---

A419 and A417

I shall be honest with the hon. Gentleman: he makes a good point. The regional funding allocation process, which we have gone through this year for the first time, was an important stepping stone towards devolving decision making to local people and getting their advice. However, it was the first time that we had tried it, and it was difficult to get it right first time. Although by and large the regions did an exceedingly good job, I acknowledge that there were problems, some of which related to schemes on the edge of regions that might not seem of such central importance to the region. Sometimes a scheme might be located in one region but its importance might be to another, so it is not given priority. We have made it clear that, considering that this was the first time we had undertaken the regional funding allocation process, we shall ask the regions to re-examine their priorities some time within the next two years. In that time, we in the Department will examine the process, including such issues as the edge factor to which the hon. Gentleman referred, to see whether we can improve it and make decision making easier. I have a bit of a deal to offer the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for Forest of Dean. I have acknowledged the importance of the scheme in question, and I can see why the hon. Gentleman believes it has national as well as regional importance. The problem might have been my fault, because we divided schemes into the regional and the national before starting the process. Some schemes were in a grey area, and somebody had to decide whether they were national or regional. Two schemes in the west country were put to me as possibilities for being put in the national pot: the M5, which was originally a regional scheme, and the missing link. The M5 was clearly a national scheme, so I put it in the national pot, but I took the view that the missing link was a regional scheme. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is right that I got that wrong, and it is something on which I must reflect. The deal that I wish to offer is as follows: I shall press the Highways Agency to come up with alternatives, try to lower the costs and find the best value for money scheme to deal with the problem. I shall also examine the regional funding allocation process for such schemes and whether we can make it better. In two years’ time I shall ask the regions to reprioritise. That is my part of the deal. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Tewkesbury and for Forest of Dean, irrespective of their views on regional prioritisation and the importance of regional government, to work in the region to make the case for the scheme so that we can push from both ends: winning the case locally by convincing the region that it should make the scheme a higher priority, while I work from my end to find ways to facilitate it. If we do that together, perhaps we can find some way to carry it out before 2016. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentlemen some comfort. I wish briefly to address the matter of concrete road surfaces, which the hon. Member for Cotswold raised. I understand his concern entirely. It must have been a great disappointment to people throughout the country when we had to overturn our original decision to replace concrete road surfaces quickly, but it is simply a matter of money. If I were to spend money on replacing concrete road surfaces ahead of maintenance need, I could not carry out schemes such as the one that he is asking for. That is a conflict for him to consider: if money is going into taking up concrete roads, I cannot do the vital bypass and road improvement schemes that I am being pressed for. We have decided to replace concrete roads with low-noise surfaces when they require maintenance. In the meantime we might be able to consider other noise mitigation measures for the stretch of road in question. I am happy to have the Highways Agency review the situation and examine whether measures can be taken. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not promising that we shall go ahead with his new road.