HC Deb 25 January 1977 vol 924 cc1451-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

4.37 a.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

This is not the most appropriate time to debate any subject, but I welcome the opportunity to raise in the House the difficulties and anomalies created by the imposition of toll charges for the use of the Mersey Tunnel.

This is a short debate, but I hope that it will help to persuade my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the Government of the unity and determination of all hon. Members from Merseyside, the tunnel operators and users of all kinds that the Mersey Tunnel tolls have to be brought to an end.

I begin with compliments rather than complaints—first to the Prime Minister for re-establishing the independence of the Department of Transport and his good sense in his choice of Ministers for the Department. The Secretary of State has his origins in Liverpool, even if he is now —as is the Under-Secretary—a Geordie. Some time ago, I spoke to them the three words "Mersey Tunnel tolls" and they recognised the message.

We hope that the new Ministers will bring a new approach to transport matters, and not least to estuarial tolls. The Under-Secretary is well aware of the achievements and problems of Liverpool and Merseyside.

Liverpool is the hub of a fine road and rail network and of the inter-city motorways. From Westminster to my constituency, the M1, M6 and M62 provide 200 miles of motorway from city to city. The M62—a wonderful feat of creative engineering—links Liverpool to Humberside, across the Pennines. From Liverpool, the M57, M62, M53 and M56 all link with the M6 and the M1 either north to Scotland or south to the Midlands, and with the M5 and M4 to South Wales and the south-west of England. The M53 Wirral motorway, the M58 to Skelmersdale, and the M57 Liverpool outer motorway have yet to be completed, but when they and the city inner ring road are completed Liverpool and the ports of the Mersey will have the finest road network anywhere in the United Kingdom.

We have had no more than our fair share of roadway expenditure in the North-West, and have had proportionately much less than Scotland, Wales, the North-East and certain other parts of the United Kingdom.

Last Thursday, in the debate on transport policy, the Secretary of State for Transport and the Under-Secretary confirmed that they recognise the importance of motorways for industry, commerce, and the social life of any area. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows how important roads are for employment and industry on Merseyside.

The River Mersey provided the people of Merseyside with the opportunity to create the Merseyside ports, which could yet be the finest in Western Europe. The Mersey is itself a means of transport, but it is also the major barrier to communications between its banks. Ferries have operated across the river for hundreds of years. They are part of the Mersey scene, but they are not just picturesque; they have a useful rôle and ought to be maintained. We shall certainly say more about ferries when we discuss the Merseyside Passenger Transport Bill.

Tunnels under the Mersey pioneered the way to the construction of tunnels in many other parts of the United Kingdom and overseas. The first rail tunnel opened in 1885 and is now being incorporated into Liverpool and Merseyside's own metropolitan loop line. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam), this is an example that I hope the Tyne and Wear Metro will be able to follow.

The Queensway road tunnel was begun in 1925 and was opened in 1934 by King George V, and the Kingsway road tunnel was opened in 1971 by Queen Elizabeth II. Both the rail and road tunnels had setbacks and disappointments in the years between the first proposals and the opening of the tunnels. They had their opponents then, but they have none now. Their success has encouraged me in my determination that the Channel Tunnel project is not finished, but only deferred.

In 1976 the Mersey road tunnels were used by more than 20 million vehicles of all kinds. The importance of the tunnels to Merseyside is greater even than the motorway network of which they are a vital part. Yet the tunnels are financed entirely differently, quite separately from other motorways and roads. We can use 200 miles of the M1, M6 and M62 motorways to travel from London to Liverpool, without having to pay a charge at the time of use. I can cross the Mersey by the Thellwall Viaduct at Warrington or by the Runcorn bridge, which are both free. Yet I and my constituents, and industry, must pay tolls to use three miles of road under the Mersey, between Liverpool and Birkenhead or Wallasey.

It is not simply a matter of the costs of construction, in whole or in part. There are 350 miles of motorway between London and Carlisle, for which we do not have to pay a charge at the time of use. The M62 over the Pennines floats on concrete rafts, cuts through high hills or rides on gigantic viaducts for mile after mile, and all this is free when we use it.

Why is there this difference between different parts of what is essentially one motorway system? The answer is amazingly simple or, put the other way, simply amazing. Tolls are not imposed for cross- ing roads or rivers—pure or impure—or for crossing mountains, valleys, hills or dales. One does not even pay to cross the Menai Straits by road. Tolls are imposed simply for crossing estuaries. Therefore, the imposition of tolls depends not on the kind of use, or the cost of construction, or the importance of any road, bridge or tunnel to industry or commerce; it depends on a simple calculation of the percentage of salt in the water under or over which it crosses. This applies to the Severn Bridge, the Tamar Bridge, the Forth Bridge, the Dartford Tunnel and the new Humber Bridge.

