§ Mr. ChopeI beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 24, leave out 'in the vicinity of' and insert 'adjacent to.'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we may take amendment No. 21, in page 9, line 34, leave out
'Except when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section or otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances.'.
§ Mr. ChopeThese are, by nature, probing amendments, and I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) realises that the essence of a probing amendment is that an hon. Member asks questions in the hope that some answers will be forthcoming.
§ Mr. ChopeAs my hon. Friend says, on the basis of experience so far today, there is a fat chance of that. I hope that there is a better chance than that, because almost everyone involved with the Bill is agreed that its best part is the proposal to provide insulation. The explanatory memorandum says that the fourth purpose is
to allow the Authority to undertake and finance noise insulation work to properties adjacent to the Kingsway Tunnel's approach roads.I therefore cannot understand why the Bill uses not the words "adjacent to", but the expression "in the vicinity of". I wonder whether the hon. Lady, as the Bill's sponsor, could explain—it does not have to be at great length—why the definition in the explanatory memorandum seems to be narrower than the Bill; or perhaps it is not narrower. I tabled amendment No. 20 to ensure consistency between the explanatory memorandum and the Bill.I hope that the hon. Lady can also respond to amendment No. 21, which I also tabled. It deals with the exceptions where noise insulation works and grants cannot be carried out. My amendment would remove the qualification from the beginning of proposed new section 109A(4) of schedule 2, which says:
Except when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section".I should have thought that that was obvious and need not be stated in the Bill.I am conscious of the fact that the hon. Lady is now taking instructions on that. The amendments were tabled probably the best part of four or five months ago, so I am surprised that, even after that time, Merseytravel's resources could not be used to communicate with me directly or to speculate on why I had tabled them. At least the hon. Lady is now taking instructions, for which I am grateful.
Why does proposed subsection (4) include the expression
when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section"?391 It goes on to say:or otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances".Using such words gives a subjective veto the people who provide those grants, so could the hon. Lady give us one or two examples of where such work might beotherwise inappropriate in the circumstances".If she cannot explain that, perhaps she will accept amendment No. 21, which would remove that part of schedule 2.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasI shall respond to the two probing amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). With regard to the words used, he is right to note that there is a difference between the words "vicinity" and "adjacent", but, of course, vicinity can mean adjacent. In drafting the Bill, every care has been taken to ensure that the people, communities and properties that need to be afforded noise insulation receive that insulation, and they will do so because they are in the vicinity of or in proximity to the noise source.
§ Bob SpinkIn Committee, hon. Members asked for maps that would identify the houses that might benefit from the insulation work. Although some maps were available, it was not clear which houses would be included and which would not and how the phrase "vicinity of" would be defined. It could be defined in a number of ways. Has any map been produced? Have those houses been identified?
§ 6 pm
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasThe hon. Gentleman will be aware that extensive legislation exists with regard to noise, the emission of noise and tolerable levels of noise. I have utter confidence that Merseytravel will seek to ensure that those properties that are substantially disturbed by noise receive the protection for which my hon. Friends have argued.
The second probing amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) introduces the words:
Except when to do so would be inconsistent… or…inappropriate in the circumstances".We can all envisage circumstances in which it might not be possible to introduce noise insulation. For obvious reasons, the space might not be available—noise insulation is not just a matter of a few millimetres of board adhered to property. Appropriate noise insulation to a good standard today will invariably mean a structure that needs a base on which to stand and extensive panels, and I am not sure—I do not know every property to which the provision may offer Protection—whether all those properties would be able to accommodate that, or, importantly, whether the solution offered to address the problem will be wanted. I have had noise insulation installed in my constituency and the response from various constituents to what was offered varied enormously. There were those who were 392 prepared to accept significant structures that did the job of preventing noise and others who said, "Thank you, but I prefer to leave things as they are."
§ Mr. ChopeSurely the point that the hon. Lady has just made is dealt with in proposed new subsection (3).
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasYes, it has been addressed in proposed new subsection (3), but I am trying to illustrate that the Bill seeks to accommodate factors that cannot be foreseen at the time, and that is right and proper. Frequently, circumstances arise that could not have been predicted, but the provision would accommodate such an event.
§ Mr. ChopeWell, the hon. Lady has not explained why the wording in the explanatory memorandum refers to properties "adjacent to" the Kingsway tunnel, whereas the wording in schedule 2 refers to properties
in the vicinity of the approaches to the Kingsway Tunnel.She has not explained the conflict between those two. If we were talking aboutthe vicinity of the approaches",why was that not included in the explanatory memorandum? I hear what she says, however. No doubt some intolerant Labour Members will think that this discussion is rather pedantic, but the essence of scrutiny is to ask such questions when there are inconsistencies between what is said in the explanatory memorandum and what is contained in the wording of the Bill.The hon. Lady has not dealt with the point about not including in legislation what is obvious—clearly, if there is already an inconsistency with the provisions of the section, grants cannot be made. The important point relates to exceptions to the circumstances in which the authorities shall determine the eligibility for noise insulation work. That is an issue of eligibility. Is she saying that the essence of eligibility is that it is dependent on whether insulation work can be fitted into the particular dwelling? I find that hard to comprehend. She then said that the nature and extent of the work should be determined by the authority, which would normally take into the account the points that she has made. Under proposed new subsection (4), however, the authority should not look at the nature and extent of such works if it was otherwise inappropriate to do so. The wording does not therefore seem to deal with the situation that she describes.
I am therefore a little suspicious. It seems to me that such a catch-all phrase could result in people who think that they will benefit from noise insulation works finding out in due course that they will not benefit, and that the authority will rely on the small print in the schedule. As the noise insulation work seems to be the most sensible part of the Bill—it may be changed in the other place—it is regrettable that the wording seems to suggest that there may be scope for monkey business on the part of its promoter.
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasI assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention to execute any monkey business, to use his words. I am convinced that Merseytravel will welcome the opportunity to address what is a long-standing issue for many residents in and around the tunnels. I also know, as someone who has 393 been involved in installations of all sorts, in many different circumstances, that occasionally there are circumstances that preclude one from doing what one wants. For example, I might ask what opportunity exists to do something for properties that are in the immediate vicinity of the Mersey tunnels, are on a precipice and exist right on the edge of an area. I do not know exactly what the circumstances are, but the geographical or geological nature of the area might preclude conventional noise insulation being used. I am sure that, in those circumstances, the Bill's promoter would look creatively at other solutions to addressing that problem. There may he trees that have preservation—
§ Mr. ChopeI am grateful to the hon. Lady for such a full explanation in her intervention. All that I can say is that it might be appropriate—rather than inappropriate—to consider this issue in more detail in the other place. It seems oddߞthis is not a criticism of the hon. Lady, as she does not get paid anything extra for doing this—that the Bill's promoter, who is paid large sums of money, has not been able to supply fuller instructions to her for dealing with these amendments, notice of which was given months ago.
§ Mr. McNultyI simply want to say that perhaps the hon. Gentleman's first amendment should be pursued in another place. It would worry me more if a narrower definition were in the Bill rather than in the explanatory memorandum. I take his point, however, that there should be consistency between the two. That should he explored. My only other small point on the second amendment is that, if we turn to the next page of the Bill, it needs to be seen in the context of empowering the authority to carry out such works under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975. The inconsistencies with this section and the words "inappropriate in the circumstances" all relate back to the noise regulations, and not to whether the authority should do the work or otherwise.
§ Mr. ChopeI am grateful to the Minister for getting to his feet and participating in the debate, and for recognising, certainly in relation to the first amendment, that there may be a point worth considering further in future. We are making progress, albeit right at the end of the Report stage. In the light of the Minister's words, it might be in the spirit of the occasion if I were to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ 6.9 pm
§ Mrs. Curtis-ThomasI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is with much relief that I speak on Third Reading. I am reminded that it took God only seven days to create the Earth, and my constant inadequacy is borne out by the fact that it has taken many hundreds of days to get the Bill through the House thus far.
I am immensely grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in the Bill's progress, and especially the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who 394 chaired the Committee on Unopposed Bills. I am also grateful for the work of the promoter and the support that it has given to me.
The essence of the Bill will bring a problem that has existed for a long time to a head, because obtaining rate increases for the tunnels on Merseyside has been a slow and expensive process. I hope that the Bill will receive support in the other place because it will save the promoter a lot of time and money. The promoter intends to continue to manage the tunnels effectively and efficiently.
I suppose that I must acknowledge the fact that the Bill has been divisive in our region and that some hon. Members have supported it fully while others have not. However, I hope that we have reached an understanding and that we can respect each other's views. I thank the House for its indulgence.
§ Dr. PughOf course, this debate is the major political event of the day, and I shall be the first person to say that there is now light at the end of the tunnel. The passage of the Bill has been an absolute marathon. Hours have been spent on it and at times the process has been like pulling teeth, although I think that pulling teeth is a great deal quicker. The Bill's opponents have given us an impression of how arduous and lengthy the process to get a toll increase under the correct procedure must be, if robust opposition exists. Everything that can be said about the Mersey Tunnels Bill has been said in the House of Commons, although I suspect that it is likely to he repeated in the House of Lords.
In essence, the Bill puts in place a rational method of fixing tolls. It is linked to a forward-looking transport and environmental policy, and it promises no penal costs. When I went through the tunnel the other day, I was surprised that it cost only £1.20—it was an excellent ride, I have to say. If one compares that charge with the tax on my petrol, it does not form a significant element of my transport budget.
§ Stephen HesfordWith respect to the hon. Gentleman and on behalf of my constituents, I resent his sentiments. He does not use the tunnels every day, but my constituents do. The tolls represent significant costs for them, but he speaks in favour of heaping more costs on them.
§ Dr. PughI said that if one compares the cost of the tolls with the taxation that the hon. Gentleman's Government impose on his constituents' petrol, it represents a small element of their travel costs, which is a slightly different point.
§ Mr. Ben ChapmanThe cost might be a small factor in that respect but it is a large factor when one considers Merseyside's economy. To the best of my knowledge, our conurbation is the only one with a major toll route. Although the toll is only £1.20 for a car, the toll for a lorry is in the order of £8. That represents a serious taxation on our economy and creates a disincentive for people to invest in the area. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is wrong to try to trivialise that?
§ Dr. PughI am not trivialising any cost on industry, but I do not think that other hon. Members or I have 395 heard people saying that they will not invest in the area because there is a toll on the Mersey tunnels. The tolls have existed for years. Labour Members who oppose the Bill do not wish to wipe the tolls away but argue for an arcane system of fixing them.
§ Mr. ChapmanWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Dr. PughI shall continue, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The Bill incorporates safeguards against high penal tolls. Furthermore—this is the key point for many Merseyside Members who support the Bill—it will abolish for ever the prospect of council tax payers having to subsidise the tunnels, which they have done and could otherwise easily do again.
Three arguments of substance have been made throughout the Bill's passage. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) argues that it represents a betrayal of some kind because it has been agreed from time immemorial that the tunnels will eventually be free to use. However, we cannot be bound by the decisions of our ancestors, and no one expects us to. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) argues that the Bill will lead to damage to the local economy appearing on the horizon because of the prospect of unreasonably high charges. However, to be fair, many people—individual travellers, if not those driving lorries—have alternatives to the tunnels because they could use the excellent Trio system or ferries. In any case, the Bill rules out the prospect of high toll increases because if the suggested increase were above the retail prices index—an increase in line with the RPI is not unreasonable—the matter would go to the Government and the Secretary of State. I am sure that the Minister would say that no Secretary of State would impose charges on Merseyside that would be penal and damaging to its economy.
The third argument that has been put capably by several hon. Members is that the Bill will create a system of cross-subsidy. I accept that, but I do not think that any hon. Member who supports that argument would extend its principle throughout the economy. They do not argue that all money raised from road tax or fuel duty by the Government should be put directly into roads. Their position is not consistent, so the argument is entirely ad hoc.
§ Mr. Frank FieldWe have been trying to make the point that if there is unfairness in the tax system as well as fairness, that operates universally throughout the economy. We are insistent that it is unfair for some people in Merseyside to be taxed at a higher rate than others because of where they live. We object to the selective nature of the tax.
§ Dr. PughI accept that that is a refinement of the argument and a perfectly defensible response to what I said. However, few hon. Members would argue that cross-subsidy should not apply at any time because it must be appropriate in some circumstances.
396 There is no Liberal Democrat line on the Bill. I am speaking for myself and Liberal Democrats will agree with me only if they think that what I say is correct. The three substantial arguments that have been made have been debated at almost interminable length.
§ Stephen HesfordThe hon. Gentleman says that there is no Liberal Democrat line on the Bill but, with respect, there is. Like him, I have sat through all our debates. I have watched the way in which his senior colleagues have come out of the woodwork to go through the Lobby to vote at his behest. There is a Liberal Democrat line on the Bill.
§ Dr. PughThat was entirely due to my persuasive talents rather than any whipping. There are no good arguments against the Bill, so we should support it.
§ Mr. Frank FieldI hope that many parts of the Bill will be supported in the other place. There is one aspect, however, to which I object most strongly, and all my contributions have centred on that single point. It is outrageous that Merseytravel should try to get a Bill through this House, which will tax my constituents and those of other hon. Members in the Wirral and those areas around the tunnel entrance in Liverpool, so that it can finance travel arrangements for people in the wider region of Merseyside. It is unfair and should not be part of the Bill. I hope that it is removed in the other place.
Government support and whipping power made it inevitable that the Bill will succeed in this place. I hope that the promoters realise, however, that it will not get through the other place if they continue to display the same arrogance. They have been wholly unprepared to meet the main objections. If the Bill goes through unamended in the other place, it will be a tax on the residents of Wirral and the inner areas of Liverpool. If that part is struck out, we will all be able to welcome the remainder passing on to the statute book.
§ Bob SpinkExcept for the noise reduction measures, the Bill is thoroughly bad. It betrays the public and dishonours the House. It denies its original intention, which was clearly set out in the Bill and cannot be cast aside, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) attempted to do. It creates a toll and motoring tax precedent that is unhelpful. There is no doubt that it is a tax-raising measure. That is why the Government adopted it. It is essentially a Government, not a private, Bill.
Indeed, this is a tax-raising measure of the worst kind—a stealth tax. There are four aspects to that. First, it is an indiscriminate tax on jobs in the area. Secondly, it is a regressive tax. Thirdly, there is no representation of the majority of the people who are being taxed and, as such, we should follow the time-honoured principle that there should be no taxation. Fourthly, there is no means of renewing the tax by bringing it back to the House for further consideration. Once given, the tax will exist for ever, unlike taxes imposed by the Chancellor who must renew his taxation policy every year by going through us, the people's representatives. The tax created by the Bill will not be controlled in that way and will not be scrutinised in future.
397 It is a peculiar tax. Although it is to be gathered from a specific activity, it will be applied generally to displace the general taxation that should be used to develop transport policy in the area. It will hit motorists who are already paying £500 a year to use the tunnel daily just so that they can travel within the area in which they live, work and commute. That will damage the local economy.
As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) eloquently said, this so-called private Bill has been taken through the House with great arrogance. A shady and deplorable methodology was used, starting with the withdrawal of the petition without notice, which denied us proper scrutiny. We did not have the ability to shine a light on which houses would, and which houses would not, benefit from the noise reduction. Not many houses are involved in the scheme, which covers only a small area. The promoters could easily have provided a map showing which houses were covered by it. That would have enabled people outside the scheme who would not benefit to get their representatives to explain to the House why they should be inside it. That proper debate, however, was denied when the petition was withdrawn.
Debate was prevented, so we could not probe the Bill's contents and improve it. The way in which the Government have adopted it is deplorable. They have ridden roughshod over the House's fine traditions. I hope that the Lords will severely amend it or throw it out.
§ Mr. Ben ChapmanAs colleagues have said, the Bill will now move forward to another place because it has Government support. We were aware that the Government had abandoned their traditional stance of neutrality some time ago, but we have moved from covert, whispered whipping of the payroll vote to overt organisation of tonight's proceedings in order to get the Bill through the House.
The private Bill and the mechanisms behind it are, as some have said, by nature intended for a private or nongovernmental organisation to obtain its ends for its general benefit. It is not Government business, and that fact places the onus increasingly on this Chamber to subject it to the utmost scrutiny to ensure that the general public are best served by its passage.
As a private Bill is not drafted by a Department, as would be the case with a Government Bill, and it does not draw on the skills of parliamentary draftsmen, a number of checks and balances, whether implicit or explicit, need to be inbuilt into any scrutiny process. Where those do not exist or, as in this case, are removed, the public, our constituents, are not being properly served by those whom they elect to represent their interests. The power of delay and repeated scrutiny is an example of such a check, but when we are faced with the juggernaut that is the combination of Merseytravel and Government support, it is difficult to see how we can resist.
The Merseyside passenger transport authority has the resources and the ability to canvass far and wide, pulling strings and exploiting contacts to attain its ends. It has exploited its contacts and, in some circumstances I am afraid, it has resorted to bullying, not least of the Mersey Tunnel Users Association, and legal or quasi-legal 398 action. That is a doubtful use of public funds, but for the Government also to conspire to disempower an elected Member from representing his or her constituents in this manner is entirely deplorable.
The Bill has not received anything like the degree of scrutiny to which it should be subject, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made that point very eloquently. He also raised the issue of the abortive Opposed Private Bill Committee. I will not restate his points, but the fact is that the rug was unceremoniously pulled out from under the Committee's feet. Grave concerns about the Bill remained after what was in effect, or at least had the appearance of, backroom intrigue. That is a damning indictment of the process on which our constituents rely to be served in the best possible manner. To all intents and purposes, they have been disfranchised, such is the extent to which the opposition to the Bill has been hamstrung, not least this evening.
What is done is done, however, but while disregarding the manner in which the Bill will depart this House, I cannot let it leave for another place without commenting on its terms. This is a deplorable Bill. It will provide the PTA with, in effect, an arbitrary power to raise tolls regardless of circumstances, except for the retail prices index. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said that that will be an effective control, but apart from the fact that there is very little relationship between the needs of the tunnel and the RPI, I must point out that the RPI need not always be at its current level. We could see the poor old tunnel user being charged a massive amount simply on the basis of the RPI.
The PTA will be able to impose increases without any need to justify its reasons for so doing and, as hon. Members have said, that is a privilege that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer would very much like. I am sure, too, that such a power would be far safer in his hands. In my view, Merseytravel is largely unaccountable; it is not directly elected and it is often profligate.
I might feel slightly more comfortable about this enterprise if the Bill contained an efficiency mechanism, but it does not. It strikes me that when council tax rises, for example, are under scrutiny because they are so high, we should focus our attention on increases to which authorities such as this one have contributed and their claims on the council tax payer.
There is little or nothing to hold the Mersey PTA or other PTAs to account; there is no real requirement for them to justify their actions, and there is no direct method by which the general public can remove them from power. Although the PTA does not quite match up to the generally accepted idea of a quango, as its members are elected councillors, its position in the system of government opens it to many of the criticisms often lodged at quangos. PTAs are not effectively responsible to the electorate; their functions sit uneasily with the district council in their area, and they have a number of inherent flaws.
In this instance, the PTA says that it needs the money that will be raised by the Bill, despite the fact that its own projected figures indicate quite the opposite. There is no need for the money at all. It reeks of insincerity to claim that the extra money that will be generated is needed to 399 secure the safety of the tunnels for future generations. If there were specific safety projects that Merseytravel thought necessary, it could apply for toll increases by following the public inquiry route. It certainly does not need the belt-and-braces mechanism that we have heard about.
The real intention of the MPTA in introducing the measure is betrayed by its determination to hold on to the toll increases and the mechanism by which they are executed, even after the standing debt on the tunnels is paid off. It is determined to rake the shallow depths of the tunnel user's pockets, not to make better provision for the tunnels but to finance projects, some of which are speculative. That breaks the promise, as has been said, of countless years' standing to the people of Merseyside that toll levels would one day be based purely on the amount required for the tunnels to be self-sufficient.
I have no objection whatsoever to Merseytravel getting its tramway system, but I object to the tunnel user paying for it. Tram systems have a propensity for going wrong, so I object to the fact that all the people of Merseyside may have to face the consequences. The MPTA's attempts to bolster its argument by speculating that toll rises are necessary to deter commuters from using the tunnels, while arguing in the Opposed Private Bill Committee that it needs to raise tolls in case there is a drop in tunnel patronage, is an example of both sides of the same coin being deployed at the same time. Tunnel usage is largely inelastic and, despite many toll increases, has stayed steady. People have no alternative—the tunnels, as has been said, are their only travel option. Much as one would welcome a further Mersey crossing, it would have little effect on tunnel usage.
Environmental reasons for increasing the tolls have been cited. It is said that the drop in traffic that would supposedly result from regular toll increases would have a positive effect on the environment, as fuel emissions would decrease. That would be true if there were a significant drop, but as matters stand it is a worthless argument. If Merseytravel had serious concerns about the environment it would have considered taking a proactive stance by, for example, offering a schedule of charges under which a not insubstantial discount is offered to vehicles that run on environmentally friendly fuel. However, no such proposals have been made. That is only one option—I am sure that there are many others.
The measure would have a highly deleterious, if not immediately visible, effect on the Merseyside economy, and would seriously inhibit investment. Of course, I welcome the soundproofing proposals for areas at the Wallasey end of the tunnel, and have never objected to the provisions dealing with that in the Bill. However, I greatly regret the fact that that necessary work has been delayed as a result of Merseytravel's determination to push through the more egregious parts of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Southport said that we were coming to the end of a marathon. It has been a marathon examination but, even so, the Bill has not received the scrutiny that it deserves. It is a bad Bill which is unfair, unwarranted and unwanted. It will have repercussions for the doctrine of taxation without representation and its economic repercussions will 400 spread far beyond Merseyside. The tunnels are not a cash cow to be milked for the benefit of pet projects. If increases are to be introduced, we need a drive for efficiency rather than profitability. We need proper consultation, and it must be taken into account and listened to. Increases require justification, and users, instead of experiencing hindrance, as they appear to have done with the MPTA, should have an input in the process. There must be some right of recourse to examination and scrutiny.
Large sums of money have already been spent in getting the Bill to this stage, but it is still more about raising money and featherbedding than about need. I can only hope that the occupants of another place will see it for what it is; in so doing, they will certainly have my support and encouragement.
§ Mr. George HowarthFirst, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her good temper and patience in bringing the matter this far. She has had to put up with quite a bit, and has done so stoically. I also congratulate the promoter of the Bill on sticking with it, dealing with the many problems that have arisen and being patient with those of us who supported that promoter and asked a great deal from it in terms of information.
To a Merseyside Member of Parliament, it has been an unpleasant experience to have to disagree with colleagues. I specifically highlight my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I am in agreement with them on almost every other occasion, and respect them highly.
It has to be said, though, that the arguments presented against the Bill at this late stage are either fatuous or specious. Let me give a couple of illustrations. Early on in the proceedings, we were treated to the unedifying spectacle of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) invoking the cry of the American revolutionaries, "No taxation without representation!" I shall forgo the obvious temptation to ask why the Member from Castle Point in Essex is criticising a measure that specifically affects voters and users of the tunnel on Merseyside, because he is entitled so to do.
§ Bob SpinkI was asked to chair the private Bill proceedings, so I was witness to the disgraceful conduct of the petition being withdrawn.
§ Mr. HowarthI am well aware of the role that the hon. Gentleman played. My point is that he invoked the cry, "No taxation without representation", while representing a seat in Essex, yet it is my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the Wirral who are affected by the Bill. It was a fatuous argument in any event, because, if he remembers his history aright, that was the cry of locals saying that the centre cannot decide what they have to pay. The hon. Gentleman has got his argument upside down. We are arguing that this matter should be determined locally, not by central Government, as is the case at the moment.
Then we come to the specious. As I say, I have great respect for my hon. Friends, but they keep saying that this is a tax. I do not intend, nor would it be appropriate, 401 for me to go into lengthy discussions about the definition of a tax, but any reasonable definition that I have ever heard does not cover a tunnel toll. My hon. Friends are describing what is effectively a commercial transaction on which many people completely depend. That is a far cry from a tax. The kernel of my argument is this: we are trying to achieve a system whereby the finances of the tunnel are determined locally by the proper authorities through a limited power that enables them to increase tolls only by the retail prices index—in other words, by the rate of inflation. My hon. Friends repeatedly fail to mention what happens when costs increase and the tunnel is not breaking even—I accept that it is now—or not making a small profit. In those circumstances, my constituents, few of whom use the tunnel, have to pay the difference as council tax payers. It has happened in the past and it could happen in future.
The position is even worse. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West also have to pick up the bill. Moreover, the majority of their constituents, who do not use the tunnel regularly, will have to pay the bill in the circumstances that I described. I do not understand why that was not grasped earlier in our proceedings.
§ Mr. Joe Benton (Bootle)My hon. Friend's comments are accurate—the preparations for next year's council tax prove his point. Perhaps he would like to comment on that.
§ Mr. HowarthAs my hon. Friend knows, I greatly value his friendship and wisdom. His wisdom shines through yet again.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) represents everything that we know about the modern Conservative party. Although he has occasionally criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby for inaccuracy—she has been accurate at all times—he generally takes up everyone's cry. If an hon. Member cries, "This is taxation", the hon. Gentleman takes it up. If another hon. Member says, "No taxation without representation", he does not think about or analyse the statement, he simply takes up the cry. Although I have much respect for some of the arguments that have been presented during the Bill's passage, the hon. Gentleman is pathetic.
§ Mr. MillerMy hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) has said most of what I wanted to say so I shall be brief. I have a great regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). We are old friends from many years back—we negotiated matters on both sides of the river that affected airports; we considered the Labour party's manifesto for the 1987 election and more successful manifestos in recent years. However, we fall out on the subject of our debate because of his point about the funding arrangements that prevail.
My constituents regularly use a sub-regional transport infrastructure, which is a mish-mash, owned and managed by different agencies. The missing link is 402 an overall regional strategy to manage transport and make the case, about which my hon. Friend and I agree, for a further Mersey crossing. That needs to be incorporated in a strategic review of the area's transport needs.
I shall reiterate briefly my constituents' principal complaints. Whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, they have to use the tunnel, as he admitted. They have little choice about that. They contribute significantly to the wealth of the region, and therefore have a right to be consulted. That right is currently being denied them, and 1 urge the promoter of the Bill to consider that as it goes on its way through to the other place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South put forward some interesting arguments on the environmental issues. In relation to the London congestion charge, I drive a Vauxhall Vectra, which was made in my constituency, and it runs on liquefied petroleum gas. It is therefore exempt from the charge. There are powerful arguments for introducing similar measures in relation to electric or LPG-powered vehicles in other urban centres, particularly where levies are currently involved. Many similar issues also need to be examined.
Regarding the debate on section 92, I half got the hint from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), but when the Bill is down at the other end of the Corridor, I hope that their lordships will look carefully at the use of that section and seek to amend the Bill to incorporate conditions on the section's application. It is too loosely drawn at present.
I echo the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South. I too am very disappointed that the Bill has got this far, and I hope that it will be substantially amended at the other end of the Corridor, so that we end up with a rational structure that will benefit all the people of the region in which we live, and not just those who are governed on one side of an artificial boundary or the other.
§ Stephen HesfordMy closing remarks are designed for the other place. I want to put it on the record that there was an earlier attempt to introduce a Bill. That Bill failed to come before the House and was then abandoned. I would like their lordships to consider, in the context of the second Bill, that the first Bill tried to privatise the management. The reason for doing that was to bring an element of efficiency to the running of the tunnels. I am pleased that that was abandoned, but we then had the second Bill.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) that this is a bad Bill. It is badly thought out, and a fig leaf in terms of the possibility of bad management in the future. No efficiency mechanism has been built into the Bill in relation to toll-raising powers, and my constituents find that very worrying. I should like to adopt a few of the words that my hon. Friend used, which are central to the argument. The Bill is undoubtedly designed to be a cash cow, in all circumstances and for all time. Again, my constituents will suffer as a result of that. My hon. Friend also mentioned feather-bedding, and I agree with the point that he made about that. I ask the other place to think about that issue. There should be no feather-bedding.
403 The question of efficiency should be addressed, but the Bill does not address the issue of efficient tunnels run for their users by an efficient management.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned clause 92, about which I want to say a few words to the other place. The retention of the section in the Bill as a fallback position is wholly unnecessary. In the previous 70 years, there was only one form of fundraising—outlined in clause92—and there was no fallback position. The tunnels never needed one for any purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) could not think of one example of where the fallback position would be used. There was a curious debate about terrorism, which, frankly, was nonsense. Clause 92 is in the Bill because of feather-bedding.
There has not been an honest debate in the House, although that is not for want of trying on our part. One consistent feature has been the unwillingness of the Bill's promoter to deal with the points put to it at every stage of the Bill. The only item dealt with during the 20 hours or so of debate in this place was not dealt with by the promoter, but by my hon. Friend the UnderSecretary—the question of insulation. That is lamentable when one thinks of the number of hours that we have spent on this issue inside and outside the House. It is not a good advertisement for what the House can do.
We could not stop the Bill and, reluctantly, we bow to the inevitable. It is a bad Bill, and I still oppose it. It is unnecessary; Merseytravel could exist under the current procedures if it was run properly. I ask the other place to consider the elements that we have brought forward.
§ Mr. ChopeThe Bill is provocative and contentious, and it has been quite a spectacle for Conservative Members to watch one Labour Member fighting another on this issue. The promoter has missed a great opportunity to try to reach a compromise. Clearly it believes in bully-boy tactics, and it is no surprise to Opposition Members that it has found allies on the Government Benches.
On the positive side, the debates have illustrated the importance of strong constituency representation. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Members for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on having fearlessly, persistently and at some considerable length deployed the arguments that needed to be deployed on behalf of their constituents. I should like to think that if those seats were represented by Conservative Members, they would have been equally diligent in defending the interests of their constituents. This is a good illustration of why proportional representation and list systems do not work, and deprive constituents of the opportunity of having people speaking out on their behalf in this House.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), said that his party had no line on the Bill, but the hon. Member for Wirral, West put us right, saying that the Liberal Democrats had 404 consistently voted with the Government on the Bill and against the interests of those living on the Wirral peninsula. The hon. Member for Southport would have been right to say that the Liberal Democrats had not yet found a line to explain the inconsistency between their approach to the Bill and their approach to doing away with tolls on the Skye bridge, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the party. Perhaps in due course we will have a line on that.
The Bill was conceived and started on the fallacious argument that it was needed to prevent Merseysiders having to pay a levy for a tunnel that they do not use. It has been demonstrated in the debate that that is mere scaremongering. The Bill does, however, contain powers to raise stealth taxes on tunnel users to subsidise other transport activity in Merseyside. I am afraid that it is classic double-speak, typical of the present Government.
Conservative Members believe in a fair deal for everyone. The Bill is not fair: it is strongly opposed by local Members of Parliament and local people, and it runs contrary to the results of a consultation process. Conservatives will continue to work with others in the other place to ensure that the Bill is substantially improved.
§ Mr. McNultyI have a few brief points. I have been happily involved in the periphery of the Bill—first as Government Whip and now in my current position—and I wish to clarify a few small points.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said that the Bill was a precedent, but I do not see how it is a precedent in any regard. If it is about the ability to set in train regular retail prices index increases, it is certainly not unprecedented: Dartford and the Severn crossing are organised in the same way. If it is about the ability to use any surplus tolls for public transport works, it is not unprecedented because of Dartford again and the Forth system.
It may be a measure of the length of time of the different stages that three Transport Ministers have come and gone—I am the third of the thre—while the Bill has struggled through Parliament. The notion of implementing RPI increases has been put on a more solid footing—it has a double lock on RPI plus increases—which is all to the good. It amounts almost to an adjustment to the existing system rather than the introduction of a new system and a fallback system. I believe that it will work well for those living in the area.
A smaller point—though a major one in terms of substance and the impact on people—is the noise insulation works. It is, on the whole, a good part of the Bill, on which many people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. It is certainly not the Government's job to define expressly in the Bill the houses on which there may be an impact at this particular time. We are talking about a Bill that is longer in duration. I shall double-check the answer, but I think that I was right in what I said earlier about the noise insulation regulations in response to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I explained why there were qualifications in the early part of the process.
People knock the private Bill process—andGovernment Bills more generally—and talk about arrogance, pulling strings or exploiting contracts, but I 405 do not agree with that. The points about honesty or dishonesty were not well made by any hon. Member. From my involvement in the Bill—tangentially or otherwise—I can say that there has been a good deal of honesty on all sides and a good deal of scrutiny ad debate and many well made points.
As I have said before, the Government's position on Third Reading is entirely neutral. The Bill does not counter any element of Government policy, hence our neutrality.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed