§ 29. Mr. MATHERSasked the Minister of Transport what policy is being pursued with regard to the proposed Forth road-bridge, near Queensferry; and what is the present position?
§ Mr. PYBUSDiscussions regarding the suggested road-bridge across the Forth at Queensferry were suspended some months ago, owing to the request of the local authorities that investigations should be conducted into the feasibility of constructing a bridge at less cost on a site near Rosyth. In present circum- 1634 stances, however, I should not feel justified in incurring the expense of a preliminary investigation into this alternative project for bridging the Forth.
§ Mr. MATHERSIs the hon. Gentleman not aware that a bridge near Queens-ferry and a bridge near Rosyth are the same thing; and is it not a, fact that the preliminary investigation authorised this bridge, and is that bridge to be proceeded with?
§ Mr. PYBUSThe hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that if you change the site of a bridge even one or two hundred yards, fresh bearings may have to be taken and completely new investigations made. I do not think that at this time, when we have a very limited amount of money to spare, we can afford to spend £1,000 on scientific and engineering investigations which will have to be put into cold storage until it is possible to go on with the scheme if we could spend that same £1,000 keeping people in work on other schemes during the winter.
§ Mr. SHINWELLDoes the Minister of Transport mean that the Government have definitely abandoned this project whatever the views of the local authorities are or may be?
§ Mr. SHINWELLDoes the hon. Gentleman mean by that answer that the bridge has not definitely been abandoned?
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISONDid not the last Government definitely sanction an engineering inquiry into this new scheme; and are we to understand that the new. Government have cancelled and reversed the decision of the late Government on that point?
§ Mr. PYBUSThe investigation of the scheme for constructing the bridge at very much less cost has never been undertaken.
§ Mr. MORRISONThe hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question. Is the Minister of Transport not aware that the first scheme was not in fact ever established to be too expensive; and is it not 1635 a fact that the last Government definitely sanctioned a new engineering inquiry into the later scheme; and are we to understand that the new Government have reversed that decision?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Minister has given four answers already.
§ Mr. MATHERSIn view of the lack of information in the answers given by the Minister of Transport, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.