Minister, you have less than a minute to respond.

I smile about the invitation to come to south Belfast. As and when my diary permits, I can and do make visits.

I am visiting a constituency on a different matter with someone from the Member's party. That is how life is in politics. The loss of built heritage in the Malone area has escalated, and the Government designated it a conservation area in 2000. Therefore, express consent must be given for the demolition of any building, and new development must comply with PPS 6, which protects the character of conservation areas. That has been the Department's response.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has achieved a new record for the least number of questions answered: he got to the fourth question. Will some direction be given to Ministers so that we get more answers and less waffle?

I have noted that we managed to deal with only four questions, which is somewhat unfair to those coming behind. I will return to the issue, and I will examine Hansard to see if I was guilty in any way of prolonging the questions and answers, but I do not think that I was. Four questions was not very good.

On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer to the operational advice notes in the Standing Orders handbook. I have placed two questions for written answer - AQW 2344/01 and AQW 2345/01 - to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Following numerous telephone calls, faxes and promises, I still do not have answers to those questions, which are now two months overdue. According to the handbook, questions should be tabled "ten clear working days" before they are due for answer. How can I get answers to my constituents' concerns?

That is not a point of order. It is a matter for the Executive, and I am sure that they have heard your concerns and complaint.

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like Members to be aware that the Committee for Procedures and the Business Committee are examining the issue of questions, and they have requested input from Members.

Lack of Investment in the A20
 Newtownards to Portaferry Road

Mr McCarthy:

I would like to thank Members for giving me the opportunity to bring this important aspect of our daily lives before the Assembly, and I would also like to thank the Minister for his presence.

Lack of investment in roads means risks for road safety. I offer my deepest sympathy to the relatives of the latest victims of a serious road accident, on the Ballymena to Ballymoney road over the weekend. Recently, there was also a fatality on the A20.

Although the A20 Newtownards to Portaferry road is a main arterial route carrying an ever-increasing number of vehicles every day, its condition, and the lack of funding for maintenance and upgrading, is replicated on every public road south of the floodgates as one leaves Newtownards, throughout the Ards borough and the Strangford constituency.

The deplorable conditions of our roads affect every constituent. Road users are angry and frustrated, and they ask constantly why they pay car tax. There is little or no industry on the Ards Peninsula, which means that constituents have to travel to where they can find employment, and the vast majority of people are forced to use the A20. Some people are employed on the other side of Strangford Lough, and they use the ferry and then travel on to their work.

I doubt that the conditions of the roads on the other side of Strangford Lough are much better. However, I offer sympathy to those who live in Portaferry and beyond who must use the main road to Newtownards twice daily to get to and from work. The A20 contains continuous twists, corners, humps and hollows, with a scattering of potholes, utility manhole covers, sunken gratings, sunken verges and flooding when there is heavy rainfall. All those deficiencies contribute to a less safe road environment, and, thus, we are vulnerable to road accidents, and, unfortunately, fatalities.

Although the local Roads Service office does its best with its limited resources, I continue to hear from angry road users who have driven into a pothole and smashed a tyre and wheel, but who find it difficult to get compensation from the Roads Service. This morning I received a letter from a constituent who had lodged a claim for £64·63 against the Department for Regional Development as a result of damage caused by a pothole. After an eight-month investigation, that constituent was told:

Where it has not done so and a road user sustains damage to their vehicle because of this lack of maintenance, the legislation allows them to claim compensation from the Department."

On that occasion, a pothole contributed to £64 worth of damage. However, the letter further states that

The Department dismissed this genuine claim for 64 quid. The loophole seems typical; ordinary road users are treated abysmally. Other Members may have heard similar accounts.

The A20 has remained largely unchanged despite the ever-increasing volume of vehicular traffic and newer, larger lorries, which undoubtedly contribute to the deterioration of roads. A further concern is the risk of serious accidents involving the many school buses, sometimes overcrowded, on that road.

The appalling condition of the A20 at Main Street in Kircubbin must be brought to the Minister's attention. As with all busy streets, a pedestrian crossing was needed on Kircubbin's Main Street to increase the safety of children and senior citizens. The Roads Service denied a request for a crossing, and a concoction of kerb build-outs was provided, to the dissatisfaction of local residents. A request has been sent to the Roads Service for the build-outs' removal, because they actually caused an accident. Recently, improvements were completed on a small section of Main Street in Greyabbey, which is also part of the A20, leaving the rest of the town in an appalling condition.

I remind the Minister of his recently launched regional transport strategy, in which no forward plan for the Ards Peninsula was considered. In the summary of funding for each area, neither the Ards Peninsula, nor Portaferry, nor Kircubbin was even mentioned. There is not even a line on the map to show that the A20 exists.

As matters stand, the traffic congestion on the A20 can only get worse as more vehicles take to the road. Surely there has been some thought of future investment such as in the provision of a light rail system along the centre of the peninsula or a dual carriageway, or even widening the existing A20. Constituents expect, at minimum, extra funding for a good, even road surface that will allow safe passage without risking lives every day, and the Minister must give us a fair share of funding for better roads and for the A20 in particular.

I am grateful to the MP, Mrs Iris Robinson, who set up a meeting with the Minister and the Roads Service to allow me to discuss the problems on behalf of my constituents.

Many areas of great natural beauty suffer because of their attractiveness, and the Ards Peninsula is no exception. There are constant conflicts of interest between the legitimate economic needs of the local people, the equally legitimate need to conserve the undoubted natural beauty of the peninsula and the right of the population of Greater Belfast to enjoy the scenic resort value of the area, and finding a balance between those conflicting interests will never be easy. Added to that is the increased volume of traffic that is inevitably caused by the expanding towns along the A20, such as Greyabbey, Kircubbin and Portaferry.

The regional development plan envisages building some 7,000 extra dwellings on or around the peninsula in the next 10 years. Existing road traffic volume problems are bound to get worse and are important enough to be addressed, but underinvestment makes them doubly important.

I have been raising the issue of underinvestment in the Ards Peninsula's roads for some time, and the Minister for Regional Development's answer to a question tabled by me on 12 March 2002 revealed its true extent. In 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 the amounts spent by the Department on roads in the boroughs of Ards and Castlereagh that comprise my constituency of Strangford tell a sorry tale. In the three successive years £453,000, £204,000 and £297,000 respectively was spent on roads in the borough of Ards. In the same years, £1,431,000, £408,000 and £1,167,000 was spent on the roads in Castlereagh. That means that a total of £954,000 was invested in the Ards roads in the three-year period compared to some £2,500,000 in the Castlereagh roads. Broadly, Castlereagh received 75% of the investment, while Ards received only 25%.

Although I welcome the level of investment in Castlereagh, which is part of my constituency, I am alarmed at the year-after-year disparity between Castlereagh and Ards. Recurring disparities such as that soon build into major disadvantage, and Ards is approaching that situation.

I am surprised that the Minister is not sensitive about this, as Castlereagh is his home territory and political stamping ground. It is only recently that his family interests have expanded, albeit temporarily, into Strangford. I would have thought that in the interests of the Minister's own domestic bliss and harmony, he might listen to his lady wife, who represents Strangford at Westminster - at least for the time being. I am surprised that the Minister can stand over such a massive disparity in spending on roads in two adjacent borough council areas.

What is even more revealing is the fact, again gleaned from the Minister's answer to my question, that Ards Borough Council receives only 1% of Province-wide spending on roads. That happens year after year. There are 26 district councils, so that amounts to an average spend of around 4% in each council area, yet Ards receives only 1%. When that is compounded year after year, it amounts to disadvantage. The Minister's argument that roads policy is decided Province-wide and is linked to traffic flow, the number of accidents, environmental impact and value for money is all very well. Those are factors in mitigation, but they are not substantive enough to explain the glaring 3:1 disparity in spending on roads in two adjacent borough council areas. I welcome the spending on roads in Castlereagh. However, that disparity between the Ards average and the provincial average and the fact that an adjacent borough received three times as much as Ards must be explained.

Traffic flows on the Ards Peninsula must be addressed strategically before they inevitably worsen as a result of growing populations in key towns. The balance between business traffic, such as prawn and fish lorries from Portavogie, and domestic traffic that uses the A20 as its main route must also be addressed. Patterns of road utilisation - why the A20 is favoured over the Irish Sea coast road, for example - must be investigated. However, nothing beats investment. The Minister knows that, and so does the House. It seems that Ards has been left behind by all the standards of fairness. The Assembly must seek a commitment from the Minister that that will be addressed urgently.

I request investment for the A20 Newtownards to Portaferry road. That encompasses several roads along the Ards Peninsula. Those of us who use the A20 several times a day know that the road is notoriously dangerous, with its sharp corners and sweeping bends. Many residents are loath to use the road at night. Imagine one's travel or activities being restricted because the main local road is too dangerous to travel at night.

The road is also dangerous in the rush hours: first thing in the morning and between 5.00 pm and 7.00 pm. A few months ago a car and its lady driver ended up on the lough shore. Luckily for that lady, the tide was out, or there could have been another fatality. In the past few months there have been two fatalities on the A20, and our thoughts are with those families who lost loved ones. The lady's car ended up on the lough shore because there were no defensive barriers. She had to be cut free from the wreckage. The problem is compounded by the fact that the emergency services also use the A20 to reach people who have been injured. The road has received little investment in the past 20 years.

Mr McCarthy has suggested that a pedestrian crossing is needed in Kircubbin. There have also been requests for pedestrian crossings at other locations, such as Greyabbey and Ballywalter.

Greyabbey is on the A20; Ballywalter is on the other side of the peninsula. There have been requests for pedestrian crossings but they have not yet been acceded to, primarily because of legal criteria on pedestrian crossings. Perhaps the Minister could inform us of the position on pedestrian crossings and whether there is any intention of changing those criteria so that the people who have requested, and badly need, pedestrian crossings in Greyabbey, Kircubbin and Ballywalter can have their requests met.

The same thing applies to traffic-management schemes. Local groups and elected representatives have requested that traffic-management schemes be put in place, again for Greyabbey and Ballywalter. Unfortunately, the necessary finance has not yet been forthcoming. The A20 has been given what I call "reactionary repairs", which usually means patching up potholes and erecting defence barriers at accident black spots.

There has been very little concerted effort to bring the road into the twenty-first century. The volume of traffic is increasing, and as cars become more affordable as they come into line with European prices, it can only be assumed that there will be more cars in the future. Therefore, it would seem impossible for the Government not to spend money on the country's infrastructure to keep up with the demands of the people. The infrastructure is at least 20 years out of date. The A20 has had little significant investment since the early 1980s. That is evident by the state of the road. The surface has been tinkered with, but there has been no significant work, such as road-widening.

The road floods at many places, and heavy rainfall makes it treacherous. If there is a storm, the road is closed because it is too dangerous to use. Waves from Strangford Lough crash onto the road, and sections of it have been eaten away by the storms, wind and tides that occur at certain times of the year. Closure of the road, as experienced this year, leaves many people stranded, adding at least 30 or 40 minutes to each journey, because drivers must use an alternative road down the middle of the Ards Peninsula. That can cause great difficulties in medical emergencies.

People's lives have been, and continue to be, put at risk because of the lack of investment in the A20. A delay in the arrival of the emergency services because of the poor quality of the road or its closure could mean that someone who has suffered a stroke, heart attack or seizure, or even someone who has been involved in a traffic accident, does not get the urgent attention that they need.

The situation is compounded by the fact - and this is not the Minister's responsibility - that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will not set up an ambulance outstation on the peninsula, leaving it to be covered by the Ards depot, which must use the A20, which is sometimes cut off from Newtownards. If the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not prepared to help the people of the lower peninsula, we urge the Minister for Regional Development to use his Department's influence to try to ensure that that scheme goes ahead.

Investment is needed to ensure that the A20 is accessible and safe for all. The maintenance budget for the past 10 years has remained almost unchanged. Although the volume of traffic and demands on the road have increased, it is a pity that the money that is needed simply to maintain the road - not to build a new road - has not matched those demands. The road must be made safe and user-friendly and must be able to withstand the increasing volume of traffic not just over the past 20 years, but also over the next 20 years.

The road will carry more and more tourists. Ards Borough Council is committed to a tourism policy, and more tourists are visiting as a result. If more tourists should come to the country, we will try to attract them to the peninsula's shores. It is therefore imperative that visitors have a safe, modern road when they visit what we believe are some of the most historic and beautiful sites in Northern Ireland. For those of us who live in the area, Strangford Lough is undoubtedly the jewel in the crown of the Ards Peninsula, if not the whole of Northern Ireland.

There are roads dating back to the 1970s and 1980s. More infrastructure investment is needed, especially on the A20, so that we can make the most of the area and improve the overall impression of the country and the area that we represent.

I thank Kieran McCarthy for bringing this matter up. I have clocked up hundreds of thousands of miles on that road over the past 40 years, and I know every corner and every twist and turn in it.

All of us could describe horrific accidents that have occurred on the road. If the statistics were made known, and given the length of the road, it is probably one of the greatest accident black spots in the Province. Many of my constituents refer to it as "the highway to hell" because of the numbers of fatalities that have occurred and the number of people who have been severely injured and who will have to be cared for for the rest of their lives.

Regarding the condition of the road - apart from its dangerous corners and twists - public transport providers have said that vehicles using the A20 require more frequent replacement of suspension and shock absorbers than those on any other route throughout the Province. That is a fair indication of the poor condition of the A20.

The condition of the road, coupled with underinvestment in road infrastructure on the Ards Peninsula and the massive development that is taking place along its length and breadth, makes a very dangerous cocktail. The A20 cannot deal with the current volume of traffic.

It would be interesting if the Department were to examine the number of planning applications that have been approved in the last four or five years, together with those currently coming on stream. Mr Hamilton referred to 7,000 new dwellings in the Ards area, and few people know that many of those houses are being built between the floodgates and Portaferry.

A disproportionate number of houses are being built at the tip of the Ards Peninsula; there are plans to build between 900 and 1,200 dwellings close to my home. If we accept that there are two cars per dwelling - and few families have fewer than two cars: families with growing children sometimes have more - there is the potential for many thousands more vehicles to be thrown onto those roads in the coming years.

The Planning Service needs to address the problem immediately. People in the villages, towns and hamlets on both sides of the Ards Peninsula must demand answers from the Planning Service about why it can continue to approve large-scale building developments when it is known that the road and sewerage infrastructures are not capable of dealing with the current situation. Developers are driving a coach and horses through the legislation.

All Members, especially those who serve on Ards Borough Council, know that developers deliberately avoid public inquiries into some large-scale developments by submitting their planning applications piecemeal. They apply for planning permission for 100 dwellings or fewer, rather than for the full number of dwellings that they intend to develop. I do not know how, but that must be addressed. It must be made clear that the Planning Service will place a moratorium on large-scale building developments on the Ards Peninsula until the infrastructure has been dealt with. No one is grasping the nettle.

Before anything happens, we shall hear of more fatalities. I appeal to those with responsibility to give top priority to the Newtownards to Portaferry road; it deserves nothing less.

I congratulate Mr McCarthy on securing the Adjournment debate and for raising an important subject that is of concern to all Members from his constituency.

The A20 from Newtownards to Portaferry, which is 19 miles long, is, as Mr McCarthy stated, sinuous in nature, following as it does for much of its length the inside coast of the Ards Peninsula. It is the main route servicing the peninsula, and passes through the villages of Greyabbey and Kircubbin. It carries a two-way traffic flow and is the main distributor road southwards on the Ards Peninsula.

Traffic flow decreases towards Portaferry. Although the most recent data shows that the traffic level just south of Newtownards stands at about 10,400 vehicles a day, at the Portaferry end it decreases to 2,700 vehicles a day. The road is a standard single carriageway on which the 60 miles an hour national speed limit applies - except through the villages to which I referred, where a 30 miles an hour speed limit applies. A large amount of holiday and leisure traffic uses the route at weekends and during the summer months. It is, therefore, an important road and commuter route for those who live on the peninsula. Although passing opportunities are severely limited by the road's alignment, and slow-moving vehicles can cause driver frustration, no specific congestion occurs on the route.

The Roads Service recently carried out several improvement schemes on the route, directed at road safety. They include an environmental improvement scheme, costing £110,000, that was substantially completed in Greyabbey earlier this year. In addition to environmental aspects, that scheme also improved the profile of Lower Main Street and incorporated carriageway resurfacing, street lighting, a short length of footpath at the local primary school and improved signing to show the school's proximity to the carriageway. I have noted some of Mr McCarthy's criticisms, and I shall consider them.

Mr McCarthy also criticised the traffic-calming scheme that was completed in Kircubbin last month at a cost of £18,000. The scheme included the provision of entry gateway features, lay-by central road markers, kerb buildouts, colour surfacing and signing. I shall consider the Member's criticism of the kerb buildouts.

A scheme costing £10,000 to provide higher friction surfacing and a crash barrier at a bend at Ballygarvan was completed in September 2001, and an £8,000 improvement scheme at Kelly's Corner was completed in September 1999. In addition to those improvement schemes, during the past seven years the Roads Service has resurfaced, or surface-dressed, some five miles between Newtownards and Portaferry. That is about a quarter of the 19-mile route. That work cost approximately £300,000.

I was privileged to launch the new ferry, the MV Portaferry II, for the Strangford Lough ferry service last January. That was paid for by the Roads Service budget for the area. The new vessel cost approximately £2·7 million and was essential for the development of social and economic links between the Ards Peninsula and south Down.

As Members are aware, the resources available for the roads programme are finite, and funds for major road improvements are being targeted largely at schemes to upgrade the regional strategic transport network as defined in the regional development strategy. I would point out to Members who criticise the proposed regional transportation strategy - because we have not had that strategy yet - that there are no specific schemes for the area. The regional development strategy, which was unanimously supported by the Assembly, did not include the A20, so the Roads Service has no plans to upgrade the route significantly. The Roads Service recognised that it had to concentrate on the regional strategic transport network as opposed to other roads.

Resources available for those schemes would not permit a comprehensive realignment scheme, so any changes to the A20 would have to be carried out through minor road improvements or road maintenance schemes. That will require the Department to look at several issues, such as the realignments and accident reviews. We would also look at temporary calming assessment proposals as well as targeting accident sites for possible re-engineering. In that context, the Roads Service is assessing the feasibility of a bend realignment scheme at Ballygarvan. If the scheme is viable, it will be considered for possible inclusion in the future minor works programme. The Roads Service also plans to surface-dress a three quarter mile section of the A20 north of the Cunningham Road and south of the Mountstewart Road later this year.

Considering that it is not part of the regional strategic network, I trust that the investments that I have mentioned illustrate that my Department will continue to be committed to doing what is possible in the area using the available resources.

I would like to respond to some of the specific points raised in the debate. Mr McCarthy mentioned compensation, and that is always a matter of concern for those who seek compensation because their vehicles have been damaged but who do not automatically get it through the Department. However, that is only the first stage of the process, and people can challenge any decision by the Department for Regional Development in the courts. The Department has been severely criticised for paying out directly and without testing claims. It was criticised by the Westminster Public Accounts Committee in one case for meeting compensation claims. The Department is required to have objective criteria to determine whether payments are made.

The Member also asked the rhetorical question about where the car tax goes. However, he moved on quickly because I suspect he knows the answer. The money goes to the Exchequer; unfortunately, not to the Department for Regional Development. However, there has been some talk, although it has not amounted to much, that there will be some direct hypothecation for car tax. That would be desirable.

Mr Hamilton, the Member for Strangford, made a mean-spirited statement that did not relate to the subject, but as he has put it on the public record it is right that it should be answered. It is curious that someone who sneaked into the Assembly through the back door and who has no mandate to be here would call someone a temporary Member, even though that Member has been elected by the people and has a clear majority at Westminster.

The Member is more likely than any elected representative to be given that label. He was obviously never an accountant and is incapable of understanding statistics, or he would not have made those remarks. Those Strangford electors who live in Castlereagh will be interested to note how little he cares for their welfare. Those who live in Ards will not consider him to have done them any favours when they realise the way in which he mangled the statistics to reach that conclusion. If he had looked at the Roads Service budget for the Ards area as a whole, he would have seen that expenditure over the past three years has been greater in Ards than in Castlereagh. However, the Member managed to exclude parts of the roads budget, such as the expenditure on the Strangford ferry. He should not demean that, because it is only by its inclusion in the budget as a "road extension" that it can be paid for by the Department for Regional Development.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way in a moment, but first I will really give the Member something to answer.

In addition, the Member did not bother to mention that I announced my Department's intention to construct the Comber bypass at the cost of some £3 million to £4 million. If he were to add that to his figures, he might well find that it would be the people of Castlereagh who would be asking why they were getting the rough end of the stick. I will give way to the Member, and I hope that he has more sense this time.

Does the Minister accept that the figures that I gave were from a written answer, provided by his Department?

No, I do not accept that. Those figures were only part of the answer. If the Member cannot take the information in by listening, he might like to read it in the report of the proceedings. If he had listened to what I said, he would know that the total expenditure is greater than the sum of the figures that he added together. If he were to look at the total roads expenditure - rather than only the items that he decided to take into account - he would see that Ards comes ahead of Castlereagh.

As I pointed out to him, the further expenditure that has been announced by the Department for Regional Development for the Comber bypass will put Ards well ahead of Castlereagh. Therefore when those figures are produced for him, I hope that the Member will show as much interest in the Castlereagh electors of Strangford as he does in the Ards electors of Strangford.

The distribution of expenditure is decided objectively by the Roads Service professionals on the basis of the needs in the various areas of the Province. If the Member does not like money being spent on the regional strategic transport network, he will have to explain to his constituents why the Assembly unanimously supported it. I did not hear any voice from Strangford saying that it was the wrong policy to adopt.

It is also important to say that there has been a significant increase in the proposals for the Strangford constituency since devolution. I have heard no words of thanks or praise from the Member for the substantial increase since devolution and since I have had responsibility for the Department. It contrasts with the negligence during the years when his party had the Strangford parliamentary seat and, therefore, the responsibility for bringing infrastructural improvements into the area.

Various Members, including Mr Cedric Wilson and Mr Jim Shannon, spoke about road safety in the constituency, and it is a matter of significant concern. Believe it or not, I could quote the professional findings of the comparative road safety record for this area, as opposed to the rest of the Province. The figure is almost exactly the same as the Province-wide average, which is not a particularly high level. However, Members are right to say that it is still high. The road accident statistics for Northern Ireland are much higher than any Government Minister would find acceptable, and, therefore, we must deal with the problem.

We therefore have a policy. Road accidents occur for many different reasons. Road accidents are not always the fault of the road and are not always something that can be dealt with by a Minister. One determines whether it is the fault of the road by looking at road accident clusters. A cluster is a series of accidents that have occurred at the same spot over three years. However, there are no clusters on the peninsula. There have been several accidents, but they have not followed any particular locational pattern, which makes it more difficult to get an engineering response.

The issue raised by Cedric Wilson with regard to what I would describe as "incremental development" is a sleight of hand and is not restricted to developers on the peninsula. Many developers across the Province attempt to avoid any major infrastructural improvement by putting in a lower level of houses for development. Although the number they put in might be dealt with by the existing road network or by some minor changes to it, they still have to bring forward their further proposals. Those are then factored into the requirements for the infrastructure. If the two proposals together require major improvements, then the second part of their development must carry that infrastructural cost. Although they may get away in the smoke in the first instance, when they come back for the full scheme they will be caught.

My Department's Roads Service will always give advice to the Department of the Environment's Planning Service on these issues. However, as Minster, I am not satisfied with the present arrangements for developer contributions. Changes are required, not just for roads but for water as well. The proposed regional transport strategy has a section dealing with funding through developer contributions, and we need to look at these issues.

Mr Shannon made the point about pedestrian crossings. Both he and Mr McCarthy have raised the issue of a pedestrian crossing in this area with me, and I have agreed to look at this. Even with the technical advice I get, I find it very difficult to unravel the formula for pedestrian crossings, which is almost like an algebraic formula. If we are going to make people believe that we are following objective criteria, we require objective criteria that they understand. We need to get the road-speak out of the formula so that people can understand how the decisions are taken - what is the factor that can cause a change in the decision to put a pedestrian crossing in place or not. I am happy to look at that issue so that we can have a formula that is more easily understood and has greater public confidence.

Finally, I am aware that the Member of Parliament for the area has been seeking a meeting to look at these issues, and I will ensure that this meeting is set up and processed. We can arrange a site visit, as it is always much better to see these issues first-hand. We can then see what steps can be taken beyond those I have already referred to.

<< Prev