Previous SectionIndexHome Page


10.33 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the opportunity to debate a subject that is clearly vital for his constituency and the whole of central Scotland. I hope that I can respond to all the points that he made in his eloquent and forceful speech on behalf of his constituents and, in particular, I shall say something about the enhancement of the A8 that we are considering.

I accept fully that the A8 and the M8 are critical parts of Scotland's transport infrastructure--there is no dispute about that. Although the great majority of the road between Glasgow and Edinburgh is of motorway standard, the 10 km section between Baillieston at the outskirts of Glasgow and Newhouse in Lanarkshire, which passes through my right hon. Friend's constituency, remains all-purpose, two-lane dual carriageway. That section is particularly important because it serves key development areas including Tannochside, Strathclyde business park, Newhouse industrial estate and the EuroCentral site and its rail freight terminal.

My right hon. Friend emphasised the congestion problems. It is a sign of the success of efforts to attract new jobs to Lanarkshire that traffic on the route has increased rapidly in recent years. I am aware of the congestion problems that can arise, particularly during the morning and evening peak periods, and the difficulties that motorists experience in joining the route at some key junctions.

I acknowledge the safety benefits that upgrading would bring about, which was another key point emphasised by my right hon. Friend. I am aware that that section of road is in poor structural condition so I have no difficulty in agreeing with him that something needs to be done to deal with the problems on the A8.

My right hon. Friend also mentioned the Lanarkshire working group set up in 1990. I am aware of the various plans over the years to upgrade the Baillieston to Newhouse section, going further back even than the Lanarkshire working group. I understand the local frustration at the fact that none of those plans has been implemented.

The previous Government had plans to deal with the problem through a private finance initiative design, build, finance and operate scheme. That would have involved the construction of a new section of motorway between Baillieston and Newhouse for through traffic, the

20 Oct 1998 : Column 1186

upgrading of the existing route to service local traffic and the addition of a third lane to each of the existing motorway carriageways between Newhouse and Shotts. Between Baillieston and Newhouse, the scheme would have involved an increase in capacity from the present four lanes to 10 lanes. With various interconnecting links that would have increased to 13 lanes at the western end of the scheme approaching Baillieston.

In their last years in office the previous Government slashed the trunk roads budget from £248 million in 1994-95 to £171 million in 1997-98--a reduction of over 30 per cent. Perhaps even more significant is a shift in the pattern of spending within those overall totals. The previous Government maintained a new build programme only by squeezing expenditure on repair and maintenance and using the private finance initiative as a means of deferring expenditure. They had raised expectations of future schemes, including the M8, well beyond what was affordable given the resources that they had allocated. Put simply, they had willed the ends but not the means. More crucially, the squeeze on repair and maintenance was irresponsible and unsustainable. The road network was being allowed to deteriorate to a condition that now demands remedial action.

In place of that short-termism we were determined to develop an integrated approach to transport that would balance public and private transport needs and the demands of economic growth with our responsibility to the environment. The development of that strategy reached an important stage in July when we published our White Paper, "Travel Choices for Scotland". That aims to offer those using transport services and infrastructure in Scotland a genuine choice by promoting a high-quality integrated transport system that is sustainable.

Our White Paper signalled the end of the old predict and provide approach to trunk road construction, whichis self-defeating, environmentally damaging and unaffordable because new road capacity generates extra traffic, extra pollution and extra demands for further increases in capacity.

That does not mean that the Government are anti-roads or anti-cars; on the contrary, we firmly believe that the road system will continue to provide vital links for private users and industry. That is why, even within the comprehensive spending review, which increased resources for priorities such as education and health, we have allocated an additional £58 million over the next three years to the trunk roads programme. We have stated clearly that, after meeting our legal commitments, our first priority must be to tackle that massive backlog of essential repair and maintenance that we inherited from the previous Government.

It is against that background that we concluded that the private finance initiative scheme for the M8 proposed by the previous Government was simply incompatible with our policy direction. As I said, the scheme involved a massive increase in capacity when our policies aim to constrain traffic growth. In addition, the shadow tolls required to pay for the construction and maintenance would have amounted to about £20 million per annum over 30 years. This and the annual commitment to the M74-M6 would have taken about 25 per cent. of the entire trunk roads budget and was simply unaffordable, given the comprehensive spending review outcome and our justifiable decision to give priority to repair and maintenance over the next three years.

20 Oct 1998 : Column 1187

I said at the outset that there was no dispute between my right hon. Friend and the Government about the need to do something to address conditions on the A8 in Lanarkshire. That is why we have announced that options for a more limited enhancement of the A8 will be considered within our main trunk roads review. Hence, we are currently developing two options for improving the Baillieston to Newhouse section, both of which I can assure my right hon. Friend would improve the road to motorway standards.

I shall explain what those options entail. A broad choice will need to be made between an alignment that partially bypasses the existing A8 and an alignment that widens the road along its present route. Understandably, both options are at a very early stage in their development and there are a number of combinations of junction layouts to be considered and of consultations to be undertaken before a final decision can be made as to whether either option should be taken forward. However, both options would result in significant improvements.

The first option would follow an alignment close to the previous Government's proposal, but would be more modest in scale and environmentally more sustainable. This option would bypass the existing A8 in the Shawhead area between Drumpark junction and the EuroCentral junction in order to avoid the disruption associated with altering the complex existing junction of the A8 with the A725 at Shawhead. It would also provide a better connection between the motorway and the A725 Bellshill bypass.

This option would allow two lanes in each direction for through traffic, but would be widened at critical points to three lanes in each direction to allow traffic joining or leaving the motorway to weave safely with other traffic. Between the junctions at EuroCentral and Chapelhall, two-lane local link roads would also be provided either side of, and parallel to, the proposed motorway to handle the local traffic movements.

The second option would be to widen the existing A8 along its full length on its present alignment. That would involve building one carriageway of the future motorway alongside and to the south of the existing road, and then converting the existing road into the other carriageway of the motorway and, where appropriate, into a parallel all-purpose local road to cater for access to the few adjoining premises and to permit cycle use. The second option would also allow two lanes in each direction for longer-distance traffic, and, again, would require a selective widening to three lanes in each direction to allow safe access to the motorway. Between EuroCentral and Chapelhall, parallel two-lane local link roads would also be needed in order fully to connect those two junctions to the motorway.

Those layouts are now being considered as part of the strategic review. They have been chosen to reflect a balance between providing some additional capacity, in recognition of the existing and future pressures on the road, while avoiding the dangers of environmental intrusion and the attraction of traffic from other modes. The additional capacity that either of the two options would provide varies between junctions, but would be approximately 70 per cent. compared with the present

20 Oct 1998 : Column 1188

road capacity. That figure compares with the 200 per cent. increase in capacity that the previous Government's proposals would have involved.

Clearly, I cannot predict now the priority rankings that will emerge from the trunk roads review. The review is assessing priorities against the Government's five criteria, which include the two aspects that my right hon. Friend emphasised: economy or congestion and safety. It would be wrong of me to prejudge the outcome of that exercise. Should the A8 be accorded priority, the detailed process of developing and implementing the scheme could begin. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, there are fairly long lead times involved in building a new road, given the statutory and other procedures that must be undertaken before construction can begin.

Affordability will continue to be an issue. That is one of the reasons why our White Paper announced our intention to move ahead as speedily as possible to introduce the legislation necessary to allow road user charging on sections of the Scottish motorway and trunk road network and to implement early schemes. The White Paper contained a commitment to recycle an appropriate proportion of the proceeds into transport improvements in those areas, including key trunk road improvements as assessed in our trunk roads review. Therefore I can definitely give my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston the full assurance that he seeks on that matter. Indeed, the White Paper specifically mentioned the upgrading of the A8 in Lanarkshire as an example of one road that might benefit from that new source of funding.

The implementation of charging is still some way off, but the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are co-operating in a major programme of research and development work, designed to establish the capability of a complete electronic road-user charging system. An important element of that will be a demonstration project, including a Scottish site, which will test, in a real-world situation, the full range of equipment and back-up services needed to operate a free-flowing electronic charging system.

This week, sections of the media have been speculating that a Scottish pilot will go ahead next spring on the M8. That is not the case. The precise timetable and location of that project have still to be determined, but the lead times involved in launching a project of that scale--which involves, for example, compliance with European procurement procedures--means that it may possibly be the year 2000 before a demonstration project could be in place.

We shall also seek ways--possibly using the private finance initiative--in which infrastructure improvements can be made before, or at the same time as, charging is introduced. We are certainly aware that road users will look much more favourably on the prospect of charges if they can see, at the same time, some tangible improvements in the service provided to them.

I therefore regret that I am unable, tonight, to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston a definite timetable for implementing improvements on the A8 in Lanarkshire. He will

20 Oct 1998 : Column 1189

appreciate that some uncertainties remain to be resolved. However, I can say that, in the meantime, we shall undertake significant and necessary maintenance work on the A8-M8, which we shall ensure is compatible with the longer-term improvement strategy. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take it from my remarks tonight--especially my comments about our specific proposals for

20 Oct 1998 : Column 1190

the improvement of the A8-M8--that the Government acknowledge that there is a problem to be addressed, and have taken steps, consistent with our transport policies and the White Paper, and with our wider commitment to control public expenditure, to address that real problem.

Question put and agreed to.

20 Oct 1998 : Column 1189



 IndexHome Page