ERSKINE BRIDGE TOLLS BILL (Hansard, 25 January 1968)

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Hughes, who is unfortunately away ill, it falls rather unexpectedly to me to move this Bill—all the more unexpectedly since I had understood that on this occasion my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton was to masquerade as a Scottish Minister. Luckily the number of noble Lords who have their names down to speak is small. I think that if your Lordships turn to the Explanatory Memorandum, you will see the scope and importance of this measure. In order to save the time of the House, since we have a long day before us, it might be best if at this stage I sat down, because we shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has to say, and then my noble friend, Lord Hilton of Upton, who I am glad to see has returned, will be able to reply. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a.—(Lord Shackleton.)

§ LORD FERRIER
My Lords, I have only a few words to say on this Bill in general terms. I am one of those who support the idea of tolls on bridges, tunnels and the like. I feel that in this country, where the density of traffic on our road system prevents the application of tolls to roads, there are positive advantages in raising tolls on bridges and tunnels. It has often occurred to me that if more of our bridges had been constructed by private enterprise on an economic basis, large sums of money would have been set free for the ordinary work of providing much-needed roads.
There is only one point to which I wish to refer. Clause 7 provides powers 441 to tow away vehicles stopped on the bridge, similar to the powers taken in the case of the Forth Road and Severn Bridges, but it is left open to the Secretary of State to fix the charge for this service by regulation. The estimated capital cost is put at £30,000, the annual operating cost being approximately balanced by the income from the charges imposed for vehicle removal. On the Severn Bridge the charge has been fixed at a £5 minimum—£5 for the first hour and £1 for every subsequent hour. I mention, in passing, that neither the R.A.C. nor the A.A. services are permitted to act upon the bridges. I understand that in the case of the Severn Bridge, where £10,000 has been set aside as the figure for this work, only £2,100 has been collected in the first year. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to turn over carefully in his mind whether this figure of £30,000 is right, and whether it would not be better to provide in the toll charges a modicum that would include the cost of this removal service. If a vehicle fails on the bridge, people should pay a penalty. But if £10,000 had to be recovered for the Severn Bridge, and a rate of £5 minimum brought in only £2,000, then it would look as if a figure of something like £25 a vehicle would be required to meet the £10,000 to be recovered on that bridge.
There is nothing more I want to say, except to ask the Government whether they will apply their mind to this point, and to the suggestion I made earlier: that the toll for the bridge should be an adequate one to cover all the services, except a suitable penalty for towing away a vehicle that may fail.

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, we on this side welcome this Bill very much indeed. Those of us who live in Scotland are always grateful when we see more money coming from the source of London. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is unable to be here to introduce the Bill. I should like to draw attention to Clause 2. We welcome the flexibility which the Secretary of State has for compounding and arranging the seasonal fees, and especially the arrangements made to lower the fees at night to attract more traffic over this bridge. I hope that we 442 shall not see any temptation to "soak" the visitor in the summer by increasing the fees during that period.
Under Clause 4 we are told that this power to levy tolls is to be for 20 years. If the estimate of £7½ million for the cost of this bridge is correct, it might look as if the toll over this period would be 4s. a vehicle. I do not know whether that is so, but if it were the case I should like to ask whether the Government would consider making it more than 20 years, in order to make the toll more economic to the ordinary passenger. I know that on the Forth and the Tay, which I use a great deal, the toll is 2s. 6d. a passenger vehicle, and it might put people off if it were 4s. a vehicle here. I may be entirely wrong about that.
The only other point arises on Schedule 1, as to who can complain. The Renfrew County Council will, I hope, be looking with the authorities into whether the development which they are planning at Erskine for the overspill of the Glasgow housing scheme will not be cut off as an island by this new road scheme, because on the South side it will cut off a considerable segment. This will need to be looked at. That is all I wish to say, and, as I have said. I welcome the Bill sincerely. The opening up of this Burns country on the South to the Loch Lomond beauties of the North will be an enormous advantage to the industrial elements—that goes without saying—and will do away with the frustration of those who have had to wait for the Erskine Ferry.

§ LORD HILTON OF UPTON
My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate, but I had the brief for my noble friend Lord Hughes put into my hands a few minutes before I came into the Chamber. I was consulting somebody from the Scottish Office to get a few hints on what I should say, and I did not realise that I was needed here. I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier.

§ LORD FERRIER
My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord for having given him such short notice.

§ LORD HILTON OF UPTON
I am sure that, in the circumstances, noble Lords will not expect me to reply in great detail 443 to the points that have been made this afternoon. But knowing my noble friend Lord Hughes, I am sure that noble Lords will realise that during some further stage of this Bill they will get very full replies to their questions. I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who raised one or two points. So far as the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, on fees for removal is concerned, nothing definite has yet been decided on this. It is very early days yet, and this matter will be considered fully when the exact cost is known. The charges will meet only the cost of the removal service.

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, that was the question of Lord Ferrier.

§ LORD HILTON OF UPTON
My Lords, I am sorry; I have the questions in the wrong order. But the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will know that he will get all the information that is necessary later on.
So far as the repayment over twenty years is concerned, again this at the moment is a proposal and it will have a great deal of discussion. The scale of fees cannot be fixed until the exact cost of the bridge is known and another traffic survey is taken near the time of the opening planned for 1971; and until consultations with other parties have been held it will not be possible to give a final answer to those questions.