This may have made sense in the past, but not now. The principle of tolls must end. It is not a new principle. In May 1924 the Government first offered financial assistance towards the cost of the first Mersey Tunnel, but this was conditional on the tunnel being a toll-free highway. The second Government offer, in September 1924, was again conditional on the tunnel being toll-free.

We are asking the Government to return to the principle which the Government of the day favoured when the tunnels were begun. It was only in 1925, when Winston Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that tolls were allowed. This was to be for a limited period of 20 years.

The ending of tolls has not been possible locally, because of the additional costs of the second tunnel—which are £38 million and not £27 million—high operating costs due to inflation, extreme risk in interest rates, and the low level of economic growth. Government aid was refused in 1970 and 1974. Governments come and Governments go, but there seems to be a custodian of estuarial tolls in the Department of Transport who survives changes in Ministers and everyone else.

Approaches were made to the Government in 1971 and 1973, and the Merseyside County Council, as the tunnel authority, has put a number of proposals to the Department of the Environment.

Unfortunately, and unusually, in this instance, it was only last week that the county council decided to try to involve local Members of Parliament in this issue, and only after reports of this debate appeared in the newspapers. Its proposals —and these are known to my hon. Friend —are, first, that the first Mersey Tunnel was grant-aided in 1934 and that similar aid should be given now to the Mersey Tunnels as was given in 1938 to the Dartford Tunnel and in 1967 to the Tyne and Wear Tunnel. Secondly, Merseyside is a special development area, and so powers exist for special grants to be made. Thirdly, the Wallasey Tunnel is effectively a private road, which will link the M53 and M62 motorways, and these are financed entirely by the tax payer. Fourthly, the Mersey tolls are the highest in the country and would be much higher if interest debts had not been capitalised. The power to capitalise interest ends on 31st March 1977, but it can be extended to March 1980 by permission of the Secretary of State. This is one of the urgent matters that we want to bring to his attention.

The present tolls are 1p for pedal cycles, though I have never seen a pedal cycle in the Mersey Tunnel—but that is still on the statute book—10p for motor cycles and three-wheeled vehicles, 20p for cars and light vehicles, and 50p for coaches and vehicles over three tons. Mersey County Council proposes that these be increased to 15p, 25p and 60p. There is a real risk that these increases will inevitably reduce the number of tunnel users, and, if they were increased further, they would damage the viability of the tunnels.

I hope that the Minister will not merely suggest that the tunnels should be operated more efficiently. Operating costs are only 30 per cent. of the total financial costs. The introduction of automatic tolls will save £279,000 in the next five years, and, for example, the rationalising of policing arrangements will save another £40,500 per year. But 70 per cent. of the costs are due to capital and interest repayments. These are heavy burdens for the people of Merseyside.

I put four requests to the Minister. He knows of these already, and I hope that he has considered them.

Will he agree to meet representatives of the Merseyside County Council? Time is short. It needs permission to continue the capitalisation powers for at least some years to come.

Will my hon. Friend accept an invitation to visit Merseyside and meet tunnel operators and users to hear at first hand the strength of feeling that exists on this matter?

We recognise that, even though Merseyside is a special development area and so qualifies for special action, the principle applies to all estuarial crossings. Will my hon. Friend consider convening a special conference of all estuarial crossing authorities? If he cannot or will not, the pressure on Merseyside to take the lead in this will be very great.

My main request to my hon. Friend is that he recognises and accepts the principle that estuarial crossings are part of the motorway network and ought to be financed as any other part of the motorway system.

We are responsible people, and we recognise that to be a Transport Minister at this time is not the easiest job in the world. It is difficult enough in a spending Government. It is more difficult than ever with present restrictions on Government expenditure. We ask that the principle be accepted, even though this can only be implemented in an order of priorities.

The Secretary of State for Transport last week confirmed the importance of transport and said that higher priority must be given to the maintenance of projects directly affecting industrial and commercial capacity and growth in Britain. In the same debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary confirmed that we must make the best use of the present road system before adding to it. On both those counts the Mersey Tunnel qualifies.

The portals of the Queensway tunnel bear the plaque Opened by H.M. King George V, 1934 and the Kingsway portals have the plaque Opened by H.M. Queen Elizabeth II, 1971". I should like my hon. Friend to support these proposals and ideas and that this would make it possible for another plaque to be put up saying "Freed from tolls by Bill Rodgers and John Horam". This is our hope and it is my hon. Friend's opportunity. I hope that he will begin to make the first moves to remove the Mersey Tunnel tolls.

4.51 a.m.

Mr. Robert Parry (Liverpool, Scotland Exchange)

The case put so clearly this morning by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is unanswerable. Even at this unearthly hour I pledge my full support to the points he has made. The Chairman of the Mersey Tunnel Committee, Councillor Hugh Carr, an ex-colleague of mine on Liverpool City Council and a constituent of mine, has asked for the full support of all Merseyside Members for my hon. Friend. I am certain that he has the support of all Merseyside Members from this side of the House. I am speaking as a Liverpool Member. The Liverpool sides of the two tunnels are in my constituency. I speak also as Chairman of the Merseyside Parliamentary Labour Group.

Over the last couple of years many of my colleagues from the group have taken part in many meetings and delegations to Cabinet Ministers. I believe that the Prime Minister is the only Cabinet Minister we have never met. In the few minutes at my disposal can I beg my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to take the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby and to consider them? We on Merseyside need support from the Government. In the present economic position we need any moral boost, any boost at all, which can help us and I hope that he will bring these points to the attention of the Secretary of State.

4.53 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) for giving me the opportunity to clarify the Government's attitude to the charging of tolls on crossing like the Mersey tunnel. I know his great concern and that of my other hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) who has also spoken this evening, or rather this morning, about these matters of long standing concern. I respect the diligence with which my hon. Friend for Liverpool, West Derby has prepared his case and his willingness to make the points clear to me so that there can be no doubt where we stand.

I hope that if nothing else happens as a result of his long efforts they will put up a small plaque to him and our hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange at the entrance to the tunnel for their efforts during these long years towards making the tunnel toll-free. He may know that apart from the fact that the Secretary of State was born in Liverpool I was born in Preston and spent a long time in Southport, and know the tunnel well because I have friends and relatives in the Wirral.

I shall not be commenting, as such, on the application for a toll increase, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has only just received as a formal application. He will want to consider all the arguments before making any judgment upon it.

There are some points of general application that I want to make and that I hope hon. Friends will find helpful. I shall also try to answer the specific questions that my hon. Friends have asked.

Perhaps I can begin by setting the tunnels in context. The Mersey Tunnel is one of six major English estuary crossings built this century. The others are the Dartford and Tyne Tunnels, the Severn and Tamar Bridges, and the new bridge over the Humber estuary, which should be opened early in 1979. All are toll crossings. All except Severn, which is a trunk road motorway bridge, are at present run by local authorities. Changes in tolls are subject to my right hon. Friend's approval. Toll levels are related to the cost of repaying with interest the loans raised to finance construction of the crossing and of operation and maintenance. For the Mersey and Dartford Tunnels, where in each case a second tunnel has been provided to increase capacity, the two tunnels are taken together for revenue purposes.

Tolls are, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, still an exception on the road system. We have not developed an extensive system of tolled motorways like some of our continental colleagues. The only other parts of the road system which are tolled are the 40 or so minor toll roads and bridges, mainly in private hands, which survive from the last century, and projects like the Itchen Bridge in Southampton. But that does not mean that the rest of the road system is free. There is no way in which we can have any of our roads or, for that matter, any of the transport system for nothing. The only question is: who pays—the taxpayer, the ratepayer, or the user?

Estuarial crossings are tolled—whether they are part of the national motorway network, as at Severn, or on local roads, as at Mersey—because they offer exceptional benefits for which it is thought right that the user should pay. That is the real principle behind the longstanding practice.

I do not think that anyone on Merseyside would deny the enormous benefits that the linking of the two sides of the estuary has produced. Estuaries create major natural obstacles to travel. Without a bridge or tunnel, those living on either side must use a ferry or make a major detour inland. The latter will be both time-consuming and expensive.

Before the Severn Bridge was built, for instance, a motorist waiting to go from Bristol to South Wales had to make a detour of 60 miles. At the Mersey it would be about 25 miles. Ferry services are better than nothing, but they are not easily adapted to meet the convenience of everyone. Their capacity is necessarily limited. Timetables cannot suit every traveller.

By contrast, a purpose-built crossing is almost always "available on demand" at whatever time the journey is conveniently undertaken. It offers the shortest and most convenient route from one side to the other with substantial savings in time and cost to the traveller.

But convenience and benefit of this kind are also very costly, as my hon. Friend will be aware. Successive Governments, at least for the last 50 years—my hon. Friend will know better than I what happened before then—have taken the view, and Parliament has endorsed it, that users ought to pay for them directly.

I do not think that the case is in any way weakened by the argument advanced by my hon. Friend that tolls should also be charged on non-estuarial crossings or motorways which are no less beneficial to users and often no less expensive in total cost, if not in cost per mile. I should not deny that the theoretical case for direct charging is just as good in those instances. But we cannot be blind to the practicalities. The Blackwall Tunnel and the Avon Bridge, both frequently quoted cases, are not tolled because they are too near other untolled alternative crossings. Any charge at one and not others would inevitably divert some traffic, and it would make no sense to push drivers off the suitable crossings on to unsuitable ones.

The same is true, on a larger scale, of motorway tolls. Successive Ministers of Transport have considered them and successive Ministers have, after weighing the arguments, rejected them. There is much to be said for them. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Transport is on record, albeit 18 years ago, as being a supporter of tolls, because they contribute directly to the undeniably high costs of motorway construction. But to introduce tolls on a network now largely complete would involve very high costs in the installation of equipment and construction of toll plazas, increase the amount of land required and be very expensive to operate, not least because of the frequency of access points. Perhaps the most important argument against tolling motorways is the danger of diverting traffic back on to the roads which the motorways are designed to replace.

A more serious objection, to which I would give greater weight if it could be substantiated, is the danger of tolls preventing estuarial crossings, such as the Mersey Tunnel, producing all the benefits that they could.

It is sometimes argued—I think that I detected a note of this in my hon. Friend's argument—that tolls are a barrier to the proper development of the region and that they inhibit commercial, cultural and social contact between the areas that they link. However, there is no strong evidence that this is necessarily the case.

For example, in relation to other costs of operating vehicles, such as the fuel and maintenance costs for heavy lorries, or the costs of other forms of transport, tolls at all crossings have been relatively low. Here I am thinking, in the case of Merseyside, of the underground railway and the cost of a ticket on that. It does not seem that the tolls, which my hon. Friend rightly quoted as 20p for a car, are necessarily excessive. I wonder whether, in fact, if they were increased, as the Merseyside County Council is asking, there would be a substantial diversion of traffic.

It seems in many instances—and I can certainly cite one, the Tyne Tunnel, putting on my Geordie hat—that the problem is the capacity. It is the problem with the Mersey Tunnel, which is why we had the second crossing. There is certainly some doubt about the evidence in that instance, and I recognise that this is an important point.

Against that background, let me turn to the particular case at Mersey. When the first Mersey Tunnel opened in the 1930s the toll for cars was is 6d. In today's money that is about 50p. The toll is now 20p, and the county council is now proposing that it should be raised to 25p. If one cares to think of a comparison for example, I do not recall offhand what the cost of one stop on the Mersey Underground would be, but on the London Underground it is about 10p, so we are talking of going right across the Mersey for 20p or, under the new proposal, 25p. One stop on the London Underground is 10p, so I do not think that the costs are all that far out.

Before tolls were last increased, in November 1975, the county council came to us for financial assistance. The debts that the council had incurred were growing and the council believed that it had a case for Government subsidy—which again my hon. Friend has deployed this morning. The arguments that the council put forward were very much those expressed by my hon. Friend—the alleged unfairness of tolls and what was seen as an unreasonable burden on users. Those arguments were very carefully considered.

The then Minister explained fully at the time that he thought that the tunnel finances could be brought back on to a sound footing with reasonable toll increases, and that he saw no case for departing from the principle that the motorists and goods vehicle operators who now use the tunnel should pay for the expensive facilities provided for them. That is precisely what the Mersey legislation provides and the principle that the Mersey authorities established when they sought parliamentary approval of, and Government loans towards, the construc- tion of two tunnels. It is the principle that the Government still stand by.

My hon. Friend asked me whether I would visit Merseyside and meet the tunnel users. I thank him for the invitation. I certainly hope that I shall be able to take it up at some time. I appreciate, too, his concern for the tunnel users. However, I do not think that it would be right for me to meet the tunnel users, who after all represent only one of the groups who have an interest in the financial state of the tunnel—ratepayers, too, have an interest—at this particular stage of an application for a toll increase. Any intended increase will have to be formally advertised in due course. Users will then have an opportunity to put their views forward, and they will be given our full attention.

Nor do I see any reason to call together all tolled crossing authorities. My Department keeps in close touch with all the authorities and knows the circumstances of each case. We are always very willing to discuss any particular problems—as we are, indeed, tonight. The general principles on which we operate are clearly laid down by the relevant legislation and are in our view quite appropriate, for the reasons that I have generally advanced.

However, I shall be happy to meet representatives of Merseyside County Council in due course, if that seems desirable to them and to my hon. Friend. to discuss their applications—

Mr. Ogden

By 31st March, before the deadline.

Mr. Horam

Well, that is the point. At whatever time seems appropriate, in the light of this discussion, I shall be happy to meet them to discuss their applications for toll increases and for an extension of their powers of interest-capitalisation which are the two immediate issues. But we have only just received the council's formal application and my Department and the council have a fair amount of groundwork to go over before any discussions with my hon. Friend and his colleagues would be fruitful. We must be clear on the facts before we can take any view of the merits of this particular application for a toll increase.

I think that I have covered all the points that my hon. Friend has raised. I salute again his tenacity in raising this matter at this unearthly time in the morning. I am sure that it will be well noticed on Merseyside. I hope that we shall come to some sensible conclusions when, and if, we eventually meet on this topic.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Five o'clock a.m.