SEVERN BRIDGE TOLLS BILL (Hansard, 22 July 1965)

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, the main purpose of this Bill, to which I shall invite your Lordships to give a Second Reading, is to empower the Minister of Transport to levy tolls on vehicles using that part of the M.4 motorway carried by the new bridges over the Rivers Severn and Wye. I am glad to say that there was some controversy in another place about this decision to make users pay for this fine new project by way of tolls. I am glad because I think it would have been wrong to have taken completely for granted that this was the best and most economical way of raising money for such a public work. It seems to me clear—and we always argue this—that every person employed to collect money in this way, and every piece of equipment he uses, is an additional cost to the economy. Nevertheless, we have to face 985 the fact that if money is to be found it is more palatable, in present circumstances at any rate, to pay a contribution at the time when the corresponding benefits and savings are immediately to be seen.
The saving to the user of the Severn Bridge will be obvious and substantial. It is estimated that at least 45 miles will be saved on a journey between Bristol and Cardiff, which for a medium-sized car should mean something like a saving of 8s. or 9s. in petrol alone apart from other running costs, and of course probably even more valuable time. I ought to add that this principle, or expedient, I may say, of levying such tolls when the capital costs of the project are exceptionally high and when the savings to the user are especially great already applies to major river crossings over the Tamar and the Forth and under the Thames, by way of the Dartford Tunnel, and powers exist to do the same for the Tay Bridge and the Tyne Tunnel when they are completed. I probably ought to stress the distinction drawn between these initially expensive but cost-saving crossings and other classes of road improvements. There is no intention to extend tolls to motorways or new trunk roads.
So far as the initial capital cost of this particular project is concerned, it is interesting to note that whilst the cost of a motorway is something of the order of three-quarters of a million pounds a mile, the cost for the 2¾ miles between Aust in Gloucestershire and Newhouse in Monmouthshire, which includes the Severn Bridge itself, a bridge over the River Wye, a viaduct across the Beachley Peninsula linking the two bridges, and short lengths of motorway leading to the access points at each end, is given at some £13 million.
Clause 2 of the Bill enables the Minister to make orders setting out the scale of tolls to be charged, and Clause 3 prescribes the procedure for making these orders, including consideration of objections and, in certain circumstances, the holding of a local inquiry. I do not think it would be for the general convenience of the House if I went through the Bill clause by clause, but I should like to refer to important changes made during the passage of the Bill, which is of course 986 a hybrid, through its various stages, including the Select Committee.
Clauses 10 and 11 enable the Minister to extinguish ancient franchises to operate a ferry across the River Severn at the point where the bridge is being built, and if the Minister is satisfied on certain points a payment of £90,000 compensation is to be paid to the operators. This is an agreed settlement and is by way of a package deal covering a number of related points.
Then there is the limitation now proposed to be set to the power to levy these tolls. During its passage through another place it was strongly urged that the original provision would permit this toll to become in effect a perpetual tax, that there was no time limit upon its imposition and no ceiling upon the total sum to be raised. To meet these fears Clause 4 and Schedule 2 were introduced during the Committee stage. The new clause provides that the power to levy tolls will end after 40 years from the opening of the road, and the Schedule specifies the purposes for which those tolls shall be levied. If the total sum raised within the 40 years is held not to meet the cost of the specified purposes then there is power to extend the toll period if Parliament approves the required order.
The Bill, as amended, was generally acceptable to all Parties in another place, and the great engineering achievement to which it refers will certainly be welcomed, especially by the people in the South-West, and is, I think we all agree, a major step forward towards modernising our country. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships and move that it be read a second time.

LORD ST. OSWALD
My Lords, we can give a sensible and sincere welcome to this Bill. As a Yorkshireman commuting between Westminster and the West Riding, I may never have cause to use the future bridge that we are debating. But I can feel happy with the noble Lord for those to whom it will be undoubtedly a great boon. It has been said by the Minister that it will save something like 45 miles in each direction for those travelling between Cardiff and Bristol, and save them between 8s. and 987 9s. in petrol. Of course it goes beyond that, when the removal of human frustration is counted in, and it may well be that doctors in the West Country will have fewer ulcers to treat after the bridge is in use.
Our view on these Benches regarding a bridge, or for that matter a tunnel, providing an outstanding and demonstrable advantage for a particular type of traveller, is that the principle of charging a toll is quite acceptable. This principle was given the stamp of approval by the Conservative Minister of Transport in 1955. It has taken rather longer for the Party now in power to come round to that view, but we can feel pleased that they have done so in time for this valuable measure.
Without any doubt—again I think the Minister has said this—the Bill was greatly improved during its passage through another place by the present Clause 1, which achieved an important safeguard called for by the Opposition. It is now provided that the power to levy tolls upon travellers over this bridge will end, under conditions as foreseen, after 40 years. There is also an escape hatch through this time-ceiling in case sufficient money has not been raised by that time, to meet the large initial outlay of taxpayers' money. The Minister may extend the period by a period of five years, and even in five-year terms beyond then. But in order to do so he will have to come to Parliament, to persuade it that this extension is necessary. If, on the other hand, which is conceivable, the money is raised in less than the 40 years, I think I am right in saying that the Bill allows for the cessation of tolls.
In the sunny climate of this debate I am going to raise only one point of difference across the Floor. Clause 8 enables certain vehicles to be banned from using the bridge. In essence, this makes sense, because it can be plainly seen that the prevention may be for the driver's own safety as well as that of other road users. Examples come to mind of the tall, empty lorry attempting to cross the bridge over the estuary in a high wind. This type of vehicle in those particular conditions could easily present a danger both to the driver and to others. But it seems to my colleagues and myself that the terms under which 988 this power to prohibit is given are altogether too loose.
I will quote the words I mean, beginning at line 12 on page 9: to prohibit, or to empower any person authorised in that behalf in pursuance of the regulations to prohibit, the use of the specified carriageways by any particular vehicle or by vehicles of any particular class or description, either generally, or in particular circumstances, or unless particular requirements imposed by or under the regulations are complied with. These words, or some of them, it seems to me give remarkable power to the individual, be he a policeman or other authorised person; and power without guidance. I would ask the Minister, who is always so extremely conscientious and willing to help on these occasions, to look most carefully at this, and to see if a form of words could not be introduced, preferably by the Government, to take care of this anxiety and this possible invasion in certain cases of the liberty of the individual.
The Minister may well say, as did his honourable friend in another place, that the Government have in mind the exceptional circumstances and the need for someone with the judgment and the power to back that judgment in exceptional circumstances. But I feel that the road-using public, or in this case the bridge-crossing public, would have their minds set at rest if clearer guidance could be given to the person so employed and vested with this authority: guidance which would enable him to convince the diverted driver—because the driver would have then a far longer route to take—that there was a clear statutory reason for his being so diverted.
The words, the "blanket" definition, which I find unconvincing, are "any particular vehicle" in lines 14 and 15. Any vehicle, if it be a Mini or a pantechnicon, can be described as a "particular vehicle", and the words seem to me to lay the prohibition open to potential unfairness and consequent resentment, which I know that the noble Lord would not wish to see caused as a result of any measure passing through his hands. My Lords, with this small proviso, I should like to congratulate the Minister on bringing in the Bill, and I join him in hoping that it receives a Second Reading.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, if I may be permitted to reply just to the one point which the noble Lord has mentioned, I will do my best. First, may I thank him for the way in which he welcomed the Bill. Without necessarily agreeing with him as to who was most responsible for improving the Bill during its passage through another place, I think we both agree that the Bill has been improved.
On the matter of the provision in Clause 8 to which he referred, I take his point. There is, however, a difficulty in getting a form of words which would define not only the type of vehicle but the particular vehicle which it may well be necessary to turn back. There is such a wide range of variations to consider. The weather over this new bridge has not been measured as yet. It is quite an exposed bridge and there will be a wide variety of weather conditions. The loads of the vehicles might well vary. It might be quite safe for a particular vehicle to make a crossing on a particular day, but the next day the same vehicle, with a different load, in different weather conditions, might well constitute a risk; and a person with experience—a constable or the toll operator, or some other approved person in charge, somebody with more experience than the driver of the vehicle—may well be in a position to offer advice or give instructions which would be acceptable in most cases, I should have thought, by the driver.
990 However, one sees that it would be advisable to have these conditions as closely defined as possible, and I assure the noble Lord that when the Minister comes to draft his Regulations, he will bear in mind the sort of considerations which the noble Lord has put forward. With that, I hope it will be possible for him to accept the Second Reading.