§ After Clause 50, page 41, insert the following new clause—
§ Provisions with respect to the transfer of toll bridges and toll roads to local authorities.
§ (".—(1) Where a person is, under any special Act or charter, authorised to charge tolls in respect of the use of any bridge or road, the council of the county, county borough, or urban district within whose area the bridge or road is situate—
- (a) may agree with that person that he shall, upon such terms as may be agreed, transfer to them; or
- (b) subject to the provisions of this section, may by written notice to treat require that person to transfer to them either all his property, rights, and obligations under the special Act or charter (being property rights or obligations connected with the bridge or road) or such of them as may be specified in the agreement, or, as the case may be, the notice to treat.
§
(2) Upon the making of a transfer under the preceding subsection—
(a) the bridge or road shall—
§
And the provisions of all general enactments relating to bridges and roads shall become applicable to it accordingly;
(b) the right to take tolls and any other property, right or obligation transferred shall vest in and be imposed upon and exerciseable by the council, but a right to take tolls so transferred Shall continue to be exerciseable for such number of years only as may be allowed by the Minister in the particular case.
§ (3) The consideration to be paid to any person for a compulsory transfer under this section shall, in default of agreement, be determined by an official arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, subject, however, to 857 the modification that the arbitrator shall have no regard to any increase in the revenue from tolls due to the construction of new bridges or roads, or the improvement of existing bridges or roads, by any highway authority since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty, and subject to any agreement with respect to the date of transfer the person upon whom a notice to treat has been served under this section shall upon payment to him of the consideration determined in the manner aforesaid transfer to the council all such property, rights, obligations and liabilities vested in or imposed upon him as are required by the notice to treat to be so transferred.
§ (4) The payment of the consideration for a transfer under this section shall be a purpose for which a council may borrow under the enactments applicable to the council as a highway authority.
§ (5) A council in whose area part only of a bridge or road is situate shall have in relation to that bridge or road the same powers as they would have had under subsection (1) of this section if the bridge or road had been wholly situate within their area, but shall not exercise those powers except in pursuance of an agreement made under the next succeeding subsection.
§ (6) Any two or more councils having under either subsection (1) or subsection (5) of this section powers in relation to any bridge or road may, subject to the approval of the Al Minister, enter into agreements with respect to the exercise of those powers by one council on behalf of the other or others of them and with respect to the making of contributions by any of them towards the expenses of any action so taken, and where those powers are exercised in pursuance of any such agreement, the transfer of the bridge or road to be transferred and any other property, rights and obligations shall be made to such council or councils, as may be provided by the agreement.
§ (7) The provisions of this section with respect to compulsory transfers shall not apply in relation to any bridge or road vested in a statutory dock authority as such or in a statutory harbour authority as such nor in relation to the property in the structure of any bridge vested in a railway company.")
EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment. The original Clause 51 in the Bill, as it left this House empowered local authorities and toll owners to enter into voluntary agreements for the transfer of toll roads and bridges. A Private Member's Bill, the Tolls Bill, in another place, backed by a number of Conservative Members and introduced by a Conservative, conferred upon highway authorities, in addition to the powers of voluntary agreement, powers of compulsory 858 acquisition, the terms of transfer, failing agreement, to be settled by arbitrators. That Bill was read a second time in another place without a Division and, after some amendment in Committee, was reported to the House. It was decided to incorporate the effect of that Bill into this Bill, and it now forms Clause 53. This new clause follows substantially the provisions of the Tolls Bill as regards compulsory acquisition. The main differences relate to the procedure to be followed in the case of a toll bridge which lies on the boundary between two highway authorities.
Objection has been taken to the instruction to the arbitrator in subsection (3), that he shall have no regard to any increase in the revenue from tolls due to the construction of new bridges or roads, or the improvement of existing bridges or roads, by any highway authority since January 1, 1920. Your Lordships know, of course, that it obviously must be the case that the value of toll roads and bridges has been enormously increased, owing to the increase of motor traffic, without any exertion or merit on the part of the toll owners, and it seems only just to provide that they should not benefit by improvements to the highway system carried out at the public expense, out of the Road Fund, which have led to an increase in their revenue. That is the reason why this direction to the arbitrator appears in the new clause. I believe that the noble Viscount opposite wishes to raise a point in this connection. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Russell).
§ VISCOUNT BRENTFORD moved, as an Amendment to the Commons Amendment, to omit from subsection (3) of the Commons new clause the words: "subject, however, to the modification that the arbitrator shall have no regard to any increase in the revenue from tolls due to the construction of new bridges or roads or the improvement of existing bridges or roads by any highway authority since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty."
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my proposal is to omit the directions to the arbitrator. The directions are, as the noble Earl has said, that the arbitrator shall not have regard to any increase to 859 the revenue from tolls due to the construction of new bridges or roads since January 1, 1920. That is to say, we stabilise for all time the toll-paying population that passes over any bridge as that of January 1, 1920. On the face of it the noble Earl's contentions sound to some extent reasonable. New by-passes and so forth have undoubtedly diverted traffic. I submit, in the first place, however, that it is by no means certain—indeed I think it is very unlikely—that all the increase in traffic that occurs on a toll bridge occurs in consequence of a new road or by-pass. There will probably be an increase owing to the gradual growth of traffic.
§ Let me point out to your Lordships how much the country is indebted to the men who built these toll bridges in years gone by. They were built by private individuals or small companies, and the shares are often owned by small people. It took a very long time before most of these bridges could pay even a moderate dividend. One must therefore look upon these people as benefactors to the public, rather than the reverse, and it seems to me that the noble Earl's arguments are completely destroyed by the fact that the Government are not prepared, as I understand from the debate in another place, to have regard to the fact of a new road or by-pass completely destroying the traffic of a toll bridge or toll road. If it is right that the increase of toll traffic, due to a new bypass, should not be paid for, then it seems to me quite clear that, if a new bypass sweeps away 90 per cent. of the traffic over an old bridge, it is monstrous that the bridge should be bought at a very low price as compared with a neighbouring bridge that may get the additional traffic.
§ Let me take a quite feasible example of a man or company owning two toll bridges over a river. A new by-pass is built, and the traffic on one bridge increases enormously, while that on the other declines. Under the provisions of this Bill the owner is not allowed to get the rate that he would have got if the first bridge had continued to carry the ordinary traffic which had been carried for the last few years, and at the same time the second bridge is not to get the benefit of the traffic that has been taken away from the first bridge. That seems to me to be quite monstrously unfair. This 860 is an old question, which has been argued in this House and in another place over and over again—the question of various kinds of detriment to property—but I suggest to your Lordships that, in this particular case, the provision is grossly unfair.
§ I think that a much better plan is to leave the matter to the arbitrator, who has power under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, a modern Act, to take all questions into consideration, rather than to say quite definitely and distinctly that in the one case he is to rule out any addition which he believes is due to the new by-pass, and in the other he is not to allow for any decrease which has arisen from the same cause. That is such a monstrously cruel injustice that I hope your Lordships will not agree to it. The clause, as a whole, is a valuable one, and I do not wish in any way to object to it. I think it would be a very good thing if toll roads could be got rid of in the interests of the public. No doubt the noble Earl dislikes having to pay a toll as much as I do. But, after all, you must deal fairly with these people, who were looked upon a few years ago as public benefactors. They erected these bridges and, so far as my information goes—I have been in communication with a small association of toll owners—they have got very little profit out of any of these bridges. In the circumstances I hope that your Lordships will remove these words from the clause and allow the whole thing to go to the arbitrator in the ordinary way. I beg to move.
§
Amendment to the Commons Amendment moved—
In line 5 of subsection (3) leave out ("subject, however, to the modification that the arbitrator shall have no regard to any increase in the revenue from tolls due to the construction of new bridges or roads or the improvement of existing bridges or roads by any highway authority since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty.")—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, the noble Viscount opposite has drawn an interesting picture of the historical toll owner, the benefactor of mankind who erected his tolls and profited little by them, and is now going to be deprived of an unexpected plum that has come his way. I think there is another side of that picture. I do not know whether the noble Viscount knows of it. There 861 is in existence such a thing as an individual (or a private company) who has bought up quite a number of these tolls for quite reasonable sums, and is sitting quietly, enjoying year after year an increasing revenue which he has done nothing to earn or deserve.
§ VISCOUNT BRENTFORDMay I ask whether the noble Lord intends to penalise a man who perfectly justifiably bought a toll bridge two years ago, by putting in an ex post facto clause of this kind? His argument is entirely in my favour.
EARL RUSSELLI suggest that we ought to do what has been done in other cases of this sort of betterment or unearned increment, where men receive large sums which they have done nothing to merit except possessing the foresight to buy up something, and say that the public when it acquires these things shall not be mulcted in public money beyond a reasonable amount. In a case like that, you cannot say that the existing owner of the toll started as a public benefactor, or that he bought the tolls or is running them as a public benefactor. It is seldom the case that any toll bridge is still in the hands of the man who constructed the bridge for the benefit of the public. It is quite possible to argue that you should not really take into account the natural growth of the motor traffic on the road to which the owner of the toll bridges has done nothing to contribute, but which has increased his tolls. The words here, of direction to the arbitrator, are very much narrower than that. They have nothing to do with the natural increase in traffic, but merely say that you shall have no regard to increases in the revenue due to the construction of new bridges or roads, or the improvement of existing bridges or roads, since 1920. 1920 is not so very long ago, and if enormous sums of public money have been spent, which have attracted traffic across a man's toll bridge, it seems to me that the toll owner has done nothing particularly to deserve being rewarded, and that the arbitrator may very well be instructed to leave it out of consideration.
These tolls have to be paid for frequently by the rates of the county which acquires them, and there is no reason 862 that I can see for putting upon the ratepayers a burden which is unnecessary. The noble Viscount will see that the condition of your Lordships' House at the moment hardly affords an opportunity for a trial of strength upon this matter, but I should be glad if he could see his way to withdraw his objection to these words, which are not unlike similar words inserted in similar cases, and which go a considerable way to facilitate the acquisition of these toll bridges, and will not deprive a man of a very reasonable reward. There are several ways in which you might effect this. For instance, you might instruct the arbitrator to have regard to the average of the last twelve years. It would not be right to take the greatly swollen tolls of the last year and then multiply them by a number of years.
§ LORD JESSELMy Lords, I have listened carefully to the speech of the noble Earl, and he has not said anything about the decrease. That is a fact to be taken into account. Of course he has made an important suggestion—namely, that the matter be considered of taking the average of the last twelve years. I do not know whether the noble Viscount could come to some arrangement with the Government on that matter.
§ VISCOUNT BRENTFORDI do not want to take an unfair advantage of the present condition of the House, but the noble Earl will see that this is our last opportunity of dealing with this question. Unless we send it back to the House of Commons it is finished. I must, therefore, ask your Lordships, if you agree to pass this clause, to consider some such suggestion either of putting in "decrease", which would make it clear, or taking an average of years. I agree that any great, sudden, wild upleap of tolls ought not to be taken into account, but at the same time any decrease due to the opening of a new by-pass ought not to be left out of account. I think an average of years would be the proper method, and if he will allow me I will strike out these words now, in order to the matter being considered in another place.
EARL RUSSELLI think the offer made by the noble Viscount is a perfectly fair one. Of course, it is not for me to say, but the debate will be represented to the Minister of Transport, and the 863 noble Viscount and his friends will have an opportunity of conferring with him before the matter comes up again in another place. I will not nod oppose the deletion of the words in question.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, I confess to not being entirely in agreement with the noble Viscount. I hope the Minister of Transport will not allow anything to be done which will make it more difficult for local authorities to get rid of toll bridges. Therefore, while I do not want to see any injustice done, at the same time I do not want it to be made more difficult for local authorities to get rid of toll bridges.
§ On Question, Amendment to the Commons Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, Commons Amendment, as amended, agreed to.