I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue tonight. I notice that the last time I raised the issue of roads in the south-west on the Adjournment it was at 11.15 pm, so tonight’s timing is slightly better.

Although the title of my debate on the Order Paper is “Strategic routes in the South West”, I hope to reduce the scope of that a little, as it would be a very large subject. One might have a debate about the rail system in the west country, which is desperately in need of investment to meet the demands on it, or about the motorway system. I want to concentrate my comments, however, on the A303 in my constituency and the strategic routes between the south coast and Bristol and Bath. I will try desperately to put out of my mind the fact that, because of the Glastonbury festival traffic, it took me four hours to drive from my constituency this morning along the said A303. Indeed, it is not capacity or journey times that I want to concentrate on, but rather safety and the quality of life for people who live in my constituency.

The particular stretch of the A303 that most interests me is between Sparkford and Ilchester. It horrifies me to realise that I have been talking at intervals about that stretch of road, which is only 3½ miles long, for the 10 years that I have been in the House and before that as a county councillor. We went through a long process immediately prior to my entering the House in 1997, when the then Government produced plans for safety improvements on that stretch. They were put to local people and went through a public inquiry. The public inquiry satisfied itself that there were no overwhelming environmental problems or problems with local concerns about the plans.

That was different from other parts of the A303. There was considerable concern about the implications of schemes to increase capacity over the Blackdowns, and we have a continuing problem with what can be done at Stonehenge. However, there was a general realisation that there could be a significant improvement in the safety of the stretch of road from Sparkford to Ilchester by dualling it, and that that could be done without an excessive take of land and reasonably inexpensively.

The scheme got caught in the moratorium on road building as the new Government took office in 1997. We then entered into what I have learned to call the south-west area multi-modal study—the so-called SWARMMS report—which looked at the whole length of the A303, and there it stayed. I have raised the issue at regular intervals since then. When I did so in 1998, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), gave me a learned dissertation on Stonehenge and why I should care more about it than about my constituents. I do care about Stonehenge, but I was interested in safety improvements between Sparkford and Podimore.

Every time we have raised the issue since 1997 we have seen an ever-receding prospect of action. Why do we need action? It is a stretch of road where the A303 changes from a dual carriageway to a single carriageway and back to a dual carriageway. There is a pinchpoint. It carries a significant amount of traffic. I have said before that the A303 carries more traffic than many motorways, particularly in the summer season, when there is a great deal of holiday traffic, much of which, for some reason, wants to go to Devon and Cornwall. I cannot understand why entirely, but it does, and it goes through Somerset. There is also a lot of locally induced traffic from the Glastonbury festival, the Yeovilton air show and local events of that kind.

The other critical factor is the distance of the stretch of road from London and the far south-west. It is at the point when drivers start to get tired and lose their concentration. According to information that I have been given by the Highways Agency, the sad consequence of that is that there have been 18 deaths and 68 serious injuries on that short, 3½ mile stretch. That is significant.

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. I hope that he agrees that there is another reason for taking the steps that he advocates: the effect lower down on the A35 on the south coast, where my constituents suffer from an excess of through traffic which could be relieved to a considerable extent by dealing with pinchpoints on the A303.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know the details of the situation that he describes in Dorset, but I am well aware of the case for establishing the A303 as the second strategic route—as I am told I must call it. Sometimes I am told that I must call it policy TR3 of the regional spatial strategy. All those acronyms denote the fact that it is a very important road and something needs to be done.

Apparently, that stretch of road will not be done before 2016 at the earliest. The implication is that if the problems of Stonehenge—which I understand is a difficult conundrum, given that a world heritage site is right next to a trunk road—cannot be satisfactorily resolved, nothing will be done along the entire length of the A303. We have proposals for a single scheme, which should not be included in the whole scheme for the length of the A303 but judged on its merits. Those merits suggest, in safety terms and for the sake of saving lives, that it is justified. It concerns me greatly that it will be held up by circumstances beyond the control of anyone who is making the case for it. Those circumstances include the Stonehenge issues and the problem of investing in the A358 as the other leg that brings the traffic from the A303 back to the M5. I ask the Minister whether we can look again at the safety record of that short stretch of road and how we can improve it. We cannot reasonably and responsibly wait until 2016 for something to be done.

