§ Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Prime Minister if he can state when the House will have an opportunity of discussing the work of the Road Board?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)I am not able to make a statement at present.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing it has been repeatedly stated in this House and outside by Members of the Government that the Road Development Grant would relieve the rates of expenditure other than ordinary maintenance of roads, which would otherwise fall upon them, he will explain why the Road Board demand an expenditure from the rates in addition to any grant that they make?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)Road Board grants reduce the amounts which would otherwise be payable out of the rates in the case of works of road improvement with which local authorities desire to proceed.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Road Board, when they sanction a grant for the remaking or re-facing of a county main road, require the county to give them credit for the value of the partly worn surface which is covered or destroyed by the authorised improvement or alteration, and that this credit is in addition to the proportion of the entire contribution which the county is required to provide out of the local rates; and whether, in every such case, the Government will secure that the grant of the Road Board shall be forthcoming if the county authority is prepared to make its usual annual expenditure upon the particular lengths of road included in the improvement scheme before refacing them with the improved material required by the Road Board?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Road Board, when they contribute to re-surfacing roads with improved materials, take into account the saving to highway authorities arising from the replacing of an old worn-out surface by a better and more durable wearing surface. The Road Board are unable to make a grant towards the cost of re-surfacing unless the highway authority desires to use improved methods and materials, and makes application for a contribution towards the net cost of improvement without seeking to apply the grant indirectly to reduce the necessary maintenance expenditure on other unassisted roads on which no improvements are being carried out.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTIs it not unfair to charge the local authorities in addition to their normal annual expenditure of maintenance on roads?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is an argumentative question.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the system adopted by the Road Board of making their contributions out of the Road Improvement Fund to county councils subject to a proportionate contribution charged upon the county rates, in addition to their annual expenditure upon the repair of main roads, results in reluctance on the part of the ratepayers' representatives to any expenditure upon the improvement of their roads for through motor traffic in every case where there is a low rateable value and a high mileage of county main roads; and whether, seeing that the original purpose of the Development and Road Improvement Act to provide a national road fund for the benefit and at the expense of motorists may be defeated by these conditional grants if different sections of the same main road are improved or not according to the inclination of the county through which it passes to throw an additional burden in respect of it upon its ratepayers, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe cost of works of useful road improvement, which local authorities throughout the country are anxious to carry out so greatly exceeds the amount of the Road Improvement Fund, and the applications for contributions are so general and numerous that the contingency suggested in the question does not appear likely to arise.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXCould it not be more fair to the various local authorities that those who can least afford to carry out improvements should be most assisted?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThat seems to be a matter of opinion: not of fact.