THE EXPANDED ROADS PROGRAMME

HL Deb 26 July 1955 vol 193 cc1004-44

4.15 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, your Lordships will recall that the subject of roads and conditions on the roads has already been debated twice this year, a fact which I suggest indicates the importance that your Lordships attach to this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said that there may be a dark cloud on the horizon. If there is, I hope that it will prove to be a cloud with a silver lining; but I hope there will be no cloud at all. No doubt we may hear something in that direction from the noble Lord who is to reply.

It was on March 2 that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised the question of Her Majesty's Government's road and rail policy; and on June 21 the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, initiated a debate on a Motion asking whether Her Majesty's Government would consider maintaining as permanent features the special schemes which proved so helpful in facilitating the flow of traffic during the … railway strike. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, winding up the debate, indicated that the Home Office, the police, the London County Council, the Road Research Laboratory and the Ministry of Transport were all engaged in examining evidence to see what lessons might be learned from the railway strike. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been arrived at by these various bodies, or, if they have not yet reached their conclusions, when they are likely to do so. The motoring organisations feel sure that a grave traffic crisis will arise in and around Lone on in the near future unless extensive reconstruction and improvement of roads is commenced forthwith. But this must, of course, be allied with a comprehensive parking plan to provide adequate off-street parking accommodation and to relieve busy streets of the standing vehicle for which at present there are no other parking facilities. That is absolutely essential. We must have parking places which do not exist now. I do not want to go into all the various details of these parking places, because they are well known to your Lordships and I think it would be a mistake to repeat them.

I believe it is true to say that the principal effect of the railway strike outside London and other large cities was to increase congestion on the roads and thereby to increase the cost of transport to the detriment of industry. If the strike had gone on much longer, we should have seen the effect on our export trade. I happen to be a director of two shipping companies, and I know that even now we are having great difficulty in getting our goods to the ships and getting our cargoes away. Ships are held up, and the delivery of goods to our customers is thereby delayed. This problem is getting worse and worse every week. I cannot help feeling that the recent announcement of the Ministry of Transport concerning the new road programme, although it is excellent and a great advance on previous schemes, does not go far enough. Why cannot we have, for instance, the tunnelled roads which they have in Paris, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, told us? I was in Paris last week and inspected one of these tunnelling schemes, and I think it will be excellent.

The new road programme of Her Majesty's Government is really, I would say, a statement of schemes which may be authorised during the next four years; but it seems that little actual construction will take place. I think I am correct in saying that in the present financial year the expenditure of Her Majesty's Government and local authorities on new road construction will not exceed £8 million, rising to about £17 million in 1956-57, £30 million in 1957-58 and about £42 million in 1958-59. Of course, these figures are in addition to about £30 million spent on maintenance and minor improvements. I suggest that this total expenditure reflects very slow progress indeed, especially when it is remembered that, on present figures alone, during the next four years Her Majesty's Government will collect no less than £1,600 million from vehicle tax and fuel taxation.

I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention, as it appears to be, to announce programmes of four years from time to time, and whether they have any proposals to make for speeding up the provision of roads. No doubt one of the principal difficulties is the acquisition of the necessary land. Could this matter not be speeded up in some way which would still give justice to the owner? It seems to me that that could be done. There are one or two ways, but I do not want to go into them at the moment. I would say that even paying a little more than the market value of the land before the scheme is announced would be better than having no new roads at all for a long time. Of course, once the scheme is announced the land value goes up, but if we were prepared to pay a little more before the scheme is announced, we could go ahead very quickly indeed.

There is no doubt that the loss to the nation in bad roads is mounting daily, and something drastic will have to be done. I am still of the opinion, like many noble Lords on this side of the House and, I think, most noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, that the best way of handling this whole matter is to have a National Highways Board which would raise loans, in a somewhat similar manner to other public utility undertakings. I suggest that there is a great advantage in this scheme which would ensure continuity and would enable long-term plans not only to be made but to be completed. I hope that the Minister who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government will be able to assure your Lordships that schemes are in hand for speeding up not only the acquisition of land but the commencement of construction on land that is already available. There is a considerable amount of land that is already in hand. I fully appreciate that the present Government are perhaps the first for many years to take active steps to improve the conditions of our roads. Other Governments have passed Acts, but nothing has been done. We have now made a good start, but time is not on our side. I earnestly suggest that speed of development is now an essential factor of the whole plan to prevent chaos on our roads in the very near future.

4.22 p.m.

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, in the Motion before us at the moment there are really four questions, but only two of them are to my mind of real importance. First, are the Government satisfied that the expanded roads programme will be sufficient to meet the future needs of traffic? Secondly, is the programme as a whole being dealt with as a matter of urgency? With regard to the former, I am sure that no Government spokesman, let alone the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who always seems to be put up to reply when there is a really "sticky wicket" to bat on, will have the nerve to say that the programme is sufficient. What I imagine he will say is that, much though the Government regret it, the programme is all that the national economy will stand at the present time. With that I should have to agree if I accepted the view that new roads and major improvements which are capital expenditure should be paid for out of current revenue; but I cannot agree with that view. No firm which is increasing the size of its factory would dream of trying to do it out of current revenue; it would do it either out of accumulated reserves or by raising new capital. Whichever method it adopted, it would not even start work without making certain that adequate communications, both inside and outside the factory, were provided for. It would most certainly not economise in that direction.

To-day, this country is an expanding factory, and if we are going to maintain full employment and our present, let alone an improved, standard of living, we have to expand fast. The existing communication system is completely inadequate even for the existing factory and is the first thing that must receive attention if the expanded factory is going to work and produce results. If we do not improve our communications, then it is not a bit of good improving our factory machinery. We have no accumulated reserves and must therefore raise new capital; there is no alternative. There would be no difficulty about raising the money. A road loan could be raised as easily as money for gas, electricity or the railways, and is now just as urgent. I am told that the answer that we should get is that there is no return on the money; that in the case of the other utilities the consumer pays and the Exchequer gets back its 4 per cent. But what about the owners of motor vehicles? Do they not pay? They are already paying in extra taxation—applicable to them alone, mark you, not to the other taxpayers—more than ten times as much as they are getting back.

Even if they were not, and quite disregarding the question of loans, what about schools and houses? No one will deny that they both are essential. And nobody should deny that roads are essential. Yet what are the figures for schools and roads? This, mark you, is paid out of income. In the case of schools, since the Conservative Party came into power new buildings costing £190 million have been competed, and others to cost £121 million are at present under construction. Those new buildings bring with them increased costs in the form of teachers' and others' salaries. Against the £190 million spent on schools, in the same period £15 million has been spent on new roads and major improvements—£15 million against £190 million. And increased costs in salaries against what?—a very small sum for increased maintenance. Against those figures, let us also take the amount spent on new houses over the same period. This amount, in subsidies, now comes to £216 million, and no account again is taken in this figure of the resultant sum disbursed in rent subsidies.

We are told that we cannot have this money because there is no return on it. There are enormous expenditures that not only get no return but involve additional expense. We get nothing for it. Those figures, though boring, prove how starved, at the expense of everything else, are the roads, and in them lies the answer to the second question: are the Government treating the road programme as a matter of urgency? No doubt they will say "Yes," but no one who thinks for two minutes will agree that they can be said to be treating the matter urgently whilst they go on trying to pay out of current revenue for what is capital expenditure. We do not do it in our private lives. Firms do not do it. Why should the country try to do it? Unless this matter is treated urgently and it is realised that capital is capital and revenue is revenue, and one should be spent on one purpose and one on another, we shall never get the roads, and eventually we shall find ourselves just sitting down in one place because we cannot move.

4.29 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

My Lords, I shall deal solely with the financing of road construction and highway authorities, but I shall go into rather more detail than did the noble Lords who have spoken on that question. I shall try not to be too repetitive, but I am afraid that to sonic extent I must be. Before I get on to that subject, may I ask Her Majesty's Government to note the point made by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst about what may be the Government reply, that while gas and electricity boards and authorities, and so on, earn money, that does not apply to highway authorities. The whole case for new roads is that they would save the country money, and although the amount saved may be difficult to put clown in a cash book I thought that the fact that it would save the country money was already part of Her Majesty's Government's policy.

Coming back to the question of road finance, when we "killed" the Road Fund last week I stated, and I should like shortly to state it again, that in the construction of new roads annual budgeting has been a complete failure. One of the principal causes of our troubles now, the fact that we have not the roads we need, is not so much that small amounts that have been spent on roads—times have been difficult—but that there has been no continuity of finance. When constructing roads, it is better definitely to have £10 million a year than to have a problematical £20 million a year. Perhaps one year you get £5 million; then you get a gap hen you get £20 million; then you get £10 million. Under those conditions it is impossible to undertake a major industrial operation, which is what the making of new roads is.

When a large commercial undertaking or company starts to build a new factory or to sell a new line of goods, the first thing it does is to see that its finance for that operation is in order, and will be there when required. Under this system of annual budgeting, nobody ever knows when this finance is going to be there. One consequence of that lack of continuity in finance is that we are paying more than we need for our road construction, and, for that matter, for our road repairs. What happens is this: you start to make a stretch of road—say a stretch of fifty miles; you stop it the next year because there is no money—there is a financial crisis. Two years later you start it up again. But you cannot start where you left off. Or recommencing the work, the whole preparation has to be gone through again, and there is invariably a delay of several months, non-productive months, all of which costs money.

There is also the question of road construction contractors. I am well aware that the Ministry of Transport know, though I sometimes doubt whether the Treasury yet know, that in these days new roads are riot made with picks and shovels: they are made with expensive machines needing skilled crews. The road contractors sink a great deal of capital into these machines. To get a proper return on the capital sunk they must keep the machines working the whole time. The proper way of making the new stretch of road is to put the heavy machines with their crews on the first section breaking up the land ready for making the road bed. When they have completed that section they move on to the next, and the next lot of machines come along and actually make the road bed. Then they have to move on again, and the surface contractors come in. That is the cheap way of making roads. Under annual budgeting the contractors never know what is going to happen next year. These machines may be working a year; they may be working for three months, six months or nine months; and if the work on the particular site is stopped the machines have to be moved right across country to where there is other work for them. All the time they are moving they are non-productive. This is nonproductive capital. So what do the contractors do? Quite properly, when they put in their tenders they have to make allowances for the time when, under annual budgeting, these expensive machines may not be working fully. So again, we are paying too much money for the roads that we are making.

I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that there are two ways of providing continuous finance, and I would suggest that in both cases a scheme for financing should be set up under a special and separate Act of Parliament. I say that because at present it is always possible for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to go to Parliament and say, "I want amending legislation to wipe out this Act because we cannot afford to carry out what we have approved." Very properly, Parliament would then say, "Obviously, we are in a crisis; we cannot afford this scheme, and we must not go on with it." Under the annual system of budgeting, the Chancellor can just cut it out. If there were a special Act of Parliament he would have to ask for amending legislation. When the Road Fund was abolished by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, the country was not road conscious, as I believe it is now called. Before a Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Parliament and said "We cannot afford it," he would need a very strong case, and I very much doubt whether, just because he was a little "hard up" in a particular year, he would attempt to introduce special legislation to do away with those Acts of Parliament. That is the suggestion.

There are two ways of getting continuous finance under these Acts. One is that under a special Act a certain percentage of a particular road tax—say one-third—should be allocated to a fund under the Act. For example—and at the moment I am giving it only as an example—the present tax on fuel oil is 2s. 6d. a gallon. If 10d. of that tax were permanently allotted to a fund (I am using that general term at the moment) it would provide £75 million a year. Much the same sort of amount could be raised by taking a proportion of the money raised by the tax on vehicles. That is one method of getting continuous finance. I know that there are many objections to it. I know, for instance, that the Treasury would not like it. I will not go into all the arguments against it; the only reason I mention it is that it has been suggested in various quarters.

We then come to the other system which has already been mentioned—namely, the question of a road loan. I suggest that such a scheme could be operated by Parliament giving authority for a maximum sum to be raised in a particular period. If I remember aright, my noble friend Lord Howe took as an example £750 million over a ten-year period, which would seem to be £75 million a year. The advantage of this scheme is that if that amount were raised on the open market by an authority—I have not yet gone into the question of the authority—finance would be raised as and when construction demanded it. Parliament would give authority for the overall amount over a period of, say, ten years, and that money would be raised by loans only as the construction demanded it. To lighten the burden on the Budget in those ten years—because the Government would have to service the loan—the interest and repayment could probably be spread over a period of about thirty years. That is a perfectly normal transaction, and it seems to me that the Government would be spending no more per annum, even in a peak year, than it is their intention to spend now.

So much for the actual raising of loans. I cone now to what I believe in Government circles, and certainly in departmental circles, is considered a much more unorthodox proceeding, the setting up of a highway authority. There are other authorities but from the departmental viewpoint—and from that viewpoint quite rightly—this would be a non-profit-making authority, although I suggest that, from the Government point of view, it would be very much a profit-making authority, for it would save so much money to the country. I suggest this highway authority for two reasons. The first is that a Government Department is not, either in outlook or organisation, suitable for handling a major industrial project: that is not its function. Secondly, there is the difficulty that if loans are to be raised on the open market it will be extremely difficult to let a Government Department raise its own loans. So far as I know, a Government Department has never been allowed to administer the proceeds of a loan raised on the open market. I may be wrong, but I can find no trace of such a happening. The Treasury keeps things of that kind in its own hands. I believe that that is almost an insuperable difficulty. If this highway authority were set up, however, the Minister's relationship to road transport would be exactly the same as with other forms of transport, such as the Transport Commission. He would have the very important supervisory powers. I submit that it is the Minister's job to exercise these supervisory powers; his job is not to make roads. At the moment he is trying to do both jobs.

I do not want to go now into details of the organisation of such a highway authority, but in general terms it would be an authority composed of a small number of men. It need not be as large as other authorities because it would not employ direct labour. That small body of men would be doing that work, and nothing else, full-time. As the Minister now does, they would work through and with local authorities. I suggest that they should have a strong advisory committee, composed of representatives of local government authorities, trade and industry, and civil engineers. Those people would be only an advisory body: the actual controlling body would be full-time. I need hardly add that, if they are to be of the requisite calibre, though small in number they should be well paid. It would be their business to raise loans on the open market and to submit plans of future new road construction to the Minister. The Minister would submit those plans to Parliament, just as the scheme for modernisation of the railways was submitted. Parliament would then give authority for the amount of money to be raised over a period; and from that moment until the roads were completed, the Minister and Parliament having approved the plans and given the money, the highway authority would have complete control to work through the local authorities. A big staff would not he needed, for most of the technical staff are already with the local authorities, and I am told that at the present time those men are not employed in their full technical capacity.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, so that I may better follow his argument, would he propose that such a road authority should take over all roads or only trunk roads? Where would they stop?

LORD DERWENT

I am sorry if I did not make that point clear. As the noble Lord will understand, this is only a suggestion at this stage but I propose that they take over all new road construction. Further, I visualise that this authority would be comparatively temporary. When a trunk road was completed it would be handed over to the Minister for maintenance, as is done now. When a classified road was completed it would be handed over, as now, to the local authority. If the urgency brought about in road construction by the inauguration of this authority were such as I believe it might be, then possibly in thirty or forty years' time the authority could be abolished. We should have the road system we want and maintenance would still come under the Minister or local authorities. That is an outline of the proposal. Perhaps I have gone into too much detail too early, but there has been so much vague talk that I am putting forward certain suggestions for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

I would again stress the important point that the authority would be making roads and doing nothing else. I am told that the Minister has other duties. This is not an attack on my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, or on the Ministry of Transport. I believe that they are now beginning to see, or have already seen, the green light; but there are one or two others who have not. I do not believe that a Government Department can make the road system that we need. They have other things to do, and this is a whole-time job for technical experts. I am not expecting my noble friend Lord Selkirk, when he comes to reply, to say, "We love the idea of a highway authority and we think road loans are marvellous." But these are not only my ideas: they are the collective ideas of civil engineers, members of local authorities, road users, road contractors and others. I beg Her Majesty's Government to give an assurance that a plan such as I have outlined will receive their detailed consideration without any hostile feeling; for without wishing to say anything that I should not say, I know that in Government circles (and I use the term in its widest sense) there are certain vested interests who will naturally give such a proposal a hostile reception at the start. I beg the Government to consider this matter seriously.

4.48 p.m.

LORD WALERAN

My Lords, with many other noble Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe for putting this Motion on the Order Paper today. Many noble Lords seriously believe that if road construction is not tackled firmly and at once, the industrial life of this country will stop growing, like a bed of flowers that is covered with weeds. The ground has been pretty well covered by previous speakers and I will confine myself to four points. Three of them are questions of which I have tried to give the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government notice, though I regret it was rather short notice. Like the noble Lord. Lord Sandhurst, I do not think that the present £147 million plan can really tackle this problem; but assuming that it will do so, I should like to ask the noble Earl, in regard to the spending of that particular money over the period 1955–59, whether any amount allocated but unspent in a particular year may be added to the amount already allocated for the following year, so that we do not lose money which was envisaged to be spent but has remained unspent. So often money can be allocated for a purpose and, when it is not all spent, instead of continuing the work afterwards, that unspent money is shown as a surplus and is never devoted to the purpose for which it was allocated by Parliament.

Now two questions of detail, but important detail. I should like to know what is the estimated cost of the Severn Bridge itself. I do not ask what the cost will be with all the suggested by-passes and so on; I want to know the cost of the bridge itself and the simple roads to it connecting with the nearest existing main roads. This is important, for we have had this proposal turned down time and time again because it was said that the cost would be far too great. I do not believe that it would be if, to start with, we just went for the bridge alone and the simple roads to it connected to the existing main roads. It is a scheme for which plans already exist. I believe that the steel was there at one time, but it was used during the war for other purposes. This is a scheme which could be got on with right away. It would make an enormous difference to the traffic of South Wales, even without large by-passes and connecting roads. A further question which I should like to mention is one which was raised earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Howe: I refer to the question of the Cromwell Road extension and the fly-over or viaduct. Can the noble Earl tell me what views have been put forward by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee who, I am certain, must have discussed this matter? Will the scheme work without the flyover? I do not think it will. I think you will get a perfectly fantastic bottleneck in Tolgarth Road, and therefore you might as well not start out upon this project. I suggest that it is futile and that you might as well save the money.

The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, answered a question the other day about the serving of London Airport. When I was a member of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, I got to hear that the Ministry of Civil Aviation several years ago produced a Report which they gave to the Ministry of Transport, and in that Report they estimated the additional movements that would generate from London Airport when it was fully completed, over and above the normal traffic, and the difference it would make to the traffic on the Great West Road and traffic conditions in and out of London, over and above normal traffic. I believe that that Report is still with the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and it is known to the Ministry of Transport. I believe the estimate was that there would be an additional 2,000 vehicles an hour, in and out. Now will the Cromwell Road extension handle that without a fly-over? I believe not. I only hope that this House can be told the views of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on this problem.

I have a further point to make. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, quoted remarks made by the Prime Minister on June 11, including an allusion to the fact that new roads and good roads would help in reducing road accidents. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the very first resolution of the special conference of road safety organisations which was held at the end of 1952 and early in 1953. I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was the Chairman. The Conference was convened under the auspices of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. The Ministry were represented, and so were all the road safety organisations. The first resolution—it was passed on January 5, 1953—stated that the Conference declares its strong conviction that more expenditure on road construction, maintenance and improvement is vital to the interests of road safety and calls upon the Government to take more effective action to deal with this most urgent problem. As has been asked by a previous speaker, if that was the considered opinion of those road safety organisations as long ago as that, have we really been serious in our efforts to get the accident rate down?

I have one more point and it is this. It may sound an add statement in the way in which I put it. The Government have said in the past that more oil is going to he used to ally itself with atomic energy to produce the power we need in this country. As we are not getting as much coal as we should do, this is very desirable. But do not think the oil that will be obtained will be sufficient if we do not have the right amount of roads on which to run enough vehicles to use enough petrol. And the reason is this. In this country we now have some new refineries—very modern refineries. These refineries carry out various processes, including "cat-cracking" and polymerisation. With these processes the amount of fuel oil and petrol obtained from, say, a ton of crude oil are almost the same, together with, of course, much smaller quantities of paraffin lubricants and diesel oils. We shall not get the fuel oil that we shall require if these refineries do not have a demand for the petrol which they are producing in a practically equivalent amount at the same time. That is a thought which I leave with your Lordships. I think it well worthy of consideration.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Is the noble Lord putting forward the most interesting idea that the time will arrive when petrol will have to be given away so that sufficient industrial oil may be produced?

LORD WALERAN

It could easily come to that, if the roads get jammed.

4.59 p.m.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

My Lords, I am not going to follow the noble Lord who has put before us some interesting ideas on financing future road programmes. I am merely going to say a few words which will apply even if Her Majesty's Government turn down flat suggestions which have been made. In that event, there would still, I think, be a great deal that might be done within the amount of money that has been proposed. One must realise that the only source of money for the roads in one shape or another is taxation, and the only way to increase the size of the slice of the cake which you can cut for the roads is to bake sa bigger cake—that is, unless some of the suggestions put forward today are acceptable. Lord Lucas of Chilworth asks what has America got that we have not got. I would reply that something we have that America has not got is the Welfare State, and it is very, very expensive. It takes a big slice out of the same cake—the only cake there is, I agree that a state of emergency exists, in connection with the subject we are discussing, and it must be considered and faced with imagination and determination. Rapid action is necessary if we are not to suffer damage to our export market on which the whole country depends.

I want to consider for a moment whether Her Majesty's Government have any chance of spending the money with-in the time which they propose to allocate. I am not going to concern myself greatly with the main motorways, except to point out the anomaly that the Government appear to be quite happy about designing arid constructing 70 m.p.h. motorways at vast expense, and at the same time are completely unable to abolish the 20 m.p.h. speed limit. I am not trying to be funny. Somthing must be done about the 20 m.p.h. speed limit.

Before a national road project can be started, approximately twelve administrative stages have to be gone through, a number of which concern more than one Ministry. With the best will in the world, if the scheme goes through without a hitch, it will take a year: it cannot be done in less. Then, after the stage when the project has gone before a public inquiry, the chairman of the investigation committee has to submit an impartial report to the Minister. In practice, in the past there has been a delay of another eighteen months before an Order is made by the Minister, and no one has given any reason to think that it will be any different in future. I do not know what happens during that eighteen months and no reason has ever been given for that long delay. After the Minister of Transport has made his Order, the money for the project has to be authorised out of the main yearly authorisation. If the date happens to be wrong, the promoters of the project may have to wait until the next financial year before they get any money; and it is not until they have the money that they can start detailed drawings and designs of the scheme.

Having done that, they have to produce tender-documents and the contractors are given six weeks or two months in which to submit tenders. I have tendered for many jobs and I know that it is a big task. Finally, the successful tenderer must have a month or more in order to get his plant on to the site. Often if there is a lot of concrete work, the contractor has to set up a batch of plant, and it may be two or three months after that before the contractor can start earning money, which means before the Government can start spending money. National schemes have little chance of getting away to a flying start. As things stand at the moment, if the money allocated is not used by the end of the year, it goes into the general pool and may be used to buy false teeth and wigs; and those who look for road improvement have missed their money.

I think that a certain amount might be done on other lines. The results of the traffic census taken last autumn have not been published yet, but I know the results for my own county. They show that, compared with through roads, the Class 1 roads carried 43 per cent. more traffic. If that is the same in other counties (I have no means of telling, but that is likely), it shows the importance of Class 1 roads. Class 1 roads are 25 per cent.

rate-borne. Everyone talks of the unfair burden of taxation on industry, but factories are not normally rated, and the people who are rated pay for 25 per cent. of the Class 1 roads—though possibly that is beside the point.

In a large number of cases, for a trifling expenditure compared with the sort of figures we are accustomed to use in talking of road construction, ordinary two-lane roads could be converted into three-lane roads, which then would be able to carry somewhere in the region of double the amount of traffic. In most cases the sum involved would be in the vicinity of £6,000 a road mile, which is far different from the £250,000 a mile for sonic of the big schemes. We are fortunate in having the Road Research Laboratory, which is doing successful, thorough, painstaking and plodding, research work. It is not in the forefront, but its work is going on all the time behind. We have scientists second to none in the world. The results of the research work done in America. Europe and the Commonwealth are studied and I think we can consider with justification that we can establish our road construction design on a sound basis. The old days of guess-work and of the fads of one person or another are over. The design of a road should be based on the traffic flow with which it is intended to deal and it should be capable of carrying the critical flow.

I would ask noble Lords to notice, the next time they drive around the countryside, that there is sufficient ground within the fences of most roads already to enable another five or six feet to be taken in to turn the road from a two-lane into a three-lane 33 ft. road. If we do that, the carrying capacity of the road is doubled for a comparatively small cost. The cost of the purchase, where it is necessary, of a strip of ground, is insignicant, because an acre of ground two yards wide is 2,420 yards long. That is a long way and an acre of ground does not cost very much; and that is all that is necessary to turn some of our smaller roads into good three-lane roads.

Then there are lay-bys and off-road bus stops, of the advisability of which scientific opinion has no doubt. The idea that a lay-by or an off-road bus stop must be up to the same standard as a running road is absolute rubbish. Why not scrape the turf off, lay a Somerfield track and so construct a lay-by or off-road bus stop for a few pounds? And if the bus stop is put in the wrong place through lack of experience, it can be shifted farther along the road with the greatest ease. At the same time sources of accidents and traffic jams arc removed from the road. This sort of work could be done without all the permits and paraphernalia that has to be gone through for a major scheme. An enormous amount of that kind of work could be done within the amount of money allocated—money which, so far as I can see, is not likely to be used anyway.

On the Continent and in America they have built off-road parking places on their great motorways, and so important do they consider this that they have provided continuous parking strips right alongside. Again, all we need to do in this country, as an interim measure, is to abolish that dangerous hazard, the high kerb. That descends from the day of the old whin-stone kerb and iron tyre. Last week the Ministry of Transport finally gave up the Battle of the Kerb. Since last week, or possibly the week before, we have been allowed to construct a road without a high kerb, and get the grant. That is a great step forward. You cannot get off the road if there is a high kerb to bounce over. Not only that, but a road, like ground, is not all it appears. If the Government or a local authority compulsorily purchase ground it has one value, but if sold in the open market it has a different value. A road has its measured width, and it has its apparent width to the driver using it. You will find that if there is a high kerb no driver will go within two feat of it, which means that the road is diminished by 4 feet anyway. With a clear definition of the edge, a flush kerb and traffic lanes marked so that the driver can see where he is, the driver might utilise the road to its full capacity. That is all I have to say on the actual roads.

LORD DERWENT

I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend, but before he leaves the question of roads I may say that I am interested in his suggestion of lay-bys. Has he thought of the problem that if the turf is just scraped or, in wet weather dirt and muck will be carried on to the road and the surface will become unsafe? Could my noble friend amplify that?

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I recommended the use of the Somerfield track, which, I believe, even if it did not entirely abolish that, would make it a minimum consideration; and sand could be used under the Somerfield track. That would get over the difficulty, although it would be more expensive.

Then there is the question of bottlenecks. In my opinion, it is useless spending money on a road and running traffic on to a bottleneck. As other noble Lords have said, we might just as well not spend the money. It is like water going through a pipe: you get no more water through the tap by merely putting a bigger pipe behind it. Moreover, it is useless for one local authority to improve their stretch of road if the next-door local authority do not improve theirs. Therefore, I suggest that all these improvements—and they are minor improvements—should be considered, and the Ministry of Transport, or some appropriate authority, should make a cost benefit appreciation of a whole route between two destinations, not batches here and there. They should consider the cost of widening to a standard width throughout, a slight realignment, elimination of bottlenecks, elimination of black spots—based on results of before-and-after experiments carried out by the Road Research Institute here, and by other people in collaboration with them, which have had spectacular results —the provision of flush kerbs and marked traffic lanes, lay-bys and off-road bus stops, and (an important point in certain places) improved signs.

I think those matters should all be considered on a cost benefit appreciation, and if the cost is too great and the benefit too little there are plenty of other schemes which have a better cost benefit result which could be done first. Nearly all this work could be started almost at once, and funds should be made available out of the existing allocation of money. I do riot think there would be a shortage of funds, because I am sure they cannot be used up, anyway, in the early stages. Another point that should be borne in mind is that, with increasing traffic, Her Majesty's Government may find that in five or six years' time they are faced with such a problem that they will be digging up every road in the country, and no one will be able to move at all. If a start is not made now the situation will get worse and worse.

The practice of freezing funds to the year has been touched on as being expensive, and there are two other reasons for this view which I should like to give. A job may last longer than the surveyor thought it would when he estimated; he cannot foretell weather conditions; he cannot foretell his difficulties of access; he cannot foretell whether the land is going to be bought or whether there will be a hold-up when he has to put in his estimate. Therefore he starts the job, and he sees the time by which his money must be used up approaching nearer and nearer. It happens in my county, I know —and one finds local authorities working costly overtime in order to get the money spent. Another thing one sees is a bituminous carpet being put down in doubtful weather. It may be said: "It is not perfect, but if I do not put it down now I shall not get the money for it." The result is that that carpet has not the life it would have if it were put down in ideal conditions, and money is wasted on that score. Those are two other points to amplify what noble Lords have said.

I am not convinced that we are tackling this accident problem as we might. I believe that the Ministry of Transport have a potent new weapon to their hand —namely, television. Why not take the television camera on to a busy main road and have a commentator pointing out good and bad driving, selfish and dangerous driving? Why not demonstrate the Highway Code on the television in the home and then dramatise an accident? One can think of all sorts of ways of putting it over to people who do not read—and some of them cannot. The Highway Code is fine, but it is not put over. On television there could be shown a pretty girl on the back of a motor cycle and how four or five seconds' carelessness involves her in an accident. I think good results would be forthcoming from something of that sort. I have detained your Lordships too long already, and in conclusion I want only to offer my sympathy to the Minister of Transport in the difficult problem he has to face and to assure him that, if I have teemed critical, I have not intended to be so.

5.18 p.m.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

My Lords, it has been said that our climate consists of nine months winter and three months very bad weather. I think that the recent good weather, coupled with the railway strike, has made us all acutely aware of the appalling problems of our roads. I do not propose to take up much of your Lordships' time, but there are three small points that I should like to put forward for consideration. The first deals with sonic suggestions for modification of our present roads; the second concerns access to the new trunk roads when they are built; and the third is a plea for a speed restriction.

My first point is a little on the same lines as one made by my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, who suggested that we might increase the capacity of some of our existing roads. I do not know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would entirely agree, but I believe that much might be done by increasing, the number of sections of first-class roads which might be inserted in the existing roads. In my view, such a provision would help to clear some of the interminable delays and blockages which occur on our so-called main roads. I should like to give your Lordships one example of the kind of thing we all know so well —it is a road extremely well known to me and, I do not doubt, to a number of your Lordships. I refer to a stretch of the London—Hastings main road between Tonbridge and Flimwell. The distance is roughly fifteen miles and, broadly speaking, throughout that fifteen miles it is impossible to pass a slow-moving vehicle. If you get stuck behind a lorry or other slow traffic, the position is hopeless, and at the week-ends the traffic piles up into an endless slow-moving stream. I believe that if one or more sections of first-class double-track road—I mean a two-way road—could be inserted into bits of main road of that kind, it would have the immediate effect of clearing the trouble and allowing a reasonable passage for vehicles proceeding at a normal speed.

My second point concerns the question of access to the proposed new roads. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they should take steps to deny absolutely any access of any kind to these new roads after they are built. No doubt the Government will take the necessary steps to restrict building. That is not my point. I would commend to your Lordships the idea which exists on the Continent in many places, and certainly on the autobahnen in Germany—that is to say, where all access of any kind is denied. By doing this, any temptation to try to overcome building restrictions is removed, because, obviously, if you may have no approach to a house or a building, if you may not have a front gate, you do not build. The road, in a sense, becomes something like a railway line upon which it is an offence to stray. I think many of us will remember the construction of the Great West Road. It was to be a sort of lifeline out of London; a wide highway sweeping, not without some beauty, through the countryside. If some provision as I have just suggested had existed it would have remained so; instead, it has become not only a death-trap but probably one of the most hideous stretches of country in Europe.

With regard to my third point, a speed restriction, I do not want to be misunderstood. What I am asking for is a minimum and not a maximum speed limit. I believe that on these new roads we should take steps to control slow traffic and, perhaps even more important, traffic which wishes to proceed slowly. These provisions exist on many of the trunk roads in America. Traffic has to proceed at 40, 45 or 50 miles per hour, according to what is decided; or, alternatively, it must use another route. I believe that there ale some people who would like to see some such provision as this brought into force on some of our existing roads. But that, I fear, would hardly be practicable, and might not be altogether popular. We are accustomed to seeing on the back of cars little notices put up by courteous drivers, "Please pass—running in." During the strike I happened to come up behind a car driven by an equally courteous driver, and he had put up a notice, "Please pass—worn out."

I think we have all had the experience of driving along a twisting road and coming behind a somewhat elderly car, driving a yard or a yard and a half out from the left-hand curb at 25 or even 20 miles per hour. Through the back window you see an upright and rather dignified figure, perhaps wearing a grey hat, and all over the back of that figure is written, "I know my rights. I am a careful driver." No doubt beside him sits the wife, placidly admiring "George's" careful driving. What "George" is really doing is setting the stage for a major accident, because, sooner or later, as the traffic piles up behind him, somebody is going to do something foolish. I hope that I am not being too light-hearted, but I went not long ago to an American gangster film. At one stage the gangster got hold of his victim and was hustling him from one place to another. He turned to his victim, and said. "Now, no funny business because I irritate easy." I think that in the circumstances which I have just described, we all "irritate easy;" and sooner or later someone pulls out of that stream, and that is when a major accident occurs. I do not like restrictions any more than do your Lordships, particularly those of us who sit on these Benches. But in all seriousness, I think there is much to be said for the control of slow-moving traffic. It may be that in time to come we shall find ourselves in the rather odd and unforeseen position of having, in addition to "speed cops" on our roads, what may in time coma to be known as "sloth cops."

5.27 p.m.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate this afternoon, and I do not intend to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. I heartily agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, has said about the slow menace, the grey-coated gentleman who "knows his rights." Of course, that is what our American visitors at once notice in this country—the slowness with which our traffic moves on the main roads. In their country all their cars are more powerful than ours, and practically every car moves at the same speed. I listened with great interest to what the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, had to say about "make do and mend"—I think one might use a naval expression—and I am sure a great deal could be done at less cost by adopting some of his ideas.

The only point I wish to make is to add my plea to hat of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, in regard to the fly-over at Hammersmith Broadway. I should not have mentioned it again this afternoon, after it had already been spoken about by two other noble Lords, but I happened I to sit on the Private Bill Committee of the London County Council and Middlesex Improvement Act in 1936. It was the very first Private Bill Committee on which I ever sat after joining your Lordships' House, and it created a great impression on me. As your Lordships know, on these Committees every detail of the scheme is investigated thoroughly. I am sure that all of us who sat in that Committee room would have been absolutely horrified if we had thought the lynchpin of the whole scheme, which is this flyover, was to be abandoned. I know that Her Majesty's Government will not allow the scheme to be ruined, as I am sure it would be, by omitting this fly-over.

5.29 p.m.

LORD CHERWELL

My Lords, I have only two points to make. The first is that I should be sorry to see it go out from this House that one can do anything very much by having loans. Whether you have a loan, or get the money in any other way, you will cause inflation unless you reduce your other investments. There is only a limited amount of national effort available. If you simply take it out of consumption goods there will be fewer consumption goods for sale, and prices will go up. You cannot take it out of your export goods because our balance of payments is already in a difficult position. The only way in which you can get the money without inflation is to force the people to consume less by taxation. Any loan, or anything of that sort, unless it is counterbalanced by a reduction of other investment, will not do any good at all in our present financial position. It may be that spending money on the roads may be a better investment than investing it in some other way. That would have to be considered; but one cannot have it both ways.

I should not actually have intervened if it had not been that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred at some length to Oxford and its problems. On the last occasion that these matters were mentioned, I think a somewhat inaccurate description of the University's attitude may have found its way into the debate. In order to anticipate any acidity from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in his reply, I would say at once that I have lived in Oxford for thirty-five years and, to that extent, it may be considered that I am biased. On the other hand, it may be considered that I know something about the place. Possibly knowledge is equally as valuable as bias in this matter.

The Oxford traffic problem is entirely bound up with the congestion round Carfax, the centre of the city. Not only do the east—west and north—south roads cross there, but it forms the principal shopping centre. For years Oxford City, the University and everybody have begged Whitehall to complete the outer by-passes. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, two quadrants have been built, not even adjacent quadrants, and the other two quadrants have been left unfinished. At last, one, the northwestern by-pass, is now to be completed. That has just been agreed. The city will build a junction between the London and Cowley roads and the Abingdon road which adjoins the south-western by-pass. We hope that this will considerably ameliorate the position of the through-traffic. The through traffic, of course, consists mainly of very large vehicles, and they cause far more congestion than the small vehicles which carry the local traffic.

There has, however, been a traffic count, and we shall be told: "Ah, but 80 per cent. of the traffic is local traffic." I very much distrust those counts, because they were made a long time ago and the position varies from day to day and season to season. One can never be sure whether or not they are counting bicycles and equating them with great lorries. But supposing we admit that there may be some truth in the assertion, for the streets are relatively empty on Thursday afternoons (Thursday is early closing day in Oxford), obviously, the proper solution is to build up a shopping centre on the other side of the river. There are now more people living on the other side of the river than in the City of Oxford proper, but all the big shops in Oxford are within 200 yards of Carfax, the centre of the city.

The plan of the city, which was approved by the University and the Preservation Trust, was to complete the by-passes and build up a shopping centre in Cowley, and see whether that would not save the situation. After years of delay the Minister insisted that he would pass the plan only if proposals for internal by-passes were added; and that, of course, "put the cat amongst the pigeons." All the "cranks" in Oxford came forward with their own particular plans—including, as the noble Lord has pointed out, vandalism such as cutting right through Christ Church meadow and the University Parks and all sorts of schemes like that. Most of us believe that that is a completely useless suggestion. Carfax is crowded because people want to go to the shops at Carfax. It is no use having other roads to Carfax: it will only make the situation worse. If you are annoyed by a lot of wasps coming round the honey or the jam at your breakfast table, you do not make things better by opening a couple more windows. You take the honey or the jam and put it outside. That is what we propose should be done in Oxford.

As I have said, not many University people support these weird plans. Your Lordships may have noticed that a few days ago a letter appeared in The Times which gave a good description of the situation. It was signed by most of the heads of colleges in Oxford. I hope that due notice will he taken of that. One proposal, made by the Minister and supported by one or two people, including the Warden of New College who, in the course of rotation, is at this moment Vice-Chancellor, was that we should close Magdalen bridge and, thereby, the High Street. You might just as well say that you should reduce the congestion round Charing Cross by closing the Strand at Aldwych. If people who want to go there have to go by another road, it will, not make the congestion less in the centre of the city.

It has been said: "If we close the High Street we can put the relief roads further out and the motorists will have to use them—though otherwise they would prefer the High Street." But all motorists go, not by the shortest way in miles, but by the quickest way. No motorist would mind going an extra half mile along an unencumbered road rather than by the crowded High Street because it is a few hundred yards shorter. We in Oxford—and I speak here for the majority of the city and the University— should like to go back to our original plan: complete the outer by-passes, if possible, or at any rate complete the one that has been agreed; let the city join up the London road and the southwestern by-pass; and build up shopping centres on the other side of the river. We believe that that will solve most of our problems. At any rate, let us proceed step by step and see whether that does not solve the problem. Then we can examine the possibility of tunnels or other methods. What we want to do is to go ahead with the plan and not have imposed on us the so-called inner relief roads which we believe would bring no relief and would certainly spoil our existing amenities.

5.37 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I think it is fair to say that this debate has been characterised by contributions from speakers many of whom have spoken with great authority on the matter of urgency. Also it has been characterised by a certain sense of suspicion of alt Governments. I think there is a certain justification for that view, although if any third party had listened to some speeches and had not known the facts he would hardly have guessed that we were just: introducing a substantial new road programme. In fact, anyone listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would never have guessed that the programme is at something like ten times, the level it was when the noble Lord was at the Ministry of Transport. But I do not want at this time to argue the broad issues, which we dealt with just over a year ago, on the importance both to the economy and to the safety of the country. I do not want to cover that ground again, but will go straight on to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and say what we are doing to answer them.

I should like to take straightaway the noble Earl's questions which we have written out in front of us and deal shortly with them. First, he asks whether the expanded roads programme will be sufficient to meet future needs. What has been announced so far is simply the second instalment of an expanding programme which, as the Minister said on February 2 of this year, is intended to provide this country with an up-to-date system. This is merely an instalment of a programme, and we hope that other instalments will follow in due course. It is an expanded programme and, indeed, an expanding programme, and should be regarded as such. It is much larger than what has been possible in the years that have passed and it is considerably bigger than is probably realised at the present time.

Secondly, the noble Earl asked for a return to show the progress which has been made—I imagine he has in mind something akin to the returns of house building which we have been putting out month by month. I doubt whether it is possible to put forward a progress report of the road programme in any statistical form, or indeed whether it could be usefully modified for presentation in that sort of way. At the same time my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport will be glad, should he be asked to do so, to make statements from time to time showing what progress is taking place—as the noble Earl is aware, he in fact made one last Wednesday describing the general progress that has been made.

The third question he asked was whether this matter would be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Here I can assure the noble Earl that that is what my right honourable friend is seeking to do, and that is the view which is shared by the highway authorities who, in the majority of cases, are acting as his agents in the construction of trunk roads, and upon whom to a large extent the necessary work is falling. I will deal with that point a little further in a moment.

The fourth question which the noble Earl asked was whether the Government propose to bring forward additional proposals. In considering this point it is quite clear that the statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made yesterday must be borne in mind. At the same time, I can say that the Government intend to carry through the programme on roads which has already been announced. That programme covers ten of the fifteen places which I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned in the course of his remarks. It also covers thirty schemes which have been authorised, all of over £100,000 each. I think the noble Earl can rest assured that this is a considerable programme; but in regard to additional programmes I can only answer that the decision which the Government will come to will necessarily depend on the continuing economic strength of the country in the future.

A good deal of emphasis has been laid in the course of this debate on the word "continuity." Of course, in any subject continuity will depend in the first place on peace abroad and stability at home. Those are the first conditions which necessarily will permit any continuity to take place. But I can say that what the Minister of Transport said on February 2 requires no alteration. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 536, col. 1100]: It is the Government's firm intention to continue with a substantial programme of road construction and improvements—at least on the scale I have indicated—until the roads of this country are adequate for the traffic they have to bear. A short time ago he said it was necessarily a matter of legitimate discussion whether the programme should be larger or not, and he said frankly that he was working on the basis not only that there is, but that there will be, a very great expansion in the number of vehicles on the roads—he considers it quite likely that by 1980 there will be four times the number of private cars on the roads as compared with 1939.

It is no more than a platitude to say that no Government can bind itself for the future. Far less can it bind any other Government. But I should like to examine some of the proposals, which have been made to-day with great determination and a great deal of thought, to see whether there cannot be some assured continuity. One proposition which has not been made, but which I suppose could have been made, is that we should draw a map showing the final development of our road system in this country and then work backwards to decide how much should be done each year. I do not think that gets us very far. It would rather tie us down to a programme which in the end might not be entirely what is wanted. A great deal of support was suggested for floating a substantial loan. I was glad to hear what my noble friend Lord Cherwell, who speaks with such authority in this matter, said, because I think it is substantially the answer to this question. The limits of road construction today arise from the strain that a too rapid expansion would impose on an already extended economy. There are, of course, other considerations which enter into it, but it is impossible to build up a road programme very quickly; it has to be built up step by step. At the present time there is no difficulty in carrying this programme from budgetary sources. None the less, if it should prove necessary or desirable at some future time, we have no objection in principle to using the loan system.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the possibility of a highway authority. I wonder whether that takes us a great deal further in solving this problem. If one takes the railways, one finds they were held up for a long time from carrying out what everybody agreed were necessary capital improvements but which the economy of the country did not permit to take place. They were an independent corporation. What noble Lords want (this applies particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Dement, who made a very interesting speech to-day) is, to put it bluntly, to obtain money from taxation without Parliamentary control. That is just what it amounts to.

LORD DERWENT

Surely Parliament would have the power both of granting loan facilities and of withdrawing them. That seems to give Parliament control.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

That is exactly the position; therefore in that case you are not one step ahead of where you are now. That is the difficulty with all these proposals: you come back exactly to the same position. Parliament must be in control of any money raised from taxation, and if Parliament does riot want to spend the money then no system, whether it be by way of loan or by way of highway authority, will really be in a position to avoid this difficulty. That is why I doubt whether there is a great deal to be said on that line, or whether there is a great deal of advance to be made at the present time in that direction. I think by far the most important thing of all is that there is absolutely no disagreement in this House, or in any part of it, that this programme must go forward. I think that that agreement extends much wider than that: it is all over the country. There is a determination that we will have a better road system in this country. Quite frankly, in a country such as this that is by far the best assurance that something will continue to be done.

There was a great deal of talk to-day about the slowness with which things were developing. As is always the way when a programme is announced, everyone hopes and expects that it will be com- pleted almost before the Minister of Transport has stopped speaking. There has been a lot of talk and the usual accusations on all sides of bureaucratic delays and controls. It is proper to remember that we do not live in a dictatorship country, and that whatever disadvantages there may be in having a dictatorship, that form of government has considerable advantage when it comes to planning roads. It is no coincidence that the first big roads in Europe were all built under a dictatorship of one kind or another. We in this country do not do it in that way; we have a number of other considerations in mind. For instance, my right honourable friend has to early out the provisions laid down in the Trunk Roads Acts of 1936 and 1946 and the Special Roads Act, 1949. The procedure necessarily varies a good deal, but I was interested to note that the only noble Lord who had any sympathy with this point of view was the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, who, as a civil engineer, speaks with great authority and knows the difficulties which have to be faced when one carries out a programme of this character.

At the risk of boring your Lordships, may I explain these statutory provisions? It is no good being unrealistic and pretending that they do not exist. In the first place, what one might call the general preparatory scheme has to be laid out: that is to say, roughly, a proposed new road drawn on the map in outline. It is no use doing that too hurriedly, for if you do so you will probably have to start all over again. When this is done, the next step is to publish a Statutory Order setting out the general line of the route. Three months must elapse after publication, during which objections to the Order may be made. With any substantial Order one has to expect that there will be objections. One or more of these may require the holding of a public inquiry which will be conducted by a member of a panel completely independent of the Department. A report is made to the Minister for his consideration and it is quite possible that, as result of that consideration, it may be necessary to alter the scheme.

The possibility that the whole procedure will have to be carried out again only serves to emphasise that the preparatory work has to be done as carefully as possible. The further difficulty arises in connection with motorways inasmuch as they inevitably cut across a number of existing roads, generally requiring alteration of their line, and a Statutory Order must be published in respect of each point of intersection, with the usual opportunity for objection. It is really not possible to blame a Minister for observing the procedure which Parliament has laid down. He would be blamed for failing to carry out that procedure and, if he departed from it, he would be ultra vires; so there is no question of short-circuiting.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I followed the noble Earl's catalogue of time-schedules and, so far, I quite agree; but there is a gap for which he has not accounted. This afternoon he gave me the date on which the Order for a section of the Oxford ring road was signed—last Saturday, July 23. Three months has to elapse for all the various processes to be gone through, as the noble Earl quite rightly says; but the actual engineering proposals for that road were made, and passed by the Ministry, years ago. It was announced that those proposals were to be in the programme five months ago. Why does it take five months to sign an Order inviting objections to a scheme that has been in cold storage for five years?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord asks why it takes five months to prepare a scheme—

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

No, the scheme was prepared five years ago, as were most of these schemes in the £147 million programme. This particular scheme was put in cold storage throughout the war. Why did it take five months to sign the Order?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I can only conclude, and I believe I am correct in saying, that though the scheme was there, it was not there in sufficient detail. A certain amount of detail has had to be developed to bring the scheme up to date. There may have been changes. I will look into that point, but, of course, that is a matter of possibly only two or three months by which the scheme could be cut down.

I must go on with this somewhat gloomy catalogue. When we have completed the stage I have described, and when the Order has been made and the scheme authorised, we come to the third stage, the engineering work, working out intersections, bridges and borings, studying subsoil and foundations and bridge designs. Thereafter there are specifications and bills of quantity to be prepared. Then at that stage there is the acquisition of the land required. To some extent that can take place contemporaneously with other stages, or even earlier, but if compulsory powers have to be invoked it may well take up to eight or twelve months at least. Only then does the construction work begin. I have given your Lordships these details because I believe it is important to realise that we cannot go forward unchecked unless we are prepared to some extent to sacrifice our respect for individual rights, and Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to do so. That is the price we have to pay, and I believe that in these circumstances we are quite right.

The first stage of the motor road is now being put in hand and it is hoped that the Order in respect of the first section, from the St. Albans by-pass to Dun-church, will be ready for publication in September of this year. This motor road will consist of a dual carriage-way with three traffic lanes each way and will also have a shoulder or hardstanding on each side to enable any car which wishes to stop to pull out at any point along the road. I consider that is a very valuable addition. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, mentioned the question of access. I can assure him that there will be no access. There will be only six junctions between St. Albans and Dun-church and all these intersections will be constructed so as to enable traffic to pass through unimpeded.

May I say a word on the size of the programme. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has referred to the New Jersey Turnpike or the Baltimore Road. It is easy to give illustrations of American accomplishments, but one must be careful about making comparisons. I am told that all the preliminary work on this road, the acquisition of land and the detailed engineering, was done before the period of two years which has been calculated.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The noble Earl is quite right.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think that we can do exactly the same thing arid that the actual construction work will take exactly the same time here. Moreover, I am told that one of these roads was constructed along the line of an old railway and that there were foundations which substantially assisted the progress of the work, though that is a matter on which I am not very well informed. I should like to speak on the size of the programme, because people sometimes get confused over the aspects of commitments and of expenditure. Our commitments last year were a little under £20 million on major improvements and new construction. This year it will be £27 million, and next year and in the two following years it will be about £40 million each year. This means that our commitments have increased over tenfold in a period of five years. The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, asked about these commitments extending over a number of years. A commitment is not exactly a Parliamentary Vote; there is no question of its slipping back into the Exchequer at the end of the year. It is an undertaking to meet that amount when it arises. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, asked about grant unexpended at the end of the year returning to the Exchequer. This arises only in respect of maintenance and not in the case of major improvements. The difficulty with commitments is that people may say they give an exaggerated picture of how far we are going. Taking the other measure, expenditure, this considerably underestimates what has been achieved, because it is surprising how long it is after the completion of a scheme before the bill comes in.

I will give the picture as we see it—the figures were substantially quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. Last year the expenditure was £5 million; this year it will be rather over £8 million; and in the following three years expenditure will be rising fairly sharply to about £90 million over the whole of that three-year period. It is worth remembering that this is only central Government expenditure and excludes local government expenditure, for which can be added about 12 or 15 per cent. The figures also exclude expenditure on maintenance, local and national, running at about £70 million a year. Moreover, they take no account of expenditure on motor roads, which is over and above the expenditure, and indeed the commitments, which I have already mentioned.

I think it is fair to say that, by any criterion, we are taking a really substantial step forward. I will add this in regard to the future. We are now picking up with the matter of the preparation of schemes for the future. Up to now, in a great many cases we have not been able to do much more than exercise planning control in areas of development, which of course are a relatively small percentage of the areas in which roads will be required. Now, however, we hope that as the programme gains momentum planning will be carried out very much further ahead, so that the detailed engineering work can proceed almost as soon as the schemes are approved. I can assure the House that the two further motor ways, both from Birmingham to the Preston by-pass and the road to the Doncaster by-pass, are being carried out. Preparatory schemes are going ahead, and the programme includes tunnels and fly-overs.

Lord Derwent—and Lord Stonehaven also—emphasized the question of efficiency in constructing our roads. I entirely agree. While I will not attempt to reply in detail to the whole of the points raised by the two noble Lords, I can say this with regard to the question of kerbs. I think we are all glad to know that the Ministry only last week sent out a circular in which they advised local authorities that they should not in future put vertical kerbs on the side of the roads except where a footway adjoins the carriageway or where, for any reason, it is dangerous for the vehicles to leave the carriageway. What is now required —and I should like this to get as much publicity as possible—is that local authorities should implement the recommendations made by the Minister. Another recommendation was that where kerbing is necessary to prevent the roads spreading, kerbs should be flush with the carriageway or splayed at an angle of forty-five degrees. We think this will tend to make the roads more useful over their whole extent, safer and less expensive, and I hope that local authorities will pay full attention to the recommendations in the circular.

I hope that noble Lords will not think I am unduly cowardly if I do not enter into this Oxford discussion, Lord Lucas of Chilworth has expressed himself very strongly on this point. I will only express the view that this is certainly a matter of national importance. I can assure noble Lords that it is engaging the attention both of the Minister of Transport and of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The noble Lord suggested—and it is a highly improbable suggestion —that perhaps they might not agree on the subject. The noble Lord is well aware that there is a perfectly normal constitutional procedure which can be adopted if that highly unlikely contingency ever eventuated. The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, asked about the Severn bridge. He probably knows these figures, but, none the less, I will give them to the House. The bridge itself, it is believed, would cost about £10 million, and what we think would be proper approaches would cost £6 million. It is also true that approaches of a sort could be provided for about £2 million; but we think that these would be quite inadequate for the scheme as such.

The noble Lord raised other questions including that of the Hammersmith flyover. This is a classified road and, therefore, responsibility for it lies with the London County Council. That Council is not convinced that the fly-over is necessary. Frankly, my right honourable friend would like a fly-over. I am not sure that I know what the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee say about this, or whether they have made a recommendation upon it. But, as I have said, my right honourable friend would like to see a fly-over. The position, however, is that the London County Council are going ahead with the scheme in such a way that a fly-over can be added at a later stage if it should prove necessary.

LORD WALERAN

I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl unduly, but the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, I think, is a statutory body under the 1924 Act. Does not any such scheme have to come before the Committee?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am told that they do not make specific recommendations on matters of this character. In any case, the matter lies with the London County Council, and it is for them to take the decision.

The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, mentioned lay-bys. I agree that probably it would be better if we had more of them. On classified roads, of course, lay-bys are the responsibility of the highway authorities concerned. So far as trunk roads are concerned, the Department is providing additional—lay-bys where necessary.

My Lords, I am afraid that I have not answered all the questions raised in the debate this afternoon. I can assure noble Lords that my right honourable friend will be grateful for the care which noble Lords who have spoken on the subject have taken in the preparation of their speeches. Finally, I should like to say just this. This is only the beginning of an expanded road programme, and it would be quite wrong to pretend that the problem of traffic in this country will not be with us for a large number of years. In fact, I dare say it will be with us as long as motor cars continue to be a form of transport in this country. But I think we can fairly claim that we have made a start of real significance. We are most anxious to do it well, and my right honourable friend is determined, within the statutory limitations which I am afraid I bored your Lordships by describing, that it shall proceed with the utmost expedition.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before the noble Earl sits down, may I say that I regret—though I quite understand—that he has been unduly cowardly. He has not answered a number of specific questions which I asked him. I know his difficulties and I am not going to press him for answers this afternoon. But perhaps he would look at my questions and consider them in consultation with the Minister. May I have the noble Earl's assurance that he will consider them, and that he will write to me, because I shall not be able to return to this subject until after October 25, which is a long time ahead? If the noble Earl will give me that assurance, then I do not want to press him to answer this afternoon, except in the case of one question which was really important. I asked him in the course of my first two or three sentences whether the House was to take it that the road construction programme would be in danger of curtailment because of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech yesterday. May I take it that the answer he gave the House, to the effect that that speech would have to be borne in mind, was an answer to my question, and that there is a risk that the road programme may have to be curtailed owing to economic circumstances?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I thought that I answered the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, quite fully when I spoke. What I said was this. We meet here after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a speech, and clearly we have to consider the implications of that speech. I said that the programme as announced would go forward as announced. I thought that that was a full answer to the question. If the noble Lord thinks that there is any other question of significance which I have not answered I shall be only too glad to communicate with him; but I was under the impression that I had answered all the noble Lord's questions.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am satisfied with that answer. The other questions, apart front the one which I have mentioned, were technical questions. I asked the noble Earl for an assurance about the A.40 road. I do not wish to press him on that, but will the noble Earl undertake to give me an answer after he has consulted his right honourable friend? I understand that the noble Earl assents, and I thank him.

6.10 p.m.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who has replied on behalf of the Government as fully as he could. He was obviously suffering under certain difficulties which he did not like to say anything about, as they were, perhaps, connected with matters behind the scenes. Before I reply to him, I should like to say a word about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. My Motion was drawn to relate to the roads of the country as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, seemed to think I said something about Oxford. Oxford is a great national town, but it is a very small one and a small piece of the general road traffic situation. I agree that it is an important one, but there are others just as important from the point of view of traffic. If we compare Oxford with Staines, Staines is just as important and much more difficult to deal with.

LORD CHERWELL

My Lords, I mentioned Oxford because it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I had no intention of raising it, but the situation of Oxford has often been misrepresented. I cannot say that I derived much comfort from the noble Earl's assurance that the Minister is considering the matter. What we want is to be allowed to get ahead with our own plans without ministerial interference.

EARL HOWE

Be that as it may, the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, also had a word to say about loans. I thought his arguments were first-class, but they would be equally sound if applied to electricity, the railways and all the rest. His argument was against loans in general. I was glad to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the Government do not altogether exclude the possibility of loans for road-building.

The reason why I submitted this question of loans to the noble Earl was not because I wanted to avoid Parliamentary control—that is the very last reason I can think of. The reason, which I tried to make clear in my remarks, is that we must get a guaranteed continuity of finance, and it does not seem to be possible to get that in any other way. If we have to depend on revenue, we get such speeches as we had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place yesterday, and as no doubt are being made to-day. Everybody realises the difficulty, but we cannot run the roads of this country on a "Stop" and "Go" policy. Either we have new roads or we do not; and if, in our wisdom, we decide not to have them, I tremble to think of what will be the state of affairs in a few years' time. I put it that in four or five years' time we shall be in a real mess. The Government have to consider that at the moment we have a prosperous motor industry sending valuable exports abroad. But we are being heavily challenged overseas, and we cannot expect to have a prosperous motor industry unless we have a prosperous home market, and for that people must be able to take the cars on the road. It seems to me vital to consider the whole of this programme in that light.

The noble Earl talked about urgency. I wish I could think that the Government were tackling this in the spirit I am praying to see. It may be that, in common with many other people, I do not appreciate this half enough, but it seems to me that there is not sufficient urgency about their approach. With regard to the general programme, the noble Earl has not told us when any single item is likely to be completed. I repeatedly asked him whether he could tell us something about the completion of various schemes. If he is not able to reply to that now, perhaps he may be able to do so later on.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I did not go into the future of what will be done, but our general picture is that the preliminary procedure which I have described will take about two years; and the first motorway will take two or three years for construction after that date. That is the general broad picture: I do not want to go into more detail than that.

EARL HOWE

Take the Ashford by-pass, which did not feature on February 2. It is practically completed, all except about 100 yards, and all the Minister is doing is to add a fly-over junction at the end of it. Surely we can be told the position of the Ashford by-pass.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, so far as we know there is no reason why the work should not have been begun already, as it was authorised some time ago.

EARL HOWE

That is exactly what we wanted to hear from the noble Earl. So far as one can judge from one's own observations, not a sod has been turned. Why? If this has been considered as a matter of urgency, could not something have been done? Can the noble Earl not tell us something of his own suggestion, the construction of a second carriageway in Western Avenue between Park Royal and Greenford Halt? As the land is available, there are no difficulties about acquiring land and the work is merely an alteration to the plan of the road as it exists at the moment. Surely we can be told something about that?

The noble Viscount, Lord Leathers, said a short time ago that when he got the green light, he would be ready to go ahead. The light was beginning to turn green in February, and from what the noble Earl has said to-day, it is now well and truly green. Surely with a real sense of urgency about it, we should have been able to "get cracking" on many things. Another thing about which the noble Earl said nothing in his reply was the question of accidents. I gave some figures with regard to the local Manchester road and tried to show how we can reduce casualties by improving the road system; but nothing whatever has been said by the Minister on the subject of accidents. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for replying so far as he did. I only hope that he and his Department will not think I am too critical, but we are all bound to be critical in our extreme anxiety with regard to the road position as a whole. I do not think the programme is big enough or ambitious enough, but perhaps it is the best that can be done at the moment. I can only end by thanking all noble Lords who have supported me in this Motion. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.