HL Deb 23 June 1938 vol 110 cc259-81

LORD ELTISLEY rose to call attention on behalf of the Roads Group to the Highway Development Survey, 1937 (Greater London), made by Sir Charles Bressey, and the Report thereon presented to the Minister of Transport and, in view of the urgency of providing relief to congestion of road traffic in London, to inquire what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to implement the recommendations made therein; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in my name has been tabled on behalf of the Roads Group of your Lordships' House, and gives expression to the views of a considerable body of opinion. I venture respectfully to draw your attention to the fact that, although I understand the Standing Orders do not themselves forbid more than one name being attached to a Motion, it happens that so far as this particular Motion is concerned only one name appears on it. In point of fact this Motion, as handed in, actually carried the signatures of several of your Lordships, but they were not printed on the Order Paper. These arbitrary omissions are, I venture to think, regrettable, as the presence of the names attached to the Motion would have tended to commend and fortify the presentation of this Motion to your Lordships, and would have indicated to the House generally the measure of support which it really has behind it.

May I take this opportunity of respectfully congratulating His Majesty's Government upon the pleasing departure from their usual practice in calling for a long-term, long-sighted Report of this nature. I believe I am right in saying that this is the first, or nearly the first, time that anything of this kind has been done by a Government. A Report has been prepared by an individual, and a distinguished individual, who has rendered able services to the State, a person of tried and tested experience and capacity, and who in the preparation of that Report has been given a perfectly free hand, has remained untrammeled by what I might call departmental supervision and direction, and whose instructions have been quite clear and explicit—namely, just to concentrate and to think, for whatever period of time he might consider to be necessary, about the problem, and endeavour thereby to find a solution for the amelioration of a particularly difficult matter. The Report speaks for itself. It is a splendid attempt to take a long and practical view and, if I may, I should like to congratulate Sir Charles Bressey, the author of this Report, upon his distinguished work. This method of investigation and inquiry which the Government have adopted in this case might well, I think, offer a happy new precedent for dealing with difficult problems as they arise in other fields. It would obviate, for example, to some extent the need of setting up special Commissions, whose members have to work very hard, who get flooded out with innumerable memoranda, which they hardly have time to read, and have to interview large numbers of persons, among whom will always be found a by no means inconsiderable number of cranks.

I should like to make it clear to the House that we of the Roads Group who are raising this matter are not doing so from the safety point of view, tragic as that aspect of the road traffic problem undoubtedly is. And there is certainly no group of members of your Lordships' House who deplore more acutely the melancholy of fatal and non-fatal accidents which goes on day after day and month after month. We are not raising this question so much from that point of view because we recognise and appreciate that this particular aspect of the road problem is being ably and thoroughly investigated by the officially appointed Select Committee whose task it is to do this work, and whose proceedings are restricted by their terms of reference more or less to this matter. We, however, are approaching the question and ventilating it to-day primarily from the point of view of fluidity of traffic, and trying to get something done to obviate the difficult traffic conditions which now exist, and to facilitate to a greater extent the easy flow of traffic which we all so much desire. We are also submitting this problem to the attention of the House from the point of view of the saving of transport charges and costs, which press very heavily upon our traders and the business community.

Our object is to get something done. There is always a real danger, particularly where an elaborate Report of this character is made, covering as it does a very wide field and putting forward a whole variety of schemes, that little or nothing will eventually be done. The mere fact that a Report carries with it many recommendations, which of course cannot be carried out immediately, is sometimes used as an argument for sitting still and doing nothing. We were glad to observe from the report of a debate which took place recently in another place, that definite decisions have been taken to proceed without delay with certain schemes which have been, we understand, approved and accepted, and we were glad to know that this work will be carried out. But we should like to have a little more information. We should like to know what are those schemes, when will the work be commenced and, above all, when is it expected that it will be possible to complete that work.

I would also like to stress the importance of scheduling a list of schemes on a sort of priority basis, and to urge the need of something of that kind being done. For example, the routes which are eventually going to be developed should be decided upon as soon as possible, so that definite steps can be taken to prevent the erection of obstructive buildings—buildings for which heavy compensation would be demanded, and would have to be paid presumably if the scheme were eventually carried out. I believe that, as a matter of fact, ample powers are in the hands of the authorities to undertake work of this kind, but if there be any question about it, I trust that legislative powers will be at once taken, so that that point can be effectively dealt with. Action of this kind is necessary, and I venture to think will not adversely affect or reflect upon the work of any Government Department or central or local authority. It is just plain, ordinary, common sense to look ahead and as far as possible forestall and avoid difficulties of that kind which are bound to arise.

Then I suggest that safeguarding measures should be taken—and they can be taken—to defeat the profiteer and the speculator. Already since this Report was published, arousing a good deal of interest, the speculator and the profiteer have appeared. It is not sufficient for the Central Government to rub their hands, to close their eyes, and say, "It is not our business, it is the business of the highway authorities of the country." Surely it is a national responsibility when you are dealing with a national system of road development and improvement. I know it may sound difficult, and no doubt it is, to forestall profiteers, but I venture to suggest that nothing would allay public dissatisfaction more than the knowledge that obstruction and profiteering will not be tolerated or permitted, but will be ruthlessly dealt with and suppressed.

If it be permitted—and I hope I may be forgiven if it is not—to refer to so august a body as the London County Council, it appears somewhat regrettable that the policy which they have adopted and pursued in respect to town planning differs very materially from that which has been adopted by other local authorities, in this respect, that the London County Council's schemes for town planning do not take road planning into account. They confine their town-planning activities more to zoning, that is to say, the allocation of particular areas for various purposes, such as commercial purposes and residential purposes. With all respect, I would suggest that this august body should take a different action, that they should direct their attention to the need of long-term schemes of road planning and road development, for, after all, road transport must eventually play a very important part in any future development on town-planning lines.

It may be found, and very likely will be found, that the present complex system of administration designed and used almost exclusively for the maintenance of roads on a sectional and other restricted plan is really not suitable or adaptable to the construction of new highways on the unexampled scale which now seems to be demanded. The road authorities and the roads themselves are located in different areas without regard to the advantages of bringing these areas together—county borough areas, county council areas, and so on, and these territories are interwoven and intermixed in a very inefficient manner in many cases. I suggest that this question of boundaries as between one highway authority and another is a matter that demands our attention. It may indeed prove necessary to set up much simpler, more direct, perhaps more energetic ad hoc administration with special powers to cut through even red tape, and free itself from those vexatious delays with which we are so familiar in the case of councils, committees, sub-committees, and Government Departments, where reference to and from these various bodies is required. I hope the question of the provision of some such special machinery will be considered.

I do not wish to weary the House because I know there are many other speakers to this Motion, but I should like to be allowed in passing to make mention of the question of motorways. The Report put forward various suggestions for the construction of motorways—that is to say, roads exclusively reserved for motor traffic with a view to the relief of congestion, for the speeding up of traffic and, above all, for the reduction in the number of accidents which now take place on the ordinary roads of this country. The House will, I think, appreciate that it may well prove cheaper and more advantageous to construct some entirely new roads adapted to the entirely new conditions of modern traffic rather than try in all cases to alter and modernise some of our ancient highways, which never were built under any plan but more or less just happened. To alter these old highways to fit modern requirements can only be done in many cases by destroying, perhaps, some of our most picturesque rural amenities, cutting up our village greens, rooting up our ancient trees, and perhaps pulling down the village church or the village hall. If new motorways specially adapted to modern conditions are required, then I hope we shall not hesitate to face the problem. I would put forward the plea that, at any rate, one or possibly more motorways should be constructed. Let us regard these quite frankly as an experiment, and this new method of transportation by motorway should be carefully, immediately, and fully considered.

Great concern has been expressed at the immense cost which might be involved in carrying out such a programme as has been envisaged in this Report. It must be noted, however, that the programme relates to a long period of time. It is proposed to cover something like thirty years. Moreover it is fair to observe that no one contemplates that a programme of this magnitude would be carried out exactly and precisely as it has been presented. Even when some of the big schemes go forward, such as the proposal for the Eastern Avenue linked with the Western Avenue across London, the financial burden could not be felt for at least two years. Countless negotiations would have to be entered into in respect of land, buildings, and all sorts of other matters. I do think, if some of these schemes were adopted in principle and negotiations carried out, it might prove that when the time for spending the money and doing the work arrived it would be a very helpful way of dealing with some unemployment problem or a difficulty of that kind in our national economy.

I hope I have said enough to indicate to your Lordships the great importance and great urgency of the problem with which we are confronted, and enough to justify the questions which I have ventured to ask. I sincerely hope that action will be taken, action which is so obviously necessary, and that we shall not put this Report on the shelves which are already well stocked with Reports not so useful or ambitious and will recommendations which have not been carried out. I thank your Lordships for your consideration, and I beg to move for Papers.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, this great Report which is the subject of this Motion to-day was published on May 17, and many of your Lordships have felt great anxiety as to what might happen with reference to it. It happened to be published almost on the same day as the Government announced the need for the accelerated programme of rearmament. This Report envisages schemes which are going to cost a great deal of money, and therefore it is perhaps not unfair, to use a colloquialism, to say that the Report was published on rather a bad wicket. There were many other problems of a very urgent character in the public eye, at that moment, and there seemed to be great danger that the importance of this Report might be overlooked.

The noble Lord who has moved this Motion pointed out with truth that this was the first occasion on which a really long view has been taken of the road problem of this country. The Government's record with regard to the roads of this country does not inspire those of us who are vitally interested in this matter with great confidence. As it seems to us, the Government so far have simply toyed with the road question in this country. All the time it has been catching them up. For instance, since the year 1910, traffic on our roads, according to the statistics that have been published, has increased by something like two thousand per cent. In the same period new roads have increased by 1.9 per cent. At the present time new vehicles are coming on to the roads at a net rate of increase of, roughly, 500 a day. That process cannot go on. The result will simply be chaos, and one must not forget that in the background are the fortunes of an industry serving the country which employs 1,300,000 workers. Already there are signs that the extreme congestion on the roads is having its repercussions on industry. It has become increasingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to sell the higher-priced cars. That is exactly where the effect would first be found—the impossibility of selling the higher-priced car. Eventually that tendency may spread, and if it does it will have a very grave effect upon the fortunes of the industry and upon our export trade. Therefore I do hope the Government will take every advantage of the long view taken by Sir Charles Bressey's wonderful Report.

I share entirely with the noble Lord who preceded me his admiration for Sir Charles Bressey and the way he has approached this problem. As it seems to me, he has not approached it exclusively from the point of view of London, but, as your Lordships who have read the Report will have noticed, he goes much further afield and points to the extraordinary importance of the arterial road system of the country as a whole. Indeed, he indicates where very great improvements well outside the London area but connected with it, and having their effect upon it indirectly, may be made. Sir Charles Bressey's Report deals, of course, principally with the London area.

I said just now that so far the Government had toyed with the problem. I am prepared to say they have not only toyed with it, but that they have tinkered with it and have just muddled along. Take certain well known arteries of traffic. Take Western Avenue, one of the most important arteries made in recent years. The work on that started in 1920 to 1921. It was planned to start at Wood Lane by the White City and to come out on the Oxford Road somewhere on the other side of Uxbridge close to Denham. It still is 2.55 miles short of its eventual destination, and statements have been made in the Press to the effect that it will take another two-and-a-half years before it can be completed. A road that is about twelve-and-a-half miles long or something of that sort—I forget the exact measurement—under construction for seventeen years already, and still 2.55 miles short of its destination, and to take another two-and-a-half years before it gets there: that is what I call tinkering and toying with the thing. If modern machinery is used, the Germans have shown us that you can make a new road according to the very latest specifications and the latest ideals of the road engineer, at the rate of 220 yards a day working a single shift, and 440 yards a day working a double shift. If that is possible in Germany, I decline to believe the same sort of thing is not possible here.

Take the Western Avenue again. It includes amongst other things, according to the Report, three and a half miles over its most congested portions, a road that is thirty feet wide or less. Those of your Lordships who use that road will, I know, agree that it is to-day one of the most dangerous arteries leading out of London. It urgently requires reconstruction according to the latest ideas and the specifications of the Ministry of Transport; yet the Ministry of Transport come and tell us that only 2 per cent. or less of the accidents that take place on that road are due to road conditions. It is perfectly absurd. Any of your Lordships who are in the habit of using that road will agree that there are few more dangerous roads to be found in the London area. The Western Avenue is one of the most vital aspects of Sir Charles Bressey's Report. His principal recommendation, or his first recommendation if you like to put it that way, is the importance of constructing a great eastern-western way from London to Western Avenue, to be connected up somewhere across Paddington and then across Marylebone and Euston Roads to the Eastern Avenue. There is no doubt that this is a work of first-class importance.

It will be urged that the cost of this will be simply enormous. The motor world is getting rather impatient when too much stress is laid on this question of cost. The motor world to-day is paying £88,000,000 a year in taxation—over 8 per cent. of the national revenue is being raised as tribute from the motor world. They may well ask what they are getting for it. To-day the Government's proposals are to spend £3,000,000 upon new road construction this year. Of that £3,000,000, £2,200,000 is already earmarked for certain improvements, such as the Crawley by-pass and the Winchester by-pass, leaving only £800,000 as a balance. I suggest that that is simply tinkering with the road question of this country. Look at the accident statistics. We did not raise this Motion specially because of the accident statistics, but it has a very great bearing upon them. All the statistics that have been published have shown us that extreme traffic congestion is one of the chief factors in accident causation. If that is true—and I think every authority who has examined the question with an impartial mind has decided that there is a great deal of truth in it—then this question of road construction becomes more than ever vital.

I would like to know from the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government what really are their plans. I submit to His Majesty's Government that they have not only to show what their plans are in connection with Sir Charles Bressey's Report, but they must give the country a better idea of what their attitude is with regard to the road question as a whole. The noble Lord who preceded me pointed out that it is often possible to make a new road far better than it is to improve an old road. It is not only possible but it costs a great deal less. The greatest experts in this country have shown us that you can construct a perfectly new road where none exists for about £40,000 a mile. In Germany it has been done for less than that, presumably because they have advantages in the labour market and also because they are in the habit of using very much more modern machinery. But if you improve an existing road the experts have told us it costs, roughly, £60,000 a mile. Therefore the question of cost comes in as well as everything else.

I want to know what the Government plans really are. Let them make a full and frank statement. Those who are anxious with regard to this problem appreciate perfectly that the Government cannot say, "We are going to drive a road here or a road there," for the obvious reason that the Government cannot say too much about it because if they do the price goes up against them all the time. I do not wish them to do that, but let them say in general terms what they are really going to do. Let them give us some idea of the order of priority in which they propose to tackle the recommendations of Sir Charles Bressey in his Report. I submit to His Majesty's Government that the motor world particularly is most anxious that the Eastern and Western Avenues should receive prior consideration and also the South Circular Road. That road has been talked about for many years but absolutely nothing has been done. Now you are going to have an improvement in the cross-traffic conditions in the lower portion of London towards Woolwich, and you are going to have an improvement of Wandsworth Bridge; yet you have no way by which traffic can get safely and easily from one point to the other without going through the central area where you really do not want it.

Another question, as the noble Lord who preceded me pointed out, is dealt with by Sir Charles Bressey in his Report. One of his objects is quite clearly to maintain the traffic low. Many people imagine, when one talks about the necessity for better roads, that one wants better roads in order to enable vehicles to charge along at impossible and dangerous speeds. That is not so. The object is to try to keep up the traffic flow as is done in other countries. In America they concentrate on traffic flow. They stop you if you go too fast, but on the other hand if you go too slowly you are taken to task by the traffic authorities. Look at our arterial roads out of London. Take any one of them you like. The Kingston by-pass is an example. It was constructed as a single track road. Then at various points housing development took place. Then traffic lights arrived, and then pedestrian crossings. That is the position, not only on the Kingston by-pass, but on other arterial roads. Then, as on the Western Avenue, speed limit restrictions are imposed. The result is very largely to nullify the usefulness of the road.

One thing to which Sir Charles Bressey gives attention is the system of road intersections. That is of great importance. In other countries, in Germany and in America, and to a lesser extent perhaps in Italy, they have gone in largely for what are known as flyover junctions. Sir Charles Bressey deals with them. We are experimenting with one single fly-over junction on the Kingston by-pass. I believe there is a second one to be introduced, but there is urgent need for a third where the by-pass debouches on the Portsmouth road. There is urgent need for it, and there is ample land available; but nothing is done. There are many other points where fly-over junctions could be provided.

It may be said that in Germany they have made autobahnen and other road improvements with a strategic idea. Is there no strategic necessity here? Suppose there was an air raid on this great City, what would happen? You would not like to have the whole population here as a sitting target for enemy bombs. You would want some of them, at any rate, to have a chance of getting away. Yet at the present time outlets do not exist and the population could not get out by any conceivable means. Better roads are a part of national defence. The bombing of a railway junction might put a large railway area out of action, but it would be difficult for enemy bombers to put a well constructed road system out of action. I submit to your Lordships that there is a strategic need here for these road improvements and I hope that that will not be overlooked. I want the Government to tell us what they are going to do about arterial roads and motor ways and other matters. I do not want details, but I do want the Government to say generally what their attitude is going to be. I do not press for an answer this afternoon, but I do ask my noble friend who will reply for the Government to submit to the Minister that as soon as he possibly can he should take an opportunity of telling the country what is the Government attitude to these matters.

There is only one other minor point. There are many by-passes out of London and in other parts of the country. In most cases they are designed to facilitate traffic, but in almost all cases they decant traffic on to an ordinary road which has not been improved. It simply reproduces what has been going on before to the increasing exasperation of the motor world. It is no good having a Kingston by-pass when you come on to the Portsmouth Road which is only a single track road and not able to deal with the traffic. I would urge the Government to get away from the idea that we can solve the traffic problem by making the traffic fit the roads. The Government policy so far as road transport is concerned has been not to permit the normal development of road transport. They have gone in for a policy of restriction. It has been very severely restricted, and restricted, in the opinion of most of those connected with the road transport industry, in the interest of the railway companies. The effect of that is very largely to increase the cost of goods that would otherwise travel by road. It is for that reason that the motor world is becoming increasingly suspicious of the whole attitude of His Majesty's Government to the road problem. It becomes therefore more urgently necessary for the Government to declare their policy as soon as possible with regard to this great and important Report of Sir Charles Bressey.

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, this subject has been so admirably dealt with that there is not a great deal left to be said. I would like, if I may, to add my meed of praise to Sir Charles Bressey and Sir Edwin Lutyens for this admirable Report. I think the mere fact that it has been produced in conjunction with a well known architect does mean that, although the Report looks as if it might be a little devastating as far as buildings are concerned, the City and London as a whole w ill benefit in appearance as well as in traffic facilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, said, this question is brought forward not from the point of view of road safety, although naturally it will have a big effect on that. It is a matter which is concerned much more with national prosperity. A great deal has been said about the cost of carrying out these schemes, and I was sorry to hear the noble Earl say that the motor world were going to benefit by it, because it seems to me that the motoring world are not going to benefit nearly as much as the nation as a whole.

Saturation point so far as traffic is concerned has already been reached at a great many points in London. All the things we use, the food we eat, almost every single thing that is used in commerce, is continually passing those points where saturation has already been reached, and the result is that we are paying millions of pounds—actually millions of pounds—a year in transport simply because our roads are not up to the traffic that it is necessary to put upon them. That cost falls upon the whole nation. The circumstance that the motoring world is contributing £88,000,000 a year and not getting it back has nothing to do with the case at all. To my mind it is a national matter and if you look to the motoring world to pay you might use all the money the motoring world is now paying for the purpose.

I would like to support the noble Earl in asking for a definite statement as to which part of the scheme the Government propose to take first. I do not mean which identical scheme, but which part. The scheme can be divided to my mind into three sections, the inner, the middle and the outer, and I cannot help feeling that the most important one to start on is the inner: the East and West link, the Embankment and the City loopway, and then the South Circular Road. Those three are the ones that are going to do the most to relieve traffic congestion in Inner London, but I think we do want a definite statement as to where the Government propose to start, whether from the outside in, or from the inside out, and I hope we shall have an assurance that they are going to work on some definite plan, and not by a series of blotches here and there. I should also very much hope that we shall get some assurance that they will take active steps to safeguard the proposed routes, to prevent not only profiteering but also the erection of new and costly buildings which are going to block the lines which are wanted for the new better roads. If the Government can also give us an assurance that they are going really to get together with the London County Council, so that the London County Council's proposals and the Sir Charles Bressey scheme may be linked together, then I think we can say that we have had a satisfactory afternoon.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I do not rise to continue the discussion on the lines that have been pursued by noble Lords who have spoken. They have presented to the House, very ably and very adequately, the practical considerations which they had in mind, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Roads Group for having brought forward this subject to-day. For my own part I would wish to say only a few words, in a plea to the Government, and indeed to the whole nation, to promote the early adoption of the great proposal made by Sir Charles Bressey, in order to enhance the dignity and the greatness of London as the Capital City of the United Kingdom and of the Empire. We have clearly a duty to preserve what remains of old London, but, consistently with that, and without any artistic vandalism, there is the opportunity and indeed the need, the urgent necessity, for carrying out great improvements. During the lifetime of the present generation the improvements on a large scale in the centre of London have been exceedingly few. Indeed there has only been one, the construction of Kingsway and Aldwych, for the earlier improvements, the Victoria Embankment and Holborn Viaduct, belong to a previous generation.

When we see the amazing developments of other capitals of the world we have little reason to be satisfied with our own apathy. Those who have visited Washington in recent years know that it has become a most noble and splendid City. Paris, of course, has inherited the admirable planning of a previous generation. It is only necessary merely to mention Vienna and Budapest, and we know that very great improvements are planned for Rome and Berlin. Meanwhile, here in London, there has been for a long period of years an apathy and indifference which is most reprehensible to those of us now charged with the duty of maintaining and developing the Capital City of the Empire. We are all aware of great defects in its planning and amenities. We have here in. London great causes for satisfaction in certain respects. Parts of it are unsurpassed anywhere, and the Parks are the envy of every other capital. The river front has great potentialities which have hardly yet been used. Nevertheless, whenever we return from abroad, and view London with a fresh eye, we cannot but feel impressed by the meanness of great parts of it, the squalor of others, and the disgraceful congestion of the surface traffic, which amounts to a scandal.

The great new roads planned by Sir Charles Bressey, with the advice, the most skilled advice, of Sir Edwin Lutyens, will give architectural opportunities of the utmost importance. They will allow for fine vistas, for the building of noble edifices, and go very far to enable London to become a City which shall be a worthy centre of a great modern civilisation. London already attracts many visitors from all over the world, and might attract very many more. What is called "tourism" might be developed here to an extent which at present is hardly imagined, adding much to the prestige of our City and to the profit of many of its citizens. Above all, let us remember that this City is the capital of the greatest Empire, the greatest in area, in population and in wealth, not only of the present time but of all time, and its citizens and subjects visit it from every quarter of the great area which its flag covers. When they come here—coming home, as they say—when they come home, not without emotion, let us be able to show them a capital which is worthy of their affection and of their loyalty.

These schemes are exceedingly costly, and the question arises how can they be financed. Obviously they ought to be financed out of the addition to the value of the sites which will be given by these new improvements. Why should this increased value go into the pockets of private individuals? If they are made from public funds, if the capital cost is provided from public funds in some form, then clearly the financial advantage ought to go into the public purse, in order to recoup that cost. Therefore the sums should be provided by a financial scheme, based upon the betterment value which will be conferred upon the neighbourhoods which will be affected. I sincerely trust that the Government will take steps in dealing with this matter to create a bold scheme of finance that will match the boldness of the conception itself.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, I should like to support the Motion, because I consider this is a matter of the very greatest importance. The Minister of Transport recently stated publicly that if the present rate of increase of population on the roads continues, in fifteen years time there will be twice as much traffic on the roads as there is to-day—a truly startling state of affairs, and I suggest that it behoves us to take immediate and resolute action. The Minister also submitted that the proper policy of the Ministry of Transport would be, first, to press on with the modernisation of our existing road system, and secondly, to be ready to consider on their merits any schemes for new roads which seemed capable of economic justification, and I would suggest that the Bressey Report confirms this point of view. Obviously such a vast scheme cannot be put into operation at the stroke of the pen, but the general principles on which it is based, I suggest, should constitute the foundation on which not only London traffic requirements should be built, but also those of every provincial town of importance.

I think in the past we have followed in vain the futile policy of trying to make traffic fit the roads, and we cannot hope to see things better until we make up our minds to fit the roads for the traffic. Increase in road traffic is an enemy which grows more formidable every day. I would suggest that it is dangerous to delay matters further, and I do hope the Minister of Transport will consider acting on the Bressey Report as soon as is reasonably possible. I would, however, venture to give one word of warning. I know the rules of this House are somewhat elastic, and perhaps the Motion does not quite cover my point, but the question of railways has been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The crucial transport problem remains to be solved, and that is the rivalry between road and rail transport. Distribution is too vital a national necessity to go unco-ordinated, and some measure of regulation is both essential and desirable. At one time it was thought that there was an analogy between the present competition of road and railway with that which took place a century ago with regard to the railways and canals. I would suggest that this is not really true. In the case of road and rail transport the real difficulty is that one block of work is being done by two agencies, one of which is fettered and controlled at every point, while the other is still licensed to be more or less a freelance. I am well aware that there are certain regulations concerning road traffic. The danger to the railways is not that they might be displaced by a more efficient form of transport, but that in the somewhat chaotic condition of work resulting from lack of regulation and coordination with road transport, the railways might be set an almost impossible task to accomplish.

I would suggest that the relationship of road and rail ought not to be a competitive one. Road and railway should represent complementary, and not competitive, services. Each has a sphere within which it is better than the other, and there is loss if the road does what the railway could do better. In the same way if the railway took from the road what it might do more efficiently, there is also a loss. Where exactly the line of demarcation falls and how to secure an adjustment along this line of demarcation are no doubt matters of practical experiment and of trial and error. I do hope that the Government will very carefully consider the question of co-ordination when the new lay-out of roads is under consideration and traffic regulations are being devised, because unless this coordination is very carefully borne in mind I cannot help feeling that in the future we shall undoubtedly be faced with very severe labour troubles and wage troubles which might have very far-reaching effects. I commend the Bressey Report to His Majesty's Government, and I trust that its recommendations will be considered without delay.

LORD WALERAN

My Lords, I would wish to associate myself with the Motion on the Paper and with the speakers who have already addressed your Lordships' House. There are just two points about which I would like to speak, neither of which has, I believe, yet been covered. The first is that of the strategic value of exits from our cities, and particularly from the City of London. I believe that the Minister of Transport has already been asked whether something could not be done connecting up the defence problem with the roads and the improvement of the roads in normal use. I understand that the attitude of the Ministry is that where improvements to the exits of large cities are justified by considerations of national defence they are also justified by the normal user, and highway authorities are carrying out such improvements as and when they are able to put them in hand. Apparently it comes down to the question of the authority and the place.

I also understand that the attitude of the Ministry towards the taking of the authority out of the hands of the local authorities is that such a thing would be very difficult and would be very much disliked. With that I am in agreement. But I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that for the trunk road sys- tem it is an extraordinary stupid thing to treat it like the rivers in some parts of the world, which disappear under the sand and come up in another place. The trunk roads come into our cities and then go out of the hands of the Ministry of Transport and into the hands of the local authorities, and then come out again on the other side. I suggest that no harm would be done if the Ministry had power in regard to our trunk road system right through, so that there was no break in their authority over those roads. That is a point that I think the Government might consider. It only means two roads in most cities, one north and south, and one east and west, and perhaps a few more in London as the greatest City in the world; but there should be no break in the Ministry's continuity of control over our trunk system of roads. In conclusion I would like to congratulate Sir Charles Bressey and Sir Edwin Lutyens on their magnificent Report.

THE EARL OF ERNE

My Lords, before dealing specifically with the subject of the Motion may I be permitted to add my tribute to those which have already been paid to the authors of this Report? In December, 1934, the Minister of Transport appointed Sir Charles Bressey to make a comprehensive and systematic survey of the highway developments required in the London traffic area—which is roughly an area comprised in a circle with a radius of twenty-five miles from Charing Cross—during the next thirty years. At the same time the Minister appointed Sir Edwin Lutyens to act as consultant. Some indication of the magnitude of the task with which Sir Charles Bressey was faced may be gathered from the fact that the area dealt with covers about 2,000 square miles, in which there are some 150 local authorities and regional committees and which contains nearly one-fifth of the total population of Great Britain. During the three years which have elapsed Sir Charles and his colleague have devoted themselves to an exhaustive survey of the area and the Report which they have produced has deservedly been hailed on all sides as a masterly document embodying not only knowledge but vision.

I should also like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, for initiating this debate, for it gives me this opportunity of making a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government on this most important subject. As regards the Report, many of the sixty-six schemes recommended in the Report relate to radial roads of one kind or another, but on the future map of London illustrating the proposals the road pattern is dominated not so much by the radial roads as by a triple ring of roads intended to deflect the traffic from inner London, where the scanty street space should be occupied rather by citizens whose business lies there than by travellers on their way to other destinations. The innermost of these three concentric rings is the loopway round the City intended to relieve the intense pressure on the Mansion House intersection. The next ring is formed by the North Circular Road coupled with a South Circular Road, the circumference of the complete circuit extending from Finchley in the north to Catford in the south and from Ealing in the west to Ilford in the east. The outermost ring consists of the North Orbital and South Orbital Roads—a circuit of not less than 125 miles—skirting Hatfield in the north, Reigate in the south, Purfleet in the east and Egham in the west.

Now as regards estimates. Any estimates that can be given of mileage and cost in relation to the numerous recommendations are liable to be misleading. In the first place it might be argued that some of the projects should be regarded as alternatives and that the execution of one might enable the second to be dispensed with. Again some sections of route are common to two or more of the recommendations. Moreover mileage is a standard almost impossible of application to such recommendations as the enlargement of Piccadilly Circus or the replanning of Hyde Park Corner. As to cost, one must remember that the Report is based on a thirty years forecast and that consequently any estimates that could be prepared to-day would have little relevance to the conditions prevailing twenty or thirty years hence. Other dubious factors are introduced into any calculations of cost, firstly by the uncertainty of the methods to he adopted in promoting the schemes, and secondly by the problems raised by re-housing and redevelopment areas. Subject therefore to these qualifications and reservations, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has stated in another place that the approximate cost of the schemes is estimated to lie somewhere between £60,000,000 and £230,000,000, of which the proposals made within the administrative county of London will amount to something between £8o,000,000 and £120,000,000. But like my right honourable friend I must emphasize the peculiar difficulty of making any estimate and the fact that the estimates I have just given cannot be regarded as other than approximate.

As befitting a survey—or perhaps one should say a projection of insight—into the next thirty years the programme includes many schemes which cannot be carried out in the immediate future. At the same time, as my right honourable friend stated in another place, it is assumed that the London County Council, the City Corporation and the other highway authorities concerned will, as the responsible improvement authorities, not only welcome the Report as an authoritative guide to their future activities but be anxious to implement its recommendations. An assurance has already been given that in so doing those authorities may count on the whole-hearted support of the Ministry of Transport.

I turn now to the specific question which the noble Lord has put in his Motion—namely, what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to implement the recommendations. As I have said, the main object of the survey was to obtain a comprehensive, coordinated and progressive plan for the development of traffic routes in the areas. Now that the survey is completed, clearly the first thing to be done is to secure the co-operation of the many authorities concerned with the various recommendations so that works in their respective areas may be carried out on lines which conform as nearly as possible to those laid down in the Report. I would remind noble Lords that the initiative rests with the authorities responsible for highway development in the various areas and that the magnitude of the proposals—coupled as they are with the need for the continued improvement of other existing roads and congested focal points—must inevitably involve careful consideration and detailed discussion with the responsible authorities, particularly as to the order in which schemes should be undertaken. With this in mind my right honourable friend on May 16 sent copies of the Report to all the local authorities concerned. He pointed out to them that in the preparation of the proposals Sir Charles Bressey has had the advantage of frequent consultations with the officers of local authorities and other public bodies throughout the area, and he expressed the hope that this fact would facilitate early decision as to the schemes which could be put in hand in the near future and as to the safeguarding of the lines of those other projects on which actual constructional work may have to be postponed for the time being. Indeed my right honourable friend has gone further, because in consultation with the London County Council certain of the schemes have already been agreed upon as those which should be adopted as a first and substantial instalment, and discussions are now proceeding as to ways and means.

My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has asked me to specify the particular schemes as to which agreement has been reached between my right honourable friend and the London County Council. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst—or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley—has also given some prominence to the risk of the cost of the schemes in the Report being enhanced through the activities of land speculation. In the circumstances I am confident that he will agree that these risks should not be unnecessarily increased by any premature disclosure of precisely what is in contemplation. I earnestly hope that he will not at this stage press for more detailed information. His Majesty's Government and, I understand, the local authorities are anxious to proceed as rapidly as circumstances permit. But your Lordships will recognise that having regard to the vast expenditure involved, and the need for relating that expenditure to other demands on the taxpayer and ratepayer, the rate of progress must be conditioned by the financial resources available. Subject to this, the policy is to make a selection—with a view to their early execution—of the more pressing schemes advocated in the Report. As the Report was published little more than a month ago, the noble Lord will realise that no time has been lost by my right honourable friend in preparing the way for the important and essential preliminary negotiations before effect can be given to any of the proposals. In view of the statement I have made I trust that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Motion.

LORD ELTISLEY

My Lords, I hope that the House as a whole will feel, in view of the interesting debate that has taken place upon this Motion, that the Roads Group of your Lordships' House were justified in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. In view of the assurances which have been given I would ask leave to withdraw the Motion, but in doing so may I express the hope that although, as has been pointed out by the noble Earl, the initiative rests with the highway authority, should the highway authorities concerned—and they are very numerous—fail to exercise that initiative, he and his Departments will take the necessary steps to see that action is in fact taken. Our whole object in raising the matter has been to get a move on. I beg leave to withdraw.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.