| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I doubt whether the people in south and central Wales would see the A55 as a strategic priority.
Does the Minister agree that the dualling of the A55 has a severe effect on the traffic through Stranraer? Freight hauliers operating through Stranraer have already admitted that they are losing traffic to the north Wales route.
Mr. Chisholm:
I do not want to be dragged into a debate about Welsh roads. I have quite enough to be going on with in regard to Scottish roads.
I have noted all the views that have been presented to me, but it is clear that the continued pressure for progress on all those routes--set against a background of the mismatch between the expectations that the previous Government encouraged, and the public expenditure plans that we inherited from them--underlines the need for a review of priorities.
My hon. Friend rightly said that it was not Treasury-driven, but the simple fact is that the previous Government's sums did not add up, and we must replace their make-believe road programme with a real one. Before any scheme is implemented in the future, it will have to demonstrate its viability against the criteria of accessibility, safety, economy, environmental impact and integration with other transport plans. It must be recognised that the previous policies of predicting traffic growth and providing roads to meet such predictionsare, in the long term, financially, socially and environmentally unsustainable.
Mr. Home Robertson:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Chisholm:
I will take some interventions later, but, because there were two speeches, I should like to make some progress--I have a great deal of material to cover.
At an appropriate stage of the review, we will seek the views of a wide range of bodies including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local authorities, the Confederation of British Industry and other transport and environmental interest groups on revised criteria for setting priorities. We shall aim to reach decisions on priorities as soon as possible.
Until then, work will continue on a number of major schemes that are already under construction and on the A75 the Glen and the A828 Creagan bridge schemes, which are at such an advanced stage of preparation that work was due to start on them this financial year. Even the scheme to complete the M8 motorway, which was scheduled for this year's programme, is being reviewed, although the advanced stage of tendering requires an early decision on whether it should proceed on that timetable or be deferred for consideration as part of the main review process.
No further statutory procedural work will be carried out on any of the remaining major schemes in the trunk roads programme inherited by this Government. The programme of minor schemes that deliver cost-effective safety improvements and the trunk road maintenance programme will not be affected by the review.
Mr. Home Robertson:
My hon. Friend mentioned the M74: the A74 is already a dual carriageway, so to upgrade that to motorway standard is to ice the cake. My specific question is, what has happened to the money that was in the budget for the next phase of dualling for the A1? We understood that money was allocated and committedfor the next phase of work between Dunbar and Haddington--obviously not the full £40 million, but the first bit of it at least. What has happened to that money? What is to be done with it during the 12-month delay?
Mr. Chisholm:
Clearly, a lot of work needs to be done on the roads programme. This year, for example, there were massive cuts in the work for minor roads improvements, and we could easily spend all the money on that--I am not saying that we will, because final decisions have yet to be made about next year's budget. The money will be in the transport budget and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that there is much work that can be done under that budget.
The dualling of the Haddington to Dunbar scheme will be examined within the context of the review. I know that my hon. Friend would like the Government to make an exception, and our reasons for not doing so do not imply any discrimination or prejudice against the scheme. The Government have a clear obligation to ensure that the review treats all roads in the same way. To make exceptions would seriously prejudice the conduct, validity
and outcome of the review. We have departed from that approach in only one case--the long-term plans for the Kincardine bridge--because of the special nature of the operational concerns that arise.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given an assurance that preparatory work within the Scottish Office will continue on the Haddington to Dunbar scheme, with the aim of allowing it to proceed without unnecessary delay should it be identified by the review as a priority. That work will cover issues that may arise as a result of the public local inquiry. In programming terms, there will inevitably be a delay in publishing the decision letter resulting from that inquiry and the confirming of the draft orders should that be the approved way forward. The preparation work within the Scottish Office will, however, aim to minimise that delay should the outcome of the review favour the early implementation of the scheme.
I can confirm the indication given to my hon. Friend that we consider that it remains a possibility that work could begin on the scheme in the next financial year, if it is confirmed as a top priority in the review.
As for finance, I have made it clear that the inherited roads programme was simply unsustainable. It would therefore be quite wrong to make assumptions regarding allocation of funds to major projects in coming years, or to anticipate the outcome of future public expenditure decisions and priorities. I am sure that my hon. Friend fully supports the Government's initiative in developing a coherent, affordable and environmentally sustainable roads strategy for Scotland, which will contribute to a properly integrated transport policy.
I stress that the review is not founded on an automatic assumption about cutting public expenditure on roads. For many people, especially in rural areas, the car is, and will continue to be, an essential form of transport. It is vital, however, that an integrated transport strategy is developed to offer the public real choices and protect the environment. The Government intend that the review will produce a future programme that is environmentally and financially sustainable, and integrated with our wider policies to reduce traffic growth and manage transport and traffic more effectively. Clear criteria for setting priorities for long-term road planning will result, and the application of those criteria will enable us to plan a roads programme based on an up-to-date assessment of Scotland's needs.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the fair and correct course of action is to review the A1 within that context. I am sure that he will continue to remind us of the serious claims of the A1, of which I am also well aware.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |