HC Deb 22 May 1991 vol 191 cc961-71

'.— (1) The Secretary of State shall in respect of each calendar year lay before Parliament a report—

  1. (a) stating the number of concession agreements entered into by him during that year,
  2. (b) stating the number of new roads opened to public use during that year for which he is the highway authority and which at the time of their opening were subject to a concession,
  3. (c) listing the toll orders, and orders varying or revoking toll orders, made or confirmed by him in that year, and
  4. (d) containing such information as appears to him to be appropriate with respect to the toll orders (whenever made) which are in force during that year or any part of it.

(2) The report shall be laid on or before 31st July in the following calendar year.'.— [Mr. Freeman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.26 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 27, 29, 30, Government new clause 9— Report on toll roads and toll orders in Scotland—and Government amendments Nos. 74 to 76.

Mr. Freeman

We start with what I hope is, as far as possible, a note of consensus. We have had sufficient time since the completion of the Committee stage to consult as widely as possible with local authorities; utilities; those interested in the preservation of the countryside, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England; and various cycling organisations. I hope that I have met most, if not all, of the legitimate concerns on which I promised the Committee to reflect.

I hope that the new clause and some of the others will not provoke much controversy. They may expose a fundamental difference of opinion on a number of issues, but on the narrow issue of how best to improve the Bill I hope that there will be at least a measure of agreement.

The new clause and the related Government amendments affecting England, Wales and Scotland extend the scope of the annual report which is required by clause 1. It is an annual report to Parliament which must be made before 31 July of the following year. The Government welcome the procedure because it is open and represents solid, if modest, progress on the size of the road programme. Nevertheless, it is positive progress.

The annual report already has to include the number of concession agreements entered into and the number of new roads that were opened to public use when the Secretary of State was the highway authority and that were subject to a concession.

New clause 2 and the related amendments fulfil a commitment that I gave in Committee and add another requirement— that the annual report should list the toll orders, the changes, variations, revocations and extensions of toll orders that have been confirmed during the year; and other relevant information. It will catch not only special roads for which the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible but local highway authorities. It is therefore broad in nature and presents no particular problem because the Government would be the confirming authority for toll orders relating to "local" roads— those within the purview of local highway authorities.

The provision will also catch public tolls, where toll orders relate to public bridges and where changes have been made. It will cover not only the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Transport but parallel provisions for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

When the annual reports are presented to Parliament, it will be clear that tolling is not a substitute but an addition to public sector provision, including the transport supplementary grant. I welcome openness in Government and proper reporting to Parliament, which is appropriate in this case. The provision will not cover those tolls that are directly regulated by private Acts of Parliament, or Acts arising from the hybrid Bill procedure, because there is already full provision for their reporting and public scrutiny.

Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)

May I echo what the Minister said about the consensus that exists on the Bill and the way in which we have been able to co-operate with the Minister and his Department during its proceedings to date? We are grateful to him for undertaking to consult people between Committee and Report, and we are aware that much of that consultation has been fruitful. Many of the issues that we sought to press upon the Minister in Committee have now been conceded by him; we shall see, as we go through the debates tonight, that the Opposition agree with much of the Bill.

However, new clause 2 does not seem to contain precisely the measures that we sought. Will the Minister hear me out and see whether he can enlighten us further? Two changes have been made: information on toll orders is added to the list, and a reference is made to the inclusion of such information as appears to him to be appropriate with respect to the toll orders". Two of our concerns in Committee about clause 1(6) are outstanding. The Committee considered an Opposition amendment which would have added three new topics to the contents list of the annual report; first, the number of competitions held and the number of bidders for each competition; secondly, whether the winners of a competition should be required to compensate the loser; thirdly, the number of occasions on which the Secretary of State had entered into joint agreements with bidders to undertake traffic and environmental studies. When we pressed the Minister on those points in Committee, he responded by giving an assurance that the issues listed would, where appropriate, be covered in the annual report.

The first issue that arises from the new clause is why, having decided to extend the list of items to be covered in the report, the Minister has not included any of the subjects considered by the Standing Committee. The second issue concerns the wording of new clause 2(d), which refers to information with respect to the toll orders. The topics covered in the amendment considered in Standing Committee did not relate to a toll order. Indeed, the events referred to may take place a considerable time before a toll order is made for the concession road in question.

As the Minister has produced a catch-all phrase in respect of toll orders only, and not in respect of the wider issues on concession agreements referred to in Committee, will he explain how new clause 2 meets his assurance in Committee about how he would meet our objections and suggestions— with which he seems to concur— that the topics to which I referred would properly come within the annual report?

Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport)

There was a great deal of agreement in Committee, and I hope that we shall have a speedy conclusion tonight on many of the subjects to be discussed.

On the annual report, the Minister said that toll orders would be confirmed during the course of the year. I assume that he means that the date the Secretary of State first received notification of a toll order would be the date on which we decided to place it in an annual report. If not, what timing does the Minister foresee for the reporting of a toll order to the general public? Where do the general public come into the matter? Does it then follow that, after the decision, the general public would have a public inquiry and other inquiries, which would then be included in the annual report?

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

May I take this opportunity to deal specifically with new clause 9 and the issue that underlies it? It relates to part II and deals with the report on toll roads and toll orders in Scotland. It illustrates the off-hand way in which the Bill has been railroaded through. The new clause is of considerable importance to specific communities in Scotland, yet we do not have the courtesy of the presence, on the Government Front Bench or in the House, of a single Scottish Office Minister.

Virtually nobody else in the House knows or cares about this issue. I care very much, because it is about paving legislation for the construction of a high-toll private enterprise road bridge between the mainland and the Isle of Skye. That is the ideological toehold that the Government are obtaining for private enterprise construction and the imposition of high-toll bridges and roads in Scotland. It is a crime, albeit a victimless crime.

The people who will pay the price, for at least the next 20 years, for a measure that will be railroaded through tonight are those who live on that island and beyond. At present, they are wholly dependent on the ferry for access to the mainland and, in future— if the Government get their way— they will be at the mercy of a company called Miller Construction, which is about to be given a licence to build a bridge and to charge what it likes for the next 20 years to recoup that investment.

It would be a terrible wrong on a small community if, in the last month of this Parliament, the Government were to sign and seal a contract that would condemn the people of Skye for 20 years to bridge tolls 10 times more expensive than those anywhere else in the United Kingdom. That is the immediate prospect under the Bill.

In the past 20 years, over 140 large and small bridges have been built in the highlands and islands from public funds without the imposition of tolls on those who use them. They include such substantial structures as Ballachulish bridge, Kylescu bridge and Dornoch bridge. The programme, which was initiated when the construction of the Ballachulish bridge in the late 1960s was agreed by a Labour Government, has been carried through since then on a consensual basis no matter which party was in power, on the basis of the shared belief that there was a public duty and social responsibility to improve communications within the highlands and islands of Scotland. It was always the understanding that, as it is the most ambitious of the projects, the Skye bridge would come at the end of that programme. It was always assumed that the Skye bridge would be an extension of the public highway network, but that is not now what is proposed.

Has the Minister the slightest clue what he is legislating for? Can he explain why, uniquely, those who visit Skye and points west of Skye, and those who cross to the mainland from them, should be penalised by tolls of between £4 and £5 per car per crossing— and that is just for starters? The answer to that question lies not in justice or any iota of concern for island communities, but in the hard face of ideology, in which the project is seen as the way of putting into play in Scotland the concept of high-toll private enterprise bridges.

Would the few hon. Members present tonight vote happily in favour of a measure that imposed such a dreadful burden of tolls on their communities for the next 20 years? If they would not have it done to their communities, why should they participate in allowing it to be done to the island of Skye? This part of the legislation is a disgrace. It condemns one community in Britain to a regime of tolls 10 times higher than those anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

The answer that will be given is that, at present, people are served by a ferry. However, around the coast of Britain, many communities were at some time served by ferries. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who I am pleased to see has just joined us, recently opened a new causeway at Dornie, which is not far from the place that we are talking about. In the past, one had to cross at Dornie by ferry, but a bridge was erected and then a causeway was built. However, people do not have to continue to pay tolls of the same price as the former ferry charge.

When the bridge was built at Ballachulish, we did not consider what the tolls were 10 or 15 years ago when the bridge replaced the ferry, so that the same charge could be applied to the bridge as once applied to the ferry. We do not do that at Kylescu or any of the other places, not just in Scotland but in Britain as a whole, which were once served by ferries and are now to be served by bridges. However, that is the fate that is to be uniquely visited on the people of Skye because of the introduction of the private enterprise element.

For at least 20 years, those people will have to pay tolls of between £4 and £5 per car, instead of enjoying the bridge as an extension of the public highway. The bridge should be an aid to the development of communities, which are peripheral in every sense and need improved communications to foster their economic prospects.

The legislation paves the way for the high-toll private enterprise regime which has been visited on the isle of Skye and on those who use the route at present and will do so in future. It is a disgrace which the Government would not dare to impose on a large community: they pick the weak.

5.45 pm
Mr. Freeman

I am used to the calmer proceedings in Committees dealing with English issues. I am not as used as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to a great deal of—

Mr. Wilson

Answer the questions.

Mr. Freeman

I shall address the points raised, but the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) expressed many intemperate views, and I shall deal with those issues first.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Scottish Office should have some responsibility for this matter. I do not necessarily agree with all that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, but he has made a valid point. New clause 9 is in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the strictures apply specifically to Scotland, not to England and Wales. A Scottish Minister should answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North. That is a common-sense and fair constitutional point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Minister for Public Transport has risen to answer the debate, and he should be allowed to continue to so so.

Mr. Douglas

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your answer did not apply to the point of order that I was making and I ask you to reflect on what I am saying. New clause 9 is a Scottish clause and a Scottish Minister is present. Although the Minister for Public Transport may be able to reply to the general clauses, the specific issue in new clause 9 has nothing to do with the departmental interests of the Secretary of State for Transport. Surely a Scottish Minister should answer the questions on Scottish issues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The lead new clause is new clause 2. It is certainly true that new clause 9 is grouped with it, but we should allow the Minister for Public Transport to answer the debate.

Mr. Freeman

Perhaps I can be helpful. Although, with the agreement of the House, I should like to address some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will respond to points relating to the Skye bridge. I cannot speak on that issue and would not pretend to do so.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said that the measure was being railroaded through. In my experience of Parliament, I cannot think of a Bill for which that remark would be more inappropriate than the one we are debating. I wish to put on record my strong feelings about that statement, which is not true. The hon. Gentleman should consult shadow Ministers on the subject.

In Committee, shadow Ministers made it plain that, if in government, they would not activate that part of the Bill to allow them to build toll roads. By implication, it was apparent that, if procedures had been started, they would be cancelled. They were perfectly consistent about that from the word go.

If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North objects in principle to the building of a particular toll bridge or toll road, he must choose an alternative, of which there are three. He could increase the generality of the road programme, which would mean greater pressure on public resources and could involve higher taxation. He could cancel, or recommend cancellation of, other projects in Scotland because the Scottish Office is responsible for that vote. He would have to state that, in his judgment, a publicly built bridge should be given a higher priority than some other schemes which he, or a shadow Minister, would have to identify. His third option would be to accept that the bridge will not be built as quickly as it otherwise would be.

I shall now deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). New clause 2 states the statutory minimum, but when we publish an annual report we shall go considerably further than is required as a minimum; otherwise, the report will look a little bare and uninteresting. I should say to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) that, although the information will be retrospective— it has to be— all hon. Members would want the public to take an interest in the document. We want it to be not merely a set of arid tables but an informative document. It would not be hundreds of pages long, but it would go beyond the statutory minimum.

The hon. Member for Deptford raised three points relating to the number of competitions held, whether there was any scheme to compensate the losers, and joint research and studies between the relevant Government Departments and those competing for the concessions. Those are all perfectly valid points. The number of competitions held will probably relate directly to the number of concessions let. I am less persuaded on that point than on the other two, which are perfectly valid.

Although the hon. Member for Deptford knows the Government's position on compensation for losers— we are not in favour of it— at this point we are not ruling it out as a possibility in the future as an arrangement between the contractors. If that were to happen, I would regard it as public interest and public guidance to the construction industry, and doubtless that would be referred to.

Joint research between the Department and contractors is one way to avert some of the risks and therefore of advancing the cause of the toll road being built, because contractors might wish to share in common information — for example, on soil surveys and traffic densities. I would wish to see that reported, to the extent that it is of public interest and is significant.

I hope that I have dealt with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Deptford and by the hon. Member for Southport. I know that the latter will have many other comments to make about the information available to the public and to the protection of the public during our proceedings. However, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may wish to answer the questions about the Skye bridge.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)

I am glad to respond to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who I know feels very strongly indeed about this subject. He has written a strong article in the Glasgow Herald. In principle, he is against tolls and he has made that clear in the past. There is a great deal of support in Highland regional council for a bridge to Skye and for the Skye bridge project. The council voted overwhelmingly in favour of the project proceeding as a privately financed scheme.

I told the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and many other people in Scotland that I would provide a free bridge if I were in a position to do so. I am not in that position and I do not believe that the Government will be in such a position for the foreseeable future. There is no prospect of that happening unless a major motorway project in the central belt of Scotland is cancelled. Frankly, we are not prepared to do that because of the needs of the lowlands of Scotland, where the bulk of the population lives.

As regards the Skye bridge and tolls, details of the bridge contract have yet to be finalised. As I said at Dornie — I am glad to repeat it today— tolls will be comparable with ferry fares. Obviously we shall keep in close touch with Highland regional council on the subject.

Environmental considerations have been taken fully into account, and we have bent over backwards to meet all the environmental concerns that have been suggested, and have had a large number of meetings on the subject.

I stress again that the bridge to Skye would bring with it enormous benefits for tourism, not only for Skye but onwards to the Western Isles. We have offered to cover the funding of the approach road— to the extent of £6 million — and of the trunk road from Kyle of Lochalsh to Uig, which are substantial contributions. Highland regional council rightly took that into account.

I believe that the islanders are overwhelmingly of the opinion that the bridge would raise their standard of living. The people whom I would describe as white settlers, who have come from elsewhere in Britain to live in Skye, may not take that view and may prefer no bridge, but the people who have lived on the island and have been directly concerned with the practicalities of life there are strongly in favour of a bridge. I have visited Skye almost every year for the past 20 years.

The bridge will bring substantial benefits to the local community. By using private finance, the community will be able to enjoy the advantages of a fixed link with the mainland much earlier than would otherwise be the case. A bridge might not be provided from public funding for 20 years or even longer without displacing other extremely worthwhile projects, which are already in the programme.

We expect to sign a concession agreement with the winning consortium in July or, at the latest, September. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North for giving me the opportunity to reply on that subject.

Mr. Douglas

That was an inadequate explanation of the Secretary of State's activities in relation to the new clause. One can argue that everything has an opportunity cost. The same arguments could have been applied to the building of the Beauly or the Dornoch firth bridges— neither of those has been subject to tolls—and it can be said that the only way to build the Skye bridge is if it is subject to tolls.

However, my argument is that we should be going the other way in Scotland. We should have a road-related tariff for ferries to the Western Isles and elsewhere. I argue forcibly for the social cost benefit of not having tolls on that bridge. Tolls will act as a restriction of economic and other activities. They would mean making a section of the population pay an additional charge, to which other sections are not subject. The Minister is making a poor argument at this stage. He says that the Secretary of State for Scotland will enter into an agreement for the commissioning of the private road bridge and will commit succeeding Governments. I do not know whether there will be a succeeding Labour Government, but let us assume that, for the sake of argument.

Ms. Ruddock

Of course there will.

Mr. Douglas

I am not necessarily opposed to that. I am willing to argue the case by way of illustration.

The Secretary of State will sign a contract with a private developer, and if any future Labour Government wanted to reverse that with a buy-out, the developer will be paid considerable compensation. There will be a clause in the agreement to compensate the private developer for the loss of tolls for 20 or 25 years. That should not be done at this stage in the life of a Parliament. The Secretary of State ought not to be allowed to enter into an agreement with a private developer and to commit a future Government to pay compensation for 20 or 25 years. They should desist and they should not enter into such an agreement.

Obviously, I am not negotiating for the Secretary of State, but it strikes me as extremely silly of him to do that; he should leave the contract more open. If a future Government wanted to abolish the toll, they should not find themselves in the onerous position of having to compensate the private developer because the Secretary of State for Scotland in a Tory Government had wanted to rush through a provision which is desirable— no one is disputing that fact— but which is contrary to what has been done with other road bridges in the highlands and islands.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned a considerable number of bridges, none of which has been subject to tolls. We await the opening of the Dornoch bridge in a few weeks' time. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will go up there and say how wonderful it is and how it will reduce journey times from Inverness to Thurso. However, there are no tolls on that bridge—it is a wonderful piece of economic development. Why should the bridge to Skye have tolls imposed on it when that bridge does not have tolls? There is no real logical or economic argument in terms of the development of the highlands and islands and the Western Isles. Although it is useful for the Under-Secretary to be here, it shows up the paucity of his arguments.

Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South)

The Minister for Public Transport said that essentially three options were available for the funding of bridges. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has told us that there are two options for the people of Skye: a toll bridge or no bridge at all. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State a question that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), could not answer in Committee. Will such private funding supplement or be a substitute for public funding of roads? Will it make any difference to the public expenditure programmes available to local authorities in Scotland?

Mr. Wilson

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not in Committee. He has spoken once, and he would need the leave of the House to speak a second time.

6 pm

Mr. Wilson

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to return briefly to my argument, as the Minister did not arrive until I was some way into my speech. Without rehearsing the arguments again, I would like to pick him up on a couple of points. We both know the arguments very well, and I want to get rid of a couple of red herrings that he introduced.

First, the Minister said that the great majority of people wanted a bridge. There is no disagreement about that; but an even greater majority do not want a bridge with a toll of £4 or £5 a car every time they cross it. That point was made in a petition signed by 7,000 people, which the Minister chooses to disregard, along with other evidence.

Highland regional council is constantly called in aid. It was faced not with a choice, but with a dilemma. It had not three but two options— take it or leave it. It had to accept a high-toll bridge or, the Government threatened, there would be no bridge at all for at least 20 years. The crux of the matter is not the opinion of Highland regional council or the public, because they are at one. What they want, overwhelmingly, is a bridge without tolls.

I cannot allow the Minister to get away with the divisive argument about "white settlers". That is a term that I do not like or use. A small minority of people do not want a bridge, some have lived in Skye all their lives and some have not. Who gives a tuppenny toss about that? It is a divisive argument, which I am not prepared to get into. The majority want a bridge, and— whether they want a bridge or not— if there is to be one everyone wants it to be toll-free. That is the one option that the Government are not prepared to offer.

The community is being blackmailed: if it does not accept a bridge on that basis, it cannot have a bridge at all. That has not been said to any other community in Scotland. I do not blame the Minister, because I do not think that he believes in this proposal any more than I do. He is the stalking horse for nastier forces in the Scottish Office, on this and many other matters. He did not invent the idea of making the Skye bridge a toll bridge. He will not rub his hands with ideological satisfaction when Miller Construction, which is one of the largest contributors to Tory party funds in Scotland, receives the contract to build the bridge. He is not the architect of this project, but he should not soil his hands with it, especially in view of his past family connections with Skye.

People want a bridge, but not a high-toll bridge. They have been put in this dilemma because, unlike every other community that has been served by a bridge, they have not been given the option of a bridge as an extension of the public highway system.

If a Minister of equivalent status had gone around the highlands 20 years ago— such madness was not abroad then— he could have said to people in Ballachulish, west Sutherland and the east highlands who were crying out for bridges, "We know that it is a splendid idea, and we support the idea of building a bridge here, but the Government have no money. If you want a bridge, the only way is to pay through the nose for the next 20 years to some construction company." Fortunately, that degree of malevolence was not in the public spirit of the times, but it is now. That is why, uniquely, the people of Skye are being given Hobson's choice.

I ask the Minister not to carry out this proposal in advance of the general election. I say to him, "Don't tie the people of Skye and the Western Isles into this terrible imposition for the next 20 years without the moral or political authority or mandate to do so."

I remind the Minister that, unlike most of our time in political activism, the present climate means that we could travel the highlands and islands of Scotland from Muckle Flugga to Machrihanish and find many unpleasant impediments in our way, but we would not find a Tory Member of Parliament. Throughout the highlands and islands, the Tory party has shed its traditional support and has turned people against it by such nonsense, and by a lack of social concern for fragile communities. At one time, people were prepared to place some trust in one-world Tories— I am sorry, I mean one-nation Tories; "one-world Tories" would be a bit imaginative. The grandees once represented those areas in the Tory interest, but they no longer exist. People do not trust the Tory party because it continues to impose such experiments on fragile communities.

I urge the Minister— if he has any influence in the Scottish Office— to wait until after the general election. If by any mischance we are then still lumbered with a Tory Government, my arguments would fall. To tie up a community for 20 years in the dying days of a Parliament with no political mandate would, however, be scandalous beyond belief. The Minister would be held personally responsible for a very long time to come.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. Does the hon. Gentleman seek the leave of the House to speak again?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

All the hon. Members who have spoken have raised a number of points, to which I want to reply. First, the principle of the privately financed initiative is to ensure that more schemes can be constructed than would otherwise be possible. In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Paisley, South, (Mr. McMaster), let me say that the purpose is to make public funds go as far as possible. It may be argued that the Skye bridge should be publicly funded, but it would not then be additional. The Government have made it clear that there will be no scheme-by-scheme reduction in the public programme.

If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is prepared to cancel a motorway project in central Scotland to provide a toll-free Skye bridge, it would be useful for the House to know which programme he would cancel. I do not believe that that would be acceptable.

I stress again that Highland regional council came out very strongly in favour of the bridge. Its press release, issued on 19 November 1990, said: Highland regional council convenor, Councillor Duncan McPherson, … warmly welcomed the progress being made on the … project and said he was sure the large majority of people of Skye would be delighted … that it should be ready by 1994. Councillor McPherson is also vice-president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. He said: I am encouraged by the initial indication from the tender process that our expectations will be fulfilled for the people of Skye. From the displays, it is obvious the consortia have gone to a great deal of care and effort to provide exciting designs that are worthy of this setting. It is one of the most beautiful in the world. He ended by saying: My Council wholeheartedly support the Skye bridge project. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North was concerned about the level of tolls. That point was put to me when I went to the opening of Dornie. We shall keep it in mind, but I can tell the House that the tolls will be broadly comparable with ferry fares.

Mr. Douglas

The Under-Secretary knows that the contract for the bridge will reflect the toll charges.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

No.

Mr. Douglas

It would be an unusual contract if it did not. Is the Under-Secretary telling us that he will place a contract with Miller Construction that it will take without any idea of the charges that will have to be borne? If the charges are light, the payback period will be longer. The design has been accepted, so will he give us some idea of the tolls that are likely to be charged? What period of payback does he have in mind?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

The next planning stage will be for Highland regional council to endorse the level and duration of tolls and the toll regime before we go ahead. Final details have not been worked out, but I stand by the general commitment that I have given that the tolls must be broadly comparable to ferry fares.

May I conclude with a point that is relevant to residents of the area? A study is being undertaken of whether a case can be made for a pedestrian ferry. We are taking that seriously in co-operation with Highland regional council as it is important for the islanders of Skye. I think that I have answered all the points that have been made.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Forward to