| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Brown: As the hon. Gentleman is speaking in the name of Her Majesty's Opposition, will he say what sort of figure, between zero and £435 million, he thinks the Government should write off?
Mr. Allen: I would be happy to allow the Minister to make that decision while he remains on the Government Front Bench, and perhaps to come to a similar or dissimilar decision when we change places.
The Department of Transport has remitted part of the interest falling due since 1991-92 under the Appropriation Acts to stabilise the debt. The grant to the board was
£7.6 million in 1991-92, and provision was made for
£43.5 million to be repaid in 1992-93. That has stabilised the debt at around £435 million.
A number of further questions arise from the way in which the Bill has been introduced, which I hope the Minister will note and perhaps, if he speaks again in the debate, be in a position to answer.
First, is the Bill the forerunner of other Bills on other estuarial crossings? The Minister may feel that a number of other crossings merit further consideration, either by Bill or by announcements on further works or debts.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us what estuarial crossings, anywhere in Britain, arose from a political bribe, for which the electorate must now pick up a bill for
£435 million?
Mr. Allen:
The hon. Gentleman should not make such disparaging remarks about the Macmillan Government in 1959 and the Heath Government of 1971, who initially approved the bridge's construction and then approved the moneys to create the bridge. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seeks to attack distinguished former Conservative Prime Ministers in that way. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
Order. These conversations across the Chamber are interesting, but it would be more useful to have them outside. Let us stick to the debate on the Bill.
Mr. Allen:
The second question that I should like to ask the Minister involves the level of tolls. He was a little unkind about the Humber Bridge Board and its attempts to review the tolls level. He criticised it for being slow in making proposals. Will he therefore be a little more forthcoming about whether he would be prepared to support whatever emerged from a public inquiry launched by the Humber Bridge Board, which would review the bridge toll levels being and to be paid?
Mr. Watts:
I think that I made it clear that I expect the Humber Bridge Board to make proposals for updating tolls, but, as I also explained, because the decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport would have to make following any inquiry is a quasi-judicial one, it is not possible for me, before I have seen the board's proposals, and considered any objections to its proposals, or the public inquiry's recommendations, to give an indication in advance of what level I would think reasonable, or that I would wish my right hon. Friend to consider reasonable.
Mr. Allen:
I fully accept the quasi-judicial nature of the decisions that the Minister or the Secretary of State may need to take. Perhaps he would extend that quasi-judicial caution to attacks on the Humber Bridge Board over its efforts to present proposals on tolling. If he does that, perhaps he will be seen to be even-handed in carrying out his quasi-judicial function.
My third question relates to the deregulation of the tolled river crossings. I understand that, in the past year, the Department of Transport issued a consultation document on this matter, and that it has suggested three options. The first is the continuation of the current regulation; the second is partial deregulation, with tolls rising annually to a prescribed limit, under which key groups of users would have a right to object; and the third is full deregulation, with undertakings setting their own
charges. How has that consultation gone, and how will it affect the bridge and the other river crossings in the United Kingdom?
I am sure that my suspicions about privatisation will be quickly allayed by the Minister. Is there any connection whatever between the Bill examining the debts--
[Interruption.] Conservative Members seek to cast doubt on whether privatisation could follow. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee and a mere reader of newspapers, I know that cancellation or elimination of debt was followed by the privatisation of a number of industries. That happened as surely as night follows day.
It is not beyond the wit of the Government to devise ways to pour money into the open pockets of those in the private sector, and they could do that from the most unlikely starting point, which may be the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us that there is no connection, however tenuous or long term, between the Bill and privatisation.
Mr. Jacques Arnold:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Allen:
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and he rather abused the privilege.
My final question is about roads. The Minister and his colleagues were characterised by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) as like Santa Claus. Yesterday, local authorities did not regard the Minister as Santa Claus, because he and his colleagues cut by 17 per cent. the grant to local authorities for transport needs. That cut is in addition to the cut in the Budget settlement for roads. Has the Minister any proposals to enhance the north and south road links to the bridge?
Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham):
Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So far, the debate has been much too low key. There is a serious scandal, in that a bribe by the Labour party for the Hull, North by-election in January 1966 is crystallised in the Bill, so that taxpayers will permanently have to pay for it. That matter should not be allowed to pass without comment. Of course, many waters have flowed since January 1966.
Mr. McNamara:
Particularly under the bridge.
Mr. Jessel:
Yes--and probably sleaze as well. As a matter of courtesy, I notified the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that I intended to speak in the debate and I am glad to see him here recovered from his flu. I ought to declare a sort of interest, because I was the defeated Conservative candidate in the Hull, North by-election on 25 January 1966. I feel no rancour about that because, had I got in, it is highly likely that I would have been out again by 1974, if not sooner.
My defeat paved the way for me to stand in Twickenham in 1970, and it has been a tremendous honour and privilege to represent that constituency ever
since. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North did me a good turn, because my defeat in that by-election was one of the best things that ever happened to me.
As I have said, this matter cannot pass without comment. I should have liked the Minister to comment with even more force and I shall add some comments of my own. We are supposed to be the guardians of taxpayers' money, but, as a result of that by-election bribe, taxpayers will have to pay several hundred million pounds.
It is not clear exactly how much is to be written off, but let us be in no doubt about what "writing off" means. It does not mean that the loss just disappears: it means that we have given up hope of recovering the money. But the money has gone, and £456 million has so far gone down the drain for this no doubt highly architecturally impressive, but greatly under-used bridge.
That means that £456 million less is available for our health services, education, social security, national defences or other useful purposes. It follows that people who might want to be treated sooner by the national health service, for example, have a direct interest in the fact that several hundred million pounds have been written off as a result of the bribe in that by-election.
The bribe occurred because, in the general election of October 1964, Hull, North, which was a marginal seat, was gained by the Labour party; unfortunately, the newly elected Member, Mr. Solomons, died about 13 months later, in November 1965; the by-election was fixed for two months later, but his death reduced Harold Wilson's majority from three to two; if the by-election had gone the other way, it would have been reduced to one.
At the time, there was enormous interest in the by-election. There were very big public meetings. I remember one that was addressed by the late Lord Home, at which 1,200 people were present in Hull city hall. On 18 January, Mrs. Barbara Castle, the then Transport Minister, pledged to construct the Humber bridge, and that led to the debt which is the subject of the Bill. On page 95 of the Castle memoirs, she wrote:
"Off to Hull to speak in the by-election. Photographers at the station. Standing room only at meetings. I told them categorically they would have their bridge. Speech went down well."
She wrote that in her diary. The day before yesterday, I had it on the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), who cannot be present, that he was at Mrs. Castle's meeting on 18 January 1966, that she said, "You will get your bridge," and that there were loud cheers. The Minister has already quoted the words of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, that great man Iain Macleod, who referred to the plan for the Humber bridge as a pre-election bribe. He went on:
"'First one of the junior Transport Ministers said that one was not needed. Then came the by-election. The same junior Minister promptly became much more enthusiastic about a new bridge.
'But the by-election continued to turn . . . and something more was needed. So Mrs. Castle says in Hull that . . . there will be a new bridge.'"
Mr. Macleod was quoted as saying that in The Times on 22 January 1966.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |