HC Deb 20 June 1984 vol 62 cc430-7 'It shall not be permissible for a local roads authority or the Secretary of State to impose a charge on any vehicle to travel on any public road, highway or bridge in Scotland'. — [Mr. Maxton]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maxton

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

At 5 pm, on a point of order, I said that it was regrettable that the Bill had become so extensive in terms of the number of amendments tabled to it that it was nonsense to continue discussion of it in Committee on the Floor of the House and that it should have gone upstairs where it could have been considered in more detail.

In the new clause, I raise the important matter of the imposition of tolls on certain bridges in Scotland. I begin by quoting a brief extract from a document: Income from North Sea oil will be used to create a Scottish Development Fund with a number of important objectives. This Fund will be used to ensure that every part of Scotland derives the fullest benefit from oil. In those areas most directly affected, the additional services needed by oil development will be assisted by the Fund … The Fund will also be devoted to making good any damage to the Scottish countryside resulting from oil development. And it will make possible a major programme of renovation and replacement of out-of-date housing and obsolete industry. The Fund will be used to abolish the tolls on the Forth, Tay and Erskine Bridges; and it will have wider purposes, through the provision of better amenities and new facilities for sport and recreation—Hampden Park is high on our list. Hampden Park, of course, is in my constituency.

I have to tell the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that that quotation comes from the general election document of October 1974, Freedom for all the people—A charter for Scotland which was printed and published by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist central office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ten years ago."] I hear Conservative Members muttering "Ten years ago." It is, indeed, 10 years ago. We all accept that the Conservative party has moved a long way in those 10 years in its philosophy.

Those Conservative Members who are most concerned about the economic policy that the Government have undertaken should concern themselves with what has happened with regard to toll bridges in Scotland. The question to be considered is whether, since the bridges were opened, the imposition of tolls has helped to do anything towards getting rid of the loan burdens of the bridges. With the exception of the Tay bridge, that is not the case. The loans were taken out of the Consolidated Fund, and interest is payable on the loans. With the exception of the Tay bridge, the standing debt on most bridges is now considerably greater than it was when the bridges were first built.

In September 1964, the cost of the Forth bridge was £10 million. The loan debt now outstanding after nearly 20 years of imposing tolls is £21,750,000. That debt is due to be written off by September 1994, but there is no way that it will be. It will be much larger by then, because the bridge cannot collect enough money even to pay the outstanding interest. Each year, more interest is added.

12.45 am

Therefore, it is becoming more and more expensive to run the Forth bridge as a toll bridge. That is even more true of the Erskine bridge. It would be cheaper if the Government stopped collecting tolls, wrote off the debts on the bridges, and treated them as a normal part of the roads system. I see Conservative Members nodding and shaking their heads, so there must be some division of opinion on their Benches. In terms of public expenditure, a case can no longer be made for continuing with such tolls.

Furthermore, the tolls should be abolished because they have an adverse effect on industry. I see that some Conservative Members do not agree, but FIDA—a very reputable marketing research and investigative organisation in Edinburgh—did some research into the effect of the Forth road bridge on the Fife area. It has been shown that it has a detrimental effect on industry in that area. [Interruption.] I should have thought that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) would want to abolish tolls. After all, he believes in free trade and the free movement of goods. Tolls are an unfair burden on trade in certain parts of the country. That will not be true of the hon. Gentleman's area, because there is no toll bridge taking goods into Stirling.

Mr. Michael Forsyth

If the hon. Gentleman is seriously arguing that the Forth road bridge disadvantages Fife, why the devil did we build it in the first place?

Mr. Maxton

It is not the bridge that is disadvantageous to Fife. On the contrary, it is to its advantage. However, there should be a free bridge, because tolls create problems for industry in Fife. That is also true of the Tay bridge. Indeed, I think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will make that point. The hon. Member for Tayside, North would also probably agree, because his area relies quite heavily on the traffic over the Forth road bridge.

I am aware that it is late, so I shall be brief. People resent being held up on such bridges. The other day I heard of someone who worked in Clydebank, lived in Bearsden, but drove through the Clyde tunnel and back every day rather than use the shorter route over the Erskine bridge because of the toll.

Mrs. McCurley

But Clydebank and Bearsden are on the same side of the river.

Mr. Maxton

I am sorry; he lived in Eastwood. But wherever he lived, he went through the tunnel.

I am sure that there is support for the general proposition that we have a free roads system, on which there are no tolls. There is no logical reason to impose a toll, especially an uneconomic toll, on bridges as opposed to roads.

If people are to pay for using roads, that should apply throughout the country. If not, why impose it on road users in certain geographical areas, and not others?

Mr. Bill Walker

I rise to speak because I have a constituency interest in what happens to the Tay road bridge. While it is difficult to ignore the charm and allure of free travel over the bridge, I remind the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that when the bridge was built it was under specific and agreed conditions that it would be financed and funded in a certain way. It was not a Government decision to build the bridge, but a local authority decision to which the Government acquiesced.

It is important that, if we change the rules as they affect that bridge we must ensure that Tayside region is not left to foot the bill for the maintenance of the bridge. If the Tayside region were faced with that, the ratepayers in Angus and Perthshire would have to meet the cost of maintenance. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that would not be acceptable to them.

The hon. Gentleman drew attention to an election promise in 1974. I remind him, that we did not win that election. The Labour party—supported by the Liberals in the Lib-Lab pact and, occasionally in the Lobby by the Scottish national party—indulged in profligate polices between 1974 and 1979 that resulted in the International Monetary Fund being required. That meant that when the Conservative party came to Government the economic position of Britain was such that many observations and pledges made in 1974 were no longer relevant. It was a different ball game. That is not to say that, if the rules were changed, and tolls could be removed from the Tay bridge, that would not be an enticing thought. But I would not support that if the ratepayers of Tayside had to fund the maintenance of the bridge for ever.

Mr. Wilson

The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for once has a point. However, there is little justification for the toll system. Once we had turnpikes and people paid to use the roads. That concept was reintroduced with the construction of some bridges. There is no logical difference between a bridge and a stretch of motorway. Motorways, especially those that look like bridges, can be expensive to build. For example, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) mentioned the M25 orbital road that will be about 125 miles long. No doubt it is a necessary road to deal with traffic congestion. The cost of it is phenomenal. It will cost £875 million, and the section that opened in January cost £120 million, or £15 million a mile.

We are dealing with historical costs, and the evidence given by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is that the bridges, bar one, the Tay bridge, are unable to finance themselves out of tolls, and, as a consequence, the debt is rising. That is similar to the problem that we used to have in the House of Commons Refreshment Department, when debts were accumulated for a long period, and then the Treasury had to come in and wipe out the debts, amid some embarrassment, and then the whole process started again—until the regime of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), who succeeded at last in making it into a profitable enterprise.

There are a number of bridges in Scotland serving different purposes. For example, the Friarton bridge is much more useful to the city of Dundee than the Tay bridge. It is the people of Fife, particularly the commuters, who make use of the Tay bridge, while Friarton bridge is used by those of us who travel to Edinburgh, as it is a faster route. I am sure that that benefits the constituents of the hon. Member for Tayside, North.

Mr. Bill Walker

The logic for building the Tay bridge was to open up north Fife for the people who wished to visit Dundee, and it was done by agreement as to the funding and financing. That agreement cannot just be swept aside as if it had not been entered into. It was, and the commitments were fully known. It is wrong to suggest that they should suddenly be discarded.

Mr. Wilson

The hon. Gentleman's party had in its October 1974 manifesto a proposition that it intended to disregard the original financing arrangements. One of the things that has annoyed that party is the loss of that election, and since then it has not been attracted to taking up that cross. Nevertheless, it is simple and possible for Governments, should they so decide that it would be sensible and financially appropriate, as it would be in the case of toll bridges, to accept the financial burden and make them free. That is the logical way in which these changes should be dealt with.

Frequently in the past the argument has been that tolls are justified because of the exceptional benefit that accrues from estuarial crossings. I have letters to that effect from the Government. However, compared to the general benefits of motorways, there is not all that greater benefit from estuarial crossings. We get benefits from good roads. Nobody would doubt that, so why should one stretch of motorway have no charges, while others do? I suggest to the hon. Member for Tayside, North, in the interests of his constituents, and of those who use the Forth bridge—more of them will be affected by the Forth bridge tolls than by the Tay bridge tolls — that he should press his Government to relieve those people from the effect of tolls.

