I HAVE followed the debate on the proposed congestion charge with some interest, and wonder why the following view has not been expressed?

For many years the public paid tolls to pass along private roads and in return the private owners of those roads maintained them, often poorly. The system did not work well.

Various acts of parliament brought the system of roads into the public domain, which allowed a more consistent approach to highway construction and maintenance to be put in place. Local authorities and government raised monies through rates and taxes to pay for the work and still do.

Under the congestion charge, this system is effectively being supplemented by motorists paying to cross an artificial boundary that will no doubt expand at a later date, but in this case the highways over which we are passing are public highways. The public have the right to pass freely along such highways, but not to stop on them or cause obstruction.

I believe the congestion charge is, in effect, a tax requiring the public to pay to pass along a public highway. That, I believe, is an infringement of our human rights as the highways are owned by the public and maintained by them.

Further, we all have the right to freely enter any EU country. We do not pay a toll in order to do so. We may have to buy a visa for stays in some non EU countries, but that is a different issue.

Why is it then that this proposed legislation will allow the Greater Manchester Authorities to charge the public to cross an artificial border?

Nothing that I have read can convince me that they have the right to make the charge.

Such a position is not acceptable because a fundamental right is freedom of movement.

I have voted “no” to the proposals and I would urge others to do so in order to protect our human rights.

Martin Cooper, Lakenheath Drive, Bolton