CLAUSE 1.—(Transfer of trunk roads to Minister of Transport.) (Hansard, 30 November 1936)

§ The CHAIRMAN
The first Amendment I have selected is the third one on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), but I think I ought to say that I had some doubts about selecting this Amendment, because I rather think that the Minister already has these powers. If the hon. Member will move his Amendment and explain its effect shortly, perhaps the Minister will indicate whether he has those powers and may satisfy the hon. Member.

§ Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS
I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after "after," to insert:
"the insertion of notice of his intention in the Press and after."
This Amendment and the other Amendments in my name all have the same general purpose. It is that ordinary persons should have their rights properly protected, and I think that can only be done if they are made aware of the intention of the Minister to take action under Sub-section (3) of this Clause in regard to a new road or the improvement of an existing road. All sorts of people with perfectly legitimate rights and interests may desire to make representations, but it seems to me that they will not have effective power to do so. If it be the case that they are already adequately protected I shall be glad, but I would like to make sure that people who ought to know about these things will be effectively made aware of them, and will have an opportunity of giving expression to their grievances and explaining their difficulties before a final decision is taken.

§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha)
At this stage, when we are going to try by accommodation to make this Bill the best possible Measure to secure its objective, on which I think there is agreement, I will answer the 858 speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) in the spirit in which he moved his Amendment. I think I can remove any apprehensions he may have that those likely to be affected will be left uninformed. The Bill provides that I shall give notice to the council of my intention to construct a by-pass. At that stage, of course, nobody is affected; it is merely the general outline of an intention; there is no route fixed, and therefore no one could possibly give notice. At all the subsequent stages, however, adequate notice is given, and there is adequate provision for securing local public inquiries.
The procedure to be followed is that I shall give notice of my general intention. There is three months' delay in which the matter can be discussed in general terms by the council and a local inquiry can, if necessary, be held. Then an Order is to be made fixing the date at which the exchange of roads is to take place as between the council and the Ministry, and there are powers to vary or revoke the Order in a subsequent Clause. It is only then that individuals could become concerned. I have to give public notice, including an individual notice, to each owner affected of my intention to make an Order empowering me to acquire the land compulsorily. If objections are received which do not relate exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the tribunal by which compensation is to be assessed, I must hold a local inquiry. If no objections are made or if, after inquiry, I am satisfied that the compulsory Order should be made, I may make it. I must notify all the owners concerned and advertise in the local press the fact that I have made the Order, and any person who desires to question its validity may, within two months, go to the High Court.
I think my hon. Friend will agree that he is substantially met in the sense that at all stages where a person's property can be injuriously affected there is provision for objections to be raised and for a local inquiry. Further, there is adequate provision for public notice of my intention to be given. Lastly, there is an additional protection in the fact that, if a standard width is to be fixed, a similar procedure is followed in that everyone on the registers is given notice.
859 I hope, in those circumstances, my hon. Friend will feel satisfied, as I am, that complete justice is done in this matter.

§ Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS
I thank my right hon. Friend for his explanations, but I am afraid I did not follow them as well as I ought, because he did not indicate under which Sections that procedure is to be followed.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
It is under Section 13 of the Ribbon Development Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. MAITLAND
I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after "county," to insert "and borough."
This Amendment deals with a point which has been covered in a more general way by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), but perhaps my Amendment has greater claims for consideration. It is specific and limited. If the Committee will look at Sub-section (3) of the Clause they will find that the Minister takes power to supersede part of a trunk road by another road and before doing so he has to give notice to the county council and to consider any representation which may be made by that council. It seems to me that that accepts the principle that those who are specifically and directly interested shall receive notice from the Minister. What I ask in the Amendment is that a borough, which in certain cases is more directly interested than a county council, and particularly a non-county borough, shall receive from the Minister the same kind of notice which the Bill provides that he shall give to the county council. I ask that on these general grounds: It may be that the diversion of a road has some serious effect upon certain services in which a non-county borough is more directly interested than a county council. For example, the diversion may affect town-planning proposals of a non-county borough, or it may affect some scheme for housing, or in other ways directly and specifically affect the non-county borough more than a county council. I hope that the Minister will not regard my brevity as any indication of the strenght of my desire for the Amendment. I ask him to give the Amendment the most earnest consideration.

§ Mr. WELLS
I wish to support the Amendment, which is of considerable importance to the boroughs concerned. I trust that the Minister will accept it.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I am the last person to think that brevity is any indication of lack of sincerity because, as the Committee are aware, I take considerable pains in trying to eliminate in advance every argument which I consider superfluous. Therefore, I recognise at once that, although my hon. Friend has not occupied very much time on this Amendment, he has a point of view which the Committee would be wise to consider. The Clause requires that where one road is to be superseded by another, notice shall be given to the county council in the area in which the road to be superseded may lie. My hon. Friend wishes the notice of my intention to supersede a road to be given also to every non-county borough within the area. Generally the county council is the proper channel of communication, and I do not wish to disturb the smooth water which runs through the usual channel. I feel that in all these matters it is the county councils which are administratively and financially responsible. In the circumstances I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. The absence of mention of the non-county borough does not in the least mean that the non-county borough will be left unaware of what is happening. The fact that I have informed the county council will presumably induce a discussion in the county council, and in that way the whole of the public will know what is going to happen, but in the ordinary relationship which exists between county councils and claiming authorities I do not think there will be any scope for omission to inform all those who might properly desire to be informed. No slight whatever is intended to the claiming authority, to whom my hon. Friend does not restrict this Amendment. I hope he will allow the machinery of the Bill to function without adding an additional cog.

§ Mr. MAITLAND
Although the statement of the Minister does not quite coincide with the point of view of the local authorities, I do not desire to impede or infringe upon any administrative duty, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. MAITLAND
I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert: (4) Where an order has been made under the last foregoing Sub-section, Section thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1929 (which entitles the councils of certain boroughs and urban districts to claim the functions of maintenance and repair of county roads), shall have effect as if the part of the trunk road to be superseded as aforesaid had become a county road on the date the making of the order, so, however, that any functions of maintenance and repair claimed under the said Section in respect of the said part shall not be exercisable until the date on which it becomes a county road. I have altered the Amendment as it appears on the Paper by substituting for "before the said first day of April," the words "until the date on which it becomes a county road." Even with that alteration I am not quite satisfied that the object which I desire to achieve is achieved, and I would have preferred that the Amendment on the Paper in the name of other hon. Friends had been accepted. But as one is always grateful for any indication that the desires of a private Member are to be met by a large ministerial Department, I have acted on the precept that half a loaf is better than none. In anticipation, I a m much obliged to my right hon. Friend the Minister, because I understand he has indicated that he will give this matter most favourable consideration. I ask him that if, between now and the Report stage, it is found that the words I have suggested do not quite achieve the purpose which is intended, he will reconsider any representations made to him
. Again, in view of the fact that the Clause is likely to be amended, I will be commendably brief and merely point oat that the object of the Amendment is to secure the position of certain local authorities who have certain rights under Section 32 of the Local Government Act of 1929 with regard to the repair and maintenance of roads. Under the Bill the part of the road which is a trunk road is, when superseded by another, cease to be a trunk road and again becomes a county road. There are many councils with a population of over 20,000 who maintain their roads under the 1929 Act, and the object of the Amendment to ensure that when the road in question ceases to be a trunk road and again becomes a county road it shall become a 862 claimed road as if it was a claimed road before the commencement of the Bill. If the Amendment is not accepted I think an injustice will be done such as the Minister would not desire to see. As I understand the Amendment is to be accepted I content myself with moving it.

§ Mr. WELLS
I support the Amendment. There is no doubt that these trunk roads will by-pass some of the boroughs through which the trunk roads have passed before, and these roads which have been under the control of the borough authorities may be left for a time before they come back to the authorities by which they have hitherto been controlled. They ought to come back to the original authority when the Minister does not require them for trunk roads.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
My hon. Friend desires to preserve the status of claiming authorities, a status which it is not proposed to upset in this Bill because the Bill is confined only to consequential Amendments of the highway law on my becoming a highway authority. As I have specifically stated, although I know it does not meet with favour in all quarters, I do not intend to interfere in any way with the status of claiming authorities. It is right that when a road reverts to the status which it occupied before it became a trunk road it should go back to the authority entitled to administer it. That is the purpose of the Amendment, to enable a road claim to revive immediately the road ceases to be a trunk road. I cannot see how, in justice, I could resist an Amendment of that kind, subject to the qualification that my lion. Friend made, that between now and Report I shall consider the actual wording of the Amendment; but in order that my hon. Friend may be in no doubt about my intentions I have great pleasure, on behalf of the Government, in accepting the Amendment.

§ Mr. MAITLAND
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, after "authority," to insert: or was being improved by an authority in the exercise of functions under section thirty-two of the Local Government Act, 1929. 863 As the Bill stands there is some doubt as to whether the highway authority will cover the claiming authority as well. Accordingly, to make the matter abundantly clear, I propose to insert these words.

§ Mr. T. JOHNSTON
I rise to put a question to the Minister on this Clause, in order to give him an opportunity of clarifying the position under these proposals in reference to major bridges. Under this Clause the Minister is taking power to acquire for the Government the main trunk roads specified in the First Schedule. Further, he is taking power to construct new roads where he considers it expedient to do so and to improve existing roads, for the purpose of superseding parts of trunk roads. When we examine the First Schedule to which reference is made in Clause 1, we find no reference whatever to the four major bridge schemes in the country, without which, in our opinion, the national ownership and supervision of the trunk roads system will be ineffective. The first of these schemes to which I refer is that for the bridge over the Severn. The Severn bridge scheme has been a subject of discussion for a long time. We understood that it was approved not only in principle but in detail by the Ministry. The proposed new bridge there was to cost slightly less than 22,500,000. The second major bridge scheme to which no reference whatever is made is the Humber scheme which we know has the approval and consent of the Minister, subject to a proviso contained in a letter written by him to the Town Clerk of Hull on 5th November. In the course of that letter the Minister said that he appreciated the care with which the case for the bridge had been presented and that he had given the greatest consideration to the scheme but he added, that having regard to the overriding importance of the National Defence programme and the demand which that programme would make on the national resources, 864 the Government have come to the conclusion that they would not be justified in embarking upon the execution of these public works at the moment, but this decision does not exclude reconsideration of the scheme at a later date. We are anxious that the Minister should further explain his position in this matter. Are we to understand that, in the meantime at all events, it is the intention of the Government not to proceed with any of these major bridge schemes, without which, as I say, a national trunk road system must fail to be fully effective, and must to a certain extent result in a useless expenditure of public money. In the case of the third scheme to which I refer, that of the proposed bridge over the Tay, the remarkable fact is that we have a specific pledge dating back to 14th October, 1923, when, a statement was made by the late Sir William Joynson-Hicks, as he then was, on behalf of the Government. He said they proposed to construct a road-bridge across the Tay which had already been demanded but which had had to wait for the money. This bridge would be two miles long, and the estimate of the cost was something under £1,000,000. The Dundee Town Council, he added, would provide some of it and the Government would provide a greater portion, and as soon as the Dundee Council and the councils for Fife and Forfar came to terms, the bridge would be put in hand. They have come to terms long ago, and before the Minister proceeds further with this Clause we are entitled to ask what steps he proposes to take to implement that specific Government pledge.
The remaining scheme to which I wish to call attention is that of the Forth Road-bridge. This is estimated to cost in the neighbourhood of £3,500,000, and without such a bridge we suggest that the whole purpose of the Great North Road will be rendered, to some extent at any rate, nugatory. The Government propose to take over the road running from Edinburgh along to Stirling and. then back north again into Fifeshire. Edinburgh is the capital city of Scotland, and for many years pressure has been brought to bear on successive Governments to do the obvious thing in this respect, which is to build a road-bridge across the Forth, linking up the Great North Road with about half the population of Scotland—because almost half the population of the country reside 865 within the area affected by the, proposed Forth and Tay Bridges. We are exceedingly anxious about this matter. We are sympathetic to the Bill and do not propose to offer any obstruction or to create any trouble in connection with it. But we hope the Minister will accept this opportunity to give some information to the people of the, country who are anxious to see these great rivers adequately bridged, the population adequately served with transport and trade and industry promoted. We are anxious that any useless expenditure upon roads should be avoided, and we hope that the Minister will make the position clear. The case for these bridges has been proven time and time again, and I ask the Minister to give the House and the country the fullest information at his disposal. We want to know when these schemes are to be put in hand.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think at this stage ought to enter a caveat to the effect that I may find it necessary to restrict this discussion. I do not, of course, wish to curtail any information which the Minister is willing and able to give, if I can avoid doing so, but while some of the points raised in the right hon. Gentleman's speech are, no doubt, in order on the present occasion, I must call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the subject of new bridges, to be constructed where there are no bridges at the present time, is not a matter which comes within the scope of this Measure.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
May I call attention to the fact that Clause specifically provides for the taking over of county bridges? We are not yet discussing that Clause, I know, but I submit that as Cause 3 gives the Minister power to take over bridges at present owned by county councils, so Clause 1 gives the Minister power, riot only to take over existing trunk roads, but to construct new roads where it is considered expedient, or to enlarge a road.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Only with a, view to superseding any part of the trunk road. There is a limitation.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I appreciate that point, but it seems to us that there is no possibility of getting a discussion on any other part of the Bill except Clause 1, 866 on the desirability or otherwise of spending public money on enlarging and developing roads where that money could be saved if instead we built these bridges.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the right hon. Gentleman is correct in that he has chosen the best place in the Bill for his purpose, but that does not necessarily mean that the place is good enough. He is also correct in what he says about the taking over of existing bridges, but there certainly is a limitation on what can be discussed with regard to the construction of new bridges, unless they are part of the scheme for the supersession of an existing trunk road. I only wish to make it quite clear, so that if the Minister wishes to reply to the right hon. Gentleman he will be able to deal with the matter in such a way that the Committee will not be anxious to debate it at great length. But I must give the warning that it may be necessary to restrict the discussion.

§ Mr. EDE
May I draw attention to the fact that Sub-section (1) of this Clause makes the Minister the highway authority for trunk roads, and after the passing of the Bill no one other than the Minister will have power to spend money on these trunk roads? Therefore, unless it is suggested that these roads are to come to an end at the rivers which it is supposed to bridge, it would be necessary to get information from the Minister as to what he proposes to do in the matter of bridging the rivers.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am not expressing any opinion as to whether the Bill does anything absurd or not, but I am certain of this, that any road which ends at an impassable river where there is no bridge, cannot be described as a trunk road.

§ Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH
With regard to the Severn Bridge scheme, in the original proposal which came before the Committee it was suggested that a percentage of the estimated cost would be raised by a system of tolls and that ultimately the bridge would become part of the trunk road and I suggest that perhaps that aspect of the Severn Bridge scheme might be open to discussion on this Clause. The bridge would ultimately become part of the trunk road from England into Wales.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I could hardly do that if it did not exist, and that is just the kind of thing that I am afraid I shall have to rule out.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
Subsection (3) of Clause 1 definitely considers the question of the Minister making a new road to take the place of a road at present in existence, and surely under that Sub-section we are entitled to discuss the possibility of the Minister making a new road? Take the Forth Bridge road as an example, to save a considerable amount of mileage by cutting across and building a bridge. I venture to suggest on that Sub-section we are entitled to discuss it, and to interrogate the Minister in order to discover how far the powers that he is taking under this Bill would enable the Minister to act in pursuance of his plan to make bridges across the Forth and in other places.

§ Mr. TURTON
May I point out that Clause 13 says: 'Road' means a highway, and includes any part of a highway and any proposed road and any bridge over which a highway passes or a proposed road is intended to pass and trunk road ' shall be construed accordingly.

§ Mr. DENMAN
Are we not necessarily confined to ally roads that are referred to in Schedule I, or roads in substitution thereof Or are we able to debate potential trunk roads that are outside that Schedule?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member is right up to a certain point, and I think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is also right up to a certain point, but only up to that point. The construction of new roads as such is not within the Bill or the Resolution; it is merely the construction of roads to supersede parts of existing roads and that cannot be construed to mean a new road in an entirely different direction altogether. I hope there will not be any great difficulty about this in practice, but, as I said, after the right hon. Gentleman had made his speech, I must keep the Debate on this subject within some limits, because it is quite clear that we cannot have a discussion on bridges or new bridges in places where under the present system, at any rate, they would not be any part of existing trunk roads.

§ Sir FRANCIS ACLAND
May I raise this point? I understood you to say a little while ago that a road which ended at a river, or something of that kind—if there were no road on the other side—would not be a trunk road. Now that is just what the road in the Minister's constituency does. It does leave off, and I hope your Ruling would not apply so as to take that road out of the list in the First Schedule to the Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I understand there are other methods of crossing besides the bridge.

Colonel ROPN ER
When the right hon. Gentleman opposite informed the Committee that he was going to talk on bridges I firmly believed that the first bridge to which he would refer would be the Selby Toll Bridge. For generations the Toll Bridge at Selby has been a great inconvenience, not only to the people of Selby, but to large areas of Yorkshire. The toll has been a levy on wages; it has been a tax on profits, it has hampered farming and without any shadow of doubt it has hampered the development of the town of Selby. For a large number of years the local council, the National Farmers' Union and leading citizens have pressed the West Riding and the East Riding County Councils to rid them of this nuisance. Recently another active body known as the Selby and District Development Committee has joined its protests against the existence of this toll. Lord Bingley—Colonel Lane Fox as he then was—spent a large amount of his Parliamentary time when he was Member for Barkston Ash in endeavouring to get this problem solved.
One reason for the delay has been that the bridge joins the West and East Ridings. Schemes for doing away with the bridge have alternately been wrecked on the Scylla of the West Riding or the Charybdis of the East Riding, and I am bound to say in this connection that I think the East Riding have been the greater sinners. But two or three years ago a joint committee of the West and East Ridings decided to have a complete and exhaustive survey made, and the firm of Sir Alexander Gibb was appointed to do this work. In due course Sir Alexander Gibb presented a full report and made recommendations. Perhaps I 869 should repeat at this juncture the assurance that this is not only a matter of local concern, but the present toll bridge is on the Liverpool-Hull main road which has recently been scheduled as a trunk road. Some months ago the West and East Riding Councils agreed on a scheme, bit for financial reasons, and possibly because rumours had reached the councils that the Minister might take over this road, work has not been started, although the Minister himself pressed the council to get on with the job. Well, it is now the responsibility of the Minister to put an end to this long standing grievance. I cannot believe that there is a toll bridge on any of the other roads which have been scheduled to become trunk roads. Surely this problem of Selby Bridge should be one of the first matters to receive the attention of the Minister. Surely the construction of a. new bridge should receive priority of treatment.
I have received, as I expect other hon. Members have received, a circular letter from the company of proprietors of Selby Bridge. I have never seen a document more full of misstatements and inaccuracies. The arguments used are biased and misleading, and I hope that hon. Members who may have been persuaded to believe some of the statements contained in this letter will make further inquiry before they rely too firmly upon them. As the Minister knows, the scheme has been approved by the East and West Riding County Councils, it has been approved by the Selby Council, everything is ready, plans are ready after the most careful examination—examination and inquiry which has lasted over months—and I would pray the Minister before we lave this Clause to give me the assurance, and to give the town of Selby the assurance for which we have been waiting for a large number of years, that Selby Toll Bridge will soon become a thing of the past.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Details about a bridge on one particular road would be better raised on the Schedule. It may be thought before discussing further the Minister may give some reply to the speech already made by the hon. and gallant Member, but I think I must ask the Committee not to discuss detailed items now which would come better on the Schedule. I shall have to give hon. 870 Members an opportunity in one place or the other.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Do I understand from the Ruling you have just given that you do not debar the Minister from giving a general answer to the points raised on the Clause outstanding?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is so. I do not want to be too strict.

§ Colonel ROPNER
Do I understand you are debarring the Minister from replying to my speech unless I make it again?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Member had better wait and see whether his appeal be answered by the Minister or not.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE
I want to ask the Minister about a matter of rather general interest which affects urban districts. In the event of giving up part of a road which is a trunk road either by deviation or because of not wanting quite so much land, will he redelegate it to the local authority, whether borough or urban council, or whatever happens to be the highways authority to which the road belongs? If it is quite in order under Clause 1, will be give the local authority certain assurances? Because the Committee will be aware that whereas the local authorities have been the highway authorities before making the trunk road he himself now becomes the highway authority, and the various powers and the various expenses to which they may be liable as district councils or highway boards will be taken over presumably by him. In the case of any dispute which may arise between them and him there is a difficulty to this extent, that he himself is, I understand, to be the authority. There will be a difficulty in the fact that he is at the same time a highway authority and also the authority to whom they appeal. It is possible that the only way in which the Committee can get out of the difficulty is for the Minister during the progress of the Bill to make certain assurances which will be embodied in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and so will give the local authorities that feeling of confidence that they require, but which probably it will be almost impossible to embody in the Bill. I do not know whether 871 it is in order, if the Minister has engaged to give those assurances, to give them on Clause 1, but I am very glad to raise the point as the district councils and, I believe, highway boards have been anxious as to their position in this matter.

§ Mr. EDE
I want to make a few remarks of a general nature on Clause 1, with regard to the action taken by the Minister in constituting himself, for the first time, a highway authority. For many centuries the highway authorities of this country have been the local governing bodies. In fact, I believe the oldest Statute that is operated by the county councils is the Statute of Bridges, which was passed in what I believe is now regarded by some people as the dark ages. In taking over these duties at this particular juncture, the Minister of Transport does assume very heavy responsibilities, not merely for the highways, but for the countryside through which they pass.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid the hon. Member is making a Second Reading speech. We have passed the Second Reading of the Bill, which makes the Minister a highway authority.

§ Mr. EDE
Are we not entitled to inquire how the Minister proposes to use his functions as a highway authority

§ The CHAIRMAN
Hardly, I think, on this Clause. That again is a matter for the Second Reading or for the Third Reading possibly.

§ Mr. EDE
I will not pursue the matter now, but I hope that in exercising his functions the Minister will have due regard to reasonable local opinion with regard to the routes that roads should follow and the interference, if any, that they make with local amenities, because the one misgiving, I think, that is felt in some of the counties is lest the Minister should be able to exercise these powers in a manner more remote from local public opinion than the county councils have been in the past.
I wish to say a word with regard to bridges, and here I am fortified by the Ruling which you gave, Sir Dennis, on the point that I submitted to you, that if a road reached a river and there was no 872 bridge to carry it over, it was absurd and ridiculous. May I say that even if I was not compelled by the Rules of the House to do so, I heartily agree with you in that Ruling, and I very sincerely hope the Minister will bear it in mind as he exercises his functions, because there are several places in the country where, on quite important roads, some of which may well be used to supersede the trunk roads, he has to rely on ferries to get the traffic from one side of the river to the other.
I am not dealing with the southwestern part of the country, though I have suffered interminable delays, both at Torpoint and Saltash, in trying to get across the River Tamar: but across the Tyne, east of Newcastle, on any road that he proposes to use there to supersede that part of the Great North Road which goes through the county boroughs of Gateshead and Newcastle, he will be faced with the fact that there are very ancient and inefficient ferries which very considerably delay the traffic, and I sincerely hope that when he does supersede the Great North Road to the east of Newcastle, he will secure that an appropriate bridge shall be built, so that the great saving of time that could be made will be made under his auspices. If he can do that, I am sure that everyone in the country who has to use these ferries will rejoice in the fact that they have been handed over to the Minister of Transport. I sincerely hope that the vesting of these roads in the nation rather than in the local authorities will mean that these old established delays will be speedily removed.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I will try to respond to the invitation of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), without, I hope, unduly stretching the elasticity which you, Sir Dennis, have allowed. If this Bill be passed, I shall become the highway authority in respect of the 4,500 miles of trunk roads mentioned in the Schedule, and these roads include bridges, as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in the point of Order which he raised. The definition Clause lays it down that these roads shall include bridges. Therefore, from the appointed day, I am the authority not only 873 over the roads in question, but over the bridges over them and, unfortunately, over the bridges that in some quarters it might be held ought to be over them. That is the position. No less is it true that there are other roads of great importance in the country, and just as there were giants before Agamemnon, there are other great roads in the country which doubtless require improvement, and for that purpose we shall continue to pay the grants that we now pay, some of them being upon a very considerable scale—for major improvements up to, in some cases, 85 per cent. of the total cost. It must not be assumed that all other roads in the country will immediately fall into disuse and disrepair when this Bill becomes law. They will remain under the ægis of the present highway authorities, who will be the recipients of grants, let us hope, upon the present scale. I have already announced that I do not intend in any way to reduce them.

§ Mr. DUNNE
Will the right hon. Gentleman be quite clear with regard to the grants upon the other roads which will remain under the control of local authorities, because the statement he 'has now made is very guarded? If that could be made clear, it would remove considerable misapprehension in the minds of some of us.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I did, in my Second Reading speech, make a declaration which I think the hon. Member requires me to repeat. Here are my exact words: I make it plain that it is not the intention of the Government to reduce the rates of grant in respect of the maintenance on roads which are not transferred, nor is it the intention of the Government to curtail the five-year programme in course o c execution, and in respect of which the submissions now amount to £140,000,000."—[OFFICIAL -REPORT, 19th November, 1936; cols. 1954–5, Vol. 317.] That is what the hon. Gentleman requires. These roads will continue to enjoy the assistance which they now enjoy—in some cases the grants are very considerable—and they ought not to fall i Ito disuse. It so happens that two of the bridges which the right hon. Member for West Stirling mentioned may become desirable, but I cannot add to what I lave said. Either bridges are on trunk roads or they 'are not. If they ought to be, if the trunk road terminates at a 874 place where a bridge ought to be built, I am answerable to Parliament, and it will be possible for anybody to raise these matters on the appropriate occasion. I have already made my declaration about the Severn Bridge, the Forth Bridge and the Humber Bridge, and that declaration had the effect of postponing their consideration, because, 'as I said, the Defence programme must have priority. I was careful not to condemn them as undesirable. In any event, they could not be erected for some years, because the sheer work of construction would take a considerable time, but I do not think it in any way detracts from the importance of this Bill that it has nothing to do with their construction. Obviously, I cannot take it further than that, because they are not in this Bill, and they are not on roads which are included in this Bill, but if and when the time comes to construct them, the Government of the day can make a real contribution towards such bridges. In the case of the Severn Bridge, we have offered 75 per cent. of the cost and done our level best to encourage its passage through this House. It was, however, rejected by a Private Bill Committee.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), the bridge to which he refers will be on one of these trunk roads. I did define on the Second Reading the Government's ideas of what the trunk roads of the country should be. Perhaps I was a little ambitious, but I did lay down a rather high standard, and I need not repeat it now. I wanted them to be in all senses patterns for other roads, but I did offer as a warning that in road construction there is a hiatus between conception and achievement. You cannot just say, "I should like to have the whole of the trunk roads perfect," and find them perfect. It would be a question of many years to get them perfect, but that we have high aims in regard to them is beyond doubt, and at any rate anybody who reads my Second Reading speech will know what I feel upon that subject. Perhaps if I use general language of that kind, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash will be satisfied, because it would he impossible for me to take little bits of road or bridges upon them in the discussion of this Bill and to explain 875 exactly what I propose to do with regard to any particular one; but it will be open to me to by-pass Selby, in which case this problem of the toll bridge will be met.

§ Colonel ROPNER
I think the right hon. Gentleman has rather missed the point of my speech. The only difficulty is one of time. As I understand it, the scheme with regard to Selby Bridge has been approved, and we have waited a quarter of a century for a new bridge. Therefore, I am rather distressed to hear the Minister say that we may have to wait several years more. As I conceive it, there is no need for any hiatus on this occasion.

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I think that is rather a strange proposal to make. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's own council have apparently delayed the matter for 25 years, and I am only in the course of introducing the first Clause in this Bill, and then he says it is a matter of time and urgent. I realise what a packet of trouble I shall inherit, but all that I can assure him is that I will do my best, and that my successors will do their best, to make these trunk roads model roads. I cannot say more than that. What we shall do about Selby Bridge in particular will be a matter for decision when I have this Bill and have the power to do so. At the present moment I have no such power, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will accelerate the arrangements by which I shall get the necessary power.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) asked to whom roads would revert when they were superseded. They would revert to the authority which had them before—if it be the county, then to the county; if it be the claiming authority, then to the claiming authority—and in order that there should be no injustice in the matter, I did accept an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) a little while ago. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked whether I would take account of reasonable local opinion. Well, I think I have shown my desire to do that by deciding to take power to appoint the county councils as my agents. They have the necessary local knowledge, besides the 876 necessary technical knowledge. My failure to try to set up a new authority, and my preference for using the existing authorities, show that I attach some weight to the opinion of the authorities whom I am going to use, and I think I can safely assure the Committee that it will be our desire to have, as the hon. Member put it, every reasonable regard to local opinion and to local amenities. In respect of amenity, I inserted a passage in the Second Reading speech in which I paid great attention to that aspect of the subject which in the past has sometimes been ignored. I want these roads not only to be useful for the purpose of traffic, but in their proper setting and suitable to the nature of the country through which they pass.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Will the right hon. Gentleman say which of the bridges he regards as desirable? He said "three of the four." Do we understand that the Forth Bridge and the Tay Bridge, in his opinion and the opinion of his Department, are desirable? If so, will he have some regard to the Government pledge as far back as 1923 that one of these bridges would be proceeded with forthwith?

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman in selecting that date associates himself to some extent with any blame for failure to construct. If there were a promise in 1923 several Governments will have to bear the responsibility for this omission. I can only say—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot say more—that the Government went out of their way not to reject any of the major bridges to which he referred, and the one over the Tay would obviously not be considered unless the Forth Bridge were going to be built. The Government went out of their way not to reject them, but said that the defence programme must have priority. We are constantly being urged to agree to the virtues of national planning. If national planning means anything, it means that the Government, in distributing their orders, endeavour so to spread them that the workpeople shall have the maximum advantage from them. At this time, when the defence programme is requiring so many orders, it seems to us that we should pay first attention to that programme, and when it has reached its concluding stages we can 877 then quite reasonably and in the best interests of industry have regard to these projects. They are not rejected, and if that is the assurance the right hon. Gentleman requires, he may have it. A case has been painstakingly prepared and put before us, and it has not been rejected.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Cannot the right hen. Gentleman put it higher than that?

§ Mr. HORE-BELISHA
I wish I could put it higher than that, but those are the facts.

§ Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH
I would like to put a point to the Minister and try to keep, as far as I can, within your Ruling. Would the right hon. Gentleman construe the Severn Bridge, if it were built and taken over, as being in substitution for the present ferry and the Gloucester Road-bridge? If the bridge has to be held up because of the defence programme, is it not a fact that our western coast is the prime safety factor in regard -to imports and that the Severn Bridge would be a great factor in assisting the defence of this country?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Mention of the Severn Bridge shows that the hon. Member's argument does not come within my Ruling of what can be discussed.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, a ad agreed to.