| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Chope: Surely the point that the hon. Lady has just made is dealt with in proposed new subsection (3).
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Yes, 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. Chope: Well, 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."
- "the vicinity of the approaches",
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-Thomas: I 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
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 be trees that have preservation—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will have to content herself with one example.
Mr. Chope: I 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 odd—this 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. McNulty: I 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 be 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. Chope: I 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.
6.9 pm
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I 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
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.
6.11 pm
Dr. Pugh: Of 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 be 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 Hesford: With 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. Pugh: I 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 Chapman: The 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. Pugh: I am not trivialising any cost on industry, but I do not think that other hon. Members or I have
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |