| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Chapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Pugh: I 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 Field: We 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. Pugh: I 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.
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 Hesford: The 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. Pugh: That was entirely due to my persuasive talents rather than any whipping. There are no good arguments against the Bill, so we should support it.
6.18 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I 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.
6.19 pm
Bob Spink: Except 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.
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.
6.23 pm
Mr. Ben Chapman : As 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 non-governmental 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
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
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
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |