§ 16. Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Transport whether she will now specify the alterations to the road programme necessitated by the reductions in public expenditure in 1968–69 and 1969–70.
§ 25. Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Transport how the cuts in expenditure 404 on the road programme have affected road communications to the ports.
§ Mr. SwinglerI have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 17th January. As that reply indicated the review of starting dates will be aimed at minimising delays to the more important road schemes, which include those affecting communications to the ports.—[Vol. 756, c. 558.]
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonCan the hon. Gentleman say what now are the prospects for the M11? Is there likely to be any change?
§ Mr. SwinglerNo, Sir. As my right hon. Friend said, we will so operate the savings that there will be no effect on the major motorway programme and, as far as possible, none on the major trunk route programme. Certainly there will be no effect on an important road scheme for access to the docks.
§ Mr. RidsdaleIs the Minister of State aware that certain work appears to have stopped on the road to Harwich, which is to be a very important container port? Will he look into it and tell us why?
§ Mr. SwinglerI am not in possession of the details, but, if the hon. Gentleman will let me have them, I will look into the matter. We have to go through statutory processes, which sometimes cause delay to schemes. If there is any unavoidable delay, I will look into it and let the hon. Gentleman know.
§ Mr. OgdenIn view of the importance of exports, will my hon. Friend look again at the proposals for the Liverpool-M6 to see whether it is possible to bring that project forward?
§ Mr. SwinglerMy hon. Friend will know that we are in consultation with local authorities about important factors concerning access to ports and docks in that part of the country and related to schemes of major construction further ahead. We will do our best to improve matters in that area.
§ Mr. Peter WalkerIs the Minister aware that a recent reply to a Written Question shows that the 81 schemes deferred in 1965 for six months in fact 405 were deferred on average for more than 12 months? Will this happen again?
§ Mr. SwinglerNo, Sir. We have debated this matter several times since that occurred. There were many factors affecting the so-called slippage of that period, and, since then, my right hon. Friend has taken action to establish the road construction units in order to overcome these difficulties. Now that we are developing the road construction units, certainly we will not allow that slippage to occur.
§ Mr. AstorHas the omission of the M4 in the programme for motorway development announced recently been due to reductions in public expenditure or to some other cause?
§ Mr. SwinglerIt is not due to reductions in expenditure, but to the statutory processes. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, there are certain difficulties due to the possibility of public inquiries, which are unavoidable under the present law. We are endeavouring to get forward with the M4 as rapidly as possible.