| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this we may take amendment No. 34, in page 7, line 45, leave out
- 'or Section 92 (Further revision of tolls)'.
We are trying to deal with overkill. The amendments would make the Bill honest. The measure is currently dishonest because it is a con perpetrated on the people of Merseyside, especially the people of the Wirral—my constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and, in a wider sense, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).
However, we are considering a wider Merseyside issue. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was right to remind us of the consultation exercise. It made me recall the Mersey tunnels' current financial position. I am not talking about fantasy finance; I shall read out Merseytravel's comments on the Mersey tunnels' finances in the consultation document, which has already been mentioned. Paragraph 2.3 states:
- "The Tunnels are currently breaking even financially, i.e. the toll income is sufficient to meet annual operating costs of about £12 million, debt (capital financing) charges of £13 million, and refurbishment (safety and renewal) costs of about £7 million. The debt charges stem from the use of borrowing to finance the cost of constructing the Wallasey Tunnel (£44 million), and subsequent operating losses incurred between 1968 and 1992 (£116 million). The current volume of debt outstanding is about £106 million, which is being repaid at the rate of about £4.5 million per annum together with interest charges of about £8.5 million."
A group that has been formed in my constituency and elsewhere to look at the finances of the Mersey tunnels has carried out some research. I am grateful to the group—and in particular to Mr. McGoldrick—for furnishing me and my hon. Friends with certain information. On the question of safety, the group found that the Eurotest 2002 report rated the Wallasey tunnel the safest of those tested in Britain, and that the Birkenhead tunnel was the third safest. That could put to bed the idea that there needs to be access to extra funds, certainly for that purpose.
Mr. George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give the House some more information about the group that has provided him with that research? Specifically, will he tell us what its members' qualifications for making these assertions are?
Stephen Hesford: I do not think that it would be helpful for me to go down that particular road, attractive though the question is. Those on whose behalf my hon. Friend speaks—if I may put it that way—know very well who these people are, and he knows very well that they know that. They have had substantial correspondence with the group.
Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the principal qualification of the group's members for making these statements is that they are users of the tunnel and that, as such, they make representations to the passenger transport authority? Would it not be good if—in these circumstances, if in no others—the authority were, for once, to listen?
Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. The principal qualification of the group's members is that they are users of the tunnels, and as users—and, indeed, as taxpayers—they have tried hard to seek basic information from Merseytravel so that they can understand the situation better and make a genuine and dispassionate observation of the finances of the operation. They found, however, that those responsible for keeping that information were not forthcoming; they said that it was like getting blood out of a stone. It is wrong of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) to ask what their qualifications are. They are simply users trying to understand the situation as best they can.
Mr. George Howarth: I am mystified as to why this is such a big secret. My hon. Friend says that I know who these people are, and he knows who they are, but no one else is to be given this information. Would it not be sensible, if my hon. Friend is praying in aid a group that has provided information, that he should tell us who its members are? He knows that these minutes will be read in another place and that people will expect to be told exactly what the qualifications of those providing that information are.
5.15 pm
Stephen Hesford: The group calls itself the Mersey Tunnel Users Association, which answers my hon. Friend's question, a blind alley down which I am sure he did not take me purposely.
Why do we need a twin-track approach? The operators of the Mersey tunnel can use the section 92 procedure to raise tolls, a matter that the House has discussed previously. Curiously, while asking for a further toll-raising measure, the operators are also seeking to use the old procedure. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, there will be a public inquiry on that soon.
Current practice can deal with increasing tolls, but the Bill's promoter seeks to retain the section 92 power—I am seeking to remove it—while having the new, more flexible power that can raise money more easily. I ask a simple question that the promoter has so far not even bothered to address; why does it need both?
If the promoter is sure that the new system will provide flexibility—with a 10p toll rise every three years—without a public inquiry, fine. I am against it having the new power, but why does it need the existing power as well? If the Bill becomes law and the promoter can raise the funds that it thinks it can—bearing in mind that the tunnel, as I said, is breaking even—why does it need the fallback position? It adds insult to injury for it to have both.
In an ideal world, I would want the Bill to go away, and that we left in place the current system, which is being used successfully to increase tolls at the moment. I suspect that my wish will not be granted, and the House must deal with the point about section 92.
It is not as though the Secretary of State—his assistance must be sought—after having a public inquiry to raise money has ever disappointed anyone. When people went to the Secretary of State under the old system seeking the money to secure the finances of the tunnels, their request was always acceded to. It was never refused. Indeed, the point needs to be reiterated, so I do so. The tunnel tolls have never been denied under what I call the old, or the current, system. Clearly, it works well, because if it did not, the tolls would not be in financial equilibrium. Under existing legislation, the terms are broadly for the tunnel to break even—to pay its way, so that eventually the running costs, the debt and other costs are paid off and the tunnels become free.
Of course, there is another element of my objection to the re-enactment of section 92, which would provide for the current system and the new system. I look forward to a response, which we did not have in the previous debate—[Interruption.] I hear a sotto voce indication that there might be a response this time, and I am pleased about that. I look forward to it, if it comes. It seems objectionable because I have not had an answer to the basic question, "Why both?" Is it because the Bill's promoter has a suspicion that the new system that it wants will somehow not be effective? Does it think that something will go wrong with it? If so, I would be interested to know what that might be.
I am sure that the House would also want to know if it is passing a measure whose promoter believes that there is an inherent probability of something going wrong or an element of mismanagement. I do not mean purposeful mismanagement, but a problem inherent in the system. The system might throw up a set of circumstances that requires the promoter to use a fallback position to raise extra cash.
In opting for the new fast-track procedure, as I call it, to raise money more easily, the promoter has criticised the current system as old-fashioned, cumbersome, dated and responsive to an era that has now gone. I believe that those criticisms still exist, so is it not strange that the promoter wants to keep such an archaic system? Why does it envisage that, at some as yet unspecified time and in some unspecified circumstances—the promoter says that its fears are genuine, so they must be—the despised old-fashioned system will be used?
The promoter calls the current system into question, but it remains on the statute book, even though for one
purpose it hates it. It wants the House to believe that it is useless and works against the people of Merseyside and the Mersey tunnels in general, but it wants it to stay on the statute book to use as a fallback position, with all the problems that it acknowledges that it has. Those problems include requirements to publicise the matter in the newspapers, to go to the Secretary of State and to hold a public inquiry. That causes delays and means that the promoter does not get the money when it needs it.I have said that I do not understand why there are two parallel systems for raising money. The current, criticised system is the fallback position, and it takes a long time. What is the rationale for retaining it?
I and my constituents could understand the Bill better if it contained one simple proposition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has dealt with elements of the Bill, such as insulation, so I shall not discuss them. My constituents might be more sympathetic if the Bill stated that we need a new system because the current one gets gummed up and does not work, and is an old-fashioned and expensive waste of time. That is a simple proposition that we could all understand, but that is not what we are faced with.
Why do we need to keep section 92? That is my simple question. I do not understand why the Bill contains that provision.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is listening with care to my speech. We have not heard from either the promoter or the Government about this matter. From the point of view of business management, the Government want the Bill to go through today, as this is the third or fourth time that it has been discussed on the Floor of the House. The Bill is like a bad penny that keeps coming back. The Government want it to get through, and they will use the heavy hand of whipping to ensure that that happens. The fact that the debate is not time limited means that the business will almost certainly go through in the manner that they envisage.
I oppose the Bill and so do not find the Government's approach attractive, but there is more to it than that. I do not believe that the Government have not read the Bill and do not know what it is about. In fact, I know that that is not the case, as a delegation of which I was a member met the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), and talked about it face to face. The Government know what the Bill is about.
I have addressed my propositions to the Bill's promoter and to the House in general. I hope that the House has some sympathy with what I have said, but I now address my comments to the Government.
What is the Government's logic in this matter? The rules laid down in the original Act are currently being used by the Bill's promoter to raise the tunnel charges. In one way or another, those rules have been used successfully for about 70 years. What are the Government sanguine about, given that the Bill wants not just the new fast-track procedure but the retention of the current procedure as a back-up? If they are, in fact, not sanguine about the use of two parallel tax-raising measures, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us now.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |