32. Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Transport the names of the highway authorities whose classification grant has been reduced in 1953–54 as compared with 1952–53; and the amount of money saved by these cuts.
Mr. BraithwaiteI would refer the hon. Member to the first part of the 868 answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), on 21st April, of which I am sending him a copy. The total provision for classification grants in 1953–54 is £344,994 less than the total of grants made for 1952–53.
Mr. SlaterIs the hon. Gentleman aware that I am in possession of the information conveyed in the answer to the first part of the Question? Is he aware that with the greatly changed nature of traffic to heavier units it necessarily follows that there is harder wear and tear on the highways and that something ought to be done to make good the roads affected?
33. Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Transport if he will issue a report on the condition of the main highways throughout the country.
Mr. BraithwaiteMy right hon. Friend does not consider that he can very usefully attempt to issue a general report on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.
Mr. SlaterIs the hon. Gentleman aware that by the many forms of taxation to which we are subjected in this country, Purchase Tax, Road Fund, petrol tax and so on, approximately £370 million is passed on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he think we are receiving adequate service in the highways as £80 million has been spent to keep our roadways open?
Mr. BraithwaiteYes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware of all those things. The Question asked whether a report could be prepared on this matter. Since the responsibility for roads is shared by 1,300 different highway authorities, which would be called upon to supply information, we do not propose to lay that burden on their officials.
§ Mr. CallaghanIn view of the fact that a number of allegations are made by highway engineers and others that the standard of our roads is deteriorating, would it not be a good idea to have an expression of opinion by the Minister's chief engineer of whether those allegations are correct or not?
Mr. BraithwaiteWe are responsible for 8,000 miles of trunk roads upon which we receive reports, but they are not of the same value as the whole picture and we are not prepared to ask 1,300 authorities for this information.
§ Mr. CallaghanThat is not what I am asking; I am asking whether it is the view of the Minister that the condition of our roads is deteriorating or not, because the charge is being made that their condition is steadily going down?
§ Mr. NicholsonIt would not be necessary to apply to all highway authorities; do not the Ministry's road engineers have the information, and could not they give reports?
34. Mr. Slaterasked the Minister of Transport the total amount of money that is to be expended in the financial year of 1953 on the main highways in Great Britain; and how this amount compares with the amount granted in 1938.
Mr. BraithwaiteI cannot give strictly comparable figures because the scope and rates of Road Fund grants have altered considerably since 1938. Payments from the Road Fund in the current financial year for work on trunk and classified roads are estimated at £32 million. In 1938–39 payments from the Road Fund for work on roads then in receipt of grant were £19,612,000.
Mr. SlaterIs the hon. Gentleman aware that tremendous tonnages of heavy materials are being transported to central depots in the country, especially in a county like Durham—where I live—where the roads are greatly affected by mining subsidence? Is it not vital that industries of national importance, which are depending greatly upon the upkeep of the roads, should be assured that the deterioration of the roads shall not continue any further?
Mr. BraithwaiteThe hon. Member asked for comparable figures. I have explained why they cannot be supplied. We have in mind the points he has raised.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs not the hon. Gentleman inclined to be a little evasive on this matter? Would he inform the House— as I think hon. Members wish to know —why it is that his Department have decided to cut the classification grant without ascertaining what is the actual condition of the main highways of the country?
Mr. BraithwaiteThe right hon. Member will bear in mind that the Question on the Order Paper asks for a comparison with 1938, since when a number of unclassified roads have become classified and a number of classified roads have become trunked. Should the right hon. Member require further information I shall be glad to answer a question if he will put it down.
§ Mr. Beresford CraddockWill my hon. Friend say whether it has been agreed that out of the money to be allocated this year part shall be spent on a by-pass road for Staines?
§ 50. Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the reduction of grant to Durham County Council for trunk roads by some 23.4 per cent. and for classified roads by some 7.9 per cent. over the figures for 1952–53, in spite of rising costs, will impair the capacity of this authority to maintain their roads in first-class condition, and transport efficiency in this county; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this matter.
Mr. BraithwaiteWe have done our best to allocate to Durham, as to each other area in the country, its fair share of the reduced amount of money generally available for road maintenance in the current financial year. The reduction in the allocation to the county council as our agent authority for trunk roads is considerably less than the hon. Member suggests, allowing for an addition to the basic allocation which was made last year to meet a special requirement.
§ Mr. JonesDoes the hon. Member agree that the percentage reduction which I have quoted in my Question is precisely the reduction on the figure paid to Durham for the preceding year? The 871 fact that an additional figure had to be paid in order to get the work done is a reflection on the hon. Member's Department. Is he aware that this county has 63 miles of trunk road within it and that it is the opinion of the experts in Durham that these roads cannot be kept in good condition at this figure?
Mr. BraithwaiteI am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, much as I should like to do so. With regard to the trunk roads, the allocation for 1952–53 included a special grant for improving the bad condition of the Birtley by-pass, which cost £15,000, so that comparison should be between £100,000 for 1952–53 and £88,000 for 1953–54, making a reduction of 12 per cent.; not 23 per cent. as the hon. Member said in the Question.
§ Mr. ShinwellApart from the figures relating to this matter, will the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it will be quite impossible for Durham County Council, the highway authority, to maintain the roads in Durham in good condition, much less first class condition, in view of this reduction in the grant?
§ Mr. JonesIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, may I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment?