Motorways

HC Deb 09 June 1969 vol 784 cc944-8

8. Mr. Berry

asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of motorways he now expects to be completed during 1969.

Mr. Marsh

Nearly 44 miles, Sir.

Mr. Berry

Is not that a very disappointing figure? It is well below the average of the last few years. Surely we should be increasing the figure each year? Have cuts been made in the programmes during the last three years for the main motorways such as the M3 and M5, and is there a shortfall programme for this year?

Mr. Marsh

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should say that it is disappointing. The target figure announced in January was "about 45 miles", and 44 miles is about 45 miles. We expect to complete the target that we have set ourselves.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question, whether there have been cuts in the programme this year? Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why the British Road Federation has claimed that of 37 schemes published for starting in 1969 by his Ministry, 18 have been delayed within six months?

Mr. Marsh

In reply to the latter point, there is a subsequent Question, and in answering that I shall be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. John Lee

May we have the section of M4 around the south of Reading completed as soon as possible?

Mr. Marsh

I give my hon. Friend my undertaking that that section and all the others will be completed as soon as possible.

Mr. Berry

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

12. Mr. Gresham Cooke

asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the Report on Accidents on the M4 1965–67 showing a better accident record and a superior braking force coefficient on the concrete as opposed to the asphalt sections, whether he will now construct all new motorway and primary route sections with a concrete surface.

Mr. Marsh

No, Sir. General conclusions cannot be drawn from isolated tests on an exceptional motorway. Good roads with acceptable skidding resistance can be built with either asphalt or concrete, and it is my policy to use whichever will achieve and maintain the required standards more economically in each particular case.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

Does not the Road Research Laboratory's Report on accidents on M4 clearly show that the braking force coefficient was superior on the concrete sections and that the asphalt sections were below the minimum standard required by the Road Research Laboratory? Does not this fact indicate that motorways should be constructed in deeply textured concrete as has been done in the last five years?

Mr. Marsh

No, Sir. The point is that adequate roads can be built with either substance. The M4 is a quite exceptional motorway with very dense traffic on it. The problem is a common one of polishing over parts of it. This is not an argument for one form of covering as opposed to another.

Mr. Raphael Tuck

My right hon. Friend referred to the economics of the situation. Should not safety rather than economics be the guiding line? In those circumstances, should not preference be given to reinforced concrete?

Mr. Marsh

Only if there were evidence that concrete was of itself a better and safer form of surface than asphalt, but this is not the case. There is no evidence on this one way or the other. There can be safe roads on either.

25. Mr. Geoffrey Wilson

asked the Minister of Transport how many miles of motorway originally planned for 1968–69 were carried over to 1969–70; how many miles planned for 1969–70 he now estimates will have to be carried over to 1970–71; and what amount of investment these deferments represent.

26 and 27. Mr. Awdry

asked the Minister of Transport (1) what factors have caused the delays in the implementation of the motorway programme during the current year;

(2) how many miles of motorway which will be started this year have so far been delayed for six months or more.

Mr. Marsh

Of the 36 motorway schemes which it was expected in January, 1968, would be ready to start in 1968, eight totalling about 74 miles were carried over into 1969: of these 25 miles were started before 31st March, 1969, leaving five schemes totalling about 48 miles and costing about £50 million to be started in 1969–70. Of these five schemes about 35 miles have been delayed for six months or more. Delays have been due to a variety of factors, including the time required to deal with objections during the statutory procedures, difficulties of land acquisition and unexpected constructional problems.

In addition to schemes carried over from 1968, we expect that construction will have started or contracts be let during 1969 on a further 98 miles of motorway. Our present estimate is that we will achieve this objective.

Mr. Wilson

Is not this rather unsatisfactory? In view of the continued growth of motor traffic, should not there be a steady increase in motorway construction instead of constant delays?

Mr. Marsh

This is the whole point. Far from a steady growth, there has been a very rapid growth, and that is why at present the road programme is twice as big as it was when hon. Members opposite left office and six times as big as it was 10 years ago.

Mr. Awdry

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whatever other cuts are necessary in public expenditure the motorway programme should not be cut but expanded? Will he give an answer now to the question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine)?

Mr. Marsh

The roads programme has been expanding ever since the present Government have been in office. It is considerably higher than it was when hon. Members opposite were in office. The basis of the Question was a report of the British Road Federation's statement that 18 motorway and trunk road schemes which should have begun this year will be delayed by an average of six months each, and that is not so.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

Will the Minister therefore call for an inquiry to discover how it is that the British Road Federation should have in its possession information of this sort—how it can claim that in October, 1968, 37 schemes were published in detail for commencement in 1969 and that of the same schemes listed only six months later 18 have been delayed by an average of six months.

Mr. Marsh

It is not for me to carry out inquiries into the statements of the British Road Federation. One would have thought that if hon. Members opposite wanted to inquire they would have asked the Ministry before putting down the Questions. The mistake that the British Road Federation made was that its statement was based on the assumption that lists of schemes issued to contractors for forward planning purposes, with estimated starting dates, constituted the Ministry's firm programme. It was made clear to contractors at the time that the lists issued were purely tentative, and I think that it is true to say that the first list published was clearly more than we could have constructed anyway.

Mr. McNamara

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange to hear the nature of some of the complaints from the benches opposite not only because of our own expanded programme but also because the main reason for the delays is defending the individual, making sure that proper inquiries are held, that land is acquired properly, and that people have a proper opportunity to put forward their objection?

Mr. Marsh

This is inevitable. One of the biggest causes of delay is the statutory procedures, and it is difficult to know how one can avoid them. I have great sympathy with hon. Gentlemen opposite and the hon. Lady, because the problem they face is the one we have seen before where one drafts the supplementary question before hearing the Answer to the Question.