Road Schemes (Hansard, 8 March 1967)

§ 39. Mr. Peter Walker
asked the Minister of Transport what factors have caused the 81 major road projects which were due to start between August, 1965, and January, 1966, and which were deferred for six months, in many cases to be deferred for longer than six months.

§ 43. Mr. Peter Mills
asked the Minister of Transport why the target completion dates for six schemes in Devon which, owing to the Government's economic measures in July, 1965, were deferred for six months now have target completion dates showing a deferment of 7, 13, 14, 12, 15 and 8 months.

§ 50. Mr. Onslow
asked the Minister of Transport why the target completion dates for two schemes in Surrey which, owing to the Government's economic measures in July, 1965, were deferred for six months, now have target completion dates showing a deferment of 21 and 8 months.

§ 53. Mr. Kitson
asked the Minister of Transport why the target completion dates for four schemes in Yorkshire which, owing to the Government's economic measures in July, 1965, were deferred for six months now have target completion dates showing a deferment of 10, 8 and 17 months.

§ 54. Sir D. Glover
asked the Minister of Transport why the target completion dates for seven schemes in Lancashire which, owing to the Government's economic measures in July, 1965, were deferred for six months, now have target completion dates showing a deferment of 9 months in four cases and 10, 14 and 15 months in the other three.

§ 55. Mr. Longden
asked the Minister of Transport why the target completion dates for two schemes in Hertfordshire which, owing to the Government's economic measures in July, 1965, were deferred for six months, now have target completion dates showing a deferment of 10 and 19 months.

§ 82. Mr. Hugh Fraser
asked the Minister of Transport why the target completion dates for three schemes in Staf 1518 fordshire which, owing to the Government's economic measures in July, 1965, were deferred for six months, have now target completion dates showing a deferment of 11, 7 and 25 months.

§ 84. Dame Irene Ward
asked the Minister of Transport why the target completion dates for two schemes in Northumberland which, owing to the Government's economic measures in July, 1965, were deferred for six months, now have target completion dates showing a deferment of 17 and 11 months; and if she will date the schemes deferred.

§ 91. Mr. Neave
asked the Minister of Transport why the completion target date of the Chiswick-Langley lighting scheme on the M4 has been delayed 12 months instead of six months.

§ 100. Mr. David Price
asked the Minister of Transport why the target completion dates for four schemes in Hampshire which, owing to the Government's economic measures in July, 1965, were deferred for six months, now have target completion dates showing a deferment of 12 months in two cases and 16 and 20 months in the other two.

§ Mr. Swingler
With permission I will answer Questions 39, 43, 50, 53, 54, 55, 82, 84, 91 and 100 together.

§ Mr. Bessell
On a point of order. May we have the Question numbers again, as they were spoken so quickly?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member's Question is not among them.

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
I thought that the point was put to you, Mr. Speaker, some time ago, when so many Questions are being answered together and many of them are late in number, they should come after Questions and not during Question Time.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have already indicated to the House how I propose to deal with that problem.

§ Mr. Swingler
None of these schemes has been deferred for more than six months in consequence of the Government's 1965 economic measures. The factors which have further delayed some of the target completion dates include difficulties over land acquisition, scheme design, statutory undertakers' apparatus 1519 contract matters and synchronisation with other development.
Such factors cannot accurately be forecast in advance in respect of particular schemes, though appropriate account is taken of their general effect on the programme as a whole.

§ Mr. Walker
Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is rather remarkable that despite the suggested six months' delay, on average these 81 schemes are to be delayed by 11.9 months, which is almost twice as long as the original prediction?

§ Mr. Swingler
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. There is a considerable variation in the delay of the target dates of these schemes. These were all schemes which would automatically be deferred by the deferment of a capital programme in the summer of 1965. That did not mean that other difficulties could not arise in the statutory process of land acquisition, in the preparation of designs, and so on. We recognise that there are matters here which have to be dealt with. That is why my right hon. Friend is establishing road construction units to deal with major schemes, and why she has announced a preparation pool worth £200 million of schemes in order to give much greater notice for the preparation of schemes.

§ Dame Irene Ward
May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of his Answer, he will set down in detail the reasons which resulted in postponing the two schemes in Northumberland, in view of the fact that I treat these overall Answers with suspicion.

§ Mr. Swingler
In order to allay the hon. Lady's suspicion, I shall be delighted to write to her setting out the reasons—

§ Dame Irene Ward
I want it in HANSARD.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Swingler
I shall be delighted to write to the hon. Lady setting out the reasons and, pursuant to my Answer, to record briefly the reasons in HANSARD.

§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody
May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that the county authorities can carry out the kind of work that will go on in the West Country? What worries us is 1520 whether they will be able to deal with the schemes already prepared.

§ Mr. Swingler
That is precisely the reason why my right hon. Friend is pushing ahead with the establishment of the road construction units, to take over the preparation of the major schemes, so that the county councils can get on with the load of work which needs to be done on the less important schemes.

§ 44. Dr. Ernest A. Davies
asked the Minister of Transport what is at present the capital value of road schemes under construction; and how this figure compares with those for the same date four, eight, and 12 years ago, respectively.

§ Mr. Swingler
On the basis of information about schemes in progress contained in the Estimates for the respective years the approximate figures for motorways, trunk roads and classified roads in England are as follows: 1967, £600 million; 1963, £300 million; 1959, £120 million; and 1955, £20 million.

§ Dr. Davies
Is my hon. Friend aware that the tremendous increase which that Answer reveals will be widely welcomed by all road users? Is he further aware that it completely exposes the pretence by the party opposite that the Government are attempting to curb road finance?

§ Mr. Swingler
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that these figures prove that the Government are sponsoring the biggest road programme the country has ever had.

§ Mr. Peter Walker
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that 1965 was the first year since 1951 in which the amount of money spent on new roads and major improvements went down?

§ Mr. Swingler
No, Sir, I certainly will not confirm that. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that by mere repetition he will get somewhere. I ask him to read again my speech during the transport debate which gave the specific instance of 1956–57. The hon. Gentleman always wants to refer to a different year. This figure proves that this is the biggest—[Interruption.]—I know that hon. Gentlemen do not want to hear that this is the biggest road programme that the country has ever had.