---

Mr. Miller: I agree entirely that there needs to be a contingency arrangement. It is particularly important in the context of safety—the safety of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend when travelling through the tunnel and that of the people who work in it. That is a mission critical. Is she saying that those contingency arrangements would extend to the inability of the passenger transport authority to balance its books on some other service?

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me an opportunity to clarify the situation. If there were exceptional circumstances, regardless of how they were arrived at, the matter would be referred to a public inquiry. At that point, I believe that the merits of the arguments put forward to substantiate an increase would be roundly discussed. We cannot prejudge what those unforeseen circumstances might be, but in the case of managerial neglect, huge criticisms would be made of the sponsor and justifiably so. I suspect that they would be told to look for alternative means to balance budgets.

Stephen Hesford: This has been a curious little debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) was expansive—if he gets his way, it will also be expensive for my constituents. He said that if one knows something about public finances, one always needs a fall-back position. I do not believe that that is an accurate statement of general public finance, but it appeared to be his point.

I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). It is my constituents who are more likely to have to pay for those contingencies. Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear in the general debate. When trying to understand what might be the nature of the unforeseen circumstances, there is no substitute for considering what has happened. One of the tunnels has been in existence for 70 years and the other since 1968. None of those unforeseen safety problems has arisen. Perhaps, I did not make it sufficiently clear that, according to my information, one of the tunnels is registered as the safest and the other as the third safest in the country.

I am profoundly not persuaded by the safety argument. It is suggested that some such situation may

29 Oct 2003 : Column 389

arise. Do the promoters not have something called insurance? Are they not insured for such things? Is not insurance designed to insure against unforeseen things? That is a rhetorical question, because the insurance industry exists for that purpose.

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend has a way with words: to describe my speech, which was four minutes long, as expansive, having spoken for 28 minutes himself, seems an odd use of the English language. For the sake of the record, given the argument that he is now using, can he tell me the last time he was able to insure against a terrorist disaster?

Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but he knows, as I do, that those parts of the country that suffer from terrorist activity receive Government funding—for example, when Manchester was rebuilt—so I am afraid that he makes a very bad point.

Mr. Howarth rose—

Stephen Hesford: No. My hon. Friend has had his chance. He makes a seriously bad point because the idea that some terrorist atrocity would be paid for by such a procedure is nonsense.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend argued, until I intervened, that insurance could cover all contingencies. When it was pointed out that it cannot, he changed his argument. He cannot have it both ways.

Stephen Hesford: Terrorism will not be paid for by such a procedure. When I made that point, my hon. Friend nodded because it is an obvious point. Let us not overplay this. Let us not be stupid about the idea that there is a prospect of terrorism in the Mersey tunnels; there is not. Let us not go too far down that road.

Mr. Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Hesford: No.

I described this as a curious little debate because of the frequent references to the unforeseen nature of the circumstances. I have dealt with the idea that people can insure against risk. I have dealt with the idea of terrorism. When my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) was asked whether there were any other circumstances, the answer was no. There are no other circumstances in which she could envisage the procedure being used. Therefore, in my submission—whether the House agrees with me I know not—I have heard nothing to persuade me that clause 92 needs to stay in the Bill.

Given the way the debate has been organised—that has been aired already—I do not intend to press amendments Nos. 33 and 34 to the vote tonight. Those arguments will go to another place, as has been indicated. I am sure that those in the other place will read with interest the report of this curious little debate, and I hope that their lordships will have some sympathy with my argument about clause 92. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

29 Oct 2003 : Column 390

Schedule 2

Further Amendment of the 1980 Act

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 24, leave out 'in the vicinity of' and insert 'adjacent to.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With 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. Chope: These 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.

Bob Spink: Fat chance.

Mr. Chope: As 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"?

29 Oct 2003 : Column 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 be

"otherwise 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-Thomas: I 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 Spink: In 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-Thomas: The 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

29 Oct 2003 : Column 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."

---