HL Deb 17 March 1988 vol 494 cc1308-19

7 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the construction of a new bridge across the Thames between Thurrock and Dartford; to transfer the existing two tunnels to the Secretary of State; and to provide for the arrangements for financing the construction of the new bridge and the residual debt on the tunnels.

The Dartford tunnels were completed in 1963 and 1980 and were originally designed to serve local needs. They now form the link between the M.25 to the north and south of the River Thames. The tunnels are owned and operated jointly by Essex and Kent county councils. They provide two lanes of traffic in each direction.

In 1985 the report of consultants appointed by the Government predicted that in the early 1990s there would be serious congestion at the tunnels. In 1985–86 the average daily traffic at the tunnels was 60,210 vehicles. With the completion of the south-eastern part of the M.25, it was predicted that the average would rise to 67,500 in 1986–87 and 77,500 in 1990–91. In practice, the 1986–87 daily average was higher at 69,000, despite the abnormal weather that winter. The latest figures indicate a further increase. The daily average for April to December last year was over 75,600—a 7 per cent. increase over the corresponding months in 1987. Extra capacity across the Thames is needed urgently and the purpose of this Bill is to provide it.

My right honourable friend, the present Secretary of State for the Environment suggested in July 1985 that urgently required infrastructure of this kind might be provided by the private sector. Guidelines to intending promoters were published in March 1986. It was left to bidders to propose the appropriate engineering solution. Bids based on both public and private finance were invited. After careful examination of the bids, on 29th September 1986 my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that he had selected the proposal by Trafalgar House to build a bridge with private finance, the costs to be recovered from tolls paid by users. To carry out its proposals, Trafalgar House and its financial backers formed a company, Dartford River Crossing Ltd, with which the Secretary of State concluded, last April, a concession agreement.

The bridge will carry four lanes of traffic southbound. The tunnels will then take all the northbound traffic. The bridge will be built just downstream of the present tunnels. At approximately 450 metres, the main span will be one of the longest in the world for a cable stayed bridge.

We selected this project for a number of reasons. It offered an earlier solution to the problem than any other project. Its total costs were lower than the other proposals submitted. The major financial risks would be borne by the private sector, which would relieve the roads programme of the burden of paying for it. That means we can use the money we would have had to devote to it for other urgently needed road improvements, thus reducing the risk of delay to the many schemes due to start in the coming financial year. Those advantages could be obtained without extending the period during which tolls needed to be charged greatly beyond what would have been necessary to recoup the cost if the project had been built in the conventional way by the department.

We propose to take the tunnels into the national road network and lease them to DRC so that the company can operate them jointly with the bridge. Essex and Kent County Councils have done excellent work for 50 years or more in getting those tunnels constructed and managing them with prudence and considerable success. But the counties fully accept that the tunnels, which provide an essential link in the M25, should now be made a national responsibility.

The arrangements for financing the new crossing, the dealing with the debt outstanding on the tunnels and costs of maintenance during the toll period are novel. DRC will finance expenditure which is not immediately met from revenue by borrowing privately. It will have a maximum of 20 years to pay off its borrowings, but we expect that to happen after 14–15 years at which point the crossing will be transferred to the Secretary of State and tolls can end.

DRC will not pay dividends on its small equity capital of £1,000. The Trafalgar House construction companies will look to make a profit from the agreed price DRC is to pay them for building the bridge. They have taken on the major risks—costing of the design, delay in completion and unforeseen ground conditions—associated with this kind of project. If they have misjudged these elements, they will see their expected profits reduced. If costs go up for those reasons the motorist will not have to pay for the increases through tolls. The lenders will receive the return specified in their loan agreements with DRC—but only if DRC's revenues are sufficient to meet them.

There has been some criticism that we are trying to cut corners by asking Parliament to approve the construction of this bridge through a hybrid Bill. This is misconceived. Legislation is required to levy tolls on a highway. We need a new tolls regime covering the tunnels and the bridge as a combined crossing. We have to make clear to whom the tunnel undertaking is to be transferred and who will employ the tunnel staff. We cannot leave the counties' ratepayers to pick up the liabilities which are still outstanding from the building of the tunnels. It is necessary to confer on the Secretary of State the special traffic management powers which are necessary for public safety, particularly in respect of the tunnels, and which for normal highways are exercised by the local authority. He must also have power to delegate operation and maintenance of the crossing. All those matters require legislation.

We are asking Parliament to approve the bridge and the essential approach road works in the Bill as well. Although some of this work could have been authorised by different procedures under existing legislation, it would be inefficient and time-consuming to ask the House to approve a Bill containing some of the necessary powers and to deal with the remainder by external procedures. Since the toll regime should produce sufficient revenue to fund the construction of the bridge, the two ought to be approved at the same time.

We have not, however, neglected to consult all those concerned with the scheme. Although we have had our differences with Essex and Kent County Councils, we have had regular meetings with them and have agreed a whole range of issues. There have been consultations with the borough councils too. The staff at the tunnels were told, by our officials, about the proposals on the day they were announced and their employers consulted the relevant unions very soon thereafter. There have been regular contacts since. In order to inform the public we organised exhibitions in Dartford and Thurrock in January 1987 and we have tried to deal with inquiries promptly and courteously since. There are a number of petitions to this House. We are conducting negotiations with all the petitioners to see how their anxieties can be accommodated and allayed and I hope at least to lighten the load of the Select Committee before it meets. I would rather not say any more about that now.

I should briefly describe some of the detailed provisions of the Bill. It is a surprisingly long Bill but much of it is concerned with technical matters which nevertheless need to be clearly and unambiguously dealt with. Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill authorise the construction of the bridge and the approach road works and the acquisition of land for those purposes. The bridge itself will be cable stayed—that is with the 450 metre main span suspended from cables affixed to towers. Its total length with approach viaducts is some 2,800 metres. Its original cost was estimated at £86 million at 1986 prices but there will be some additional expenditure as a result of modifications requested by petitioners.

The roads immediately to the north and south of the Dartford Tunnels are not part of the M25. The Bill will make them become trunk roads. They are inadequate for the long term and require widening to four lanes in each direction. It is therefore essential to widen them before the bridge is opened. We have kept the works in the Bill to the minimum. The cost of the work on the approach roads will be met from the road programme, not from tolls.

During the proceedings in Select Committee in another place, Dartford Borough Council made a good case for further work in the mid-1990s to improve access to the borough and to increase the capacity of the A2. The Government persuaded the Select Committee that it would be wrong to do that in this Bill but we accept the commitment. The first stage of studies leading to a solution to this problem had by then already started and was completed by Kent County Council on 18th January. In consultation with them and with officers of the borough council, we are now considering the next steps to be taken. It could well be that the improvements will not lie on the immediate approaches to Dartford. The real problem is the capacity of the A2 and the need to remove traffic from it.

Part II of the Bill trunks the highways in the existing crossing and transfers the land in the undertaking to the Secretary of State and the rest of the property to the person he appoints—DRC. It also relieves the councils of all the outstanding liabilities related to the tunnels which would otherwise have been met from tolls. Those costs will be met by DRC as a consequence of the relevant part of the agreement with the company.

We have made provision for the 220 or so staff working at the crossing. They will transfer to DRC. Staff matters in legislation have in the past raised difficult issues. This Bill provides for staff to transfer to DRC on terms and conditions, including pensions, which will be broadly equivalent to those they enjoy at present.

Part III of the Bill deals with the regime for tolls and the operation of the combined crossing. The tolling powers are at Clause 11, revision of tolls is dealt with at Clause 17, and Clause 16 and Schedule 6 deal with the way tolls come to an end.

Our intention is that DRC should take over the tunnels on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State. That will be as soon after Royal Assent as everyone is ready to transfer the tunnels and to start building the bridge. We expect the gap between Royal Assent and transfer to be no more than a month. The Bill provides that tolls will be levied at present rates and for present classes of vehicle. They will be adjusted to keep pace with inflation, using the tolls at 1st January 1986 as a base. DRC—the person appointed in the language of the Bill—will stop taking tolls for itself after 20 years or when its loans are paid off if that is sooner. The Secretary of State will receive information throughout the concession period enabling him to determine whether tolls should be ended early.

The Bill would give the Secretary of State a power to ask DRC to extend tolling for up to a year in order to provide a fund for future maintenance of the crossing, but he will be able to do this only if the period of extension can be fitted into the 20-year maximum period for tolling. The Bill also provides for what happens after tolls come to an end. At that point DRC's appointment will be terminated. All the property at the crossing will be transferred to the Secretary of State. The staff will be transferred to him on their then existing terms and conditions, including pensions. All this must happen instantly, since there must be no gap in the safe operation of the crossing.

The remainder of the Bill is largely technical. It provides, for example, for the delegation of the operation and maintenance of the whole crossing during and after the toll period, for the management of traffic in the crossing and on the approach roads and for financial information to be available to Parliament about the operation of tolls.

Copies of the agreement with DRC are in the Library. Since the company is providing the finance and taking many of the risks, DRC is allowed as much freedom of action as possible in constructing the bridge, running the crossing and managing the affairs of the company. Nevertheless, the crossing will be a vital part of the public road network for which the Secretary of State is statutorily responsible. The agreement gives him powers to ensure that DRC build the bridge that it has promised to build and that any changes of plan are shown to be necessary. He can make sure that DRC maintains the crossing properly and he has powers of intervention if it does not. In return, DRC can expect him not to interfere with what it is doing.

This Bill is designed to fulfil an urgent need. It does so in a novel way. The Government are convinced that the scheme, taken as a whole, is in the best interests of the taxpayer and the motorist. I hope it will receive as swift a passage as possible. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

7.11 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. I can assure him and the House that the Opposition fully support and appreciate the purpose of the Bill, although we have certain points that I shall raise in the course of my few remarks.

I appreciate the novel nature of the Government's approach to providing this additional much needed crossing. I fully concur with the Minister's figures as to the necessity for it because of the increase in traffic and the present congestion. However, this is the first time that such a procedure has been put before Parliament for private sector financing of what is an important public works project. In view of the Minister's interest in Treasury matters as well as transport, perhaps I may be permitted to say that for a long time many of us have been concerned that publicly-owned industries have been unable to raise finance in the open market. The argument has always been put before us that this raises a problem with PSBR.

This is a public works project that is being financed through private finance. I do not at all decry the methods that the Government are using to get ahead with the project, but in future it may give rise to certain questions when other matters come before Parliament requiring finance by publicly-owned industries.

I appreciate some of the important factors that the Minister has outlined; namely, that the existing liabilities of the two county councils of Essex and Kent are to be discharged by the Government and that both county councils accept that this should be part of the national network. I appreciate also that the maximum period of repayment is up to 20 years. I note the definite statement by the Minister that, in the event of the company having misjudged its costs, it will itself have to bear the liability and there will be no bailing out by the Government. The Minister made the point that the present tolls will continue with increases based on the then RPI.

I am pleased to note what the Minister said about the transfer of existing staff on their present conditions. When the whole project reverts to the Secretary of State either before or at the end of 20 years, the conditions of reversion to the staff are adequately provided for in the Bill.

The question of tolls is important. The Select Committee appointed by the other place to examine the Bill was not allowed to consider evidence on this matter. However, we know that in 1986 the Select Committee on Transport of the other place recommended the abolition of tolls on all estuarial crossings. In principle I can see the case for removal of tolls on estuarial crossings. I realise that there are some problems. Living as I do in metropolitan Essex, I travel on the M.25 periodically, and it is frequently necessary for me to use the existing Dartford tunnel. To have tolls, whether for a bridge or a tunnel on an important orbital motorway is a matter to which we should give special attention.

On Second Reading in another place on 9th July the question of windshielding arose. The Minister for Roads and Transport, Peter Bottomley, at column 609 said: There is little experience of putting windshielding on high bridges". He continued: However, there is insufficient experience to be able to state precisely the type of windshielding that would work. Nevertheless, the Government went straight ahead on the nature of the crossing to be constructed even though the Minister on Second Reading said that there was insufficient experience. The Minister said that these matters could be discussed during the later stages of the Bill.

The Select Committee of the other place issued a special report on the Bill, which dealt with windshielding. After hearing a substantial amount of evidence, the Select Committee recommended that the construction of the bridge should be changed to provide for windshielding. The recommendation was carried by a majority of five to one. The Committee concluded that the benefits to be gained by windshielding were sufficient to compensate for the delay and increased costs. A matter that your Lordships will wish to consider is whether the problem is so urgent and the congestion so bad that any delay should be avoided. The Government response to the special report devoted a considerable number of paragraphs to the matter. It rejected the Select Committee's decision on the question of windshielding.

On Report in another place, a government amendment to remove the requirement for windshielding was the only amendment considered. There was a three-hour debate on the amendment. By a majority of 131 votes to 34, it was decided that the amendment to provide windshielding should not be made to the Bill.

I refer now to paragraph 7 of the special report regarding the presentation of the case for windshielding, which states: We were greatly concerned about certain aspects of the evidence presented to us. We felt there was a lack of readiness by the Promoters—that is to say, the Governent and the concessionaires—to make available necessary technical and financial information which would have greatly assisted the Committee in its deliberations, even allowing for the fact that some of this information was of a commercially confidential nature. In view of the above, we request the Secretary of State to enquire into the way this case has been presented to us". It is very difficult to understand how a Select Committee could go into the question of what kind of project the bridge should be if certain matters were denied to them because of commercial considerations.

In the Government Response, at paragraph 17, it states: The Government, as promoters of the Bill, assisted by the concessionaires, presented the case in the way they thought most helpful to the Committee. This reflected the obligation the Government felt to safeguard information which the concessionaires considered would be of commercial value to a competitor. Nonetheless the Government regrets that the Select Committee considered that the handling of the case caused them to experience difficulties in obtaining relevant information. The Secretary of State has already begun an enquiry into the way in which the case was handled and will ensure that this enquiry includes consideration of ways in which difficulties might be avoided on any future occasion". We have the Government recognising the problems of the Select Committee of another case in considering some of these important matters.

That leads me to quote the final paragraph of the special report of the Select Committee of another place which is rather important. It states: We wish to record our concern about the difficulties we faced as a Committee composed mainly of laymen. The evidence produced by both the Government and the Petitioners on the issue of windshielding was highly technical and the expert witnesses fundamentally disagreed with each other on nearly every aspect of the subject. We believe that this Committee is almost unique both in the detail and complexity of the technical evidence given and in the depth of the disagreement between the expert witnesses.". I shall not attempt to go into the technical matters of windshielding. But it is interesting that at Second Reading in another place the Minister said that there was not sufficient evidence to know what to do. We have the Select Committee saying that the matter was presented to them in a very complex way, and that the people who gave expert evidence disagreed with each other on every point. Yet we now have a firm decision taken by the Government on the question of windshielding—and a three hour debate in another place.

The only other point that I wish to consider is the naming of the bridge. I gather that the Select Committee decided to name it the Dartford Bridge. However, the Standing Committee on the Bill in the other place deleted that amendment, the Government adopting a neutral attitude. I propose to adopt the same neutral attitude; but there are one or two points with which I should like the Minister to deal in his reply.

First, we have to bear in mind that it is proposed that the bridge will consist of four lanes going southwards. People coming from the north of the river will wish to be given directions—but to where? One must bear in mind that they may begin their journey at a point on the north of the river travelling towards Dartford on the south. I do not know what the Government's explanation is. Paragraph 21 of the Government Response states that it is intended to change the signs (which at the moment show "Dartford Tunnel") to simply show "Dartford". As the tunnels are to be used by those travelling from south to north, if I am travelling through Kent I wish to know directions to the Dartford Tunnels, and not to Dartford. I wonder whether the Government have considered that aspect.

I appreciate the point made by the Government in their response that there might be times when the bridge has to be closed—perhaps because insufficient attention has been given to this question of wind shielding—and the tunnels may have to be used. But what will be the name of the bridge? I do not believe that it is provided for in the Bill at present. Will this be determined by order? Will there be further discussions? The decision of the Select Committee to name it the Dartford Bridge has been turned down by the Standing Committee on the Bill. Therefore at the moment I gather we do not have a name for the bridge. Is it to be the Thurrock Dartford Bridge? Is it to be the Thurrock Bridge because people coming from the north of the river will wish to go to Thurrock to get through to the tunnel? Will it be called the Dartford Bridge?

Whatever the name of the bridge, there have to be adequate, effective signs so that people who wish to go to the bridge, north to south, will know exactly where they are going, and those who still have to use the tunnels, south to north, will know that they are going to the Dartford Tunnels.

The points that I have made may seem minor criticisms. Many of them refer to the way in which the Bill was handled in the Select Committee. By and large, we support the principle of the Bill. We hope to see this construction at a not too distant date.

7.26 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I start at the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill finished: on the question of a name. I would say that a rose—in this case a bridge—by any name would smell very sweet because this matter has been outstanding for such a long time. I do not think the name matters a great deal. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in a recent Question in your Lordships' House on road signs, illustrated the fact that we have a fairly deplorable system of road signing in this country. Perhaps the Minister's endeavours will be charged with greater urgency when this bridge opens.

I should like to thank my noble friend for his very lucid introduction of this Bill to your Lordships' House. I believe that it is unique. It is certainly unique in modern times that a crossing of this nature—a cable-stayed bridge—has been proposed and is to be financed for the benefit of the public road system by the private sector. Although the Bill provides for the profits, and indeed the losses due to unforeseen circumstances, one is bound to ask who, in the financial field, is the longstop? Somewhere along the line for quite unforeseen, and I hope improbably impossible conditions, there may be a collapse of funding, or a collapse that would be beyond he resources of the Dartford River Crossing Company Limited to fund. We ought to know that answer.

On engineering design and construction, I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said with regard to wind shielding. From my limited knowledge, the design is tremendously exciting. It is undertaken, and will be confirmed by leading designers and builders—leaders in the world for this type of construction. I do not share the same fears on the pedigree of those designers that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and perhaps some Members in another place, may have felt.

I said that the engineering design and construction is exciting. It is exciting in two areas: one is the engineering, purely and simply, but the other excitement is the 5,000 man years' worth of work that will be created. Much of this work, particularly the heavier engineering, such as steelwork, will, I hope, be in areas of the United Kingdom which are desperately in need of work. It is so good (is it not?) that this should be home produced.

I ask a question which may sound frivolous to my noble friend, but it has a serious note. In the contract—of course I do not see it in the Bill—is there any desired local UK content? In other words, I hope that we shall buy our steel and our fixtures and fittings in the United Kingdom and discourage the contracting companies from buying in other competitive markets.

Turning now to tolls, I do not discredit the two county councils, who, admittedly at their own behest some 50 years ago, took on the burden of the costs of the existing tunnel crossings. They have done a very good job. I am glad to see that my noble friend's department has now recognised that the existing crossings, coupled with the new crossing, should be part of the motorway and trunk road system.

I am equally glad that in the Bill—I believe it is in Schedule 6; but perhaps my noble friend will confirm that—there is an absolute cut-off date. It is 20 years' maximum for the tolls, and then the tolls cease. The costs of operation will then fall upon the road programme expenditure. This is welcome because many of us on both sides of the House have been opposed to the principle of tolls where the crossing is part of the major network.

I do not think that there is anything else that I really want to say. What remains is for those involved, the parliamentarians together with the petitioners, to deal with the Bill with as much dispatch as possible because undoubtedly if we delay—either in Select Committee or in proceedings in your Lordships' House which necessitate further consideration in another place—the target date will be missed. In any construction job, as soon as target dates are missed the costs escalate. We shall then be under pressure to increase tolls above the levels of RPI. That would be quite disastrous. We must allow the innovative companies to get on with the job as fast as we can. Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I very much welcome the Bill and hope that Parliament will dispatch it as fast as possible.

7.36 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome the Bill has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. We have had a useful short debate on the matter. We are certainly all agreed that we want further capacity at this crossing by the earliest possible date.

A number of points have been raised in this short debate. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lucas that the bridge represents an opportunity for British industry to produce much work particularly in those regions which specialise in the production of steel. However, we have not put anything in the contract to say that British-produced steel should be used. I have every confidence that British steel producers will be able to match any competition. We could not put anything in the contract because that would not conform with our EC requirements. However, we look to British firms to tender competitively.

Two main issues have been mentioned this evening, one of which is the policy on tolls. Successive governments have taken the view that these estuarial crossings should be paid for by users who enjoy substantial savings in time and money over untolled alternative routes. The Government's response to the Commons Select Committee in July 1986 rejected the Committee's recommendation that tolls should be abolished and debts written off. It was argued that debts on toll crossings were freely incurred by the authorities concerned and that they could not be written off without financial penalty. Above all, there were more pressing demands on government resources. I should perhaps tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the Select Committee in another place was not prevented from discussing tolls as such, but they were not opposed in principle by any of the petitioners.

I confirm to my noble friend Lord Lucas that the maximum length of time that tolls can be levied is 20 years, but as I said in my opening speech we expect the time to be considerably less than that.

Wind shielding, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, was a subject that was dealt with very thoroughly in the other place. The county councils who raised it in their petitions to the other place are satisfied that the matter has been pursued and examined further by the Government. They have therefore decided not to petition in this House. The noble Lord was aware that the Government have published the detailed response to the special report of the Select Committee in the other place explaining why wind shielding was not justified on this bridge. Further consultations are taking place on alternative traffic management measures, in particular the use of the east tunnel on the rare occasions when the bridge is closed to vehicles endangered by high winds.

As to the name of the bridge—I am conscious of the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, on the Front Bench opposite—the Government have no strong views. That is why my honourable friend the Minister responsible for roads and traffic abstained when the Bill went to a Division in another place. However, we are content to erect near the bridge a sign bearing the name which is decided upon, if any. That name, however, will not be repeated all over the primary route network. The names on the green primary route and blue motorway signs are chosen to provide navigational assistance for the motorist. Confusion would abound if signs directed motorists either to two geographical names, Dartford and Thurrock, or to "tunnel" or "bridge", especially on an orbital motorway.

When the new bridge is built we shall remove references to the tunnel on the present green-backed and blue-backed signs and Dartford will become the key primary route and motorway destination. I do not believe that it would be practical to differentiate between tunnel and bridge. That is the Government's view on that matter.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, perhaps I may remind my noble friend that the Forth Bridge is called the Forth Bridge with some pride, and it is part of the M.90 as well. From what my noble friend said, the Government have not decided on a name, if any. It sounds as though there will never be a name.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, perhaps there will not. As I have said, the bridge does not have to be named. What is important is the signposting on the primary route network. I believe I have dealt with that matter.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, what consultation has the department had with the road user bodies such as the motoring organisations, the road haulage and freight transport associations, on the matter of signing? This will be the most important thing. I agree with the Minister that it is not the name of the bridge that matters but whether people will have correct signs on the roads. If they want to go to the bridge, they should know they are going to the bridge, and if they have to go northwards to the tunnels they should know they are going to the tunnels.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, at the moment I cannot answer the question about consultations. However, I should like to remind noble Lords that motorists are used to following signs to Dartford Tunnel, in whichever direction they are travelling. In future the signs will say "Dartford" rather than "Dartford Tunnel" or "Dartford Bridge". I believe that that is a minor adaptation for motorists to make rather than changing the signs to "Dartford Bridge" or "Dartford Tunnel" or to any other name which may be chosen.

My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth asked what would happen if the arrangements fold. We do not expect that the arrangements will fold; but the unexpected could happen. If the DRC should fail in its obligations the crossing would immediately be transferred to the Secretary of State. If, at that point, the Secretary of State faces costs to complete the construction, for example, the Bill allows him to take tolls until he has recouped those costs. He would be subject to the same maximum period for tolls but could come to the other place just once for an affirmative resolution extending the tolling period by five years. Should more time be needed to recover public money he had had to invest in the bridge, the Secretary of State would not be allowed to take tolls if the DRC's appointment came to an end because he was in breach of his contract with the company. This is a complicated matter but it is dealt with in the agreement with the DRC. That document is placed in the Library.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about private finance in public works projects. This Bill, like the Channel Tunnel Bill, marks one of the first ventures into private sector provision of public works. The new bridge will provide a vital link in our motorway network. We certainly hope that it will pave the way for other projects on similar lines. We have learned lessons from this exercise and I hope that the private sector will also have done so. Most of all, as the Government made clear in the roads White Paper last April, we are interested to hear suggestions for other ventures of this kind, perhaps to supplement the road network in novel and ingenious ways. Some ambitious proposals of that kind have been outlined by one of our major construction groups.

Private investment looks for a way of recovering its money and, in the case of Dartford, earning a return. Therefore, projects financed in this way may involve some form of charge to the user. We have not yet decided whether the second Severn crossing should be provided in the same way as the Dartford project. Our options are still open.

Proposals of this kind must be judged by the criterion: do they represent the most cost-effective way of carrying out the project? We believe that, given the freedom to design, build and operate a piece of infrastructure such as this, the private sector is well placed to do so more efficiently and economically than the traditional method. I regard this bridge as an imaginative concept both in its design and financing. I am sure that it is destined to become a notable landmark in many ways. I join with other noble Lords and hope that the Bill will see speedy progress so that construction can commence. I beg to move.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.43 to 8 p.m.]