The other outstanding issue on the A303 is the noise-reduction surface, which we were faithfully promised by the Highways Agency would be in place four years ago. For the sake of their quality of life, people who live in close proximity to a road that for all intents and purposes is carrying the traffic of a motorway, in places such as Blackford, Holton, Maperton and Compton Pauncefoot, have been desperately waiting for a change in the surface. They are sadly disappointed that it has not been done yet.

I thought that the subject of the second strategic route was opaque, but BB2SC—as I am told I must call the other route—is even more obscure. BB2SC does not yet exist but will be the road that will connect the south coast ports of Poole and Southampton with Bristol and Bath and, therefore, the motorway network to the north. The difficulty at the moment is that we have not identified that key strategic route. The consequence of that is that heavy goods vehicles leaving those ports—and we are told that both ports will be expanded—take totally unsuitable routes north. They choose different routes, one of which is the A357 through Dorset into the Blackmore vale and, in my constituency, through villages such as Henstridge and Templecombe. I cannot imagine villages that would be less suitable for heavy goods vehicles, given the width of the carriageway, the fact that buildings are very close to the road on each side, and the sharp bends. They are totally unsuitable for lorries of any size.

In addition, Templecombe has a low railway bridge and, every month or so, a lorry gets stuck under it. I was in Templecombe only three or four weeks ago and a lorry got stuck. It got squashed under the bridge about 20 minutes after Abbas and Templecombe primary school had finished its day. Had that happened 20 minutes earlier, the pavement under the bridge would have been full of primary-age children. That is unsatisfactory, dangerous, and could be completely avoided if we had a proper strategic route, with all the necessary signage, to take lorries away. The road is supposed be an A route, but it is incapable of taking that sort of traffic.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that satellite navigation plays a part with the lorries? My constituency is rural, like his, and I too have seen more problems with lorries. It seems that satnav gives drivers the most direct route, but using some of the most inappropriate roads possible.

I am so glad that the hon. Lady has asked that question, as the next word on my notes is “satnav”. She is right; in the case that I described, the Slovenian driver was using satnav. As a result, he followed an unsuitable road. Satnav navigation systems are fine, in their place, and they have a value, but far too many heavy goods vehicles—especially those driven by foreign drivers—seem to use inappropriate devices intended for cars rather than heavy goods vehicles. In any case, the HGV satnav programs do not show clearly enough the unsuitability of some roads. For instance, the driver of a delivery lorry tried to make a delivery right next to my office in Frome. He went down a cobbled street in Sheppards Barton in Frome and met a flight of steps—that was where the satnav had sent him, but that is not an entirely satisfactory routing system.

I raised this matter with the Minister in October, in an Adjournment debate held by the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt). We heard some promising news about what the Government were doing about satnav, so I wonder whether he can update the House about that this evening. He said then that the consultation about the Government’s proposals was to end on 9 January this year. We should therefore have some firm proposals about what should be done, but it seems to me that we should translate the suitability of roads and the various obstacles on them on to a commonly agreed, pan-European satnav format which HGV drivers must use. In that way, all drivers can use the same basis of information, and lorries can be prevented from using unsuitable roads.

I conclude by saying that I want the upgrade of the A303 linking Sparkford, Ilchester and Podimore recognised as something that can be done soon. It has already gone through public inquiries, so we know the arguments and issues involved and that the upgrade will save lives. I also want to ensure that we identify a proper north-south route from the south coast ports to Bristol and Bath, with the result that lorries do not use grossly unsuitable roads. I also want to know what has happened to the noise-reducing resurfacing of the A303 in my constituency. I was promised that, but the money seems to have been moved elsewhere.

Finally, I want to know what is to be done about satnav. We need a system that is more suitable for users and which stops lorry drivers from finding themselves in absurd positions. Most importantly, a proper satnav system will improve the quality of life of my constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members in the area.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate and making his constituents’ concerns so clear to the House. In the next few minutes, I hope to be able to give him the information, if not the comfort, that he seeks.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the A303 is an important trunk road, and part of the strategic route from London to Exeter. Much of it is already dual carriageway, but he was right to say that there remain a number of single-carriageway sections, including the stretch between Sparkford and Ilchester in his constituency. The A303 serves local, regional and longer distance traffic and, as he said, it is a popular holiday route to the south-west. It is also an important route for businesses from Somerset, Devon and Cornwall.

The single carriageway sections are often congested during the summer months as the road provides the most direct route to the south-west for tourists from London and the south-east. The main alternative to the road is the longer M4 and M5 route around Bristol, but as we all know there is increasing pressure and congestion on the M4 and M5, too. It is against that background that we accepted the conclusion of the London to south-west and south Wales multi-modal study that, in transport terms, there is a strong case for the whole of the A303 route to be improved, which would provide a second high quality dual carriageway road from London to the south-west.

However, we have to recognise that dualling the remaining single carriageway sections of the A303, and the necessary upgrading of the A358 from Ilminster to the M5, would involve a number of expensive schemes. In a world of finite resources we must ensure that our transport investment is focused on the most important priorities. That is why in July 2005 we asked the south-west region for advice on transport priorities, within an indicative funding allocation for major schemes in the south-west.

The regional funding allocations process, for the first time, has given regions a say in decision making about transport schemes that affect them. The RFA process is an opportunity for people in the region to work together to develop a realistic, prioritised and affordable transport investment programme, to support the region’s high level objectives for jobs, the economy, housing and the environment. It is central to our thinking that regions are better placed than the men and women of Whitehall to advise decision makers on how transport can help make regions into even better places. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome that approach.

We are backing the RFA process with massively increased investment funding. We have increased our annual spending on such schemes by 50 per cent. since 2001-02; for example, the Highways Agency has invested £92 million to improve the A30 between Bodmin and Indian Queens—a scheme that, subject to events later this week, I hope to open on 11 July. In addition, £16 million is being spent on improving the Commonhead junction on the A419 in Swindon. The agency is spending £42 million to provide a much needed bypass for Dobwalls on the A38 in Cornwall and £65 million constructing the Blunsdon bypass, also on the A419 near Swindon.

I hope the Minister will appreciate that two schemes in Cornwall and two in Swindon are not likely to impress my constituents greatly.

I shall come on to how the hon. Gentleman’s constituents could address that issue in the near future.

We intend to provide almost £865 million over the next 10 years for regionally significant transport schemes in the south-west. I hope that figure might impress the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. However, he and others have suggested that we are not making enough money available in the south-west. That was certainly the suggestion made when prioritisation took place; some people claimed that there was no way to prioritise the Ilchester to Sparkford improvement.

As I have told the House on a number of occasions, I hear similar arguments from every region in relation to many other schemes, which makes me think that we have been pretty fair in dividing the pot between regions. It could be argued that the regional pot should be bigger, but then it would have to be made clear where the money would come from—what tax would be raised or what other investment would be cut. We have to be realistic. The Government do not have unlimited funds and sometimes tough choices have to be made. The RFA process helps us to make those choices in the best and most sensible way. Following its advice, the south-west region assigned funding to a total of 31 schemes in the period to 2016. The region advised us that the Ilchester to Sparkford improvement may well prove to be a long-term priority but should not come forward before 2016.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) makes a good point about the section of road he is talking about. The Minister talks about other regional needs. I have driven all over the country over a number of years and in the midlands or the north I drive on motorways or dual carriageways. Very rarely do I have to drive on long sections of single carriageway, as I do in the south-west. Does the Minister accept that the south-west has been deprived of funding in the past and that there is a need for the Stonehenge link, the section of road that my hon. Friend mentioned and other links through to the south-west, so that the south-west can improve its economy, as other areas have in the past?

Of course I can understand why Members from the south-west want these investments. Were I in their position, I would probably be arguing for the same thing. However, I find it a bit rich that when I take part in Adjournment debates with Liberal Democrats they spend the evening telling me that the road scheme in their constituency is a priority and must go ahead. On other occasions, they tell me that we should not build any more roads and that we should concentrate on other initiatives. They really cannot have it both ways.

I have not done that.

I will give the hon. Gentleman a list of Liberal Democrat MPs who are constantly telling me and the newspapers that we are not nearly green enough and that we should not build any more roads—except of course for the roads in their constituency. The fact of the matter is that there was a certain amount of money to be distributed around the country. We asked the regions how we should distribute it. The formula was agreed. It was allocated to those regions and then we asked the regions to do their best to prioritise within that envelope. We have taken their advice. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a Liberal Democrat, would welcome the fact that we took local advice.

One of the road projects that has been agreed in principle and that the Minister mentioned earlier is the dualling of the A358 between Ilminster and the M5. Many people in my constituency would welcome that because it would ease congestion and make that stretch of road safer. However, there are real concerns among the residents of Blackbrook in Taunton about the proposed loop design, which would take northbound traffic off the M5 and onto the new A358. They are unhappy about that because it would mean the loss of a playing field, it would be ugly, and it would add to noise pollution and other pollution. Can the Minister update us on whether it is possible to have the new stretch of the A358 dualled without those adverse effects on the residents of Blackbrook in Taunton?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that sort of information this evening. I can certainly investigate the matter and write to him setting out the latest position. I can assure him that we are keen to work with stakeholders and local communities to identify designs for schemes that have the least possible negative impact on local communities. If there is a way of building the scheme that does not add to the cost and is just as effective, but does not have those negative consequences, we will look at it. I will happily write to him about that.

To return to the regional funding allocation process, I understand that hon. Members may be disappointed about the outcome, but, nevertheless, we accepted the region’s advice. We have asked those involved in the regional funding allocation to look at their priorities again and come back to us next year to tell us whether those priorities have changed. I put it to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, his colleagues on the Back Benches, and hon. Members across the House that if they do not like the priorities that their region has come up with, they have the opportunity over the next year to work within their local region to win over people’s hearts and minds to a reprioritisation process. We would be just as delighted to accept that advice as we were to accept the original advice.

Let me deal with the safety concerns that the hon. Gentleman has alluded to, in particular in respect of the Ilchester and Sparkford section. The level of accidents on that stretch is not significantly higher than the average for trunk roads. The national average is 16 personal injury accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometres and the rate for that section of road is 16.72. However, that is not an argument for not taking other opportunities to improve safety when we can do so sensibly. We thus recently invested £450,000 in safety improvements at the Podimore roundabout. Although it is still only a year since the scheme was introduced, the early indications are encouraging. The number of accidents has dropped from an average of 19.25 a year, as measured over a four-year period, to just six in 2006, which was the first year of the scheme’s operation.

Let me turn to noise levels. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the A303 to be resurfaced. I understand his constituents’ distress about the problem, but highways are resurfaced to maintain their safety. We do not have the resources to resurface highways simply to reduce noise. When the highway needs to be resurfaced for purposes of maintenance or safety, quieter materials will be used. However, these days we do not resurface in advance of a need for maintenance.

Concern was expressed about the inappropriate use by heavy goods vehicles of the A37, which provides a link between Dorchester and Bristol, and the A350/A36, which provides a link between Poole and Bath. Somerset county council is responsible for those roads. It says that it aims to discourage the use of those unsuitable routes through dialogue and publicity, and, when necessary, by introducing weight restrictions. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that those measures are working, I am afraid that he needs to take up the matter with Somerset county council, rather than with me.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) raised an important point about satellite navigation. I am not in a position to update the information that I gave in the Adjournment debate to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred. However, we are determined to do something about the inappropriate use of satellite navigation. It is ridiculous that the drivers of lorries and heavy goods vehicles are using car-based satellite navigation systems and ending up with the sort of problems that he identified. We are analysing the results of our consultation and we will come forward with proposals on how to deal with the situation as soon as we can.

I am sure that I have not given the hon. Gentleman the comfort that he was seeking. However, I hope that he will re-engage with the regional prioritisation process over the next 12 months to find out whether he can influence the local area’s priorities. I will certainly let the House know that we are in a position to say what we will do about satellite navigation and the use of inappropriate roads by heavy goods vehicles as soon as the information is available.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o’clock.