§ 38. Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Transport whether she will make a statement on Government policy towards the abolition of ancient toll bridges.
§ 75. Mr. Neaveasked the Minister of Transport whether she has any new proposals for the abolition of ancient toll bridges.
§ Mr. CarmichaelThere are no proposals for changing the present situation in which highway authorities may, if they wish, acquire ancient toll rights under Section 233 of the Highways Act, 1959.
§ Mr. MartenPresumably that must mean that there is no change in Government policy and that they have no proposals to alter the law about toll bridges. Could they not consider seriously fixing a term of, say, 15 years, after which all toll bridge rights should be abolished without compensation?
§ Mr. CarmichaelConfiscation, even after a term of 15 years, would involve very controversial legislation. The feeling is that any such legislation would be of insufficient national importance to give Parliamentary time for it.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonDoes my hon. Friend recognise that, though it may be of insufficient national importance, it is a problem which is of crucial local importance in areas like Selby, and that it would be desirable if modern road communications were not impeded by these ancient toll bridges? Would he perhaps look at the way in which Jersey dealt with the problem of seigniorial dues, which 436 were also a feudal relic and which they abolished after 25 years of gradual progression?
§ Mr. CarmichaelIn the case of the bridge referred to by my hon. Friend, there is to be a by-pass which will eliminate the necessity for main traffic to use the bridge. On the other matter he raises in connection with Jersey, I will make a point of examining it.