| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 8th July at half-past Ten o'clock, to take Questions for oral answer and to consider a substantive Motion for the Adjournment of the Committee.--[Mr. Betts.]
Question agreed to.
Transport (Waveney)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Betts.]
7.21 pm
Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney): I am extremely grateful that my topic has been selected for debate this evening. It means a great deal to the people of Waveney, which is, of course, Britain's easternmost constituency.
I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on her appointment.
One of the key elements of transport policy has come to be the concept of sustainability. Transport must comply with the requirements of a sustainable environment, yet it must, of course, also sustain an economy. As Labour's business manifesto rightly pledged, we must ensure that we provide the modern transport infrastructure that business needs, which allows business to be competitive. The transport links to Lowestoft and Waveney simply do not provide that at the moment.
If one were to draw a map of Britain based not on conventional linear distance but on travel time, my constituency and north-east East Anglia would lie at the end of a very long peninsula indeed.
Let us look at the roads. Most visitors to our district arrive late. I remember the President of the Board of Trade telephoning from a point on the A12 between Colchester and Ipswich, having looked at the map distance, and saying, "We'll be there in half an hour." Unfortunately, the A12 beyond Ipswich peters out into a single carriageway with slow bends, un-bypassed villages, and tractors.
The A47, linking us to the midlands, is much the same. Business men who turn off the A1 and see the road sign "Norwich 120 miles"--Lowestoft is not mentioned, of course--and then soon become stuck behind two lorries following a tractor, with little chance to overtake, admit to having a sinking feeling. Some never come back. I believe that my hon. Friend will find that our area is further from the continuous dualled road network than any other part of England.
I shall now deal with rail transport. There are lines from Lowestoft to Ipswich--with another station in my constituency, at Beccles--and from Lowestoft to Norwich. However, the journey to Ipswich takes longer and is more expensive than by car. Therefore, apart from a few services at peak times, most trains are fairly empty, which is a great shame.
Railtrack has told me that it would be prepared to invest in a passing loop at Beccles, which would permit a more frequent service, but only if the train operator, Anglia Railways, will guarantee more income to provide Railtrack's rate of return. That seems to pass all the risk on to the operator and may explain why the Secretary of State has had to complain about Railtrack's level of investment. Even with a passing loop, the journey time would not be quicker. Massive investment in segregating the many crossings--of roads, lanes and farm tracks--would be necessary to allow safety speed limits to be raised.
The economic consequences of the failure to modernise transport links in line with much of the rest of the country have been severe for people in my constituency.
While we have lost many traditional industries, such as shipbuilding, canning factories, a coach works, and shoe making--it was announced today that the last vestiges of the shoemaking industry in Lowestoft will disappear, with the loss of 48 jobs--we have been unable to attract new firms and new inward investment.
New companies invariably prefer to locate close to a modern road network. Just compare the employment statistics within the same region, for Cambridge, Bury St. Edmunds and Ipswich on the A14 corridor, with the figures for Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. They tell a significant story. Unemployment is double the regional average in Lowestoft, and has been for many years. People in my constituency are fed up with being told that they are in the unemployment black spot of East Anglia.
The link between good road communications and economic success is well illustrated all over the world. I note the study by Cardiff business school on the impact of the A55 improvements in north Wales. It concluded:
In every local survey of business in Waveney, poor transport links are seen as the biggest obstacle to economic success. I do not seek new roads, just a modernisation of existing trunk roads. Improvements to the A47 and A12 were cut out of the programme by the previous Government. People felt betrayed and neglected by that. Those schemes need to be reinstated.
I do not support unbridled road building. My response to widening the M25 and other such schemes is that if six lanes or four are not enough, one should diversify to a more balanced transport system, but let us have a level playing field, so that all parts of our country have a chance to share in economic prosperity and to cast off peripherality.
People in Waveney were delighted that in Labour's manifesto there was a clear commitment, which we have seen honoured today, to conduct
There is certainly great potential in Lowestoft and Waveney for industrial and tourism development. There is plenty of cheap land. The labour force is hard-working and loyal, with low costs. It is a pleasant environment with room to breathe. Lowestoft is Britain's eastern cardinal point, with, officially, England's best beach, and an entrance to the Broads national park. Most important, it is Britain's easternmost port, pointing straight at Europe. Lowestoft is not the end of the line; it is on the way to Europe.
The keystone of the new Government's thinking on transport will be an integrated transport policy. I welcome that. Lowestoft has the ideal opportunity for an integrated transport policy. We have a combination of sea--with the
new European emphasis on short sea shipping--road and rail. The railway tracks in Lowestoft run right up to the port, parallel to the quayside. There are plenty of sidings. There is already an expanding container shipping company trading with Scandinavia, but it currently uses lorries to carry goods between Lowestoft and the north-west and the midlands.
Here lies the opportunity for a rail freight terminal, but it will require investment from Railtrack and Associated British Ports, and new momentum from a rail freight operator. There is the opportunity in the next three years of matched European objective 5b funding. I should like the Government's regional office to take a more proactive role in that area, and I hope that the new regional development agency will have that brief.
I mentioned the potential for an integrated policy in Lowestoft, with intermodal links between sea, rail and road. However, one major problem lies in the way, and the people of Waveney would say--in reference to the title of the debate--that it is the biggest transport problem of all. It is known locally as "the bridge". The A12 passes through the entire length of Lowestoft, including the town centre. The town is cut in two by a river--although it is not really a river, but a long, deep inlet, which forms the inner harbour.
The A12 crosses the waterway by means of a bascule bridge--a lift-up bridge--which has to be opened every time a ship uses the port on which our prosperity depends. The bridge is the only crossing point in town, as the next one is at Oulton Broad, almost two and a half miles inland. The traffic flow across the bridge is the second highest in Suffolk. When the bridge opens, the town is brought to a standstill, literally. The congestion thus formed takes a long time to clear, and in summer, when we attract tourists, there is frequent gridlock.
That situation is, I believe, unique and has to be seen to be believed. My hon. Friend the Minister recently witnessed the spectacle and saw a Chinese junk passing through. I hope that that is indelibly etched on her memory. She should visit Lowestoft in summer, when the situation is at its worst. Anyone who has not seen it may imagine London with half its bridges missing and the other half lifting up frequently. Frequently--and twice on bank holidays in recent years--the bridge breaks down. Not even a pedestrian, let alone the emergency services, can cross. The town is snapped in two.
Clearly, that presents an economic problem and affects the commercial activity of the town. It seems to make our drive for increased tourism self-defeating, and has distorted the development of the town. Many decades ago, one bridge was enough, but Lowestoft has grown. Like blown glass in an egg timer, the two sides of the town have expanded, but the constriction in the middle remains, becoming relatively worse.
That situation also presents an environmental problem. The air quality tests carried out in the enclosed Victorian streets that form the southern approach to the bridge show alarming results. The whole area, known as Kirkley, has been degraded by the effect of continuous congestion. All the quality of life indicators for the area--unemployment, poverty, health and crime--are so poor that the area qualified for single regeneration budget funding last year. As was recognised in the bid, the area cannot be successfully regenerated without removing the trunk road traffic.
Fortunately, there is a solution and it has been known for years--a new, second river crossing and a south Lowestoft relief road. That was consulted upon, a preferred route established and much of it designed only a few years ago. A start date in the mid-1990s was envisaged. However, it was relegated and then deleted from the trunk roads programme. Traditional ways of evaluating road schemes never addressed the full range of economic and environmental benefits that that would bring to the town. Those benefits are mainly local, but I fear that without the new crossing, Lowestoft will find it difficult to develop successfully in the next century.
The corridor has been protected for many years; it is protected by the county and district councils. No demolition is required and no environmental damage would be caused. This is the dominant issue in Lowestoft. The solution that I have described would permit traffic calming and cycleway development on the existing dangerous road. It would raise the quality of life in the town and bring us into the 21st century.
As I have shown, there is the potential to regenerate Lowestoft and develop the port by integrating sea, rail and road modes. However, as things stand, the more port activity there is, the more the bridge is lifted and the more dysfunctional the town becomes. An integrated transport policy could make a difference economically, but there must be investment in a second river crossing to stop each mode getting in each other's way.
Apart from Lowestoft, the constituency of Waveney consists of parts of rural north Suffolk, including the large village of Kessingland--the only place in my constituency bypassed by a dual carriageway. In fact, there are only about three miles of dualled road in my constituency. The historic small market towns of Beccles and Bungay are the other main settlements in Waveney. The main transport issue in those towns is heavy lorries passing through ancient narrow streets.
In Beccles last year, the deputy mayor's wife was nearly killed by a lorry. She was walking on the pavement, while the lorry kept to the road, but as everything is so narrow, she was knocked under the lorry by a wing mirror. Bungay, with equally narrow streets, has a particular problem. It is directly on the only viable route from Bernard Matthews's turkey farms to the processing factory at Holton to the south. The townspeople, surrounding villages and the company all want a satisfactory solution to the problem.
The Bernard Matthews situation deserves particular attention. The company is a massive and vital contributor to the East Anglian economy, with thousands of jobs involved. The company has a great loyalty to East Anglia, but the poor quality of local roads makes the operation of the business more difficult. The company is expanding, and several foreign Governments would love Matthews to locate in their countries. We should take note.
"There is no doubt that the impact of the A55 improvements have been both substantial and significant to the economy of North Wales."
A manufacturer from the Isle of Anglesey said:
"Completion of the A55 improvements has eliminated for good the peripheral status of North Wales."
I note that even BT, with all its new technology and new forms of communication, recently chose Brentwood as the location for a new base, because it is well served by modern roads.
"an overall strategic review of the roads programme against the criteria of accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impact".
We are pleased to note that the first criterion mentioned was accessibility.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |