HC Deb 19 April 1939 vol 346 cc351-4
18. Mr. Muff (for Colonel Ropner)

asked the Minister of Transport in what precise way it is proposed to spend £55,000 during the financial year 1939–40 on the Selby by-pass scheme and what approximate proportions of this sum will be allocated to surveying, land purchase and actual constructional work, respectively?

Mr. Burgin

The expenditure of £55,000 which it is anticipated will be incurred on the Selby by-pass scheme during the year 1939–40 includes £5,000 for the acquisition of land. It is estimated that approximately £47,000 will be spent on the actual constructional works, and the balance is for the cost of the preliminary detailed survey and a proportion of the consulting engineer's fees.

Mr. Muff

May I ask when this scheme is likely to be finished?

Mr. Burgin

That is a question of which I must have notice in order to give accurate information.

Mr. T. Williams

Will the Minister explain why the scheme which was agreed between the East Riding County Council, the West Riding County Council and the Ministry of Transport has been turned down and the new scheme, not nearly so useful and helpful, has been adopted?

Mr. Burgin

The decision taken is the result of an inquiry into the previous scheme. As a result of objections a new scheme was put forward.

Mr. T. Smith

Will the Minister give the House the effect of the letter in reply to the West Riding County Council with regard to the arrangements he made between the two Ridings and himself?

Mr. Burgin

I think that was all prior to the present scheme which we are discussing.

Mr. George Griffiths

Did not the three parties agree to the earlier scheme, and is it not the case that they do not now agree to this scheme which is being put forward?

Mr. Burgin

A public inquiry was held into the scheme, and as a result of statements at that inquiry and the report made to me, a new scheme has been put forward.

Mr. Lunn

Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did accept the suggestion of the West Riding County Council, and why does he not implement the settlement which he previously accepted?

Mr. Burgin

The hon. Member is talking of something of which I have no knowledge.

19. Mr. Muff (for Colonel Ropner)

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that he has already expressed his readiness to provide 60 per cent. of the cost of freeing Selby toll bridge, and that the East Riding County Council is prepared to provide one-half of the remaining portion, he will now take steps to obtain the small outstanding balance of 20 per cent. from the West Riding County Council, whose refusal to co-operate in the freeing of this toll bridge up to date is causing great public inconvenience and dissatisfaction?

20. Mr. John Morgan

asked the Minister of Transport whether there is any prospect of an early freeing of the Selby toll bridge, Yorkshire; and what is the present state of the negotiations between the parties concerned?

Mr. Burgin

I have offered to acquire the tolls and rebuild the existing bridge if the local authorities concerned contribute 40 per cent. of the cost of the tolls and 25 per cent. of the cost of the new bridge. The County Council of the East Riding of Yorkshire are prepared to contribute one-half of these amounts, but the County Council of the West Riding have not so far agreed to make any contribution. My offer is still open. The local authorities are well aware of my attitude in the matter, but I have no power to require them to accept the offer, however greatly I regret the present impasse.

Mr. T. Williams

As the West Riding County Council obviously agree with the earlier scheme, accepted by the East and West Ridings and the Ministry of Transport, which involved no compensation for the toll bridge, can the Minister say why the West Riding County Council, who completely disagree with the present scheme, should be called upon to pay any compensation for the elimination of a toll bridge, a scheme which is not going to serve either the local population of Selby or the north and south traffic passing through?

Mr. Burgin

I have tried to make the position clear. When a scheme for the diversion of a road is put forward I have to make a certain order and upon that a public inquiry is held and a report is made to me. If the report shows that the scheme has very serious difficulties connected with it then it is not proceeded with, but a revision is put forward. That was the case here. A new scheme, which my engineers are satisfied is a better scheme, has been put forward. I have agreed to it and the East Riding County Council have agreed to it, and we are waiting for the West Riding County Council to make an offer of some contribution towards the cost. For the moment, for reasons why I do not understand, but which no doubt commend themselves to the West Riding County Council, no offer of any contribution has as yet been made. I have no power to make the West Riding County Council accept my terms, but I have every hope that they will ultimately do so.

Mr. Williams

Is it not the case that the West Riding County Council have sent to the Minister all their reasons why they are unwilling to contribute to this bridge, and is it not the case that in that communication they say they regard the scheme as a wholly inconvenient one, and that the West Riding ratepayers are in no wise morally obliged to make a contribution to a scheme with which they wholly disagree.

Mr. Burgin

I could not possibly accept that as an accurate account of the position.

Mr. Paling

What is the possibility of anything being done now in view of the fact that the first scheme was unanimously agreed to by all the three parties concerned and the new scheme is not unanimously accepted, because one party is holding it up and is likely to hold it up indefinitely? Would it not be better to go back to the first scheme to which all three parties agreed?

Mr. Burgin

I am going on with constructing a by-pass which will avoid the use of the toll bridge altogether.

Mr. Craven-Ellis

What is the amount involved in the acquisition of this toll bridge?

Mr. Burgin

I should not like to say from memory, but it is quite a considerable sum of money. It is an old toil bridge, which is causing a great deal of inconvenience, and I am building a bypass which will make it unnecessary to use it except in the case of inhabitants of Selby who wish to get from one side of the river to the other. I should have thought it was in the general interests of Yorkshire, quite apart from the particular county councils involved, to make some sensible bargain.

Forward to