This traffic has no business in London and there is a clear need to provide a bypass for it.

    In addition to that, the road will also act as a general distributor. It will link the radial routes which carry traffic in and out of London. Drivers will be able to reach places in London or find the most convenient exit road without crossing the centre or using existing inadequate orbital routes. This function has become more important since it was decided not to go ahead with Ringway 3.

    Thirdly, the M25 will provide some local relief for congested roads on the outskirts of London. This was of particular relevance to the hon. Member for Twickenham and to the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

    Obviously, a road designed to serve an orbital function cannot produce relief for all local roads along all its route. We do not claim that the M25 will produce a marked reduction of traffic in central London. But many suburban areas will see a marked improvement to their environment when the road is finished. It will divert heavy through traffic from some roads in inner London. In some places the provision of an alternative route for through traffic will make it easier to introduce desirable traffic management schemes and to prevent rat-running through residential areas. As the hon. Member for Twickenham pointed out with great conviction and strength, it will be much safer than existing roads.

    I now turn to questions of present progress on particular parts of the road, with which the hon. Member and his colleagues are concerned. On the overall picture, the motorway is approximately 120 miles in length. Of that, 23 miles—not 20, as I think the hon. Member said—are now open. Fourteen miles are under construction, and for a further 50 miles the line has been fixed. As has been said many times, we hope for the completion of the entire thing by the middle 1980s. I do not quite know how that ties in with the ​ Golden Jubilee to which the hon. Member refers, but the mid-1980s is the target.

    Mr. Jessel

    It depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by ” he mid-1980s”.

    Mr. Horam

    “The mid-1980s” is a fairly flexible phrase, but, none the less, it cannot be stretched too far.

    On the details within the area, which will concern the hon. Member, which I define roughly as the area between the M4 and Reigate and Surrey—that broad south-west part of the M25—the short section between Egham and Thorpe, as the hon. Member knows, was opened to traffic in December 1976. Work is under way on the section between Thorpe and Chertsey—and we hope that that road will be opened to traffic in 1980—and on the bridge over the Thames at Runnymede. We hope that the bridge over the Thames will be completed next year. The section north of the bridge to Yeoveney will begin soon. The remaining sections still have formal procedures to complete, but I hope that the link between Chertsey and Reigate will be completed in 1983, and to the M4 and to the north by 1984.

    The hon. Member for Twickenham asked me for details of the consequential effect of the M25, when completed, on his constituency and the area generally around Twickenham, Hampton and Kingston. He quoted the figure of 25 per cent. for relief of traffic crossing over Hampton Court bridge, and wanted me to explain the difference between that figure and the GLC figures for relief, for example, on the A312. It was given, quite rightly, as 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. The difference is that Hampton Court bridge is more part of an orbital route, whereas the A312 is more a radial route.

    Mr. Jessel

    That is not correct. The A312 runs from north-west to south-east and at right angles to any radial route into London. It is a purely orbital route. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed by his advisers on this.

    Mr. Horam

    I always regret being misinformed by my advisers, and obviously the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of the local geography is infinitely superior to mine. But the basic point, however we define orbital and radial roads, is that radials will clearly benefit less than orbitals from the building of another orbital ​ route. We believe that, basically, relief on radial routes will be about 10 per cent., whereas that on orbital routes will be rather higher. That is the destinction, and it explains the difference between the two sets of figures.

    Concerning heavy goods traffic, the hon. Gentleman asked what would be the relief there. If we are talking about Hampton Court bridge, where we estimate that the traffic will be a quarter less as a result of building the M25, the figure for the reduction of heavy lorries will be roughly 8 per cent. That is the only figure I can make available at the moment. If I have further information on that point I shall make it available to the hon. Gentleman.

    The hon. Gentleman asked me a detailed point about the Hampton Residents’ Association. Obviously a residents’ association of that kind, with the interests it must have, must be given every facility to make its views known at any public inquiry. I do not know the exact circumstances of the particular case, but I shall have them looked into with that general objective in mind. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman after I have conducted my investigations. If he will bear with me on that, I shall certainly try to try to seek to facilitate the residents’ opportunity to present their views.

    The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) and I have talked on many occasions about this road. Indeed, he has brought deputations to see me about the M40 to Maple Cross section in particular. We talked about this last July when he came with some of his constituents and other people interested in this part of the M25. I know of his desire that there should be no avoidable delay in that section. That is a matter which is fairly early in the pipeline. We do not expect it to be completed until the early 1980s, probably by about 1984. I know that he is anxious that the various sections should be completed more or less simultaneously. We shall do our best to meet that, although there are problems in completing a massive project of this kind and getting the timing exactly right in all the sections. We have the problems very much in mind.

    The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) reminded me of his concern, which he has pursued assiduously in the House, and with me personally, for the A128 and the conditions on that. I fully recognise that this is unsuitable for the traffic that it is having to bear at the moment. It will be a major beneficiary from the building of the M25. Things have not gone entirely smoothly in that eastward section of the M25. We have had some problems over court orders and one mistake that we ourselves made set back the progress by some months. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there is now a public inquiry going on at this moment in Hornchurch. Perhaps by now it has been completed. Again this is something on which progress is being made. All things being said, there has been reasonably satisfactory progress.

    Mr. McCrindle

    Since the hon. Gentleman has confessed that an error at his Department, which I do not hold against him, did indeed hold up progress on the section of the M25 from the A13 to the A12, and remembering that there was to be a gap in time between that section being completed and the section between the A12 and M11, is it a practicable proposition now to try to bring the commencement of each of those sections sufficiently close so that effectively they are developed simultaneously?

    Mr. Horam

    That is a very interesting point and I shall have it looked into. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath was very much in favour of continued progress on this road and made a number of valuable points about the progress of public inquiries. I shall study carefully what he said.

    I come back to the more general point about which the hon. Gentleman was taiking in his contribution. Obviously, hon. Members wish that there was even faster progress than we are able to talk about tonight. I certainly wish that were so. But it would be wrong to underestimate the formidable amount of work in designing a motorway 120 miles long round the fringe of a built-up area such as London. Much of its passes through the Metropolitan green belt, including areas of outstanding landscape value such as Epping Forest and the Kent Downs. From the beginning we have tried to design the road so that it would do the minimum damage to the environment. The greatest care is also needed to avoid unnecessary disruption to homes and communities ​ strung along the route. The new road will affect traffic movements on all the existing roads which lie near its route. All these effects have to be assessed, and the junctions designed so that it brings the maximum relief to existing roads and yet does not create too many new traffic problems on roads which act as feeders.

    We have to consult the public living in the areas through which the road passes to get their views on the preferred route. Then we have to go through the formal procedures laid down in the Highways Acts. In the White Paper on the review of inquiry procedures we described the changes we have made in order to meet the concern expressed by the public about the existing system. I hope that the changes will help the objectors in presenting their case as well as preventing the difficulties which have been experienced at some inquiries and which have made it difficult to hold a fair and reasoned examination of the road proposals. The inquiries which have started this autumn are under the new rules, and I believe this has made things easier for all the parties concerned. In answer to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath, I do regret that some people have still sought to make their protests by noisy, undemocratic means. I am grateful that the inspectors have been able to ensure that this small minority have not been able to stop proceedings, and that examination of the proposals is going ahead.

    We recognise that in the past the scope of inquiries has not been wide enough to examine the justification for a road as well as its alignment and other more detailed effects. We accept that the case for each section of M25 should be examined at the line inquiry in the same way as any other road. But I must make it clear that it is the Government’s policy to build an orbital route round London and the individual sections must be considered against that background.

    The hon. Member has referred to the advantages which the road will bring. I think his views are shared by the over-whelming majority of other hon. Members. But there are some organisations which question that. They fear that when the M25 is completed it will act as a magnet for commerce and industry, drawing firms out of inner London and creating pressures for undesirable development in the green belt.

    Our view of the importance of the M25 is of course fully shared by all the local planning authorities concerned. The South Eastern Economic Planning Council has said that it will have a significant beneficial effect on the economy of the region. Once the M25 is built, journeys will become possible which would not be undertaken at present and new patterns of industrial, commercial and social activity may be formed. These cannot now be forecast except in the most general terms. But there is no reason why these new patterns of movement should create irresistible pressure for growth to the detriment of the green belt or of inner London. The planning authorities have a full range of powers to resist or contain pressures for undesirable development in green belt areas, amply backed by the reserve planning powers of my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    At this stage it would be both impracticable and not in the public interest to hold a public inquiry into the entire remaining length of the M25. Decisions have already been taken on the assumption that it will be completed. For example, the recommendations of the Layfield panel on the Greater London development plan and the Government’s subsequent decisions on them might well have been different if there had been no plans—

    [debate adjourned]

  • John Horam – 1978 Speech on Roads in South-East England

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Horam, the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 29 June 1978.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) for raising this subject because it is, as all hon. Members will agree, an under-debated subject in the House of Commons. I am delighted that the hon. Member found time to discuss it rather earlier than most Adjournment motions.

    First, in reply to the hon. Member’s remarks and those of the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith), who intervened briefly, I take the point that in the past the whole of the South-East, including Sussex certainly, has had less than a fair share of the national cake of road expenditure. I do not think anyone would deny that. What is, happening, however, is that the balance is now being changed and the number of motorway and trunk road projects, let alone county projects, under way in the South-East, including in Sussex and Kent, for example, the links between London and the coast, is really very considerable.

    My first point is on the question of road maintenance, because the hon. Gentleman quoted at some length from an article in the magazine Drive which came out very recently. I regret that article because it was full of inadequacies and distortions, and I am really surprised that a magazine which is run by the Automobile ‘Association should indulge in such scaremongering on the subject of road maintenance. I welcome an article on this very important and worthwhile subject. but those responsible should have taken the trouble to be more accurate in their presentation of the situation.

    It was said, for example, that expenditure had decreased by as much as one-third over the period from 1973–74 until today. That is really gross exaggeration. Probably it has come down by no more than one-eighth over the period, so that that is a distortion by a factor of more than two. I hope that if in future Drive writes on the subject it will get its facts more accurate. It has to be said, however, that expenditure on road maintenance has been cut there is no denying that. Public expenditure has been constrained and, as we know, Conservative Members have urged the Government to go much further than they have gone in restraining public expenditure. But it is a question of balance.

    What has now happened is that, after certainly a period of three or four years of successive cuts in road maintenance expenditure, it has now bottomed out and is stable. Looking at local roads, it is now stabilised and will continue at roughly the present level, which is really very high. We are talking of something of the order of £470 million in White Paper figures, a very considerable sum. Not only that, but maintenance of motorways and trunk roads, which take 28 per cent. of our traffic, is now increasing and will be over £80 million next year and going towards £90 million by the end of the decade. Thus it is actually increasing. The situation is therefore very much better than either Drive or the hon. Member for Lewes has said.

    Mr. Rathbone

    I should like to be precisely reassured on this, because Drive may have been off the rails in some of the points it quoted but it gave a direct quotation of a spokesman from the hon. ​ Gentleman’s Department saying that it was Government policy to reduce road maintenance funding. I hope that by what he has said the Minister has refuted that and turned it on its head.

    Mr. Horam

    Yes, I have, The situation is that in the White Paper on transport policy produced last year we said that there would be a further small cut in maintenance expenditure. That has now taken place. We have reached the bottom of the slope down and we have stabilised at roughly the figures now being spent. We do not intend to take the process any further, so that there will not be any further cuts in road maintenance. As I said, on trunk roads, and particularly on motorways, maintenance expenditure is increasing.

    The hon. Member for Lewes referred to the number of repairs on motorways. One thing which strikes people on motorways these days is that an increasing number of repairs are being done. The amount of repair work has to increase because many motorways were built in the early 1960s and the surface has now reached the end of its design life.

    Second, while, for general economic reasons, undertaking that restraint on maintenance expenditure, simultaneously the Government embarked on a series of road maintenance surveys, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned—I cannot recall whether Drive mentioned it—which started in 1976. We have now reached our third annual survey. The first two were to establish a base level of information against which we will judge the trend over the years. I cannot yet give a detailed analysis of the position, but our general evidence is that there is deterioration in the quality of our roads.

    We shall have these further comprehensive checks—they take place at no fewer than 6,000 different places in the road system—to make sure that we do not go below a level which would adversely affect safety on roads and their general condition. So the matter is being looked at scientifically and rationally.

    Mr. Rathbone

    I mentioned that it had been estimated that, if road maintenance funding were not dramatically increased —not just stabilised—in 1983, it would become financially impossible ever to stabilise the quality of the roads. From what the Minister says about future ​ budgeting and about the tentative results of this survey. I gather that he is denying that. Could he elaborate to reassure me?

    Mr. Horam

    The quotation to which the hon. Gentleman referred—he so-called backlog which could not be made up—came, I think, from the Asphalt and Coated Macadam Association. That is an interesting source, because that body clearly has a vested interest in road surfaces. But it is wrong. We have no evidence that such an unsupported assertion is correct. All our evidence suggests that we have got the level of spending about right. Certainly we should check our general view, as we are doing with this comprehensive survey which we do every year, but we have no reason to believe that we are wrong. The important thing is to take an objective view and not to rely on the assertions of vested interests.

    Mr. Rathbone

    Including the Government.

    Mr. Horam

    Certainly.

    I now come to the more local matters of Sussex in particular and the local transport planning in that area. Since April 1975, county councils have had full responsibility for local roads as part of their comprehensive responsibility for local transport matters. The Department’s involvement has been through the medium of the transport supplementary grant procedures and the annual statement which the councils submit to the Secretary of State on their local transport policies and programmes—the TPPs.

    It is important to remember that the county’s local transport needs are considered as an interrelated whole. It is up to the county to decide within the framework of central Government policies and available resources where the need for particular new local roads lies in relation to the various other transport priorities, such as bus revenue support, maintenance expenditure and so on. This is an area where the operation of local choice is very important, because local authorities know the needs of their areas.

    Turning to East Sussex in particular, and keeping in mind that distinction between the role of my Department and the local responsibility of the council, perhaps we could consider the last TSG ​ settlement, for 1978–79, for East Sussex. under which we are now working.

    In its TPP bid for this year which it submitted to my Department last summer, East Sussex decided that the highest priority major new local transport scheme was a new road—as opposed to any other item of expenditure—and that the highest priority was the second part of the Hastings spine road. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reviewed the East Sussex TPP in the light of the total call on the resources available and the proposals before him, he found that he was able to accept an overall level of local transport expenditure sufficient to permit the county to make a start on this new road. The county was told of this in the regional director’s letter of 15th December 1977.

    In the South-East as a whole, again within the overall resource constraint, my right hon. Friend was able to accept sufficiently high expenditure levels to permit several other first priority schemes. In fact, as far as each county’s first priority road schemes were concerned, virtually everything bid for in the South-East was accommodated.

    In East Sussex there was the Hastings spine road, which I have already mentioned. In West Sussex the by pass of Bramber and Steyning will be able to start in 1978–79, the current financial year, as planned. In Hampshire, although for administrative reasons the first-choice scheme, which was the Easton Lane link at Winchester, was not allowed for, both the second and third priority schemes, Odiham bypass and the Hulbert Road link to the M3 at Waterlooville, were included. Kent did not include a major new road scheme in its bid for 1978–79. Nor, after proposals for a junction on the M25 were deferred, did Surrey.

    In all, about £20 million is being spent by counties in the South-East in this current financial year on their own choices of local transport schemes. This figure includes both small schemes and large schemes and both new schemes and schemes already started. But all are capital works, over and above the ordinary recurrent expenditure—on maintenance or bus subsidies, for instance. So quite a lot is going on on local roads —we are not talking about motorways or trunk roads—in the South-East in the ​ current financial year with the help of financial support from my Department.

    Mr. Rathbone

    I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, as I pointed out earlier, one of the reasons why he can claim that a lot is going on and why his Department has granted the counties what they wanted to have is that the counties have been circumscribed in putting forward their plans for each year because they knew of the budgetary limitations and the way that the TPPs would be inspected. It was the very fact of the TPP which inhibited them from putting forward plans which they would otherwise have put forward and which has meant that over the years a huge backlog of desired but unrequested roads has built up.

    Mr. Horam

    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have it both ways. Over the last three or four years we have been in a period of general expenditure restraint. I shall have something to say about the future later in my remarks. But one has to accept that general economic restraint of the last three or four years. I think that the county councils accept it.

    I turn now to the future. Obviously I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend’s decision on TSG settlements yet to come, but it is worth mentioning the sort of scheme that we know counties in the South-East have in mind. Let us look first at East Sussex. Its proposals in last year’s TPP for future years included, among others, an improvement of the access to Shoreham Docks and the bypass of Uckfield.

    As the hon. Member will know, the routes to the country’s docks are a matter of great concern to the Government—he mentioned Newhaven as well as Shoreham—and should this Shoreham Docks proposal be carried forward in the bid for next year we will look at it very carefully and sympathetically. The bypass of Uckfield is also likely to remain high in East Sussex’s order of priority, relieving as it should, the small town centre of the considerable through traffic on the A22.

    I turn now to the longer-term needs of the South-East as a whole. Much work is being done. I would mention in particular the strategic review of roads in the region which is in hand under the ​ auspices of the Standing Conference on London and South-East Regional Planning. My officers are in contact with the conference officials, and I understand that they expect to meet again in the next few days at working level.

    Mr. Rathbone

    When might that group report?

    Mr. Horam

    I cannot say offhand. It is having a meeting in the next few days. That may well be part of a series of meetings which may not necessarily lead to a final report. If it does, I will inform the hon. Gentleman well in advance. These figures and particular schemes do not give the whole picture.

    The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would reconsider our view about the relationship between national schemes and local schemes. I think that he was asking for more support for local schemes. I can tell him that my right hon. Friend has said that he is willing to look again at the amount of resources which the Government are making available for their own programmes for motorways and trunk roads, as opposed to the county schemes for local roads. We feel that that relationship—given that we have had a long period of motorway and trunk road building—can with benefit be looked at again. Obviously, the hope of the counties will be that we can make more resources available to them. I cannot commit myself at this stage, but we are prepared to examine that to see whether we can change the relationship.

    As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have also opened recently the Lewes bypass. Indeed, I opened it myself. There are also further improvements in prospect there. The South Street link has been started. There are improvements near Brighton. In particular, major improvements are being carried out at Falmer. Elsewhere in East Sussex, there is much trunk road work planned for the near future. The programme centres generally on improvements to the coastal road, the A27 and A259, with the £11 million Brighton bypass as a major scheme in the early 1980s, and improvements to the newly-trunked A21. There is also a sizeable bypass of Robertsbridge and Hurst Green to come.

    Several of these trunk road schemes, particularly those at Lewes and the ​ Brighton bypass, will have a major effect on access to Newhaven Docks, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech. The county’s own Newhaven ring road, which has recently been completed, has already considerably improved the access to the docks.

    Elsewhere in the South-East, the overall road system is dominated by London. Many of the radial routes are trunk roads and many have been considerably improved in recent years. The A20, for example, and the A2 have been improved. Much further work remains in the pipeline. Both hon. Gentleman will know that the highest priority of all in the Government’s road programme is the orbital motorway, M25, around London. This will do much to improve communications for Londoners and for people who live in Sussex and in Kent.

    Finally, I want to touch on one or two other matters raised by the hon. Member for Lewes. He asked me seven specific questions at the end of his remarks. I think that I have dealt with maintenance, the subject of his first question.

    The second question was concerned with the relationship between national schemes and local roads. The hon. Member asked me, further, to reconsider our approach to local transport subsidies. In general, he seems to be in favour of more support for capital schemes as opposed to revenue schemes, such as bus support, for example. I think this is a matter of balance, frankly, and that there is a party political difference between us here. The Government are concerned that there should be proper support for bus services, otherwise we are losing too many of these services throughout the country. Bus services are being cut back and fares increased very rapidly. The Government want to stabilise the position. There may be a party political difference between us on this. It is a matter of judgment between Government and Opposition and a matter of judgment for local authorities to take into account. They have very considerable freedom of choice.

    Fourthly, the hon. Gentleman asked me about lorries paying their way. Our taxation statistics regard heavy lorries as those over 30 cwt unladen—broadly 3½tons laden. For these vehicles as a class, there has been no shortfall between revenue and attributed road costs since 1977–78. In 1978–79, revenue from these ​ vehicles is expected to exceed allocated costs by £65 million. This figure takes account of the fact that two groups of the heaviest vehicles are not yet wholly covering their cost. The hon. Gentleman referred to that aspect. The Government, however, remain committed to ensuring that all groups of goods vehicles cover in taxation at least the public road cost—that is, the cost of wear and tear and the building of the road attributable to them. That is our clearly stated policy.

    Fifthly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether road users get a fair share of the taxation which they have to bear. There are two points here. First, taxation as a whole should cover the cost which road users throw on the community by requiring roads to be built and maintained for them. That is clearly Government policy. But, in addition, they will be asked to contribute an extra amount for the general Exchequer requirements. It is entirely a matter for the Government of the day to decide how big that should be. It could be nothing or it could be a very large sum.

    The EEC measures which we shall be adopting to deal with the general problem of taxing lorries fairly divide it into those two portions—the portion whereby one recoups from road users the cost they impose on the community and, secondly, anything over and above that which is a general contribution to Exchequer requirements. When this system comes into being—it is being negotiated inside the Common Market at present—we shall have a clear way of showing people exactly what they are contributing.

    Mr. Rathbone

    Can the Minister estimate whether that will increase the amount of moneys paid from vehicle excise and so forth, which are used for road building and maintenance, or will it decrease them?

    Mr. Horam

    It will depend on the costs and revenues as they are assessed at the time in question. Clearly the heaviest of lorries are not meeting their full costs at present. If more taxation is put on them, that will raise more revenue. But, equally, motorists are paying more than their fair costs at present. It would be a matter for the Government of the day to decide what they should do about that. I do not ​ think one can really answer that question unless one looks two or three years ahead at the figures.

    The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would have TPPs every three or four years. The answer is that we wish to have a graded approach to change rather than the sudden jerks which one would get with a three-year or four-year appraisal. I think that the process of annual appraisal fits well into councils’ calendars and ways of working. It is sensible and has been accepted by councils for a number of years now. To go over to a longer period of gestation would not be right. The hon. Gentleman may well disagree—

    Mr. Rathbone

    The East Sussex County Council for one is very specific on this point. The need to produce annual TPPs relatively early in a calendar year has to anticipate the grants from national Government later in the year. It does not aid the planning of the road programme, either in building or maintenance terms, for the future fiscal year and it adds immeasurably to the administrative costs of running the whole transportation budget. As I instanced in my own few words, there has been a doubling of the proportion of that transport budget which is paid in administration from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent.

    Mr. Johnson Smith

    Only yesterday I was talking with senior officials and councillors from the West Sussex County Council. They made exactly the same point, and I hope that the Minister will look at it again.

    Mr. Horam

    We are anxious that any TPP paper or report should not be over-elaborate. We are not anxious to create ​ paperwork for the sake of paperwork. But this is a system which has been developed over several years. The amount of paper work is not very large.

    Mr. Rathbone

    Two hundred and fifty pages.

    Mr. Horam

    That is an exceptional case. I know of some counties which produce a TPP of only a handful of pages. Perhaps East Sussex has taken considerable trouble over its TPP, which is praiseworthy.

    Mr. Johnson Smith

    And West Sussex.

    Mr. Horam

    West Sussex as well. Certainly we would not wish counties to be over-bureaucratic about it. I think that the system is now well understood and can be managed reasonably well by county councils.

    I was also asked whether we could relax some controls on small matters which are more legitimately the concern of local authorities. We are sympathetic to this suggestion. We have looked at this carefully, and it may well be that there are quite a few things which in future years we can hand over to local authorities, which will mean that more decisions are taken locally by people who best understand the needs of the local community. Indeed, we are in consultation with some of the local authority associations about matters of this kind, and I believe that we can make progress.

    I think that we are beginning to make the sort of progress in Government policy which both hon. Members have so clearly and cogently said is their aim.

  • John Horam – 1978 Speech on the Kidderminster Eastern Bypass

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Horam, the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, in the House of Commons on 14 June 1978.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) for giving me the opportunity to explain to the House the present position on the scheme about which he is obviously and rightly so concerned. The background to it is the general policy set out in last year’s White Paper on transport policy and the review of schemes we then referred to and on which we reported more fully in this year’s White Paper “Policy for Roads: England 1978”.

    Following publication of the White Paper on transport policy, we set in hand the review of the trunk road programme in which we considered the need for each scheme and whether the standard for each scheme was appropriate. The method of the review was to consider each scheme in the road programme in terms of its impact on the environment, its value for money and its sensitivity to different assumptions about the growth of traffic.

    In some cases it was clear that even on the most modest assumptions about traffic growth the scheme was still needed and the standard was right. In other cases the scheme was confirmed but the standard was modified. If it were clear that a scheme could not be justified in the light of the new approach, it was ​ dropped altogether or replaced by a more limited alternative. Altogether, over 30 schemes were dropped from the programme in this way.

    For most schemes we reached a clear conclusion one way or another, although all these schemes will be kept under review and re-appraised at each stage when decision have to be taken. But there were cases, particularly those at an early stage of planning, where some doubt remained or where it was too early to determine what the standard ought to be. As I shall explain, in this case we came to the conclusion that the scheme could not be justified against our present criteria and ought to be dropped from the preparation pool. I am talking about the Kidderminster eastern bypass.
    We had not, however, had a full opportunity to discuss with the Hereford and Worcester County Council, first, the implications for that council of such a decision and, secondly and most importantly, what alternative more modest works might be needed as an alternative to building the full-blooded bypass.

    The detailed investigations into the possibility of an eastern bypass for Kidderminster to supersede the existing A449 trunk road began in June 1971, when the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced the inclusion in the trunk road preparation pool of a scheme to improve comprehensively the A449 from the Waresley bypass to Wolverhampton. Subsequently, the scheme to be investigated was more specifically defined. Its first stage was a new route between the northern end of the Hartlebury bypass, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and the boundary of the then Worcestershire County Council, the proposed route which has now come to be referred to as the Kidderminster eastern bypass

    The bypass was expected both to remove a considerable amount of through traffic from the A449 in Kidderminster, and thereby improve the environment and access within the town for pedestrians and drivers, and to complete a high standard route from just north of Kidderminster to Worcester, which would be safer and more convenient for through traffic.

    The first stage of the work included the identification of possible solutions. ​ This is normal practice, and I should explain that for almost every major road scheme it involves predicting the volume of future traffic which is likely to use the new road in the design year—that is, the fifteenth year after the road is open to traffic. In making those predictions we have to make a good many assumptions, including assumptions about other new roads which are also being planned or are likely to be planned in the intervening period. The most significant of these to the Kidderminster eastern bypass investigations has always been, as the hon. Gentleman rightly implied, the Bewdley bypass proposed by the Hereford and Worcester County Council to replace the existing principal road, the A456, through Bewdley by a route to the south of the town.

    Soon after the study began, it became clear that the justification for the eastern bypass would be substantially enhanced if the Bewdley bypass were to go ahead in the same period, and the county council’s programme at that time fitted well in this respect. Our study also took into account the possibility of a Birmingham west orbital route and the relief that a Kidderminster eastern bypass and the adjacent improved length of the A449 south of Hartlebury would give to the two-lane section of the M5 motorway in Worcestershire. Towards the end of 1974, we had identified possible solutions.

    Public consultation on these was undertaken in January 1975. By the time the results of the consultation were being examined and evaluated, changes in the Department’s criteria for making decisions on road schemes had taken place.

    First, in 1974 the Department had reviewed the carrying capacity of new roads and reached the conclusion that higher standards of vehicle construction and the improved quality of driving, amongst other factors, indicated that a road built to a given standard could carry a greater volume of traffic than had earlier been assumed. We therefore revised our design standards and issued detailed technical advice in our technical memorandum on design flows for motorways. The following year we also reviewed our national traffic prediction advice. This led to a reduction in the forecast rate of increase in traffic flows and the issue of a further technical memorandum. Improved techniques for asses- ​ sing the economic value of road schemes were brought into use at the same time.

    Along with all other trunk road schemes, the Kidderminster eastern bypass was reviewed in the light of these changes. The review began to cast doubt on the economic viability of the scheme. More recently, we have had to take account of the views expressed in the report of the advisory committee on trunk road assessment—the Leitch Committee—about the need to reconsider the methodology to be applied to traffic forecasts. On 10th January, the same day as the report was published, we produced an interim memorandum on traffic forecasting. This includes advice on how the uncertainty inherent in making such predictions should be reflected by assumptions of high and low levels of traffic growth. The economics of schemes are now assessed on the basis of the low levels. Overall decisions take account of the consequences of flows being under-or over-estimated.

    During our review this year of all schemes in the light of the policy set out in the transport White Paper and of the Leitch Committee’s report, we reached the firm conclusion that, irrespective of what the county council might decide about the Bewdley bypass and the timing of its construction, there was no case for building the Kidderminster eastern bypass for many years to come. The economic assessment produces a negative result and the environmental effects could not possibly justify any priority over competing schemes elsewhere.

    However, before taking a final decision on the future of this scheme we felt it essential to consult the Hereford and Worcester County Council, the local authority with the strategic planning responsibility for the area and the local highway authority. But consultations on these lines had not been carried out—due mainly to shortage of time—when the White Paper was published on 4th April, so we included the scheme in the section of the White Paper which listed schemes for which start dates had not been determined and, by a footnote, indicated that the future of this scheme, which was in a category with several others, was under review.

    We appreciate that a decision to abandon the Kidderminster eastern bypass could affect future consideration of ​ the proposed Bewdley bypass by the county council. I realise that the county council’s scheme is important to it in environmental and local planning terms and that any decision of ours which reduces its potential is bound to give it cause for concern.

    The hon. Member for Kidderminster understandably stated his own views on the matter. He shares the concern that both these schemes have been considered as integral, with a decision on one affecting the other. However, a decision to drop the Kidderminster eastern bypass would affect only the economic and not the environmental arguments for the Bewdley bypass, which are very strong.

    The hon. Member has mentioned to me before the consequences of the Leitch Report. That also mentioned the need for an environmental framework for any scheme. The Bewdley scheme has strong environmental advantages. I understand from what the hon. Member has said tonight that Hereford and Worcester are prepared to go ahead with it and are not necessarily proposing to defer it as a consequence of our decision on the Kidderminster scheme.

    Mr. Bulmer

    That emphasises the need for further consultation, because the scheme is finely balanced. The decision has not been taken but it will shortly be taken, so additional consultation is essential. In his earlier remarks about the Kidderminster eastern bypass, was the Minister taking into account all that might happen as a result of the break-up of the M5?

    Mr. Horam

    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentions that point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller). I have visited his area, if not Kidderminster, because I have taken a close interest in developments on the M5. The surface of that road has reached the end of its design life and it must be replaced over the next few years so that the road can be used fully. That will have repercussions for the adjacent roads. On the other hand, the complete replacement of the surface of the M5 over the relevant two-lane stretch will take place over the next four years. It is not possible for the eastern bypass to be built in that time, even if we started today, given the statutory procedures and building time. ​ Therefore, no diversion of traffic as a result of those works could be helped by any favourable decision on the Kidderminster bypass.

    Mr. Hal Miller

    Can the hon. Gentleman understand the fear not only that during the diversionary period while the M5 is being reconstructed there will be trouble on the roads but that when the M5 is completed, if it is still a two-lane road, it will have passed its capacity, which it has already reached? Therefore, there will be continued diversion, either on the A449 or on the A38. We have tried to press the Minister to have alternative provision made to carry that excess traffic.

    Mr. Horam

    That is something that we should like to discuss with Hereford and Worcester. I accept the need for consultation on that. We are increasing the capacity of the M5 to the North from two lanes to three. We shall have to take a view on whether the two-lane stretch of the M5 is reasonable for the needs of the immediate future. There may be a difference between the Department, the hon. Member and the county council, but that should be discussed. It has obvious implications for the council and for roads such as this in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Clearly, we shall take into account the ramifications of the M5.

    Another point that was raised concerned the inner ring road and any link between that and a decision on the Kidderminster eastern bypass. The inner ring road is complete on the eastern side of the town, where it is, in effect, an alternative to what would have been the eastern bypass. It is on the western side of the town, as I understand, that the remaining links are to be completed. The construction has been brought to its finality, and it is utilised fully on the eastern side of the town. In that sense, there is no immediate connection between our decision on the eastern bypass and what happens in the future on the completion of the inner city link. That is something rather separate from our decision.

    I want to make clear that the door is in no way closed. I am very anxious that we should take our decision on the scheme’s future in the light of all the facts and the detailed views of the ​ county council. When the White Paper was published, the Department’s regional director in the West Midlands wrote to the county council explaining our view that the scheme should be dropped from the preparation pool on the ground that it was not economically viable and would not lead to overall environmental benefit to the community in the immediate future. Comments were invited, and the county council has made clear that it is concerned at our decision and would like to discuss it further with us.

    The best way to achieve this is for the regional director, with other representatives of the Department, to meet representatives of the county council so that they may have the fullest opportunity to deploy their case for the scheme’s retention in the preparation pool.

    In replying directly about the suggestion that I should meet a deputation, I should prefer it if we could allow these meetings to take place between the regional director and the county council officials. I have seen the regional director of our West Midlands Region today about this very subject and have made plain my desire for the meetings to be held at an early stage so that the matter can be thrashed out without delay. I realise the implications not only for the road decisions for the area but also for the structure plan, and so on.

    As I understand it, a number of technical factors have to be taken into account, and reference has been made to one or two of them. In reaching our ​ decision on the eastern bypass, should we declare the results of the public consultation, declare a firm line and leave it at that, indicating that we do not believe that it is right to go ahead in the immediate future, or do we say that the scheme is abandoned? What happens in the Torton area, which is the real problem area, where the A499 jinks around and there are some difficult parts? What is the proper relationship, in the eyes of the county council, between the Bewdley bypass and the eastern bypass? I think that the Bewdley bypass can be justified quite independently of the eastern bypass. Certainly the decision not to go ahead with the eastern bypass will reduce the economic advantages of the Bewdley bypass but will not affect the environmental case for it.

    A number of important technical decisions will have to be thrashed out in all these areas. I should prefer it if we could proceed by means of having these meetings at official level between the county council and officials of my Department. But certainly, if the hon. Gentleman feels at the end of the day that he would like to see me with a deputation, I shall gladly see him. I feel, however, that it would be right, as a matter of practicality, to proceed in the way that I have suggested. I hope that that full and speedy consultation will sort out the genuine problems in this area in an amicable fashion.