---

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) intervened a few

9 Jul 2002 : Column 851

moments ago—obviously, the Bill is of great concern to the people of Nottingham—and listed some of the opponents to the Bill.

Is my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) aware of a letter to the Secretary of State for Transport dated 4 July, headed "Mersey Tunnels Bill" and signed by Dave Martin, the leader of Sefton council, Marie Rimmer, the leader of St. Helens council, Jim Keight, the leader of Knowsley council, Steve Foulkes, the leader of Wirral council and, last but by no means least, Joe Anderson, the leader of Liverpool Labour group? Does he think that they have suddenly dreamed up the idea of supporting the Bill, or does he think that they may be representing the communities that we are all sent here to represent?

Mr. Chapman: Of course I am aware of that letter. I am also aware of the opponents to the Bill mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). They include the Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians, the North West Trade Union Congress, Amicus, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union and the Unison members who work in the tunnels rather than in the Merseytravel office.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend mentions the involvement of the AEEU. I am member of the AEEU. Is he sure that he is not confusing one branch of the AEEU with the entire union?

Mr. Chapman: Yes, I am sure that I am not confusing one branch with the entire union. The Bill is opposed by Amicus-AEEU.

Alan Simpson: My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) referred to the interests of the people of Nottingham, South. May I point out that some of us are expatriate scousers by birth—

Mr. Pound: How can you be an expatriate by birth?

Alan Simpson: Sorry, I meant to say that some of us are scousers by birth and expatriate scousers by affliction.

Does my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) accept that the interests of the people of Merseyside are not necessarily expressed by the leaders of the local authorities? Whatever weight he gives to those views, they ought to be set alongside the trade union resolution supported nationally by the TUC, which states:

"local people, who work on the opposite side of the Mersey to which they live, already pay up to £780 per annum for a one-and-three-quarter mile each way journey. In an area of high unemployment and poverty those tolls"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind hon. Members that interventions must be brief.

Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend has covered the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), but he did not mention the fact that the Automobile Association, the Freight Transport Association and many others also object to the Bill.

9 Jul 2002 : Column 852

Let me list the current scale of tolls, because it is worth considering the effect of the Bill's proposals in that light. A charge of £1.20 each way applies to motor cycles with sidecars; three-wheeled vehicles; private or light goods vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight; and passenger-carrying vehicles with seating capacity for fewer than nine persons. The £2.40 each way charge applies to private or light goods vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight with trailer; heavy goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight, with two axles; and passenger-carrying vehicles with seating capacity for nine or more persons, with three axles. The £3.60 each way charge applies to heavy goods vehicles of more than 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight with three axles; and passenger-carrying vehicles with seating capacity for nine or more persons, with three axles. The £4.80 charge applies to heavy goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle weight with four or more axles.

Thus an ordinary motorist in an ordinary car going through the tunnel once each way pays toll charges of £2.40 a day; that is £12 a week, or £600 a year. That strikes me as quite enough to take out of an ordinary person's pocket simply to get to work, or to get to hospital for cancer treatment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said. The fellow with a sidecar, who pays a similar sum, is similarly taxed. For a goods vehicle of 3.5 tonnes with four or more axles, the daily cost of a single return journey is £9.60 but, for argument's sake, let us say that the same lorry from George Henry Lee goes back and forth four or five times day, making the cost £12,000 per annum. If that calculation is applied to all the lorries going through the tunnel, all the people travelling on business from factory to warehouse, from dock to dock, from shop to wholesaler, and from builder to building site, it can be seen that the proposed increases will have a massive effect on the Merseyside economy, which will not be experienced by the economies of other sub-regions which compete with Merseyside.

Alan Simpson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the main dock for exporting goods to Northern Ireland is in Birkenhead? For all those companies that export goods from Liverpool to Northern Ireland or southern Ireland, there will be an inevitable additional cost for moving their goods through the tunnel to the port for export. What estimate has been made of the additional costs of an inflation-led increase in charges on the Merseyside economy?

Mr. Chapman: I fear that I cannot provide a figure, but it would be substantial. As I said, the effect is unique to Merseyside. The passenger transport authority has proposed an increase of 10p every three years, but that may not necessarily be the case. The inflation rate in 1980 was 18 per cent.; in 1981, 11.9 per cent.; in 1982, 8.6 per cent.; in 1983, 4.6 per cent.; in 1984, 5 per cent; in 1985, 6.1 per cent.; in 1986, 3.4 per cent.; in 1987, 4.2 per cent.; in 1988, 4.9 per cent.; in 1989, 7.8 per cent.; in 1990, 9.5 per cent.; in 1991, 5.9 per cent.; in 1992, 3.7 per cent.; in 1993, 1.6 per cent; in 1994, 2.4 per cent.; in 1995, 3.5 per cent.; in 1996, 2.4 per cent.; in 1997, 3.1 per cent.; in 1998, 3.4 per cent.; in 1999, 1.5 per cent.; in 2000, 3 per cent.; and in 2001, 1.8 per cent.

If we took the years 1989 to 1991 and applied the authority's three-year yardstick, the increase would be 29p, not 10p as projected. The increases would therefore

9 Jul 2002 : Column 853

have a massive effect. The projected charges apply to the lowest common denominator—the ordinary vehicle. If they are applied to lorries, the overall increase is much greater. The rise is not necessary, as it does not result from increased operational costs. Charges will certainly not be reduced because of increased operational efficiency. Charges are not determined by a formula, which could provide for negative inflation; increases are made simply because the cost of living has gone up. However, if that is the case, people do not want to pay unnecessary charges. Life is tough enough. We are already taking £600 from the motorist's pocket, so we should give the people who use the tunnels a break and operate the tunnels efficiently. Let us use the revenue raised from the tunnels for the benefit of their users and the Merseyside economy, not for other purposes for which there are alternative sources of funding.

Alan Simpson: If the House agreed to the shift from a cost-based increase in charges to an inflation-based increase in charges, and if there were a war in the middle east later this year that resulted in a dramatic increase in oil prices, would not the charge increases applied to people on Merseyside be based on the increase in petrol charges, as well as on an increase in tunnel charges arising not from costs but from external factors unrelated to the tunnel? If so, how on earth would my hon. Friend justify it?

Mr. Chapman: That is entirely the case. We could be faced with massive increases that had nothing to do with the economy of Merseyside or the operation of the tunnels, but which were due to wholly external factors that could have a massively detrimental effect on the Merseyside economy through the provisions of the Bill. It is not a free lunch. One cannot impose increases on the nod; one must justify them. What is proposed is simply a drive to profitability, and in no sense a drive to efficiency. It is about raising money from the tunnels to use for other purposes.

That is not the end of the matter. According to the formula for index-linked rises, if the formula produces a sum that is neither a multiple of 10p nor an amount which, on division by 10, produces a remainder of 5p, it should be rounded to the nearest 10p; and if it is an amount which, on division by 10, produces a remainder of 5p, it should be increased by 5p. That is a balanced provision, but the fact remains that in some years, under just the basic provisions of the Bill, the rounding provisions could result in an automatic inflation-plus increase, quite apart from the circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) mentioned.

Matters get worse. It is also provided that

"If at any time it is represented in writing to the Secretary of State by the Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority"—

nobody else, just the Merseyside passenger transport authority—

"that in the circumstances then existing or in prospect—


(a) all or any of the tolls fixed by or by virtue of this Act should be increased by more than the increase authorised by subsection (6) of section 91 (Classification of vehicles, level and application of tolls) of this Act, or


(b) any classification of traffic then in force for the purposes of the levying of tolls should be revised".

In other words, in addition to the automatic increase and the possible rounding-up, and on the say-so of the MPTA alone, the Secretary of State may be asked to

9 Jul 2002 : Column 854

increase any of the tolls by more than the increase authorised in the basic provisions of the Act, or to revise the classification of traffic. The chap with the motorbike and sidecar could be paying a different category of charge to that which he is paying at present. The initiative lies purely with the Merseyside passenger transport authority. It is true that the final decision would be with the Secretary of State, but under the terms of the Bill nobody is allowed to ask for a reduction if operating costs go down.

Before the Bill appeared in its present form, I went to see the MPTA, at its request, to discuss the Bill. I said that one might want to consider a formula-based inflation-minus proposal that had a built-in provision for independent reflection on what was proposed, or a proposal that contained constraints and checks to prevent the free-for-all that is proposed in the Bill, or one that had inputs by users, consultation and appeal mechanisms.

I think that the authority must have failed to understand me. The response that it has given in the Bill is to the effect that it will reflect on the increases before applying them. That is the equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas—it is not likely to happen. The Bill states:

"On each occasion that an order is made under section 91 (Classification of vehicles, level and application of tolls) of this Act"—

the County of Merseyside Act 1980—

"the Authority shall consider, having regard to such matters of an economic or social nature within the county of Merseyside as the Authority considers to be relevant—


(a) whether it is necessary or appropriate in relation to any or all classes of traffic to exercise its power in subsection (1)(c) above to reduce tolls or to continue to exercise that power (as the case may be); and


(b) if the Authority considers that it is necessary or appropriate to do so, for how long tolls should be reduced or continue to be reduced."

The authority is the promoter of the Bill. Why should it want to raise money for other projects by imposing unnecessary increases, but then say that it will not need the money after all? The provision makes absolutely no sense.

---