HC Deb 19 March 1990 vol 169 cc985-92

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

10.53 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to an Adjournment motion on a subject of great interest to my constituents—the tolls for the Cleddau bridge in Pembrokeshire.

It may help the House to begin by describing the location and some of the history and background of the bridge. The bridge spans the Cleddau river some miles downstream from the mouth of the River Cleddau, not far from Neyland and Pembroke Dock. It replaces a ferry which came into use in 1840 between Neyland and Hobbs point. The ferry was discontinued once the bridge came into being.

The history of the construction of the bridge goes back to proposals made in 1943 and 1945 for a bridge across the river downstream from Pembroke Dock. That scheme was not implemented, nor was the proposal, made in 1959, for a barrage across the river. In 1964, further proposals were made for a bridge to cross the River Cleddau, and in 1965 the House passed the Pembrokeshire County Council Act, which gave the council permission to construct a bridge across the river.

Tenders for the bridge were put out in 1968 and the original cost was £3 million. Unfortunately, on 2 June 1970, the bridge under construction collapsed into the river, killing four workmen involved in its construction. Following the collapse, an inquiry was set up under the Merrison committee to look into the construction of the bridge. It had been built on the box-girder principle, but with the collapse of that bridge and one in Australia, doubts were raised about that method of construction. As a result, progress on the Cleddau bridge was held up for a considerable time while the Merrison committee examined the principle of construction.

It was not until 1974–75 that the county council approached the end of construction, having taken on board the recommendations of the final Merrison inquiry of 1973.

The bridge opened in 1975, and it was tolled from the start. The purpose of a bridge at that point was to facilitate crossing the river and to save my constituents a detour up to 28 miles that would have meant them going via Canaston bridge and the village of Nash. The people of Pembrokeshire have saved considerable time since the bridge was constructed.

Ever since the bridge opened, a battle has been waged against the tolls. In 1974, the county council expressed concern that the cost of the bridge had escalated considerably as a result of the need to reconstruct it under the new building principles. The bridge, which started off costing £3 million, ended up costing nearly £9 million. The county council therefore felt it right at that stage to approach the Secretary of State for Wales, then the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) with a request for assistance in view of the increased costs caused to it by having to rebuild the bridge according to the latest safety standards.

In spite of delegation after delegation, and requests from the county council, the then Secretary of State refused to assist Dyfed county council. In a letter of 11 January 1979, the private secretary to the Secretary of State wrote to the county secretary of Dyfed county council: I write to tell you that the Secretary of State regrets that the facts do not, in his view, provide any basis for action on his part. My predecessor as Member for Pembroke, now Lord Crickhowell, who was also to become Secretary of State, went to see the Labour Secretary of State. In response to the plea for assistance from Mr. Edwards, as he then was, the Secretary of State said: "I wash my hands of the matter." Mr. Edwards replied, "Like Pontius Pilate."

When Lord Crickhowell took office as Secretary of State in May 1979, he immediately put into effect in the Welsh Office an inquiry to fulfil an election promise made in the Welsh Conservative party election manifesto of 1979 to provide assistance to Dyfed county council. That led to an award of £4 million as an interest-free loan for 40 years to the county council. The decision to make an interest-free loan rather than award a grant outright was for legal, not financial, reasons. The Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965 contains a provision that prevents toll income from being used to meet any of the bridge costs, which are also grant-aided. The Welsh Office saw the loan as the best way to help the county council.

I am grateful, as are the people of Pembroke, for the swift progress made by Lord Crickhowell, then Mr. Nicholas Edwards, to fulfil that election manifesto in a matter of months.

I shall now consider the costs of the bridge—first, the loan costs. I was told in a letter from the county council on 5 December 1989 that the approximate total cost to Dyfed county council had been £9 million. That was despite £3 million compensation that was given to the county council following the collapse of the original bridge.

The running costs for the bridge are equally heavy. In the latest financial year for which I have figures, 1988–89, the running costs were £83,607, and the collection costs were £176,054, giving a total running cost of £259,661. The debt charges have now risen to £11,208,639, of which £2,493,710 is the principal amount, the other £8,700,000-odd being the interest.

Toll takings have risen considerably in the past few years. In 1988–89, the total toll income was £1,079,722. That reflects the growing importance of the bridge as part of the economic infrastructure of the county. I have received from the county council the latest figures for traffic flow over the bridge. In an average month, about 2,007 vehicles cross the bridge in each direction.

Why is it that, after nearly 20 years, the people of Pembrokeshire are still opposed to the tolls? There are a number of reasons. First, the bridge's economic impact on the county is divisive. The bridge spans both South Pembrokeshire and the Preseli Pembrokeshire district council areas—the two parts of the county. Many people who work or live on one side of the bridge travel across the bridge to work. They find the cost, at 50p each way, or El per day—£2 if they travel across twice a day—extremely excessive.

The effect on local industry is particularly hard. It is surprising, given that this part of my constituency is an enterprise zone, that the Government have not recognised the economic cost of the bridge on local industry. Given that we have higher than average unemployment and lower than average wages in Pembrokeshire, it would be simple for the Government to look again at the justification for tolls on the bridge.

People have to use county facilities which are located on the other side of the river. For example, Withybush hospital, our district general hospital, is situated in Haverfordwest, and everyone who is referred to that hospital in south Pembrokeshire either has to make a long detour or must cross the bridge and pay tolls. We should look at the raison d'etre of charging to go across the bridge.

I bear in mind the second report of the Select Committee on Transport in 1985–86 when it specifically considered tolled crossings. It stated: Among the issues it decided to examine were:

  1. (i) The underlying principles which have justified the policy of successive Governments of imposing tolls on road users only for estuarial crossings;
  2. (ii) The costs of installing and operating toll systems;
  3. (iii) The scale and cost of delays to road users caused by toll systems;
  4. (iv) The way in which toll charges are determined, and the extent to which net revenues from tolls are sufficient to defray the capital and maintenance costs of estuarial crossings; and
  5. (v) The net cost to the Exchequer of abolishing tolls at estuarial crossings."
There are 11 major tolled crossings in the United Kingdom, and one of them is the Cleddau bridge. However, other major crossings are not tolled. There is a disparity in Government policy on the Cleddau bridge and on the other 10 major crossings, and those other crossings, such as the Medway bridge on the M2, where no toll is made for the crossing. It seems completely unfair that a crossing charge should be made on this estuary and nine or 10 others, yet at other major crossings across estuaries, the road user goes free.

The reason for this is that we have a captive monopoly. There is no absolute logical case for the Government making charges on one crossing and not on another, apart from the fact that they think that they can get away with it. In a Treasury minute of 5 July 1979, when the interest-free loan of £4 million for the Cleddau bridge was being discussed, the Treasury admitted, when the opposition was put, that there was no justification in principle for treating expenditure on river crossings differently from expenditure on other roads or similar crossings which were toll-free, and that the arguments in favour of tolls could be applied equally to other major road schemes, including motorways. The Treasury minute says: That is true and in principle there is much more to be said for a more widespread use of road pricing. The case against charging for motorway use is a practical one, namely, that in this country there are too many opportunities for avoiding tolls by switching to smaller toll-free roads. We have a toll on this bridge not for reasons of logic or principle; it is simply that Governments of both political parties have over the years recognised that they have a captive monopoly clientele and that the motorist has nowhere else to go, so it is convenient to charge him. That is most unfair. These bridges are part of our national road system. The Cleddau bridge links two major trunk roads. We do not pay to go on the trunk roads or on the motorway that runs from near Pembrokeshire to London; yet to cross the bridge, my constituents are charged £1 for a return ticket.

The report by the Select Committee on Transport also recognised that convenience was the only reason why the Government have imposed tolls. It says that the Committee believes that crossings which are the responsibility of local authorities should be handed over to the Government and acknowledged as part of the major road system. These views are supported by the RAC, which has said that it can see no rhyme or reason why such crossings should continue to be charged for.

I conclude by drawing attention to one or two personal cases of constituents who have written on this issue to show the sort of costs that people are facing. I refer, for instance, to a number of people on the staff of the South Pembrokeshire hospital in Pembroke Dock, who live on the north side of the water and have to pay £4 a week each to cross the bridge—that is, after taking account of the concessions that are available for people who are regular users.

Mr. P. Sharpe, the headmaster of the Cosheston voluntary controlled school in Pembroke Dock, lives in Milford Haven and calculates that, because he has to go back to school frequently in the evenings, he has to pay £230 a year in tolls. Similarly, Mr. Simes and his fellow workers at the Texaco refinery have calculated that they are paying considerable amounts to cross the bridge.

Lastly, I draw attention to the absurdity of absurdities: the fact that even the district health authority has to pay for emergency ambulances crossing the bridge. The general manager, Mr. Brian Davis, wrote me a letter last year, in which he said: Each ambulance and hospital vehicle pays the appropriate toll and for the last twelve months this has amounted to a sum a little in excess of £3,000. In addition to this amount we re-imburse toll fees paid by other staff who need to cross the bridge in pursuance of their duties. Staff in this category will, of course, include district nurses, chiropodists, speech therapists and many her of our professionals going about their daily business. … The only occasion when one of our vehicles passes through the toll without payment is when an ambulance is displaying its blue flashing light but it is then required to pay a double toll on its return journey! I am told by local people who live near the bridge that, when an ambulance is on an emergency trip on the way back, its number is taken and the bill is sent to the district health authority.

There is no justification for treating the bridge as anything but part of the national road system. It is unfair that the ratepayers under Dyfed county council and the people who use the bridge should bear the total costs of using it, given that the rest of the system is free. We should abolish these tolls and make the bridge part of the national road network.

11.8 pm

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts)

My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has made clear his concern about the toll charges on the Cleddau bridge and their effect on his constituents, and not for the first time. He has touched on this theme many times, and I pay tribute to him for his genuine concern for his constituents.

Although my hon. Friend has told the House much of the story, it might be useful if I, too, recapitulate the interesting history of the Cleddau bridge.

The estuary at Milford Haven divides the former county of Pembrokeshire into two unequal parts. Before the building of the bridge, the estuary constituted a serious barrier to land communications within the county. The only available direct crossing was by the Neyland to Hobbs point car ferry, but the two vessels used there could not carry large modern lorries, the weight limit being only five tonnes. In later years, the ferries proved inadequate to cope with the greatly increased volume of traffic. During the periodic overhaul of each ferry, only one vessel was available, and in fog and stormy weather, at very low tides and at night, the service was suspended altogether.

The alternative land route between the two shores of the haven involved travelling some 28 miles. Various proposals were therefore considered over the years to bridge the Haven. These culminated in a county council scheme to provide a high level toll bridge, the powers for which were granted by Parliament in the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965, as my hon. Friend recounted. Construction of the bridge began in 1968. The bridge was to be a self-financing project, with debt charges being recovered over a 50-year period. These charges, together with the operation and maintenance costs, were to be met by tolls levied on the users of the bridge.

Work on the bridge started in September 1968 and should have taken two and a half years to complete. However, 20 months into the contract, in June 1970, the bridge superstructure collapsed. Work could not be restarted until. March 1972, and the bridge was finally opened in March 1975, by which time costs had increased from £3 million to £12 million. The increase arose from the delay in construction and the need to comply with the recommendations of the Merrison committee on box girder bridges.

The Government inspector who took the public inquiry into a tolls review in 1974 took the view that the circumstances which had given rise to such increased costs were so exceptional that it would be unfair if there were no special Exchequer assistance. He recommended that the additional costs to the county council of applying the Merrison committee's standards be transferred from the ratepayers to the Exchequer. The inspector estimated these additional costs to be £7 million or more.

Dyfed county council, which took over responsibility for the bridge following local government reorganisation, reached an out-of-court settlement for £3 million with the consulting engineers who designed the bridge. That left the sum of £4 million attributable to the Merrison requirements. This Government, when they came to office in 1979, took the view that, because of the wholly exceptional circumstances, it was appropriate to give assistance to the county council on a one-off basis.

The terms of the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965 meant that assistance could effectively be given only by means of an interest-free loan. Accordingly, we approved an interest-free loan of £4 million to the council, repayable over 40 years. This loan is being used to relieve the ratepayers of Dyfed of part of the charges on the council's capital debt which would otherwise be payable. Therefore, a considerable measure of on-going assistance is being provided by the Government, without which toll charges would be far higher. The statement of reasons prepared by the county council for the most recent tolls review in 1985 stated that, at that time, the interest-free loan was worth between £400,000 and £500,000 per annum—a very considerable sum, as I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the bridge is owned and operated by Dyfed county council. It now has sole responsibility for charging, collecting and reviewing tolls under the Dyfed Act 1987 which replaced the Pembrokeshire County Council Act 1965. It is therefore for the county council to decide whether tolls should continue to be levied and, if so, at what level. Further Government assistance is not an option. The assistance given in 1979, which continues to benefit the people of Dyfed, was given because of the exceptional circumstances involved.

The bridge scheme was promoted in the 1960s on the basis that tolls were the best means of getting the crossing built without placing an intolerable burden on ratepayers. This has remained the policy of the county council. Furthermore, in seeking to pay for the Cleddau bridge by levying tolls, the county council has followed the policy established by successive Governments for charging tolls on major estuarial crossings. This is justified on the grounds that users of such crossings are able to make considerable savings in terms of costs and time, given the lengthy detours that would otherwise have to be made.

Accordingly, we take the view that, unlike ordinary roads, the costs of estuarial crossings should be paid for by the users rather than tax and ratepayers in general. I suggest to my hon. Friend that car drivers in his constituency are getting a good deal in paying 50p to avoid a 28-mile journey.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett

In that case, why is it that there are estuarial crossings that are free and part either of the national road network or the motorway network? Why is it that this bridge and 10 others have been singled out for a toll when other crossings are free?

Mr. Roberts

My hon. Friend has it slightly wrong., in that estuarial crossings are generally tolled where there is a distinct saving in journey time and costs. I think that he will find that untolled crossings are generally crossings where an alternative is available.

There is no evidence to suggest that economic development in Pembrokeshire has been inhibited by the levying of tolls on the Cleddau bridge. Since May 1987, unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency has fallen by 40 per cent., and now stands at 3,651. It is quite clear that activity in the Milford Haven enterprise zone—supported by some £11.5 million public sector investment—has benefited both sides of the waterway. The zone now provides some 2,500 jobs, and has undoubtedly helped to broaden the areas's economic and industrial base.

There is a new air of optimism in Pembroke Dock. Work under way on the "route 9" road scheme is already adding to the town's attractiveness and should help in securing a range of new investments and jobs, building on the success of Govan Davies's deep-water facility. Across the Cleddau bridge, the Honeyborough estate is a well established centre for local business and I anticipate that the exciting plans for Barnlake and further growth at Brunel quay will generate more local job opportunities.

As to Milford Haven, the Welsh Development Agency's business plan has given a considerable boost for future confidence and progress. There are exciting proposals for the docks and, with support from the Welsh Office and the agency, Preseli Pembrokeshire district council is to extend the Thornton business park, which should create an additional 400 jobs.

The Government cannot alter geography, but we are seeking to alter the perception of west Wales as peripheral in terms of potential for growth. Improved communications, particularly by road, are the key. One of our main priorities for the roads programme is the improvement of the A48-A40-A477 Euro-route, which links Carmarthen, Haverfordwest, Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock with the M4 motorway, and the completion of the M4 between Baglan and Lonlas. Since 1979, over £96 million has been spent upgrading the trunk road system from Pont Abraham westwards.

Major schemes completed include the Cross HandsLlanddarog bypass which I opened personally, the Carmarthen southern bypass, the St. Clears bypass, the Haverfordwest relief road and bypasses at Kilgetty and Stepaside. A number of smaller projects have also been completed including those at Black Bridge, Pont Loerig, and Castel] Heli. Currently the two major schemes, Nantycaws bypass and Haverfordwest eastern bypass, are under construction, at an estimated cost of £16 million. Planned schemes, including bypasses for Whitland, Robeston Wathen, Redberth and Sageston, will account for a further estimated expenditure of £14 million. I can assert with confidence that we are far from neglecting my hon. Friend's constituency, and that is largely due to his constant efforts. These road improvements are providing a modern road network into west Wales, with quick and easy links to the motorway system.

I am sorry that I cannot respond to my hon. Friend on the Cleddau bridge issue as he would wish. The cost of the tolls to users must be set alongside a recognition of the benefits which the bridge has brought to the area, and of the growth in economic activity which has taken place and is in prospect.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock.