PROCEDURE IN CONNECTION WITH TOLL ORDERS (Hansard, 22 May 1991)

§ Mr. Freeman
I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 98, line 15, at end insert—

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Government amendments: Nos. 39, 40, 72, 108 and 111 to 114.

§ Mr. Freeman
We have tabled this amendment in response to a point raised by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and others. What we are seeking to do in what, on the face of it, may seem to be a draconian measure is to ensure that, where any part of the existing public highway that is free and untolled is proposed to be incorporated into a toll road—there may be circumstances where that is inescapable, necessary and sensible—tough protection is provided. The concessionaire would be able to choose not to toll a specific small section of a road that was previously a public highway. If, however, it is to be tolled, the Secretary of State would be asked to certify that there was a reasonably convenient free alternative.
The certification procedure would be subject to objection and public inquiry, where necessary. If the Secretary of State could not certify that there was an alternative, or a road that could be specially constructed by the concessionaire to fulfil that requirement, there is a special parliamentary procedure. It is a very special procedure. I understand that it has been used only twice since 1945. It was last used for the Okehampton bypass. It means in essence that Parliament must make a decision. It may seem that these measures are too draconian, but the Government take seriously the view that there should be a compromise so that the public can continue to use the existing public highway.

§ Ms. Ruddock
I think the Minister has begun to answer my point. I had intended to ask him how he would define a reasonably free and convenient road as an alternative. I think that he has just acknowledged that it might not be available. That would be my contention. In the circumstances that we are considering, it would be difficult to define that reasonable alternative.

§ Mr. Freeman
I am grateful for the hon. Lady's agreement.

§ Mr. Fearn
I thank the Minister for handling this matter very well indeed. His reply to what I proposed in Committee is very satisfactory. He referred to small sections of public road that may need to be incorporated in a toll road. Small sections would probably be ignored. Alternative routes would have to be found for larger sections. If, however, half of a proposed toll road is a public road now, how would the Minister treat it? Would the concessionaire have to put something back into the public purse, since it belongs to the highway authority and local people?

§ Mr. Freeman
I find it hard to conceive of circumstances in which half a proposed toll road would previously have 990 been a public highway. I imagine that the concessionaire would say that, if one used only the public highway portion and got on or off it there, one would not pay a toll. If, however, one used the whole of a toll road incorporating a previously untolled portion of the public highway, the toll would be commensurately reduced. The toll would cover, therefore, only that portion of road space that was a toll road. If there is to be a toll—and that is a big "if'—a public alternative must be built. In practical terms, if it does not already exist it will have to be provided by the concessionaire, who will have to build it into his costs. Alternatively, Parliament must make a decision. That seems to be watertight. I hope that I carry the House with me, although perhaps not entirely.

§ Ms. Ruddock
Will the Minister take amendment No. 40 into account? I have well understood what he has just said; I follow its logic. However, amendment No. 40 throws into doubt what he has just said about amendments Nos. 38 and 39. As I understand it, amendment No. 40 is designed to prevent an order from extending tolls to part of a special road on which they have not previously applied. That seems to imply that it could lead to part of a toll road not being tolled. Is that correct?
Furthermore, some parts of the concession roads need not be tolled at all. The only circumstances in which I can envisage that being acceptable to concessionaires is possibly where there is a development gain that can be offset against the "free part" of the road. In that slightly confused way perhaps, may I ask the Minister to relate what he has said about amendments Nos. 38 and 39 to amendment No. 40?

§ Mr. Freeman
I can help the hon. Lady. Amendment No. 40 seeks—after we have shut, bolted, barred and padlocked the door—to ensure that there is no subsequent variation of the toll order by introducing a toll for that portion of the toll road that was previously public. The amendment has been added in an effort to make absolutely certain that no attempt can be made to take away the public's right to what is now a free and untolled public highway.