SCOTTISH ROADS

HL Deb 12 May 1954 vol 187 cc544-91

2.45 p.m.

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE rose to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the insufficiency of the roads in Scotland to deal with modern transport, to the many serious bottlenecks which exist, and to the deterioration which has taken place during and since the war through inadequate maintenance; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in view of the fact that your Lordships debated the subject of roads only a month ago, on a Motion introduced by Lord Brabazon of Tara, some of you may regard the Motion which stands in my name as either premature or superfluous. But I would remind your Lordships that it originates from a suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who, in reply to that debate, suggested that a date might be set aside for a discussion on Scottish roads—and you will not be surprised if a Bruce accepts the challenge to speak for his country on such a subject.

Before embarking on this Motion I wish to acknowledge the courtesy of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House in allocating this date for our discussion. I do not wish, however, to recapitulate any of the general arguments which were submitted on that occasion and which are applicable to the whole country; rather I shall try to show how the various problems which arise are specially applicable and detrimental to the interests of Scotland. That there is in Scotland at the moment a general belief that Scotland is hardly treated on this subject is, I think, demonstrated by the act of two very responsible bodies within the last year. The Association of County Councils prepared a detailed memorandum which was submitted to the Special Committee on Estimates, showing the various statistics and figures in regard to grants and maintenance as they affect Scotland; and quite recently—only a few weeks ago—the Convention of Royal Burghs had on their agenda no fewer than six resolutions on the subject of roads and the difficulties in Scotland arising out of their present condition. The debate on those resolutions occupied most of the first day of the Convention. From those two points of view—that of the County Councils Association and the Convention of Royal Burghs—that shows that there is a very real problem.

I think we are fortunate in this House that a Scotsman, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, replies on behalf of the Minister of Transport; but, while not in any way wishing to disparage his ability in dealing with the subject, I feel that we are especially pleased that the reply on this occasion is going to come from the noble Earl, Lord Home, the Minister of State, because that shows in itself that the Scottish Office is taking in the subject a real interest which is not always demonstrated. To get a proper view of the problem we must realise that Scotland divides itself into three areas. We have the industrial belt which goes in a somewhat North-Easterly direction from Ayrshire, through Renfrewshire, Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Stirling and Clackmannan and West Lothian to the East Coast, right up to Edinburgh and Dundee, including the Kingdom of Fife. To the South of it we have the Borders and to the North the Highlands. I think the problem also divides itself to-day under three heads. First, there is the general insufficiency of our road system for modern transport vehicles, or, in other words, the fact that the maintenance and development of the roads has not kept pace with the development of road vehicles; secondly, the fact that in Scotland goods have to be hauled very long distances from the factory or place of production to their market; and thirdly the extraordinary number of bottlenecks in Scotland—bottlenecks of a different kind from those one comes across in connection with one of the main products of Scotland.

While the first and second of those factors affect all three areas to which I have referred, I think they fall specially heavily on the Highlands and the Borders, with the former, the Highlands, being principally interested in three great primary industries, forestry, fishing and farming, and the latter, the Borders, being in addition interested in the great woollens industry. In the centre belt we have, of course, mainly the heavy industries and the light industries which are growing up in the various industrial estates. It is essential for all these districts that in order to reach their markets their goods should be economically handled and that use should be made of the new vehicles which allow greater loads to be handled and transported.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, will deal with the question of the Highlands with special knowledge, and this will also be dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, who, as President of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), has given keen and personal interest to all these subjects. I had hoped that Lord Polwarth would be here to deal with the Border counties but he was unable to come to-day owing to pressure of business. As regards the Highlands, therefore, I shall give only a short example of the problem as I see it, in connection with fishing. In the winter season particularly, and also in the summer, large quantities of fish are landed at Ullapool and have in the first instance to be transported from there to Garve, then through Inverness and probably as far as Aberdeen and Fraser burgh, where they are converted into meal. The whole of the first part of that journey, 31 miles, is over a single track road which in the winter is extremely difficult, and the conditions require that the loads shall not exceed 5 to 6 tons. Your Lordships will see that to transport thousands of tons of fish over those roads in these small consignments adds very considerably to the cost. The same conditions appear to affect the Border counties—Selkirk is a particular instance—and Lord Bilsland will probably touch upon that subject when he speaks a little later in the debate.

Apart from those two areas, however, there is a very large volume of traffic which has to be carried East and West, North and South through the industrial belt, from Ayrshire, Renfrew, Glasgow, to the East Coast, to Dundee, Fife and Edinburgh; and, of course, from all these places, and from the North, to the large markets in England, in the Midlands and London. All these mean very long hauls, and in some cases journeys which may appear trifling and insignificant are increased 100 per cent. by bottlenecks. Bottlenecks may take various forms. The first and most obvious are the main rivers, the Clyde, the Forth and the Tay. Proposals in respect of these various crossings have been before the public, and before the Minister of Transport, I might almost say for more than a generation. While I myself have given a considerable amount of time and energy to various attempts to solve them I do not intend to say much about these main bottlenecks to-day, because they have been very much in the public eye of late and the Minister has so recently given a considered answer on the subject. That answer may be a disappointment to many of us, but I think it does show that he has given careful consideration to the subject.

I refer particularly to the two proposals which have been in the public eye, for road bridges across the Forth, at Queens-ferry, and the Tay near Dundee. It is obvious, as the Minister has stated, that, with present prices—£13 million in the case of the Forth bridge—we have to think very carefully before embarking on a project of that kind, which deals only with one mile in length. That one mile would be an extremely costly addition to our expenses. That does not mean, however, that no action should be taken in the matter, and we welcome the Minister's pronouncement that he is prepared to consider and to promote the crossing of the Clyde by tunnel at Whiteinch, the improvement of the ferry service at Queensferry, and to deal with what is probably the worst bottleneck of all in Scotland, the road from Glasgow to Cumbernauld. We welcome these proposals, but so far they have not got beyond paper promises, and I submit that the time has come when those paper promises should be translated into practical action, so that we may see these projects actually proceeding.

Probably it is impossible, as I have said, that we should contemplate at this moment the construction of the main bridges, unless we are prepared to assent to a complete upheaval in road construction by such a plan as was promulgated by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who suggested the promotion of a road loan, or that we should return to private enterprise and free investment of funds for such purposes. Your Lordships will remember that the Forth and Tay railway bridges were constructed by the railway companies under private enterprise. They succeeded in getting the confidence of the investing public because they trusted in the enterprise. However, let us consider the matter as presented to us now, in view of the Minister's recent statement. Let us consider it from the practical point of view of making a move and converting these paper promises into practical action.

But the crossing of rivers are not the only bottlenecks which seriously impede transport and add to its cost. Weak, narrow and low bridges have a most hampering effect. I would remind your Lordships that under Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, power is given to close and to prohibit the use of any bridge considered incapable of carrying certain weights. I quote from that section: Where the bridge authority of any bridge over which a road passes is satisfied that the bridge is insufficient to carry vehicles of which the weights or axle weights, as hereinafter defined, exceed certain limits, the authority may by a conspicuous notice in the prescribed form placed in a proper position at each end of the bridge prohibit the use of the bridge. As your Lordships all well know, it has not been possible to put that section into operation, it has remained dormant. If it were enforced the whole of our transport system would be paralysed on the roads. Perhaps I may give your Lordships, however, two illustrations of the heavy burden on industry in Scotland caused by just two of these bridges where restrictions have been made.

The first bridge I would mention is on the main road linking Glasgow with the County of Renfrew and the group of burghs, Gourock, Greenock and Port Glasgow, a highly industrialised area and the home of shipbuilding and other heavy industries. Glasgow is the natural market for these manufactures, or for a large portion of them, and the distance between Greenock and Glasgow by the direct main route is twenty-two miles. But the traffic on that road is completely paralysed because of the existence of one bridge constructed by the railway authorities over a road at Langbank, the headroom of which is only 12 feet 6 inches. It is, moreover an arched bridge, which makes matters even worse. The result is that no double-decker omnibuses can operate on that road. This increases the number of vehicles which have to operate on the road for transporting passenger traffic, and no considerable loads can be taken by that route. The alternative route, via Largs, Kilwinning and Kilmarnock, is seventy-six miles in length—that is to say, more than three times the length of the main road. Your Lordships will understand what that means in the way of a burden upon industry. I have with me a plan showing those two alternative routes which I shall be happy to show to the Minister or to any noble Lord who cares to see it. That is a matter which can remain until later.

The second bridge to which I should like to refer is on the main road between Glasgow and Carlisle near Beattock and goes by the name of Paddy's Rickle. In this case, a notice has been put on the bridge limiting the load which can cross it. I should like to give your Lords nips the details of that imposition which was placed on the bridge in August, 1953. By it the weight of vehicles is restricted to twenty tons per axle. That, in effect, means that many of the loads moving outwith the Construction and Use Regulations require to be routed via Edinburgh and Newcastle. For loads to, say, Manchester and Liverpool, a detour of approximately 100 miles is involved, and it is safe to assume that this adds about £100 to the transport charges. British Road Services in Scotland have an average of five such loads per week, and to that figure must be added the movements made by other operators, and also consignments brought into Scotland from the South. One thousand pounds a week would be a conservative estimate of the additional transport costs incurred. The Ministry of Transport have prepared a scheme for diversion and re-alignment of the road, but to cover the next two or three years have authorised the strengthening of the bridge to which I have referred. But work on the bridge has not yet commenced, so it is safe to say that, by the time the weight restriction can be lifted, about £50,000 will have been added to the haulage bills borne by Scottish firms.

I turn now to another type of bottleneck—that is, the narrow and winding roads which are insufficient for the traffic they have to carry. This is a matter which was raised in a recent debate by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, in reference to the approaches to the Kincardine bridge, and I think it may be appropriate if I try to clear up what I think was a misunderstanding between the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who replied to the debate. The actual fact is this. The bridge itself is classified as a trunk road, but only one of the approaches from the south is a trunk road—namely, that from Dennyloanhead—and one on the north, that from Fife. The other approaches, from Kinross, Alloa, Stirling and Polmont, are not trunk roads. A census of vehicles using the bridge was taken in April, 1953, and showed that on the 13th of the month, 6,286 vehicles crossed the bridge; on the 15th, the number was 5,042; and on the 21st, it was 5,941—a daily average of nearly 6,000. I think these are remarkable figures, when one takes into account the insufficiency of the present approaches.

On the south, the road between Dennyloanhead and Larbert is deplorable. It is narrow and tortuous throughout, with an overhead railway bridge and a narrow bridge across the River Carron, with right angle turns on both sides. The approach from the Edinburgh—Falkirk road is not much better. On the north side, the Counties of Fife and Kinross have submitted a strong plea for the upgrading of the road leading north, where repairs and strengthening are urgently required, which are estimated to cost about £48,000.

In this area I would take as an example of the insufficiency of the approaches the trunk road which gees through Fife. On a two-mile stretch of this road through the villages of Torryburn and Newmills during the past four years 129 accidents have occurred. These accidents were detailed for the County Road Board in a report submitted by the road surveyor on April 2 of this year. He said: Of the number of persons involved in these accidents, 77 were injured and 4 persons killed. The analysis of the accidents shows that 93 accidents occurred in which two vehicles collided; 14 accidents occurred in which a vehicle and a pedestrian were involved; and 22 accidents where vehicles collided with walls, lampposts, etc. It is pointed out that considerable difficulty has been experienced on this part of the highway in recent years, particularly in connection with abnormal loads, which appear to be on the increase in connection with Service establishments, shipbuilding and other industrial activities. As the Committee are aware, the road through Torryburn is very narrow and on many occasions a complete holdup of traffic has been experienced I have here a diagram of that road showing the actual location of all these accidents. If noble Lords are interested it will be available for them to see. There have been discussions between the county council and the Ministry of Transport as regards a bypass for this stretch of road and in consequence there has been a strong disinclination to do anything by way of mitigation of the black spots where accidents have occurred. That presents one of the special difficulties of the present situation. It takes so long to get an answer because of the concentration of control in Whitehall. There is no officer responsible in Scotland who can deal with these things; everything has to go up to London. As I mentioned earlier, it has been stressed by the Association of County Councils and by the Convention of Royal Burghs that greater delegation should be given Scotland in this matter and some officer who can take decisions should be able to speak for the Minister in Scotland.

I fear I have detained your Lordships at considerable length, but it is difficult to get a comprehensive and adequate view without going into a certain amount of detail and submitting facts and figures. I shall try to deal with the question of maintenance as shortly as possible. I take as my illustration the picture as presented by the County of Fife, my own county, at this moment. From 1938 to 1947 the Government restricted grants to the absolute minimum, with the result that many roads surfaces fell into a state of complete disrepair. Since 1947, however, the amount of grant money has risen annually from £82,515 in 1947 to £105,500 in 1954. The percentage grant increase since 1947–48, calculated from these figures, is 28, but that is not a true picture. The apparent increase has been nullified by the fact that since 1947–48 the cost of materials has increased by 55 per cent. and the increase in wages has been 34 per cent. Therefore, the increase in grant falls very far short of the increase in the cost of wages and materials. It would appear to be reasonable enough to ask the Government for an increased grant—and that brings another problem with it. Unfortunately, a grant of money means a contribution also from the rates of the local authority involved, and it is unfortunate that many counties cannot meet the rate-borne part of the expenditure on account of the heavy expenditure on education, housing and other subjects. They are unable, therefore, to accept the full grant from the Ministry.

In consequence of this, it would appear that the time is now opportune to ask for a greater mileage of unclassified roads to be raised to Class III or, alternatively, for grant to be made towards the upkeep of unclassified roads. At the present time many unclassified roads carry traffic of a weight and volume quite unthought of at the time they were constructed, and the result is that such roads are often in a state of very bad repair. The local authority road rate is now being used to meet the Government grant on classified roads, and since the upkeep of unclassified roads is entirely one for the local authority, the authority are placed in this dilemma: either they have to neglect their unclassified roads, which they cannot afford to do, or they must advise the Government that they cannot accept the full grant. Since the Exchequer are obtaining revenue in the form of petrol tax and road fund tax on vehicles which use unclassified roads, why should it not be the Government's responsibility to contribute something towards the upkeep of those roads, using the money from the Road Fund for that purpose?

I come now to my final point. I spoke earlier of paper promises and of the need of practical proof of action. In the proposal which I now put forward, I suggest what I believe to be a practicable plan to achieve considerable improvement at an early date and at a reasonable cost. It is this: that we should take as a basis of the position the acceptance of the Ministry's proposals for widening and straightening the road from Glasgow to Dennyloanhead; secondly, continuing that reconstructed road across the River Forth by way of Kincardine; thirdly, continuing it still further as a trunk road northwards through Kinross to either Kinross itself or to Milnathort, where it would link with the present trunk system, and thence onwards to Auchtermuchty; turning slightly northward at that point, it would cross the Tay somewhere between Abernethy and Newburgh and link up on the north side of the Tay with the main road between Perth and Dundee, one of the main trunk roads in Scotland. A great advantage of this would be that it would bring to the north of the Tay the traffic both from North to South and from West to East seeking to get to Dundee north of the Tay. Having reached north of the Tay, that traffic would be divided into two main streams, through Dundee to the north-east, through Perth to the north and north-west. It would also have the advantage of linking with the airport at Errol. A road so planned, with proper feeders, would eliminate two of the main bottlenecks and would materially mitigate congestion in Stirling and Perth. By this route, as I see it, there would be less new construction required and the bypassing of any large burgh like Stirling would be obviated. While I car not submit at this moment detailed cost, I feel fairly confident that a bridge across the Tay at this point could be constructed, with its approaches, for approximately £1 million, as compared with the £13 million estimated for the bridge across the Forth.

I am fully aware that my proposal may be criticised in certain quarters, and that it follows lines which are different from those which are favoured at present by the Minister and his advisers; but I believe it to be a sound and practical pattern. It allows at once for a steady heart-beat through the centre, and makes provision for improvement of the whole circulation by connecting links with all streams of traffic. Therefore, I submit it as being worthy of serious consideration. Admittedly, this means a wider scale of expenditure on roads; but I feel sure your Lordships will agree, from your own knowledge and from the examples which I have put before you, that the present position can only be described as deplorable. A new view is required. This has been acknowledged in practically every other country but our own. Without this new view we shall be doomed to stagnation. I bring forward this Motion, therefore, as a modest beginning for Scotland, and strongly recommend it to your Lordships. I beg to move for Papers.

3.24 p.m.

LORD MATHERS

My Lords, it falls to me to welcome the Motion that has been so ably put before us by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin and Kincardine. He reminded us of his ancestry, and it seems to me to be a good thing that in this fight—for that is what it is—we should have a Bruce taking the lead in the attack on what appears to be the indifference of those with whom we are contending with regard to the improvement of the road position in Scotland. I believe this is the first time the noble Earl has spoken in this House since he assumed his additional responsibilities; he is here to-day for the first time in his capacity as the Provost of Culross. I am sure we all wish him well in that new honour that has come to him, to be added to the many that are associated with his name.

I particularly welcome the opportunity of this resumed debate on Scottish roads—we had one, as we have been reminded, a month ago—in order that I may ask for up-to-date information with regard to the Forth Read Bridge project in the light of the decision that has been taken that there is "nothing doing" in the way of adding a road crossing to the present railway bridge at Queensferry. The fact that that inquiry was still going on, or, at least, that the report of it had not been made to Her Majesty's Government, enabled the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, on the occasion of the last debate, to say that there was little he could add about the Forth Road Bridge. I find that the attitude of the public to the Forth Road Bridge project is reaching a state of exasperation—I do not think that is too hard a word to use. This project has been before us for many years, and different Ministers of Transport have had the opportunity of going into all the details. It is true that a considerable amount of preliminary work has been done; that a certain amount of money has been spent in making borings and finding out the possibility of good foundations, and that sort of thing; and that the decision as to where the Forth Road Bridge has got to be thrown across the Estuary has, as I understand it, been firmly taken.

What we want now is to see something that gives a clear indication that the Government of the day—whatever Government it may be, and of whatever complexion—are not holding back merely because of the big project that this undoubtedly is. The latest estimate for the project is £13 million. I venture to say that it would give to Scotland some indication of earnestness on the part of the Government to proceed with this project if a start were made with the approach roads, in order that we should not have the position that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, in the last debate, when he declared that the approach roads to the Kincardine Bridge were unsatisfactory. I entirely agree with him in that expression of opinion.

There is a further point with regard to the huge expenditure in connection with the projected Forth Road Bridge, and it is that something might be done in the way of providing the road bridge earlier than the complete project that has been envisaged, which is now estimated to cost £31 million. The complete project envisages a roadway, cycle track and pathways, as I understand it, to a breadth of 96 feet. It seems to me that we could be getting on with the centre road track, and later add the side tracks for pedestrian and cycle traffic. I make that suggestion merely in order to indicate that something less than the total project might, at least, be started in the near future. That is why I make reference to the approach roads which are part of the estimated cost. In any case, I ask for the latest information with regard to the Forth Road Bridge project, and also, if they are still under consideration, information with regard to the ferry crossings at Queensferry and Granton. The ferry crossings are no final reply to the necessity for a bridge. That great area north and south of the Forth which is in process of becoming more and more industrialised is certainly entitled to greater consideration now than it was when it was originally urged that a road bridge should be made across the Forth to supplement the railway bridge which is there at the present time.

My reference to the railway bridge reminds me of the fact that I was a railway clerk and had to deal with the running of excursion trains over that same Forth Bridge, which has been standing for the last two or three generations. I recollect on one occasion asking the operating department of the railway with which I was employed for a timing for a special train to take a number of Sunday school scholars across the bridge from Edinburgh to the Fife side on the occasion of their annual picnic. It was a favourite thing during the month of June to send special trains of that kind across the Forth Bridge. I was given the information by the operating department that there was not a path available over the bridge for a train leaving Edinburgh between the hours of something like 8.30 in the morning and 11.30 or 12 noon. That shows the way in which the railway bridge has been used.

That should help to indicate that there is a great potential traffic in passengers and in goods across a Forth road bridge. I question whether that fact has ever been taken fully into account. If the bridge were there, I am certain that there would be far more traffic than is estimated from figures available at the present day. Anyone who has had the experience of trying to go from Edinburgh to Fife to keep an appointment, who has arrived at South Queensferry and found it impossible to get across on the first crossing and possibly on the second, and who has therefore had to make the detour round by Kincardine Bridge in an endeavour to keep the appointment in time, will know the exasperation that is involved in the present ferry service at that point. I ask the noble Earl who is to reply to give us as much information as he can about the up-to-date position with regard to that particular crossing.

I also wish to draw attention to the very awkward bridge crossings at Bridge-of-Allan—I am not going fully into this matter at all, because I feel that it comes into the territory of those who are speaking for north of the Forth—and Linlithgow Bridge, the bridge that leads from Linlithgow into Stirlingshire. They are both awkward bridges on a busy road, and it seems to me necessary that they should be attended to. I am no motorist; I have no motor-car, and I am never likely to have one; but I have had many opportunities of travelling in the County of West Lothian particularly, and, therefore, on the Edinburgh—Stirling road. Having regard to the amount of traffic that road carries, considerable attention should be given to it to make it more adequate for its purpose.

Many of these roads about which complaint will be made to-day are excellently surfaced. It is not that the surface is bad, but that the capacity of the road, its width, is too restricted for present-day traffic. For instance, on the Edinburgh—Stirling road things have been made more difficult by allowing part of the road in the vicinity of the Turnhouse Aerodrome to be closed to give better facilities to air traffic. It seems to me that in that connection considerable attention needs to be given to the road. Another bad part of that road leads from Polmont down to the outskirts of Grangemouth. In this connection, I would ask the Minister whether he can tell us what is the position now with regard to the projected by-pass road to the north of the Loch to enable the narrow street through the burgh of Linlithgow to be by-passed if necessary. I am not in a position to give your Lordships the exact date on which that by-pass road was decided upon, but it is my clear recollection that the Minister of Transport at the time was Dr. Leslie Burgin. That will help to fix the date at which the decision was taken to by-pass that picturesque county town of Linlithgow and enable traffic to have a better run.

I am not going into great detail on any subject, and some of the matters I mention have come within my own observation only to a small extent. I mention them to a greater extent from what I have been told about the difficulties that motoring friends have experienced in travelling in different parts of Scotland. For instance, the single-track roads in the Highlands create great difficulties. There are no cities in the area of which I am thinking—in the West Highlands, for example—but there are roads which lead to and are the arteries of important connections. I look upon it as important, for instance, to have a good road between Fort William and Mallaig. I am told that that road is sometimes a deplorable road for motor traffic. The same has been said to me of the road between Dingwall and the Kyle of Lochalsh, also a port and, therefore, in my judgment, worthy of consideration—perhaps even from a strategic point of view, for we never know how we may be placed in that way.

Then one hears from friends about the difficulties encountered on these roads. I heard of an instance not long ago. A friend of mine was motoring in the Highlands and he got behind an American whose car was hauling a caravan. After following this car and caravan for a number of miles—it was impossible to pass, because the road would not allow of it—the American stopped. My friend, of course, had to stop, too. The American stopped because he wished to consult my friend about when he would get to the main road. My friend told him that he was on the main road. The American then asked when he would get to such and such a place; and where was the road leading. My friend looked at his map and told him that it ran for thirty-four miles. He had been troubled with a deeply rutted road, for this road, obviously, did not come into the category of a well-kept road. It was so deeply rutted that my friend was running the risk of having the back axle of his car broken on the hump between the two tracks that were in the road. The American decided that he would camp there for the night. By some means or another, they managed to manœuvre things so that my friend in his smaller car, was able to proceed to his destination. That incident concerned an American; he was a tourist who did not know the country.

If we want to have those parts of Scotland populated and popular, it is necessary for us to do more than we have done in the past, in the way of providing the means of getting from one place to another, amongst the finest scenery in Britain. I will he modest. Some of your Lordships might want to say "some of the finest scenery in the world." I shall not be so ambitious as that; I will say merely "some of the very finest scenery in Britain," scenery well worthy of having a much greater tourist traffic than there is in Scotland at the present day. We are denied that traffic because people are not prepared to take the risks of going in for motoring on the inadequate roads available to them in that part of the country.

I will not say that bottlenecks, about which the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, spoke, are necessarily a bad thing. I think one of the safest places that I know of on the roads in the area with which I am acquainted is a place with an absolutely impossible bottleneck, so that everybody must be careful. That prevents accidents. I am talking about the burgh of South Queensferry. There is such an impossible bend in that road, making a bottleneck, that one dare not approach it fast; the very danger of it makes everyone careful. However, it certainly is not creditable that that should apply where there is room to expand. As I have said, on many of the roads in Scotland there is far too much "neck" and not enough "bottle." The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, said that we need these better roads for the development of forestry, fishing and farming. I should have been inclined to put it the other way round; I should have put it in strictly alphabetical order and made it "farming, fishing and forestry." The noble Earl also made reference to what is needed for the industry that is carried on in the Border country, where we are earning great amounts for this country by the textiles and hosiery which are being exported from the Border country. It is recorded in the town of Hawick that, per head of the population, no other place in Britain is earning so much in dollars by the exports made to the United States. That point is worthy of some consideration—I speak as a Borderer, though not having the privilege of being a "Teri"; that is a native of Hawick. The noble Earl has made a good job of pointing out the number of bottlenecks and difficulties on that road running up the Clydeside from Greenock—twenty-two miles of road, requiring a detour of seventy-six miles to enable Glasgow to be reached by traffic of any considerable consequence. That seems to me something discreditable.

We are grateful for the small measure of decision that has been taken at the present time, but we believe that Scotland is entitled to have much more done in the way of road improvement than has been attempted or decided upon up to the present time. One week ago to-day, on the news on the radio, there was reference to the Tyne Tunnel which, it was said, would be a useful link between the industrial areas on each side of the river; and it was said that that scheme had been approved. That is something definitely decided and dated by the Government. Yet the Forth Road Bridge and the Tay Road Bridge, for example, were mooted before any proposal was put forward with regard to a bridge or tunnel in connection with the crossing of the Tyne. My belief is that the Goschen formula is not a suitable measure of the way in which the needs of Scotland, so far as road development is concerned, should be met. We have a widely scattered country and we require to maintain communications. I have made reference to the strategic needs of roads leading to the ports. The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, made reference to the greater delegation of powers to Scotland. I do not propose to go into the political question of devolution at the present time, but I do say that there is a great necessity for a greater delegation of expenditure to Scotland, in order that the condition of our roads, and their inadequacy, may be dealt with at the earliest possible moment.

3.50 p.m.

LORD BILSLAND

My Lords, the inadequacy of our road system in this country and the urgent need for betterment which applies in the country as a whole, in order to sustain and promote our economic life, applies, as I shall endeavour to show, to an even greater extent in large areas of Scotland. I wish to deal mainly with the seven Highland counties, which together comprise 16 per cent. of the area of Great Britain. But, first of all, I wish to make an administrative point which applies to Scotland as a whole and was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, and the noble Lord, Lord Mathers—namely, to urge that an effective organisation of the Ministry of Transport be established in Scotland, with a Regional Controller, with a status approximating to that already existing under the Ministry of Works. There is at present in Scotland a licensing authority and a divisional road engineer, but no Scottish office of the Ministry of Transport as such, although the Ministry of Works, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and other Departments have their Scottish controllers.

Whilst the population of Scotland is about 10 per cent. of the country as a whole, the area is about 30 per cent. Therefore transport, which is vital to our prosperity in Scotland, presents problems which differ materially from those elsewhere, and in no respect more strikingly than as regards communications by road. For example, from an estimate made three or four years ago it can be accepted that approximately 36,000 inhabitants of the Highland counties on the mainland live between forty and sixty miles from the nearest railhead—that is, about one-seventh of the total population of those counties, to which of course must be added the whole of the island population, who are also meantime excluded (I shall return to this point) from the advantages of the trunk road system. Furthermore, there are major specific problems to which the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, and the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, have referred, such as the Glasgow Tunnel, the Glasgow—Stirling road and others, apart altogether from the development of the trunk road system as a whole. If an effective organisation of the Ministry of Transport were established in Scotland, it should, of course, work in the closest co-operation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has considerable responsibilities as regards roads which should not be disturbed.

There is no area in Britain which has been the subject of more inquiry, official and unofficial, than the seven crofting counties of Scotland—the Scottish Highlands. All reports agree on the paramount importance of lowering the cost and improving the efficiency of transport, in which roads play a particularly important part, being the only means of surface mainland communication in the northern counties except for the railway running up the East coastline to Wick and Thurso. I quote one sentence from the Report of the Cameron Committee, the sense of which has figured in every report. It states: They"— that is, the Committee— further recommend that resolute and vigorous action he taken to improve the quantity and the quality of Highland and Island roads and bridges and to improve essential piers. Hitherto, programmes of road development in the Highlands, including those approved by the Government, have been singularly unfortunate. The plans for road development announced by the Secretary of State in 1939 had to be shelved on the outbreak of war, and the post-war programme was impeded and delayed by the worsening economic conditions of the country as a whole. These postponements have, of course, applied to the whole country; but it might reasonably be argued that they have been particularly unfortunate for the Highlands, for more and better roads are so very much needed in these areas.

Before I make a number of proposals for dealing with the current situation, it is proper to acknowledge the value of the decision announced by the Secretary of State for Scotland last July and more closely defined in another place in March, to make a special allocation of £1 million for Highland roads. Account must also be taken of the sums allocated for specific road projects in the Highland area in recent years, which in total amount to a considerable figure. Further, the financial position of local authorities in the Highlands has been considerably eased by the provisions of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act, 1954—a valuable measure. This should in the future strengthen their capacity to carry their part of the burden of road maintenance and development. It is proper here to pay tribute to the achievement of the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the deep and effective interest which he and the noble Earl, the Minister of State, have taken in these major problems of Highland roads.

While the special allocation, the previous allocations and the provisions of the Act, to which I have referred, are undoubtedly beneficial, there is an enormous accumulated backlog of work, in construction and in improvements, which must be done, and done speedily, not only to promote the economic development of the Highlands but indeed to prevent further deterioration. In 1953, 28,000 people left Scotland—7,000 more than in 1951—and it can be assumed that more than a due proportion of that total relates to young people from the northern counties, a loss they cannot afford. Over and over again in the many reports to which I have referred the inadequacy of the road system, and of communications generally, and the high cost of transport, have been described as the chief of the disadvantages under which the Highlands suffer and as a major cause of depopulation. The accumulated backlog of work urgently waiting to be done was due to the poverty of the Highland counties, with an area 15 per cent. of that of Great Britain, with extensive road mileages, with diminutive rateable values, and with a population of one half of 1 per cent. of that of the whole country. They have had an impossible task. The deficiencies of the past must be made good and it will be necessary to provide what former stringencies prevented. There is, therefore, a clamant case for continuing special assistance to the Highlands for the improvement of communications.

Accordingly, the first point I wish to make is to urge very strongly that, whenever the economic conditions of the country permit, further material special allocations be made and that the aim should be to overtake the essential work within a maximum period, always subject to the economic conditions, of fifteen years. Such allocations, I submit, unlike that of last July, should be kept entirely separate front the crofter county schemes, which should be pressed forward independently until completion. The work still outstanding in the crofter county schemes amounts to approximately 600 miles, and at present rates would probably cost between £12 million and £15 million.

My first point leads naturally to the second: that there should be a definite road plan, in two sections, short-term and long-term, covering new construction, improvement and maintenance. This should be aimed particularly to promote development, both in existing and in new fields of economic activity. This point, the importance of planning, was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, in the earlier discussion, and I wish to emphasise it. One reason for planning is the need for the definition of priorities. Another is that, by having plans prepared, it will be possible to proceed more quickly with construction work when conditions permit. The third is that, for this and other reasons, it is necessary that the highway authorities should have a fixed programme on which to base their plans, their estimates and their policies, not merely on road construction itself but on the many other activities to which roads are essential.

A road plan for the Highland Counties, as I have defined it, should provide for road development and reconstruction, which will allow the whole area to develop, facilitate a free and increasing influx of visitors and generally bring the Scottish Highlands closer to the heart of the country. It is important, I submit, that every effort should be made to coordinate all forms of transport in and to the Highlands and Islands by road, rail, sea and air, so as to give the best overall service, to reduce wastage to a minimum, to use each type of transport in the way for which it is best fitted, and thus to reduce unnecessary costs while giving the best service to the public. The importance of providing such new or improved roads as may be necessary to make co-ordination of this kind effective requires no elaboration. Roads radiating from focal points, such as railheads or rail distribution centres, piers and airfields, are obviously very much in point. By well-planned and effective co-ordination of all forms of transport, in and to the Highlands, a very much better transport service might be obtained at relatively little construction cost, and possibly with the result of considerable economies in future working and maintenance. A more generous acceptance of roads into the trunk road system than now exists should be adopted, and the system should be extended to the Islands. A higher proportion of unclassified roads should be accepted as Class III roads, after consultation with the local authorities concerned. I believe this step to be essential. When classifications were introduced about thirty years ago, it was no doubt true that there was a distinction in the types of vehicle using classified and unclassified roads. That is so no longer, and classification is largely arbitrary in effect. No direct Government grant is payable on unclassified roads; consequently the larger the amount of local authority finance apportioned to unclassified roads, the smaller is the amount available for classified roads; and, therefore, as work on classified roads attracts Government grants, the smaller is the total expenditure on roads as a whole.

I draw attention to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Crofting Conditions recently published, which draws special attention to the provision and maintenance of proper access roads to all townships where it is hoped to maintain a population. I submit that there must be a new outlook in the assessment of road values. No longer will it suffice to assess them on the results of a traffic census: the policy must be based on the development of the area and the encouragement of increased traffic. No longer will it suffice that main roads are able to carry only single-line traffic, as is so largely the case to-day—my noble friend Lord Mathers referred to this point. In the county of Inverness there are 1,360 miles of public highway less than 14 feet in width. Main roads should be constructed to a width adequate for the double-line traffic of modern vehicles, both passenger buses and lorries. It would appear sound financial policy to reconstruct roads to proper standards. There are many miles of Highland roads which have to be constantly re-surfaced, but the foundations are so bad that the roads become quickly torn up again.

Under the heading of new construction, consideration should be given to the planning of a West Coast arterial trunk road from Durness to Glasgow, to correspond with the East Coast road from Wick to Edinburgh. Many stretches of such a road already exist, and all that is required is to link them up. There are many cases where a link between two roads would greatly facilitate communications. The Highland Panel has had the system of ferries and piers under review, and their recommendations should be incorporated in the road plan for the Highlands Counties, which should also take account of weak and narrow bridges and other bottlenecks. Road restriction orders in the county of Inverness affect 34 per cent. of the gross mileage, including trunk roads. These are rather remarkable figures. I suggest. I am not qualified to deal with the strategic aspect of the road system in the Highland Counties, but that aspect should be kept in mind in framing the policy.

In present circumstances, the policy that I suggest would obviously require a term of years to complete; but if such a policy were embarked upon with all the vigour that circumstances allow it would have a stimulating effect. And such a stimulus is very much required to rebuild the Highland economy and retain the population. The noble Earl, the Minister of State, in a recent statement on the application of the £1 million special allocation, said that part of the money would be spent on roads carrying considerable forestry traffic. While that contribution is useful, it represents only a small percentage of the sum, required under this category. The Chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, Mr. Thomas Johnston, who was an outstanding Secretary of State for Scotland and who continues to devote his great capacity to the service of Scotland, has suggested more than once that the Forestry Commission should acquire land, in appropriate cases, in the areas of hydro-electric schemes, which would be served by roads which the Board must build to serve their schemes. This suggestion appears to have three advantages. It would save the cost of additional roads; it would provide a further saving, in that it would make hutments available for forestry workers after the hydro-electric scheme workers moved out; and, thirdly, and most important, it would ensure continuing employment in the area. There appears to be a case for intelligent co-operation between all the interests concerned.

The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, dealt comprehensively with the whole position in Scotland, but there is one area, in addition to the Highlands, about which I should like to say a few words—the Border counties. Much of this area suffers many of the disadvantages which afflict the northern area of which I have spoken, but they have not the great potential benefit of the crofter counties scheme for roads. If one takes as an example the county of Selkirk, the rateable valuation of the county for 1953–54 is in round figures, £213,000. The estimated population, landward and burghal, in 1953 was 21,463, spread over an area of 171.209 acres. The estimated expenditure on the services provided by the county council throughout the whole county was £142,604, of which the proportion borne by landward areas was £14,732, or 10 per cent. It is clear from those figures that the disproportion between the burghal and landward parts of the county needs no emphasis, and they show the burdens of the small landward area, with its low valuation. The product of a penny rate in the landward area in the current financial year is £89. The total of unclassified roads in the landward part of the county is 56.6 miles, and the whole burden of maintenance and improvement falls on the landward ratepayers. Of the total consolidated rate last year, the part applicable to unclassified roads was 16.7d., to meet an estimated maintenance expenditure of £1,450—a ridiculous figure, but all that the county can afford. I suggest to the noble Earl who is to reply to the debate that the Border Counties have a case worthy of consideration. I apologise for having detained your Lordships so long. I plead, in excuse, the deep concern of the Scottish Council, with which I am associated in these matters. For we are convinced that good roads, and cheap and efficient transport, are the first essential to the salvation and progress of the Scottish Highlands, and of vital importance to Scotland as a whole.

4.14 p.m.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, has indeed done good service to-day in bringing forward this all-important question. As many of your Lordships know, roads in the Northern Highlands are all-important because the railway—a single track line—runs only up the East Coast. All the rest of the country has to be served by roads running right across Northern Scotland to the West Coast; and all this huge area of hinterland depends entirely on its roads for all purposes—whether it be for development of hydro-electric schemes, such as the Loch Shin scheme, or the sea fishing on the West Coast, especially of herrings. All produce has to be got to market by road. It has to be brought right across Scotland, as it were, to the railways. At both Kinlochbervie and Loch Inver, and also at Ullapool, further south, the fishing has been much developed in the last few years, and the present standard of roads across the country is utterly unsuited to the resultant heavy lorry traffic which takes the herrings to market. Then we have the new atomic station at Dounreay, in Caithness, which has just been approved by Her Majesty's Government, which means very heavy road usage up to the far north.

The Highlands suffer a great deal from lack of trunk roads. For instance, in my own county of Sutherland, out of a total mileage of classified and unclassified roads of 722 miles, we have only 42 miles of trunk roads, or approximately 6 per cent. This leaves the remaining Class I, Class II, Class III and unclassified roads to bear a proportionately larger expenditure. The Ministry of Transport make grants towards the upkeep of roads as follows: 75 per cent. on Class I roads, 65 per cent. on Class II, and 50 per cent. on Class III. These percentages, I think, are too low and should be increased at least to 85, 75 and 60 per cent., respectively. There should also be a new grant of 50 per cent. on unclassified roads. In addition, when new roads are reconstructed under the crofter counties improvement scheme they are automatically added to the list of unclassified roads in the county. The suggested 50 per cent. grant for upkeep of unclassified roads would, therefore, help to maintain these newly qualified roads built up under the crofter counties scheme.

There should be, too, another trunk road in the North, coming up the West Coast, via Garve, Ullapool, Scourie and Durness. This lateral trunk road would help to open up the North-West highlands and should be on the 90 per cent. upkeep basis. It would bring the tourists in thousands by car to the scenery and the sport. As your Lordships may be aware, the late Duke of Westminster spent thousands of pounds on developing the Western Highlands in the vicinty of the Great Forest of Reay, both by afforestation and in other ways. But it is no use developing work for the crofters and people of the Highlands unless they are given good communications to enable them to get their produce away to their markets. Whether it be fish, whether it be timber or whether it be agricultural products, they have to be given easy access to their markets. The roads are the life-blood of the community in the North. Without their improvement and stability there can be no permanent improvement in the way of life of the people. Rating is already excessively high, and is likely to get higher. No more can be spared on this count for the roads. The new Crofters' Commission Report has just appeared which envisages a development in crofter farming. If the Government wish to help these fine people, with their great past and high record of military and public service, the Government must first of all improve their communications to enable them to do greater things for themselves.

4.20 p.m.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I am very conscious of the difficulties of this debate because one has to refer to what took place in the last debate on the roads. During that debate the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, told us that he would welcome our having a debate on Scottish roads in particular. He warned us, however, that if we were successful in getting any particular scheme adopted it would mean striking out some other scheme—perhaps one long awaited, as, for example, a scheme in South Wales or in Lancashire or in London. That makes things very difficult: I think it is a question of divide and rule, with a vengeance! None the less, I noted that the noble Earl, Lord Elgin and Kincardine, and others of my fellow-countrymen have gone into the battle undaunted. I add my own plea, in the hope that we may get something, without necessarily causing some other scheme to be struck out.

There are certain special features about Scotland which we ought to bear in mind. For example, Scottish roads represent 15 per cent. of the total of the country, yet the expenditure allowed on Scottish roads is only 10 per cent. of that for the whole kingdom. I know that figures can be quoted to mean almost anything, but I think these figures show that the amount we are getting is very moderate, to say the least. Again, we are in the northern part of the country and suffer from a harder climate. We have the ice and snows. If we have to take special steps to put grit or sand on the roads, or if we have to clear roads of snow, these emergency expenditures are deducted from the amount that is allowed for that area in any one year. That seems to me to be an extraordinary state of affairs. Surely it is the negation of planning that occurrences one cannot foresee should upset the whole balance of the arrangements made for the year. There is one other peculiarity in Scotland which I think we should remember—that is, the legal liabilities of the Scottish local authorities, which are somewhat different from those of local authorities of England and Wales. Perhaps it is best summed up by saying that the local authorities are liable for acts of omission, as well as for acts of commission. The result is that they have to be careful to do their best to see that nothing is lacking which ought to be provided for the roads. I assure your Lordships that that is a duty which local authorities take extremely seriously.

Apart from these special considerations, I believe that there is a great deal that can be done in the way of better organisation and more decentralisation, without necessarily striking out schemes for the South. I have particularly in mind certain autonomies and administrative changes which are mentioned in the Report of the Association of County Councils of Scotland submitted to the Select Committee on Estimates in 1953—I would stress the date, early in 1953. I will not go into all the details of that Report, but I will take one or two examples, which I think are almost incredible, as instancing the degree of authority which is wielded from London. If a local authority want to put up a sign saying, "No waiting" or "One-way traffic," I understand that they cannot do so on their own. They have to submit the whole thing to the Ministry of Transport in London. Not knowing the area, the Ministry are apt to send somebody on a journey to Scotland to see for himself. Obviously, that is expensive and, I suggest, inefficient. I give another example. When a local authority place and settle a contract, although it is generally approved and is within the limits of expenditure that is set down, they are not allowed to settle it themselves. Again, they have to send the whole thing down to London. London looks at it— your Lordships know the way of these things—it gets into a pile of papers, and it may be several months or more before an answer returns, "You can sign the contract." What is the result? The plan, which perhaps was arranged for work to be done in the spring or summer, may be delayed. Perhaps it has to be done in the winter. That again is inefficient, and must mean increased expense and greater difficulty. I give these two examples, but there are others in the Report.

Several noble Lords have mentioned one point which emerges clearly in the Report—namely, the status of the Ministry of Transport representative in Edinburgh. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, said, he is a divisional road engineer. I have no criticism of him—indeed, I gather that he is most helpful and does all he can. But it is a very difficult field for him, because he has only this rank. I rather resent Scotland being a "division." In my view, it would be a good thing if the senior officer of the Ministry of Transport in Edinburgh was of high rank, with responsibility which would enable him to give decisions on smaller matters without constant reference back to London. A last point from the Report which I have been mentioning—namely, the question of road research. The Report states: The work undertaken by the Road Research Laboratory in Scotland is an essential factor in the interests of economy in road maintenance and constructional problems and should be provided with the necessary financial support. With the proud record of our Scottish road engineers, with our Macadams and Telfers, it seems to me that to give the necessary financial support to the Road Research Laboratory is a sensible thing to do not only from the Scottish point of view, but also from the point of view of the whole country.

I have talked about the Report of the Association of County Councils in Scotland. I should also like to refer to the Report of the 1954 meeting of the Convention of Royal Burghs, which has already been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin. That Report is a year later than the one about which I have been talking, and one might have expected that in the year that had passed many of the points which were raised would have been dealt with and, therefore, would not be raised again. But the facts appear to be quite otherwise. On looking at the Motions moved in the Convention, we find that they are all in the same sense: roads and bridges need to be looked at. There is one protest after another, and again they appeal strongly for roads to be dealt with from Scotland, rather than from London. It is true that, as a result of the Convention of Royal Burghs, the Ministry of Transport have agreed to meet representatives; but when that may be and where that may be are still matters for the future. I hope that it will not be like the year that has elapsed between one Report and the other.

I should like to touch on one other question, about which other noble Lords have also spoken—namely, agriculture in Scotland. We all hope for, and look for, increased agricultural produce from Scotland, particularly beef, perhaps. Beef and mutton come from areas in which transport is of first importance. In some areas, it is almost impossible to keep roads going, owing to the fact that so many are not classified roads and therefore the costs have to be borne by the local farmers. Lately, the policy of the Ministry of Agriculture has been to get out of farming. I think that is a good thing, but it has certain other implications. For example, to-day the farmer often has to take his produce to the market place; no longer do the Ministry of Agriculture send for it. Therefore, all the transport and its cost are of increasing importance to, and an increasing burden on, the farmer. I hope that that will be borne in mind when the question is considered of what extra or special can be done for Scotland.

I would end much as I began, by saying that I realise the difficulties with which we are faced, because if we are too successful then we stir up trouble in the south; and that we want to avoid. At the same time, I hope that what other noble Lords have said, and the emphasis that I have endeavoured to put upon the matter, indicate that a good deal can be done in the way of economies and reorganisation which will improve the situation without our having to spend a great deal more money. I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Home, to study carefully the Report of the Scottish County Councils, clause by clause, and to battle with the Ministry of Transport on them, unless he is convinced that for some very good reason one or other should not be followed through. They are, in their very moderation, both striking and, I believe, important. If he is successful in the battle, I hope that there will be an improvement in the operation of the roads, even without a great deal of additional expenditure; and I hope that, when the happy day comes when more money can be given to roads, Scotland will be ready to play her part quickly and improve the situation, not only in her own interests, but for the general benefit of the whole country.

4.32 p.m.

LORD KINNAIRD

My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said about the Ministry. I think it must have struck the noble Earl who is to reply that every speaker—the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, certainly brought it up to start with, and other speakers have mentioned it, too—has mentioned the representation of the Ministry in Edinburgh. I desire to say no more about that than that we in Perthshire share those views. I was interested in what the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, said about the road from Glasgow over Kincardine, going on the north side of the Tay to Dundee. When we last discussed this matter in your Lordships' House, reference was made to a part of the road between Kincardine Bridge and Kinross being only a Class 1 road. Some time ago the Kinross Council put up a motion that it should be made into a trunk road. This recommendation was confirmed by the joint County Council of Perth and Kinross—I think I am right in saying that it was confirmed by Fife County Council—and also by Clackmannan. We have all requested that that part of the road should be made into a trunk road. A road going on the more southerly routes, through the middle of Fife, might be more popular with the Ministry, but, quite apart from the merits as between the two roads, surely, the route mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, deserves every consideration. He asked that it should be considered and, as strongly as I can, I would say how much I agree with him. It is the most direct route as the crow flies from Glasgow, Kincardine, Dundee to Aberdeen, and it certainly deserves consideration.

The noble Earl mentioned that the road goes to the north of the Tay, and suggested that it should cross the Tay somewhere near Glencarse. That would bring it on to the main Perth to Dundee road and, as the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, said, Errol Aerodrome would be within a mile of that road. We all believe that one day that, like the Forth Bridge Road, will come about. There is the further point that the Perth to Dundee road strikes the Kingsway about three miles on this side of the centre of the city. That would bypass Dundee and there would be a first-class road going right through to the north by-passing Dundee.

In referring to this road, I feel it is only right to mention the point of view of the people of Dundee. The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, and I have been looking at the matter from the standpoint of long-distance traffic. I agree that for long-distance traffic the best route is to go an the route Lord Elgin suggests to Kincardine Bridge. But what about the people of Dundee themselves? I went and had a talk with the Town Clerk, because I thought this subject might come up and I wanted to know his point of view. I feel it is only right to say that the people of Dundee do not welcome this project. They want to get across into Fife—and perhaps the Fife people want to get across into Dundee—to attend theatres, and for other reasons. There would naturally be a lot of traffic backwards and forwards over the Tay Bridge at Dundee, which is what they want. They may feel that if this other project is proceeded with their own will not be, and, therefore, they do not welcome the idea. As I say, it is a good project for long-distance traffic, and for that reason I feel. that every consideration should be given to it on its own merits.

I think it may be helpful, as I regard this matter as being bound up with the whole question of the sufficiency of the roads, if I say a word or two on lay-byes. I should like to be sure that your Lordships know what I mean by "lay-byes." I was told yesterday in your Lordships' House that it was not a lay-by, but a bay. I mean, of course, somewhere off the road where vehicles can stand, not in the main road. I feel that that is something to which we in Scotland have not paid sufficient attention. It has always seemed to me that we construct a beautiful road at great expense (we were told the other day that it costs anything up to £250,000 a mile for a double road) and then we commonly find it blocked again and again by stationary vehicles. We should aim at keeping our roads free for moving traffic. The problem, as I see it, is that in Scotland the roads are mainly what we call two-lane roads; the standard width of the carriage-way of the road is 22 ft., which is no more than sufficient to allow two vehicles, say, 8 ft. wide, possibly a bus or heavy lorry, to pass each other. In many parts of Scotland even this minimum carriage-way standard is not reached; in Perthshire, for instance, we have many miles of trunk roads less than 18 ft. wide.

Taking Perthshire as an example of the whole country—I happen to know that part, and I have my figures from there—I may tell your Lordships that 62 per cent. of the existing trunk roads there fall short of the 22 ft. carriage-way standard width; that is to say, that 115 miles in our county have not the standard two-lane accommodation. This, as I think everyone would agree, is one of the causes of danger and accidents, and of increasing cost in time and petrol. If I may give your Lordships an example of the danger of the insufficiency of width, I would refer to the Glenfalloch road, a part of the trunk road from Glasgow to Inverness. On this road, in the last five years, there were ninety-four accidents. A large proportion of those accidents were collisions between vehicles going in opposite directions or overtaking, and the want of room was partly the cause. I have here a note giving a description of these accidents in the words of the police officer who investigated them on the spot, and he attributes the narrowness of the road and the difficulty in passing as the main cause of these accidents.

When there is added to the general insufficiency of width the problem of vehicles stopping on the road for one purpose or another, the situation is aggravated. It is no use saying that vehicles should not be allowed to stop at ill-chosen places, because they have a limited choice, and if we do not provide stopping places they are bound to stop and block our roads. I should like to emphasise that what I think is needed, in the first place, is to bring such roads up to a standard that would ensure a safer passageway for vehicles in the act of passing one another. Having done this, the next step is to deal with the problem of standing vehicles. These fall under three headings. There is, first, the light vehicle—the motor-car, the bicycle or the light van. Here, the solution would seem to be a fairly simple one. If the verges of the roads were, say, 7 ft. on either side, these vehicles would require no special constructions; they could stand on the verge of the road. Unfortunately, as your Lordships know, many of these roads have no verges, and where the side space is only a matter of inches the stopping vehicle has no choice but to stand on the road, thus reducing the space for the traffic. In that way, a two-way road is converted into a one-way road. The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, has spoken of the big bottlenecks, but I think it is true to say that standing vehicles on 22 ft. roads are creating bottlenecks the whole way, and are a cause not only of danger but of great delay.

The second class of vehicle is the bus. At present, our buses in Scotland have to stand on the road opposite the bus stop—again a cause of some danger to the passengers, and a considerable nuisance to the moving traffic. The solution is a recess or bus bay, where the bus can draw off the road, leaving the whole road clear for the moving traffic. There should be enough room to get the bus right off the road, as they are now inclined to stay half on and half off. The noble Earl said that if that is not done the bus will not draw completely off the road. Also, I think it is important that these bus bays should be made so that the bus must be driven slowly in and slowly out. From the point of view of accidents, we attach considerable importance to that matter.

The third class is the heavy lorry with a trailer. This is a much bigger vehicle, required to provide for one or more units of heavy traffic. For this type of vehicle a fairly big lay-by is required—I should say of not less than 100 ft. by 10 ft. deep. As they have to be made to a standard as good as the road, the cost of these lay-byes is considerable. Our surveyors suggested that from £250 to £500 would be the cost of a lay-by. Therefore, we do not favour making lay-byes if it can be avoided, because of this cost. Rather, we would say that where we are converting, as we are in Scotland, many tortuous roads for re-alignment purposes, we could get most of the lay-byes from the abandoned piece of carriageway, and so save the cost of making them specially. This has been borne out in the alterations that have been made on the Dunkeld—Pitlochry Road, and in all suitable cases the county councils have co-operated with the Ministry of Transport to retain part of the abandoned road.

To summarise my suggestion about lay-byes, I would emphasise again that priority should be given to making the two-lane roads up to a sufficient standard. That done, proper level verges should be made, of a sufficient width to afford standing place for the light vehicles. I say "level verges," because I think some co-operation should be had with people like the postal and other authorities, who are fond of putting their postal and electric light standards and cables alongside our roads. They are constantly being pulled up so that the possible parking place for the light vehicle is always being moved by one of these authorities. It would be helpful if the Ministry of Transport and the public authorities who deal with light and postal installations could try and arrange them at places so that a level verge would be available in many parts of our roads. In regard to buses, I would suggest that, given reasonable verge space—say, 7 ft. 6 ins.—it would not be necessary to acquire any more width to accommodate the bus bay. It would be simply a hard standing made on the verge, and all these facilities could be provided with a space between boundary fences of 40 ft.

Then we come to the lay-byes. I suggest that we should provide them gradually. I do not want to go into details, but I have some valuable suggestions, full of detail, made by the British Road Federation, as to how they should be built, and I think they could well be consulted. The suggestion is that they should be made gradually—say at one-mile intervals at first, although the process should not be an automatic one of one every mile. They should be provided progressively to see how the traffic works. In the Highlands, probably, two miles between lay-byes would suffice for a start. The point to be remembered, and I think an important one, is that they should be on both sides of the road. There have been cases where there have been lay-byes on one side of the road and traffic has crossed the stream of traffic and caused accidents. There is no doubt that lay-byes should be on both sides of the road. I think it is worth raising the question. I raised it with my county council road surveyor, and said: "Can we enforce the use of these lay-byes? Can we insist upon the traffic using them?" His answer was that statutory enforcements would not be desirable or necessary. I believe rather that intelligent road users are now only too anxious to do any waiting off the road if there were facilities. Once these facilities which we have been discussing— are established they would in themselves create new use and wont. In time this use and wont will become imperative. That was a very sensible answer, and I think it is worth while that the Ministry should consider it.

In closing, I would mention the question of finance. As your Lordships know, in the case of a lay-by, if it is on a trunk road the Government find the whole cost. In other cases, there is a 75 or 60 per cent. grant. The trouble is that, with the grants that we get for maintenance, the whole of the money every year is spent on maintenance and improving the roads, and we have not sufficient to spend on lay-byes. I suggest that the Government should consider—I ask the noble Earl, Lord Home, to note this—whether they are not able, if this is a wise plan, to make some special grant to enable local authorities to proceed with making lay-byes.

4.52 p.m.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

My Lords, the case for the Forth Bridge has been ably and eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Mashers. I wish to speak on only a few aspects upon which he did not touch. I shall be brief and tell your Lordships that, as I have spent a certain part of my life building bridges, I know a little about their peculiar aspects. In the first place, a bridge takes a long time to build. You can get at it in only a limited number of places. In that respect, it is totally different from a road. One can build roads rapidly and can get at them at a large number of places. Of course, relatively speaking, they are also cheaper. Therefore, I consider that one has to look a great deal further ahead when considering bridges than one does in considering roads. There is the additional point that a road may not be good—it is often bad—but it is serviceable. As regard the bridge across the Forth at Kincardine, the roads of approach there, as noble Lords have said and as I would re-emphasise, are deplorable. Nevertheless, the traffic census shows that 6,000 vehicles a day use that bridge. That indicates the amount of traffic that might be expected over the Forth Bridge, if it was a decent bridge where it was wanted and not a distance away.

One cannot consider the Forth Bridge on its own. One must try to be objective. I must here declare my interest in this that, not only am I a Scotsman, which is my good fortune, but I had the additional good fortune to be born in Edinburgh. That possibly may prejudice my view, but I will try to get over that. This case must be unique in the annals of engineering and politics, for there are two enormous bridges—and when I say "enormous" I mean in a world sense, including America. Both of these bridges are necessary but are held up for various reasons. Both countries who require these bridges have in the past contributed to the cost of them many times over to a third country, whose tight-fisted Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to "cough up." That is the situation. The three reasons that are normally given, if I may paraphrase them, are as follows: "We cannot afford it"; "We have not enough steel"; and "We need the steel for other things." That is the general aspect of the problem.

Let me take the first reason, that we cannot afford it. If we examine a cross section of the Severn Bridge—I have not seen the drawings of the Forth Bridge but they are identical; both bridges can be built from the same set of drawings, with minor alterations—we find that it provides for two carriageways twenty-four feet wide, two footpaths six feet wide and two cycle tracks nine feet wide. My figures are approximate. Suppose we were not to go ahead with the cycle tracks and footpaths. I have yet to find people who will walk miles across a bridge if they can go in a bus. The question of the cycle track is a little more debatable, but still, when it is a matter of economy, which it is alleged to be, then I think the plan for footpaths and cycle tracks ought to be dropped. A proposal to that effect has been put forward and the saving assessed, with the proviso that they might be built later. Approximately three times the saving can be achieved if one is not going to build those adjuncts later on, because one is not only dealing with the saving of steel in the structure itself; one is saving on the dead load, the live load and the impact load, all of which have to be carried by main cables. One can cut that down and certainly save under that heading £1 million, or thereabouts.

The approach roads to the Forth Bridge at Queensferry are reasonably adequate now and one could, I am convinced—and I think other people will agree with me—manage a saving there of £3 million. If one cuts £4 million out of a total of £13 million, one's sum total now becomes £9 million. No one will suggest that the Forth Bridge could be built in under six years. It would be economic to build the Forth Bridge in ten years. Therefore, the cost is £900,000 per year, which is a vastly different thing. One other important point is this. There is a great saving in maintenance. There is the expense of its painting but the reduction that I have proposed to this bridge reduces by 40 per cent. the deck area, which is one part where trouble arises, trouble which it is difficult to combat. I hope that the noble Earl, when he replies, will be able to throw some slight crumb of comfort to us and be able to tell us either that he has gone into all these points and I do not know what I am talking about, or that he has not, but will. I feel that the points which I have made are valid.

Then there is the third argument, that the steel is required for something else, such as shipbuilding. Normally, that aspect has to be considered, because the deck of a bridge competes with shipbuilding for plates. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty made a remark in another place the other day which I will paraphrase. It was that steel was no longer the crying problem in the shipbuilding industry; the lack of orders for the smaller yards was. The bridge structure, the hangers, the deck work, the trusses and so on could be constructed in the shipyards which are without orders. That is another point. I think it is economic to do so. But that is a matter which ought to be looked into a little more. It commends itself to me.

There is another aspect. I think both the Severn Bridge and the Forth Bridge have claims to be recognised as desirable and eventually necessary. If Her Majesty's Government cannot afford one bridge, they certainly cannot afford two. Therefore, had they not better start off now in a gradual way, with one, in order not to be faced with the position that they have got to build two bridges at once when they have not got the capacity of steel or the money to put up? Is it not far better to start off too little, too early—to start the thing now in order to have something up your sleeve? You can go slowly. That is not an uneconomic way of proceeding with a bridge. Very often, to go slowly is the most economic way of doing it. There is another big point in that—namely, that both bridges need somewhere in the order of 10,000 tons of steel wire rope in the cables supporting them. I do not know what the output of the steel wire making industry in this country is, but it is very limited, and if an enormous demand were thrown suddenly on the industry it just could not cope with it. I think that point should be considered, too. I will not detain your Lordships any longer because I think I have made all the points I had in mind. I hope they were worth making.

5.1 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME)

My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, for having raised this subject of Scottish roads in the way that he has; and so are the Government. It is not easy, in surveying the roads of the whole of the United Kingdom, to come down to the detail which we have been able to achieve in this debate, and I think the opportunity has been useful. The noble Earl reminded us that he was a Bruce—appropriately enough, I think, in this field, because, although I am not responsible for roads, my experience is that it is a field in which you can profitably try and try again.

Your Lordships have been so persuasive in your arguments that I have had constantly to remind myself, during this talk of the inadequacy of our road system, that the only answer to inadequacy is money. This debate is on the condition of the Scottish roads, but a few very simple comparative figures will show that this is a United Kingdom problem. To take, for instance, the figures for major road improvements, and regarding the figure for 1936–39 as 100, the figure for 1953–54 is 24 per cent. Taking the figures for maintenance and minor improvement. and again regarding 1936–39 as 100, the figure for 1953–54 is 69 per cent. Those figures are all adjusted to make allowance for higher costs. So, when we consider these figures, which are United Kingdom figures, and when we consider, too, that between then and now the increase in traffic has been something like 20 per cent., we can see clearly that it is possible to achieve adequacy only by spending a great deal more money than we have been able to spend up to now.

Of course it would be possible, let us admit, to spend a great many more millions; but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget so recently in our hinds, it is perfectly clear that he has not got a great many more millions to spare. And I feel that noble Lords who on one day exhort us to spend a great deal more money on roads and on other days exhort us to economy, can fairly be asked from which Vote they would take the additional money. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, is not going to propose that we should have fewer schools by taking money out of the Education Vote, or fewer hospitals from the Health Vote; or that food subsidies, for instance, should be lowered. None of us wants to make such proposals, but while it is possible that the Government will achieve greater administrative economies, yet by and large it is inescapable that we cannot achieve adequacy on the roads of the United Kingdom, or Scotland, unless we earn a great deal of new money.

Lord Bilsland has truly said that better roads will contribute to industrial efficiency. But, again, whereas the Government have to decide priorities between money spent on roads and on hospitals or schools, or whatever else it may be, so the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to decide in which way he can best help industry. In this, he has lately been able to do two things. He has been able, for the first time since the war, to provide a little more for roads; and also in his Budget he has been able to give assistance to industry in remissions of direct taxation. Which would industry rather have at the present time? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has deliberately, for this year, placed the emphasis on reductions in taxation. I make this point about the necessity of earning more money if we want to spend more on roads, I think legitimately, because all your Lordships will agree that to overspend the national income once again, and to invite a flight from the pound, would be no service, either to the road users of Scotland or, indeed, to anybody else. But we are making some progress.

We hope that in the next three years road expenditure will be at a higher rate than it has been up to now. Your Lordships are aware that the proposal is to authorise the spending of some £50 million in three years—£19 million in the first year, of which £4½ million will come to Scotland. As the Government have to settle priorities between roads and hospitals, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to settle priorities between different kinds of reliefs and taxation, so the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State have to settle priorities because of the many claims on the limited amount of money which can come to Scotland. I do not think that any of your Lordships will quarrel with the list of priorities which we have fixed for the next three years. There is the decision, first of all, to go ahead with the Whiteinch Tunnel, of enormous significance to industry in the West of Scotland; second, to end the bottleneck in the Glasgow—Stirling road—notorious for the way it holds up all kinds of traffic, including a very heavy weight of industrial traffic; third, to give additional help, and exceptional help, for Highland roads, because, whereas in the rest of the country roads are a necessary business convenience, the Highlands they are literally life to the Highland communities; fourth, to deal with black spots, because by a comparatively small outlay of money we can derive a very big dividend in safety; fifth, to deal with weak bridges.

I do not think this last problem is generally recognised, and I am glad that Lord Elgin to-day drew the attention of your Lordships to this problem of weak bridges, because there are a great many of them. In Scotland, drivers of heavy industrial loads often have to make detours, sometimes of seventy miles, at considerable cost. I am happy to tell him, in regard to the two cases which he mentioned—the question of the Langbank bridge and the bridge with the romantic name of Paddy's Rickle—that in the case of the Langbank bridge there is a plan to start the necessary alterations in this financial year; and in the case of the Paddy's Rickle bridge the work to strengthen it should begin in about six weeks. He asks for still further factual information about these priorities, which he said are obvious. So far from being paper plans, in the case of the Whiteinch Tunnel the only delay at present is due to the necessity to wait for Glasgow Corporation to complete their plans. When that is done the work on the Tunnel can go ahead and either shields will be made available from the Dartford Tunnel or, if they cannot be obtained from there, the necessary shields for making the Tunnel will be built. So far as the Glasgow—Stirling road is concerned, it is intended that the work should be started before the end of this financial year. Therefore, so far from consisting merely of paper plans, this work is beginning in fact and is receiving this priority. In these schemes and in this way the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State have sought to get, out of the £4½ million for Scotland in the first of the three years, the best value.

We are, of course, urged to include more, and when we are not urged to include more we are asked to forecast starting dates for other projects, notably the Forth Bridge. My Lords, it may be old-fashioned but, nevertheless, there is a lot to be said for not promising a great deal until one sees how the money is coming in, and for not promising people schemes which one may not be able to fulfil. We prefer to do it that way—to promise only what we know we can pay for: and up till now we have not been able to include, and we are not able to include, a starting date for the Forth Bridge in the first three-year period.

That does not mean, as the Minister has made perfectly clear, that this scheme is ruled out. He said as lately as February 10 that, although he could not put this in the immediate three-year programme, he had nevertheless not ruled it out. As an immediate contribution, the most effective immediate contribution he could make, he has authorised expenditure amounting to some £250,000 on the improvement of the ferry—very necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, will agree, whether the bridge comes or whether it does not.

The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, listed three difficulties which stand in the way of the Forth Road Bridge. Two of them we can dismiss. There are no longer any difficulties about steel. The only difficulty is about money, and the former Lord Provost of Edinburgh has sent in a modified plan which is now being considered by the Minister of Transport. If Lord Stonehaven has any practical suggestions—and he made some—to add to those already made and already being examined, I hope that he will send them to the Minister; or, if he likes to send them to me, I shall be happy to send them on for consideration. To-day, I cannot take this question of the Forth Bridge any further than to say that, while it is not included in the first three-year plan, nevertheless the Minister has said that he has by no means ruled out the proposal.

Several noble Lords have talked about the question of money spent on maintenance. I would say at once to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that it is not particularly easy to make accurate comparisons between what comes to Scotland and what goes to England. We have tried to work out a fair percentage. It is true, as he said, that we in Scotland have worse weather, and I will see whether it is possible to include an element for snowfall in calculating the formula for equalisation grant. On the other hand, when we take the incidence of traffic as measured by the latest census in 1950 of Scottish and English traffic at eighteen selected points, the incidence of traffic is something over 3,900 on Scottish roads and over 5,300 on the English roads. Noble Lords are not comparing like with like. But they plead for more expenditure on road maintenance, and for the first time this year we have been able to provide it. The figure for maintenance is increased for Scotland by 12 per cent., for the year 1954–55. And though that is a modest beginning, I hope that it is a definite one, which will help to alleviate the conditions to which noble Lords have drawn attention.

The noble Earl, Lord Perth, and other noble Lords, talked about the burden imposed on local authorities' finances. Of course that is perfectly true, not only in the field of roads but also in fields such as housing. But in the last rearrangement of the grants paid on classified roads—and the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, mentioned this particularly—the Ministry of Transport did assume considerable obligations. For instance, they doubled the mileage of trunk roads in Scotland. They transferred one-third of the unclassified road mileage to Class III roads. They increased the grants for the Class I and Class II roads, and, as the noble Duke has said, the Exchequer equalisation grant has, of course, been stepped up in Scotland by £2 million this year: a considerable element of that is in respect of roads, My Lords, nobody is satisfied. We all know the burden on the local authorities' finances, and let me assure Lord Perth at once that the Memorandum of the County Councils Association will be given the most meticulous examination by the Scottish Office, as well as by the Minister of Transport.

I think that almost all the noble Lords who spoke made a point of the need for decentralisation, and a plea for greater decentralisation of the work of the Ministry of Transport in Scotland and for the vesting of more responsibility in a local officer of higher rank. That is a matter of the internal organisation of the Ministry, for which your Lordships will realise I have no responsibility. I will certainly hand on your views to the Minister; and in principle, of course, we are strongly in favour of administrative decentralisation. As to what actual form it should take, your Lordships will forgive me if I do not speculate. A great deal of evidence on the subject of the administration of transport in Scotland has been given before the Royal Commission which is now sitting. It will not be long before its Report is published, and I think it would be better to await it before we try to form any ideas of our own as to what kind of organisation would suit our needs best.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilsland, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, in particular, concentrated their attention on the problem of the Highlands. The Government have always felt that the needs of the Highlands deserved exceptional treatment; indeed, throughout the years of financial stringency since 1950 we have sought to secure more favourable treatment for the Highlands than for the rest of the country. I feel that, in a modest way, we have succeeded. In each of the last three years the Exchequer grants to the crofter counties have amounted to over £1 million, and in addition to that, of course, there are substantial sums in the form of Exchequer equalisation grants which have been recently increased, as I have said. In total, therefore, we get this picture of expenditure on roads in the Highlands: the Exchequer is providing £1,300,000 out of a total £1,630,000 which is being spent in the Highlands, largely on maintenance and improvement.

One thing occurred to me as Lord Bilsland and, I think, Lord Perth, were speaking. It may be possible to provide more money; we hope so. In the future it may be possible to save money and considerable research is being carried out into the possibility of providing cheaper ways of constructing the Highland roads. I have seen some of the experiments that are going on. They are not yet at the stage where we can say finally that they are successful, but they are promising. In the last twelve months there has been another significant development. Noble Lords, of course, know that the Secretary of State has undertaken to provide £1 million in the next three years for works of additional major reconstruction, and there are two criteria which we have applied to which Lord Bilsland, at any rate, will not object. First of all this new construction work should contribute to the development of agriculture, industry and forestry. Secondly, the money should be applied at places where the work can start quickly. This has enabled us to include in a substantial list of items such immensely valuable projects as, for instance, the North Ford Causeway, which will provide the last link between the islands of North Uist, Benbecula and South Uist, and will make a great contribution to the social and economic well-being of these islands.

Lord Bilsland wants to see these schemes in the Highlands even further extended. So does the Secretary of State, and so do we all. The difficulty is, of course, that whereas you could have made a mile of road before the war for a few thousand pounds, the cost per mile is now £25,000. That is really a very daunting figure. But this is a matter which we must tackle as completely, as methodically and as quickly as we can, subject to the limitations of national finances, and—the noble Lord himself said this—subject to the consideration that we must not put too heavy a burden on the rating resources of the crofting counties. We look forward to being able to maintain, and to being able possibly to increase, the money available for maintenance, for development and for a continuing programme of new construction.

I have taken up rather a lot of your Lordships' time: but if I am to answer the debate I must have another five minutes. I trust that noble Lords will bear with me. Noble Lords have raised certain questions and have asked me to consider certain suggestions. The question of lay-byes was mentioned, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord: but I can say that there is no obstacle to the provision of lay-byes, and money spent on them is grant-earning. I appreciate what the noble Lord says, that the counties and the local authorities feel that they have not enough to spare both for maintenance and for lay-byes. There I think we will leave that question for the moment.

Both Lord Kinnaird and Lord Elgin have dealt with the question of the possible reclassification of the approach roads to the Kincardine Bridge. There is no doubt that the existence of the Kincardine Bridge has led to considerable redistribution of traffic. I would tell Lord Elgin that the "trunking"—I believe that is the official way in which these things are described—of the length of road A.905 between Bellsdyke Road and its junction with A.9 has already been agreed in principle, and that the decision on the other roads will be taken after what is called an "origin and destination" survey has been taken at Stirling a little later this year. But the problem is admitted. The noble Lord has brought to my notice possibilities of a much more comprehensive plan, so comprehensive as to be slightly alarming to Lord Kinnaird. Though he gave it a general blessing and said he thought it ought to be examined, he was slightly alarmed—or someone in Dundee with whom Lord Kinnaird has had a conversation was alarmed. I am not surprised. Nevertheless, on the face of it this comprehensive plan for a new through route to Dundee and the North East involving a crossing of the Tay near Abernethy is one that should be examined, and I will see that it is examined. It is a matter which involves a number of county councils and I think it will also affect development plans for counties. So it will need a great deal of consideration. But now that the noble Earl has started the hare we can rely on him to see that it does not stand The noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, mentioned the possibility of a new trunk road in the North West Highlands which would be particularly valuable from the tourist point of view. I will see that that proposal also is examined.

The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, lives in an area which is, unfortunately, full of bottlenecks. He takes more interest in these bottlenecks than he does in the contents of the bottle. It is still not too late to change, and he may learn in time. I am afraid I really cannot give him any very comforting news in this connection. The proposed road to by-pass the town of Linlithgow would, I think, cost, for the 4½ miles of new road, something over £500,000. It has been on the stocks for a long time. We could not fit it into this three-year programme. It will have to take its place in the competing priorities of the next three-year programme. How it will fare I cannot say. I should like to write to the noble Lord in more detail. Consideration is now being given to the possibility of fitting into the programme some method by which the worst bottleneck caused by one of the bridges can be eliminated. I should like to examine this a little further and I will then let the noble Lord have the latest information about what can be done within the burgh. I am afraid that the by-pass scheme is unlikely to be undertaken in the next three years, at any rate. With regard to the road diversion necessitated because of the length of runway needed for high-speed aircraft using Turnhouse aerodrome, I am in full sympathy with the noble Lord. I wish we could get something done there. A comparatively small improvement is to be undertaken, in which a roundabout will be included; it is to be put in where the side road meets the main Glasgow road. That is something to go on with, but, of course, it does not meet the necessities of which the noble Lord spoke.

The problem of lighting roads has been raised by Lord Kinnaird—or perhaps it was some other noble Lord. It has always seemed to me that there was very little standardisation of lighting. The Ministry of Transport inform me that they have no power to compel local authorities to standardise their lighting. In some places it is a sort of kaleidoscope of dazzle which one meets, especially when driving along on a wet night. I am going to ask the Minister whether he can let us know the latest position and also whether there is any means whereby more uniform advice can be given to local authorities on this matter.

My Lords, I have tried to cover a good many of the points which have been raised in the course of this debate. I have tried, in particular, to do a number of things. I have tried to put this debate on Scottish roads into the essential setting of the national economy. I have sought to show that the Minister and the Secretary of State have sought to distribute the means available for the next three years in such a way as will give the best value to Scotland. I have admitted that Scotland has its special problems—particularly in the Highlands and to some extent also in the Border counties. I have admitted that they demand exceptional treatment which we have sought to give them and which we shall certainly seek to increase. I have tried to point out to your Lordships that because this country is solvent, because the Government have conducted the national administration in such a way as to improve our economic prospects, for the first time since the war we are able to embark on a positive programme of reconstruction to raise the standards of roads in the United Kingdom, and, so far as the Secretary of State for Scotland is concerned, he will be vigilant to see that Scotland gets a full share.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Home, that we are grateful to him for saying that he will give serious examination to the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, about a Tay Bridge. He will recognise that any bridge over the Forth has only a limited usefulness unless it is coupled with a Tay Bridge. Everybody in the North will benefit more from that than from anything else that could be done.

5.31 p.m.

THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE

My Lords, my Motion was a Motion for Papers. That is the last thing I want—I tried to make that clear in my remarks. What I was anxious to get was some declaration about getting on with the job, and I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Home, who has answered for the Government, for the sympathetic and understanding speech that he has made. I should like to thank him particularly for saying that this debate has had a useful purpose and that it has enabled us to get down to details in a way which might not be possible in a discussion on roads over the whole of the United Kingdom. That encourages me to think that Scotland can give a lead—it would not be the first time. We can get down to details and meet them. In his answer the noble Earl has given us encouragement to think that some of the problems which we have raised to-day will receive careful and serious consideration. For that we are extremely grateful.

There was one point, however, which made me a little anxious. In referring to the question as one of money, he said that we had to consider it from that point of view, and that we did not have much money to spare. Unless we are prepared to have a new look and to do some work, we shall have no money at all. Our trade will diminish and we shall completely stagnate. For that reason, I thank the noble Earl for the encouragement that he has given, not only to myself but to other noble Lords, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, to be courageous and, if vie have plans to submit, to submit them to him for consideration. In that sense, at least, I think this debate has had a useful purpose. It may be, as he says, that schemes like that far the Forth Road Bridge cannot be considered in this three-year programme. That is no reason why we should stagnate in the meantime. I thank the noble Earl for his answer, which was not only sympathetic but helpful. In view of the fact that the last thing I want is papers, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.