The alternative, apart from the Tay bridge, which has exceptional problems, as we know, but has recently been able to bear the costs of the original capital loan, is that the deficit will increase. I do not know of anyone who thinks that the Erskine road bridge would generate the volume of traffic that will enable it to pay for itself. It is a glorified white elephant. The Clyde tunnel, which is toll-free, serves the same purpose as the Erskine road bridge, but one goes underground at enormous cost, and the other goes overhead at enormous cost. Both of them were built to relieve west Strathclyde of the extreme congestion of traffic that those of us who lived in the area at the time will remember all too well.

The hon. Member for Cathcart has made a simple but sound case and I ask the Government to consider acting upon it. This is not purely a Scottish matter — hon. Members will know that I usually like to explore such matters—because a strong group has been established among English Members that seeks the abolition of tolls on estuarial crossings. For once, hands are crossing the border. The abolition of tolls is a sound proposition if we want a coherent transport policy. If that is our wish, we must get rid of these stupid tolls, which are unfairly inflicted upon those who live in certain counties where there are major estuarial crossings.

1 am

Mr. Bruce

I support the new clause. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) began his remarks with a reference to the Conservative party's manifesto of 1974. I remember that manifesto especially well as I opposed the then Conservative candidate for North Angus and Mearns, who subsequently represented the constituency. The manifesto presented to the electorate contained a bribe which did not come off, as Conservative Members have admitted. However, the Conservative party won the subsequent elections and the people in the highlands and islands thought that a Conservative Government would take up their commitment on road equivalent tariffs. The Conservatives do not have the excuse that they lost the 1979 and 1983 general elections, and they have reneged on their commitment.

The toll policy is inconsistent. It is reasonable for the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to remind the Committee of the Tay bridge agreement, but it is not reasonable to say that the arrangement cannot be changed. The House of Commons has some powers, and it could make changes to the arrangement if it so wished. It would be to the advantage of all who live in the area of the bridge if that were done.

Why should some crossings be tolled and others not? There is no systematic policy or logic in the imposition of tolls. It seems unreasonable that a motorway around London costing over £1,000 million should be toll-free while some relatively low-cost roads, which happen to cross water, should be subject to tolls. One exception is the Friarton bridge. The policy is a shambles.

It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) has not been in his place to hear the debate on the Tay road bridge and to present his side of the argument. The Liberal party's consistent view, against the background of the present shambles, is that we should abolish tolls. As the hon. Member for Cathcart said, the costs of collection are often more than the moneys that are raised.

Mr. Michael Forsyth

Has the hon. Gentleman considered why the London orbital road should not be tolled? The problem of constructing motorways that carry high volumes of traffic is the amount of land that has to be acquired to deal with that traffic. The problems of collecting tolls on such roads are obvious. Much as one might like to see tolls introduced, it is not physically possible to collect them, especially when there is so much pressure on land use. It is practical to collect tolls on bridges. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Tay and Forth bridges, for example, replaced ferries, for which there was a charge. The benefit that is enjoyed by those who are able to use the bridges far outweighs the tolls that they have to pay. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that? Has he considered also the deficiency in his argument that the tolls have made only a small financial contribution? The toll charges have steadily declined in real terms, partly because of inflation and partly because of the profligate policies that the hon. Gentleman and others are advocating.

Mr. Bruce

The hon. Gentleman's intervention—or speech—is most interesting when one considers that the Secretary of State for Transport, opening a transport museum in my constituency, told my constituents about the great days of the turnpike roads and said that we had moved on since then. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, we would revert to the time, two centuries ago, when there were tolls on such roads. Opposition Members believe that all roads should be free.

Mr. Maxton

The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said that bridges had replaced ferries. The Clyde tunnel essentially replaced a ferry, and the Kingston bridge in the middle of Glasgow replaced the Govan ferry. If we are to be consistent, they should be tolled.

Mr. Bruce

Indeed. The fact that people depend on ferries for transport was behind the Select Committee's recommendation that we should introduce a road equivalent tariff, which, regrettably, the Government have now reneged upon.

This debate recurs year in, year out. It is high time that a consistent policy was followed, that all tolls were abolished, and that transport was speeded up efficiently and fairly in the way that I have suggested.

Mr. David Marshall

I support the new clause.

As regards the Erskine bridge tolls, the Government have acknowledged that there is no longer any possibility of achieving the original objective, which was to recover the construction costs and then to abolish the tolls. I appreciate that if tolls were abolished, we would have to decide how to meet the maintenance costs of the bridges. I believe that the costs should be the responsibility of central Government, and that maintenance should be carried out by local authorities on an agency basis, like the maintenance of motorways.

Only £ billion of the £10 billion derived from the taxation of the acquisition, ownership and use of motor vehicles returns to the roads. I was horrified to hear the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) say that the only reason for not imposing turnpike charges on roads was that the volume of traffic was too high. The motorist in this country has had a raw deal from successive Governments. Much more money is derived from the roads than is ever spent on them. The abolition of tolls would be a small step towards redressing the situation.

I hope that alternative employment will be found for anyone made redundant as a result of the abolition of tolls. That would not be difficult to arrange, because not many people are employed in the collection of tolls.

Mr. Home Robertson

In the British context, tolls on roads are a complete anachronism. It is natural for Tory Members to support anachronisms, and some of them have done so this evening.

If there were tolls on every motorway, major road or major bridge throughout the country—which is what the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) seemed to want —that would, in a way make sense. We would be back in the days of tolls and turnpikes. But, whether or not Government supporters have noticed it, we pay for our roads in a different manner. We pay for them through the road fund tax. The levy is a contribution towards the road fund. Apart from two bridges in England and Wales where there are tolls, people in England and Wales get the benefit of their entire motorway system free, after paying the road fund tax. People in Scotland, who have to make use of the Forth bridge, the Tay bridge and the Erskine bridge, if they wish to move around the country at all, have to pay tolls on trunk roads. Tolls are dated and there is no financial justification for them. Virtually every party in Scotland has made commitments to do away with them. It is time that they were abolished.

Mr. Allan Stewart

rose—

Mr. Wilson

On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Are we not to have a response from the Official Opposition?

The First Deputy Chairman

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Allan Stewart

Might I say first, to the disappointment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), that new clause 11 would apply only to the Erskine bridge, as responsibility for the Forth and Tay bridges rests with joint boards, not local roads authorities, so they do not fall within the definition of public roads.

Regardless of the fact that new clause 11 does not achieve the purpose that the hon. Gentleman hopes to achieve, he will not be astonished to learn that the new clause is not acceptable to the Government. Our policy was reviewed and confirmed in 1979 at the election that we won. The manifesto on which we fought that general election campaign did not include the point about tolls that was included in the 1974 manifesto. Our policy is that toils should be charged on major estuarial crossings when the crossing confers exceptional benefits on the user in terms, for example, of time saved and journey shortening. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) made the point about the ferries that preceded the Forth and Tay road bridges.

The Government's policy on toll bridges is well known. It is right that users, not taxpayers or ratepayers, should pay for the exceptional benefit that they confer. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) rightly emphasise the fact that the toll bridges were built and funded on the understanding that they would be paid for by tolls. The only immediate effect on employment would be the difficulty faced by toll collectors.

Mr. Maxton

Anybody is capable of being aware of the employment implications of abolishing tolls but, in regard to the Forth bridge, it is hoped that there will soon be a fully automatic system that employs very few people.

Mr. Stewart

In that case the employment problems would be less. The Labour party was in power for five years, and for much of that time it held power with the co-operation of the Liberal party. For those five years the policy of collecting tolls on major estuarial crossings continued. It did not change then and I regret to inform the hon. Member for Cathcart that it will not change tonight.

Mr. Maxton

I am deeply disappointed with the Minister's reply, although I must accept that, in the strict legal terms that he mentioned, new clause 11 is defective in that it would not get rid of the joint boards on the Forth and Tay bridges. I knew about that, but that does not undermine the principle that we ought to get rid of tolls.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, there are tolls on many bridges in England and Wales. However, only two that I am aware of are run by major authorities. I have a brother who lives near the Selby bridge. It is a privately owned wooden bridge and is in a deplorable state. It is on a major tourist route to east coast resorts such as Scarborough. Users are ripped off and there are queues for miles because of it. The bridge itself would create a bottleneck, but the collection of tolls doubles the queue and makes the position even worse.

That, of course, is precisely what the hon. Member for Stirling wants to see—private enterprise collecting tolls on our roads and bridges throughout the country. That is the nature of his philosophy. He wants to fill the pockets of every owner of every piece of land.

1.15 am

The principle of my amendment is good. I accept that the wording is defective, and I shall table a properly worded new clause on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to