Proposed Underpass, Kingston By-Pass (Hansard, 5 February 1958)

§ 36. Mr. Fisher
asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the recommendations, accepted 1169 by the Government, of the Franks Committee, he will reconsider his refusal to publish the Report of the independent inspector whom he appointed to inquire into the proposal for an underpass at the Ace of Spades junction on the Kingston By-pass.

§ Mr. Nugent
No, Sir.

§ Mr. Fisher
Is my hon. Friend aware that this recommendation of the Franks Committee that all inspectors' reports should be published was one of those which were specifically accepted by the Lord Privy Seal in this House on 31st October? As the Kingston By-pass Report to which I have referred happened to be against the Minister's decision, would it not be fairer to the objectors if they, as well as the Minister, were allowed to read it?

§ Mr. Nugent
No, Sir. I do not think there are grounds for changing the decision. The decision letter which was sent out by my right hon. Friend ran to about five and a half pages and dealt with every significant aspect of this inquiry, including the conclusions of the inspector. Therefore, everyone was fully informed of the purport of the report. As this particular report and inquiry were similar to dozens of others taking place up and down the country it would be premature, before the general practice of publishing such reports comes in, to publish this one.

§ 37. Mr. Fisher
asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the fact that the conclusion of the independent inspector after a public inquiry was against the implementation of his Department's proposals to construct an underpass at the Ace of Spades junction on the Kingston By-pass, he will now allow the objectors to the proposals an opportunity to make further representations to him and to question the technical witnesses before the proposals for an underpass are carried into effect.

§ Mr. Nugent
No, Sir. Before a decision was reached the matters at issue were the subject of prolonged consideration and the views put forward on behalf of the objectors at the inquiry were fully taken into account.

§ Mr. Fisher
Is it not the fact that the Government accepted the principle 1170 of the Franks Committee recommendations and that the Lord Privy Seal promised that those principles would be carried into effect in practice by Government Departments? Why are those safeguards denied to my constituents in this case? Surely what is suggested in the Question would be only common justice and fair dealing?

§ Mr. Nugent
My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal announced that the Government accept this in principle, but it has very wide ramifications, not only for my Department, but for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and so on, which have literally thousands of inquiries a year. We have to make a co-ordinated arrangement by which all these reports in future will be published and we are just not ready to do that yet.

§ 41 and 42. Mr. Hirst
asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) to what extent the public interest will be served through the construction of an underpass at the Ace of Spades junction on the Kingston By-pass, as compared to an enlarged and improved roundabout, in view of the heavy capital cost which will be incurred if the underpass proposals are implemented;
(2) the estimated total cost according to present plans of the proposed underpass road development scheme at the Ace of Spades junction on the Kingston By-pass; and how this cost compares with the estimate for an enlarged and improved roundabout as suggested to him by the Kingston By-pass Association.

§ Mr. Nugent
With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 41 and 42 together.

§ Mr. Hirst
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A very different principle applies to these two Questions. I should be grateful if they could be answered separately.

§ Mr. Speaker
One Answer has been prepared. I think the hon. Member should hear whether it covers both Questions, and then he can ask a supplementary question.

§ Mr. Nugent
We have reviewed this scheme very fully and are satisfied that only an underpass will adequately serve 1171 the needs of the traffic at this junction. The cost, which includes the approaches, slip roads and also the extension of the dual carriageways westwards to Woodstock Lane is about £500,000.
The Association has estimated the cost of its suggested roundabout at £80,000, but I am advised that the probable cost would be more than double this, without including any provision for extending dual carriageways. In any event, in our judgment it would be quite inadequate for the traffic.

§ Mr. Hirst
Is my hon. Friend aware that, at the public inquiry, expert evidence was given that the flow of traffic which could be carried by the enlarged roundabout was of the order of 5,500 vehicles an hour, which is a great deal more than the 75 per cent. which his own Department lays down, based on 1954 traffic? Quite clearly, on the figures the hon. Gentleman has given—even if they are adjusted—his own scheme would be about four times the cost of that of the Kingston By-pass Association. Really the country cannot be expected to take the Government's economic policy as clearly and readily as it is expected to be taken if this extravagance is permitted.

§ Mr. Nugent
No, Sir. We considered very carefully indeed whether a roundabout or underpass should be built. In our opinion the smallest roundabout which would even begin to meet the needs of traffic there would be of a size which would involve the demolition of no less than four shops and one public house and have an effect on surrounding property. There is no doubt that our present proposal would interfere far less with property round there as well as giving a much improved traffic flow.

§ Mr. Hirst
Is my hon. Friend aware that that is absolutely contrary to the opinion of the Kingston By-pass Association and that he has no grounds at all for saying that?