HC Deb 30 May 1956 vol 553 cc397-406

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I hope that the Minister of Transport will agree that it is high time that there was some definite planning of the country's road system. The number of new vehicles coming on the roads is approximately 50.000 a month, whereas changes in road arrangements and construction in past years have been trivial. The roads arc virtually the same as they were ten years ago.

England's premier highway is, or should be, the Great North Road, which is designated A.1. I am not altogether sure that we ought not to have a Roads Marks Act, in the same way we have a Merchandise Marks Act, because the term Al is hardly applicable to this road in the circumstances which prevail. It is one of the principal routes for traffic between London and the North, but for three-quarters of its length, about 300 miles, it is wide enough for only one line of traffic in each direction.

What is even more important, this overloaded highway has all the hazards to be found on the worst of British roads. There are blind bends, hump-backed bridges, congested towns, bottlenecks. zigzag turns, inadequate sidelines—everything calculated to promote the maximum delay and inefficiency. In such circumstances. I feel justified in asking for information of what the Government are doing about providing an up-to-date highway, and providing it quickly in a scientifically planned manner.

To date, as far as I can trace, there has been no planned attack on this problem; just delay and indecision. We were told years ago that it was planned to improve the road on its present alignment, including by-passes, and that the length between London and beyond Newcastle was to be provided all the way with dual carriageways. Later—and I quote—it was said: In the interests of economy the standard was reduced except here and there to a single through lane of a 30 feet carriageway.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me from what he is quoting?

Mr. Janner

I am quoting from a reference which I saw some time ago, and which, I believe, came from a statement made by the Government. I have not the actual reference itself, but I will try to provide it.

Even by 1955 no reconstruction work of any importance had been actually carried out, and the standards to which the road was to be rebuilt were again. apparently, under reconsideration, on the grounds that the design had to be modified because of the traffic which would use the road when the London to Yorkshire motorway had been built. Yet the building of that motorway was already planned when the dual carriageway plan was decided upon. 1n other words, the picture presented is that, having decided upon a certain standard ten years ago, which was subsequently reduced, the question whether or not to have the higher dual carriageway standard was still under consideration in 1955, in spite of the fact that the traffic increased in those nine years more than was expected in 1946. I now understand that it is proposed to provide dual carriageways between London and Newcastle. Thus, in 1956, a return is made to the standard laid down in 1946.

I would briefly describe the present position on the Al between the Barnet by-pass and East Retford, in Nottinghamshire. After the Barnet by-pass, which itself is adequate for only one line of traffic in each direction, the road is wide enough for three lines of vehicles only to the north of Baldock in Hertfordshire, a distance of less than 20 miles. From there to as far as the county boundary of Rutland and Kesteven it is only wide enough for two lines of traffic, that is, for a distance of about 60 miles.

On this length there are the usual hazards which one would expect—blind bends, hump bridges, villages and towns, including Stamford, which is notorious for its congestion. In places, there is a lane fenced off for the building of a second carriageway. North of the junction of the Great North Road with the A14, in Huntingdonshire, for a distance of 4½ miles, the road, in places, is along a narrow causeway made because earth has been taken away on both sides to make way for the foundations of the dual carriageways which have not yet been built. When one crosses the boundary into Kesteven one finds a road reconstructed recently to 30 feet width for a distance of 14 miles. It then reverts to two-lane width, then back again to three-lane for 1,300 yards south of Grantham. In the open it continues, as two-lane until just this side of the Nottinghamshire boundary. Near the village of Long Benington, half a mile has been widened to about 30 feet. It is something like Joseph's patchwork coat of many colours but not as effective. Just at the boundary the road has been widened recently to 28 feet in two places, totalling under one mile.

Crossing the boundary, the road becomes 30 feet wide with three lanes, except in built-up areas, and it continues like that as far as the junction with A57, a distance of about 16 miles. A57 is eventually to form part of a by-pass to East Retford. From about two miles from its junction with the Al, the A57 is at present being rebuilt with a new alignment, with dual carriageway. This will join just over one mile of dual carriageway which was built before the war. It will thus be seen that the standard which exists and is scheduled on the length of road with which I have dealt varies frequently from dual carriageways to a single two-lane carriageway of varying width.

Nor is that all. Despite the fact that the Ministry has apparently laid down that the road is to be reconstructed throughout to dual carriageway standard, one section 3¼ miles north of Stamford is being rebuilt as a single three-lane road to a width of 33 feet. I suppose that it may be contended by the Minister that a second carriageway can always be added, but in view of what has not been done already, can it be seriously suggested that it will be made into dual carriageways in the foreseeable future? If not, what is the value of the Minister's declared intention to provide a dual carriageway from London to Newcastle?

If it is suggested that the second carriageway will be added within the foreseeable future, perhaps the Minister will explain why his Department is widening this section of the road to 33 feet, which I understand is the standard for a single two-lane carriageway and which his Department chooses to describe as a "two-lane carriageway with a central overtaking lane." Clearly, there is no intention for all practical purposes of providing dual carriageways at this point. Once a road has had any major improvements, it is invariably put at the bottom of the list for future attention, and with the huge backlog of hundreds of millions of pounds for road schemes which still need to be completed, it is clear that there is no immediate intention to act upon the stated intention of providing dual carriageways throughout the 300 miles of the Great North Road.

There is also the problem of building by-passes on this road. I quote the example of Stamford. If ever there was need to construct a by-pass for a town it is here. When one approaches that beautiful town one sees a notice, "This is Stamford. Stay a while amidst its ancient charm." It is really unnecessary. One invariably has no option since one finds oneself in a long queue of vehicles waiting to worm its way through the twisting streets of the town, whilst another long queue of vehicles crawls slowly past in the opposite direction.

Yet, according to the local Press, the Stamford by-pass has been put back until after the Grantham scheme has been carried out. I would like to know whether that suggestion is or is not wellfounded. Then again, in the "Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury" for 3rd February last, this appeared. There were two headings. The first was, "The real chaos is at the Ministry". The second was, "Official dabbling annoys us all."

This is what the newspaper said: The Mercury, along with thousands of exasperated motorists and traffic-weary residents of A1 towns, still wants to know when work is likely to begin on improving the Great North Road in this area. We questioned the Ministry of Transport, 'Could you give us any idea when the various proposed schemes are likely to begin?' The Ministry's reply was, 'Your guess is as good as ours. But we can definitely say that they will not be starting on them tomorrow. 'However, the Ministry's spokesman did inform us that his Department was at work on plans. but everything depended on what funds would be available. They did not know the answer to that one from year to year. We wonder if they know the answer to this one? Why is the Al to be translated into a dual carriageway south of Stamford Borough boundary but only widened to 33 feet north of the town? For the latter is the tortuous section of the road between Stamford and Grantham. which is known as the Devil's Walk'. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to Stevenage. Here a new town has been built on one side of the Great North Road and an industrial estate on the other. As was to be expected, conditions on Al at that point have become dangerous and difficult. Indeed, the local authorities were obliged to put a Bailey bridge over the Great North Road for the benefit of the workpeople going between the new town and the factories. Of course there are plans for by-passes—there are always plans. As a matter of fact, we find that the Stevenage by-pass was scheduled under the Special Roads Act which received the Royal Assent seven years ago. In fact, an order for it was made two years earlier as a trunk road.

Such is the tale of muddle, indecision and procrastination over the re-building of the Great North Road, and, what is more, there is visual evidence that the muddle is being perpetuated. The optimistic statements that are being made about the work which is being done on our road programme are difficult to accept in the face of what one can see with one's own eyes on the Great North Road. The proof of the programme is what is built, and the speed and efficiency with which it is built. Judging by the situation on the Great North Road, the programme is a mess of inconsistent, piecemeal patching, as inadequate as it is intolerable.

I urge the Minister to assure us that this road will be developed to dual carriageway standard without further indecision or delay. Whatever may be the human failings and individual accidents, the state of the roads is making it harder and harder for drivers to find enough room to drive safely. The stream of traffic on busy roads on all days of the week, not only on holidays, forces vehicles into a compacted mass whenever there is a momentary hold-up somewhere in the line. Fast moving and slow moving vehicles are all compelled to use the same roads. We have heard about that earlier tonight. Often they are wide enough for only one line of traffic in each direction.

New motor vehicles came on to British roads in March at the rate of more than 10,000 every working day. A total of about 91,000 new registrations for that month is a very high figure. This summer, we understand, there may be well over half a million more vehicles crowding on to the roads than there were last summer, and there is no sign of any major relief in the way of new roads to take them.

If the piecemeal and inadequate patching of the Great North Road is a fair example of how the Minister's road programme as a whole is being carried out, then I suggest that the outlook is very depressing indeed, and calls for a wholly new, vigorous and scientific approach to this most serious problem of our times, namely, the total inadequacy of our roads for present or future traffic.

I have chosen the Great North Road because it indicates what is going on all over the country. It shows how very important it is that the question of expense should not be an obstacle. It is a very false policy to regard the immediate expense of making our road system adequate as being anything which is detrimental to the general economy of the country and to the safety of those on the roads.

In America, the roads out of the towns are built to enable traffic to proceed as it should. This cuts down the expense of transport. We are constantly complaining about the costs of our goods for export and for our own use. I am sure that, irrespective of the immediate cost, the Minister ought to consider ways and means of raising money for the purpose, whether by loans or by tolls. The latter method would, I think, be worth considering at present.

I speak on this subject on behalf of my constituency. Leicester is not quite so much concerned about this particular road between that city and London, in so far as their use of it is concerned, but it is deeply concerned in respect of traffic travelling on it northwards from Leicester.

I hope the Minister will give us an assurance about this. In answer to a Question today he made reference to 23 projects. There are projects and projects. What are the projects to be? Are they to be scientifically arranged so that the country shall be provided with the necessary roads? Are false economies to be avoided? Is the road accidents problem to be solved, or are we to continue to muddle through year by year without the problem being adequately dealt with? I hope that the Minister will give an assurance which will satisfy those like myself—there are many such people—who are concerned about the present position.

11.3 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson)

When I saw that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) had chosen to raise the question of the scientific planning of work on A I road I thought there was a reason why he thought that we were not planning adequately the work which has to be done to improve that trunk road. In the course of his speech, however, he wandered far from the subject of Al and has discussed the general question of the Government programme for improving the roads of the country as a whole.

Mr. Janner

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Molson

No, I cannot give way.

The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's speech dealt with the general question of the Government road programme. I was surprised that he chose to refer to 1946 and compare what was promised in 1946 with what has been achieved in the last ten years. In 1946, a Socialist Government were in office—

Mr. Janner

Oh.

Mr. Molson

Yes. The hon. Gentleman referred to the programme and he has no ground for complaint if I refer to it also.

It was in 1946 that the grandiose Barnes' programme of great motorways was announced, and in the following year that the whole thing was wound up, with scarcely a beginning made. Since the present Government have been in office, two programmes have been announced—the Lennox-Boyd programme of 1953 and the Boyd-Carpenter programme of last year. Everybody recognises that it takes some time before a programme, after it has been authorised, can be got well under way. At present, both programmes are being got well under way and we have been able to announce that during the next three years a large number of projects will he undertaken.

The present Minister has given considerable priority to works on Al. If the hon. Member had looked in the Library, he would have found deposited there a map showing all the announced schemes. For Al, 23 schemes costing more than £100,000 each are to be authorised in 1955–56, 1956–57. 1957–58 and 1958–59. There is Page Street to Mill Hill, widening; between Apex Corner and South Mimms by-pass, widening; Browney Bridge to Farewell Hall, Durham; Allerton Station; Wetherby by-pass; between Leeming and Catterick, widening; Alconbury Hill to Woolpack Cross Roads; Doncaster by-pass; East Retford by-pass; Wansford Bridge to Stamford Borough Boundary, widening; East Retford bypass—Five Lanes End to the North of Checkerhouse, widening; Colsterworth diversion; Grantham by-pass; Stamford Inner Relief Road; Woolpack Cross Roads to Norman Cross; Sandy to A428, Bedfordshire, widening; Norman Cross to Water Newton by-pass; Biggleswade bypass; Wansford-Water Newton by-pass, Huntingdonshire.

I do not know why the hon. Member should raise this matter on the Adjournment and ask for information which is already available to him and which has been published. That is what is now being done on the A1.

The hon. Member asked what general policy we were pursuing and I will tell him. 1t is not possible simply to sit down and say that because we desire to have dual carriageways all the way from London to Newcastle, we shall begin at London and drive dual carriageways all the way. A number of other considerations have to be taken into account. In the course of his speech, the hon. Member mentioned several. There are, of course, particular places on the Al where, because they are built-up areas and there is extremely serious congestion, there is great delay to traffic and danger to life. It is natural that in planning our programme. as we have done, we should give priority to those places in Al where it is most urgent that there should be by-passes.

We also work, as the hon. Member no doubt knows, through agency authorities, through the highway authorities of the counties. There is a limit to the amount of work which they can undertake at any particular time. If we ask a county to undertake more than a certain amount of work, that will merely result in delay. Therefore, in planning the work which is now being undertaken on Al, we have taken into account several considerations. First, a road may pass through an old, in many cases a medieval town, and it may be important to build a by-pass there. The second is whether the alignment of the road is unsatisfactory and congestion is caused, or danger incurred. Thirdly, cases where there is a large amount of traffic, and where the width of the road is particularly inadequate.

The hon. Member will perhaps be aware that we have periodic traffic censuses which are taken at different places, and, of course, the volume of traffic is not the same at all points on the Great North Road. At some points the traffic is heavier, and the need for widening correspondingly greater. The worst parts, such as at Doncaster and Stamford, or those parts where the accident record is bad, must be dealt with as early as possible; and, it must not be forgotten, we must also take into account the state of readiness of individual schemes. Some local schemes are ready, and it may be possible to get on with them more rapidly than other improvements, even although, theoretically, their urgency is less.

There are certain existing lengths of good 30 feet carriageway which will not be touched initially unless the traffic there becomes exceptionally heavy. Although it is our intention that there should be dual carriageway all the way from London to Newcastle, it is because we have measured the needs of different parts of this line that we have not begun on a straight programme from Newcastle to the south. But a programme has been carefully worked out by the Ministry of Transport in consultation with local authorities, and I think that even the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a very good and practicable programme.

Mr. Janner

While I have listened very carefully to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I must tell him that I am not

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is not entitled to make a second speech on the Motion. If he wishes to ask a question, however, he may do so.

Mr. Janner

Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask, first, how much expenditure will be involved in, say, the next three years; secondly, how the plan which we have just heard will decrease the number of deaths, about 100 a year at present; thirdly, why, in the five years during which they have been in office, have the Government done nothing and have announced only recently the plans which are being projected?

Mr. Molson

It is obviously not possible for me, without notice, to give the total cost, because in the programme now in hand we have only announced, as the hon. Member knows, those schemes costing more than £100,000 each. If the hon. Gentleman cares to table a Question, I shall be very glad to give him what figures I can.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.