HL Deb 06 February 1963 vol 246 cc587-9

2.52 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what expert evidence has convinced them that the Albert Bridge, which the then Minister of Transport assured Parliament in 1955 was in urgent need of reconstruction in order to carry the volume of traffic then using it, ought now to be selected for one-way tidal flow at rush hours for the express purpose of attracting a greatly increased volume of traffic; when they received such evidence; and from whom.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

My Lords, in answering this Question may I briefly say how pleased we all are to see the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, back in his place again—though I hope it does not mean that he will join in the supplementaries.

My Lords the proposals in 1955 to reconstruct Albert Bridge, which is restricted to a maximum weight of 5 tons, were to make it capable of carrying all types of traffic, which had greatly increased following the abolition of petrol rationing. But other schemes were later regarded as more urgent. The continuing increase in traffic across the River Thames has made it necessary to make better use of available road space, in alternate directions, during the morning and evening peak periods, particularly for light traffic. Tidal-flow arrangements would do this. Albert Bridge, because the weight limitation prohibits its use by buses, is suitable to carry an increased volume of light traffic.

The London County Council, the bridge authority, have satisfied themselves, by obtaining a report from their consultants, who have specialised knowledge of Albert Bridge, that the proposals would not adversely affect the bridge structure. The traffic using it would continue to be mainly private cars.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his Answer and associate myself with what he said about the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on his return? Does my noble friend recall that in February, 1955, the then Minister of Transport informed the House of Commons that the bridge was weak and unable to take adequate loads, and that about £1,100,000 had to be spent on reconstructing it? How has the lapse of eight years made the bridge grow stronger?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I thought I had already dealt with that point in my original Answer.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, having regard to the fact that the Minister of Transport on that occasion referred to the danger of the bridge falling into the river, will he now publish the expert evidence on which the Minister then relied and the expert evidence on which the present Minister relies now?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I thought I had looked up what the Minister had said at the time. I did not find those words, and evidently I must carry out some further homework on this matter and check up on what my noble friend has said. I shall certainly have to look into the matter of evidence, and to whom it was made available, because, as I have already said, London County Council are in fact the bridge authority.