TRUNK ROADS BILL. (Hansard, 12 February 1946)

HL Deb 12 February 1946 vol 139 cc407-78 407

§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

§ Moved that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Walkden.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly:

§ [The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]

§ Clause 1:

§ Additional trunk roads and reorganization of trunk road system.

§ (2) The Minister shall keep under review the national system of routes for through traffic in Great Britain, and if he is satisfied, after taking into consideration the requirements of local and national planning, including the requirements of agriculture, that it is expedient for the purpose of extending, improving or reorganizing that system that any existing road, or any road proposed to be constructed by him, should become a trunk road, or that any trunk road should cease to be a trunk road, he may by order direct that that road shall become, or as the case may be shall cease to be, a trunk road as from such date as may be specified in that behalf in the order.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert: Provided that no order shall be made under this sub-section without prior consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning".

408

§ The noble Lord said: The rubric at the side of Clause 1 of this Bill is: "Additional trunk roads and reorganization of trunk road system." While subsection (2) of the clause is mainly concerned with the reorganization of the trunk road system, that is to say, the question of either a trunk road ceasing to be a trunk road, or of a road, not a trunk road, becoming one, there are some words in the middle of the subsection which are about any road proposed to be constructed becoming a trunk road. Secondly, there are powers here to make new trunk roads altogether. Of course, the decision as to what are to be new trunk roads is a very fundamental matter in town and country planning. It seems to me that the Minister of Town and Country Planning is the person who has just as great or even a greater interest in this than the Minister of Transport who is going to look after the road. Consequently, the object of this Amendment is to secure that these new trunk roads in particular shall not be designed and established without proper consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning.

§ When I moved an Amendment analogous to this to another Bill a few days ago in your Lordships' House it was refused by the Government spokesman on the ground that such a consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning was implicit in the Bill, and, consequently, I withdrew the Amendment. But this time, the situation is rather different, because here in the clause it is stated that the Minister shall keep under review the national system of roads, and if he is satisfied, after taking into consideration the requirements of local and national planning, he shall do so and so. That is no longer only implicit in the Bill; it is explicit that this Minister, the Minister of Transport, has got to think about town and country planning. That seems to be the most odd situation, and if you are going to put in the Bill that the Minister has to think about town and country planning, surely the Minister who has to do that ought to be the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Consequently, I think the argument of the representative of the Government last week that it was implicit in the Bill, and that therefore I must withdraw the Amendment, rebounds very forcibly on his head now that it is accepted in the Bill. It ought 409 to be clear that it is the Minister of Town and Country Planning who ought to do it. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 1, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

§ LORD WALKDEN
I am glad that town and country planning continues to receive such keen support from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but I am sorry to have to disappoint him by saying that we cannot see our way to accept his Amendment. Our first reason is that it is not necessary. This Bill was prepared in consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and, all through, the work of the Minister of Transport, whether new roads or changes which he previously had power to make, was under consideration with all Departments concerned. What the noble Lord proposes should be put into the Bill involves a very important constitutional principle, namely, whether or not you should have single ministerial direction; whether or not you should interfere with ministerial responsibility by compelling official consultation with another Ministry, both of them being concerned, when a measure comes before the House or is under consideration. That would lead to confusion and perhaps to unhappy incidents. It would be most inadvisable and would be contrary to the practice which we have reached, and under which our system works with the utmost smoothness and in a businesslike way.
The noble Lord does not like what happened on February 7 in relation to another Bill—the Building Restrictions (Wartime Contraventions) Bill, but the principle is exactly the same; and the reasons for objecting on that occasion are precisely applicable to this instance. And it is not merely this instance. When I was working in another place I was on two or three very important committees, one of which dealt with the question of rural water supply. An assurance was wanted that what was done with regard to rural water supply would not disturb the amenities. We were very glad to give such assurance, but we would not put the words in the Bill. There was a Water Bill larger than the one Lord Westwood has brought in this afternoon, where the same questions were raised and rejected by the Committee. A more definite effort was made in the Location of Industries Bill. The 410 town and country planning people came along and raised their points in the House and in Committee but, for precisely the same reason, namely a constitutional reason, we could not see our way to accept the Amendments to stipulate official consultations.
I assure the noble Lord that town and country planning will never be absent from the mind of any Minister of Trans, port when he proposes to make a new road. It cannot be. He must consider what he is doing. He must consider what he may improve and what, if he is not careful, he might dis-improve. I hope the noble Lord with that assurance will not press his Amendment.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. If he is prepared to give me an assurance that not only was the Minister of Town and Country Planning consulted during the preparation of this Bill, but that there will be a permanent standard arrangement for interdepartmental consultation at a high official level, I shall have great pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment.

§ LORD WALKDEN
I can assure the noble Lord that there will be continuous, consultation.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 1 agreed to.

§ Clauses 2 to 7 agreed to.

§ 4.45 p.m.

§ LORD SANDHURST moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:

§ Dual carriageways on new trunk roads.

§ "Every road constructed by the Minister or by any other highway authority after the passing of this Act and intended for use as a trunk road shall if used for traffic moving in opposite directions have at least two carriageways each not less than thirty feet wide separated by a strip of land at least five feet wide and the highway authority shall plant and maintain a hedge along the centre line of the said strip of land "

§ The noble Lord said: The Amendment standing in my name is quite a simple one, but it has a very definite object. There are far too many roads which have since been turned into trunk roads, which were single carriageway roads, and which by virtue of the fact that they carried a considerable volume of traffic, were extremely dangerous simply because there was no dividing line between the traffic. 411 My Amendment is designed to compel the Minister, when he is making a new stretch of road, to replace some part of the road or to link up the two sections of a trunk road to make it a dual carriageway. It has got to be realized that a trunk road is only made a trunk road when it is carrying national traffic, and in respect of which it is not thought fair that the local authority should have to pay the cost of the upkeep of the road. In other words, it is almost implicit that a trunk road is a road carrying heavy traffic. I would refer the noble Lord who is replying to the report of the Government Committee on Road Safety and in particular to paragraph 129. If I may weary your Lordships by reading part of that paragraph, it is as follows: It is now generally accepted that, where space is sufficient and traffic reaches a certain volume, opposing streams of traffic should be separated by a continuous central strip, dual carriageways being thus created to operate as oneway streets…. For the future, however, the arrangement could be made standard practice in the case of all new arterial and sub-arterial roads. That is a recommendation of the Government's own Committee, and all I am asking the Government to do is to adopt the recommendation of their own Committee and embody it in their own Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 10, line 13, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sandhurst.)

LORD HINDLIP
In supporting this Amendment, my main consideration is one of safety. I am quite convinced in my own mind that a dual carriage roadway is very much safer than a single carriageway. Your Lordships have seen several new roads built within the last twenty-five years, many of them around London. I would like to take one or two examples. One of them is Western Avenue. That is partly a dual carriageway and partly a single carriageway. I regret to say there have been rather a lot of accidents on Western Avenue. I believe that most of them have occurred on the first bit, which is only a single-carriageway. I personally when driving myself always have a feeling of greater safety and lesser risk of accident on a road with a dual carriageway.
As regards the hedge down the middle of the road, which is proposed in the Amendment, the object of this of course 412 is to render night driving more safe. I know of one stretch of road which has been constructed in the last ten years or so, which has got a hedge down the middle of it, and that runs a little west out of Bournemouth. I happened to go down it the other day and there was no dazzle from on-coming traffic. Now another thing I notice is that buses are going to be allowed to be built a little wider. I think that was announced by the Ministry of War Transport this morning, and I feel that there is a tendency for all heavy transport vehicles to be built wider in future. If you are only going to have a single carriageway on a trunk road you will find that trunk roads become congested just as the main roads are which now lead out of our great towns. I do hope that in years to come our descendants will not look upon the trunk roads which we are going to build as being as antiquated as we now look upon the roads which have been built in this country in the last twenty-five years.

§ 4.50 p.m.

§ LORD WALKDEN
It is very refreshing to hear wide and broad ideas vigorously advocated in regard to our roads, especially the roads of the future. I think we have all got away from the old "horse and cart" view of roads and we want to see the best possible highways in our country. That is the view of the Ministry. Indeed, we go rather further than is indicated in this Amendment. To think of a 5ft, space in the middle of a road, with a hedge in it, is not enough; we consider there ought to be a sufficient verge for a wheeled vehicle to go on it, in an emergency, out of the way of the road. Certainly a hedge down the centre of a double road would be a great blessing. Imagine a good laurel hedge six or eight feet high, cutting off dazzle lights from the road on the other side. We are in entire sympathy with the ideas indicated in this Amendment, but a moment's reflection will show that the adoption of it will put something on the Ministry which would be a serious handicap on its work in future; and would be unreasonable and, in some cases, uneconomic and unfair.
If it were put into the Bill that in every instance where a trunk road is made it must consist of two 30ft, ways, divided by space for a hedge, and then one thinks of the cyclist and the pedestrian who have also to be provided for, it seems to me that it would involve always a road 120ft. 413 wide. Whilst such roads are desirable and in many cases quite practicable, and no doubt they will be made, that cannot be done in every instance, both because of lack of space and because of various other factors. We purpose having new trunk roads, building them or improving them, right into the Highlands of Scotland. There is one to go from Inverness to Thurso. The economic circumstances north of Inverness, however, are such that would not justify an expenditure of that order, neither would the traffic justify it. It would be a huge white elephant.
The same remark would apply to roads in the English Lake District, probably also to the Derbyshire mountains, and certainly to North and South Wales. It is not so much the economic factor as the physical factor. If we have to shave off a whole mountain side, what will our town and country planning friends think of it? If we leave a ghastly gash where the dynamite has blown away a lot of granite to make room for this tremendously wide road, what would they say? Moreover, it would be a most expensive process and would deter the Minister from making new roads which will be needed. Therefore I hope the Amendment will not be pressed and that the two noble Lords who have suggested it will accept our assurance that in so far as their ideas can be carried out they will be, but I hope they will not impose on us the obligation to do this in all cases.

LORD WALERAN
I would like to add one word on this question. I rather regret that my noble friend Lord Walkden should suggest that the Minister of Town and. Country Planning would find the thing too expensive if it is going to save lives. Wherever these trunk roads are being made or rebuilt, consideration should not be given to beauty but to the practicability of the road and its safety. I. hope that will always be kept in view. We have had a lot of talk on road accidents in both Houses, and I feel that everyone in this House would look askance at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning getting in the way by saying, "We must not lose this beauty spot; we would rather lose lives."

LORD TEYNHAM
I should like to support the. Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. If we are going to build trunk roads we must build 414 them with dual carriageways. The noble Lord who has replied for the Government has suggested that it is difficult to provide for pedestrians and cyclists. There is not a big allowance which has to be made for them, and we must do it when we build new trunk roads. The point was made that possibly in Scotland it might be necessary to cut through rock, and so on. One would not do that unless the traffic warranted it, and then it must be done. As the Bill stands, we may get trunk roads built which will be quite unsuitable to the traffic. The decision must be based on the traffic, and I do not quite follow the noble Lord's argument on that point. I strongly support this Amendment.

§ EARL HOWE
I think there is a slight confusion of thought in the minds of certain noble Lords at the present moment, due perhaps to the expression used in the Bill, namely, "a trunk road." If your Lordships will look at the Memorandum on the Layout and Construction of Roads, published by the Ministry of Transport, a copy of which I have here, you will see that it defines a road requiring a dual carriageway as one which is expected to carry 400 vehicles at the peak hour. In those cases it says that dual carriageways will be desirable. I do not know whether all the trunk roads which the Minister taking over will stand that test—400 vehicles at the peak hour—but if they do, hope the Minister will carry out what is laid down for him in his own bible here—the Memorandum on the Construction and Layout of Roads.
There is one other point I would like to submit to the Minister. Where you are making a dual carriageway, it surely is not necessary in all cases to make both carriageways run on the same alignment. Much has been done in other countries and much can be done here to meet the views of those who are keen about town and country planning by running one road on one alignment, and another road on another alignment, when you come to hilly country. It enormously facilitates matters if you do that. I do not suppose many of the trunk roads the Minister had in mind will really go through the Lake District or North Wales. I hope they will keep clear the Lake District and the Peak District of Derbyshire. What I envisage much more are the great main arterial highways of the country. In all those which the Minister will probably 415 take over, in so far as they are highways which are expected to carry more than 400 vehicles an hour, I hope he will give an assurance that, even if he is not able to accept this Amendment, it will at any rate be the practice of the Minister, so far as he can, to see that they are dual carriageways separated by a medial stretch, as is suggested, and that he will not proceed necessarily in all cases on the same alignment.

§ LORD WALKDEN
May I point out that the noble Lord who last spoke has differed from the proposal in the Amendment? If he will be kind enough to look through the debates on the Second Reading of this Bill, he will find we are seeking to act on the very advice he has given—to have deviations where there are two carriageways, to have footpaths away from the main roads and to have cycle tracks also separated. Indeed, it is the purpose of this Bill to get rid of the previous legal stipulation that they must be in alignment.

§ EARL HOWE
The Memorandum on the Layout and Construction of Roads does not say anything about it at all, and it is what is in this document which is carried out by the Ministry.

§ LORD WALKDEN
That may be, but the Bill says a lot about it and I said a lot about it on the Second Reading. As for the point about safety, of course that is always in the forefront of our minds, and every precaution will be taken to make our roads safer as well as better for the traffic. The provision of a trunk road does depend on the amount of traffic to be provided for, and on that road I mentioned from Inverness to Thurso there are not 400 vehicles at the peak period, there are only 250 in the 24 hours. To provide this great road in those circumstances would be preposterous. Therefore I do hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

LORD SANDHURST
I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the reply I have been given. So far as the road to Thurso is concerned, I strongly suspect that the road already exists and that it will be a case of improvement and not of entire reconstruction. This Amendment only applies to entirely new construction and not to improvements. I should like to know whether the Govern- 416 ment would consider putting in an Amendment which would make it compulsory, where a certain volume of traffic was envisaged, for the road to be a dual carriageway road. Perhaps the Government would consider doing that before the next stage. If they could give me an assurance on that, I would gladly withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD WALKDEN
I am afraid we cannot agree to put detail of that kind into the Bill. It will be a matter of administration and the administration will be open to criticism if necessary.

LORD SANDHURST
I still remain unsatisfied, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clauses 8 to 15 agreed to.

§ Clause 16:

§ Saving for Rochester Bridge.

§ 16. The provisions of this Act with respect to the transfer of private bridges shall not apply to Rochester Bridge.

§ 5.5 p.m.

§ LORD AUDLEY moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: "Bideford Bridge and Barnstaple Bridge." The noble Lord said: My object in moving this Amendment is that Bideford Bridge and Barnstaple Bridge may continue under the administration of the existing Trusts. Very briefly, Bideford Bridge is scheduled as an ancient monument. As many of your Lordships may know, it is a fourteenth century bridge, and is probably one of the most beautiful and best known of the many historical pieces of architecture in the whole of Devon. Barnstaple Bridge is also a very famous and ancient bridge, and its history dates back even further. Both these bridges are under Trusts which in turn come under the Charity Commissioners. The finances of the Trusts are almost identical, and appear to be very sound. The Bideford Bridge Trust has property bringing in an income of £2,365 a year, and the Trust has capital of more than £150,000. The Barnstaple Bridge Trust has approximately the same capital.

§ The Minister, I understand, was approached on this matter, when certain undertakings were asked for. Those have since been given. The undertakings agreed to by the Trust are that the Trustees undertake to carry out whatever work in 417 the future may be required to meet the needs of trunk road traffic. As I have already said, it would appear that their resources are ample for this purpose. I therefore feel confident that the Amendment standing in my name is a sound one, and I beg to move it, as I have said, in order that the administration of these famous bridges may be continued under the ancient Trusts established so many years ago, which have so faithfully and efficiently discharged their duties up to the present time. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 16, line 6, at end insert ("Bideford Bridge and Barnstaple Bridge").—(Lord Audley.)

§ LORD WALKDEN
This Amendment was suggested in another place, and has been under consideration for some time by the Minister, who is concerned only with the question whether, if he accepts it, these two beautiful old bridges will continue to be looked after in the future as well as they have been in the past. Our information agrees entirely with that imparted to the House by the noble Lord. There are abundant Trust funds, over £150,000 in each case, funded from original founders of the bridge—a most pleasant thing to discover. The Government have no intention or desire to do anything but to conserve such good things. Therefore we have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment, seeing that the Minister is now satisfied that it is the right thing to do.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

§ Remaining clause agreed to.

§ 5. p.m.

§ First Schedule: