| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.35 pm
Mr. George Howarth: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her good temper and patience in bringing the matter this far. She has had to put up with quite a bit, and has done so stoically. I also congratulate the promoter of the Bill on sticking with it, dealing with the many problems that have arisen and being patient with those of us who supported that promoter and asked a great deal from it in terms of information.
To a Merseyside Member of Parliament, it has been an unpleasant experience to have to disagree with colleagues. I specifically highlight my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I am in agreement with them on almost every other occasion, and respect them highly.
It has to be said, though, that the arguments presented against the Bill at this late stage are either fatuous or specious. Let me give a couple of illustrations. Early on in the proceedings, we were treated to the unedifying spectacle of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) invoking the cry of the American revolutionaries, "No taxation without representation!" I shall forgo the obvious temptation to ask why the Member from Castle Point in Essex is criticising a measure that specifically affects voters and users of the tunnel on Merseyside, because he is entitled so to do.
Bob Spink: I was asked to chair the private Bill proceedings, so I was witness to the disgraceful conduct of the petition being withdrawn.
Mr. Howarth: I am well aware of the role that the hon. Gentleman played. My point is that he invoked the cry, "No taxation without representation", while representing a seat in Essex, yet it is my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in the Wirral who are affected by the Bill. It was a fatuous argument in any event, because, if he remembers his history aright, that was the cry of locals saying that the centre cannot decide what they have to pay. The hon. Gentleman has got his argument upside down. We are arguing that this matter should be determined locally, not by central Government, as is the case at the moment.
Then we come to the specious. As I say, I have great respect for my hon. Friends, but they keep saying that this is a tax. I do not intend, nor would it be appropriate,
for me to go into lengthy discussions about the definition of a tax, but any reasonable definition that I have ever heard does not cover a tunnel toll. My hon. Friends are describing what is effectively a commercial transaction on which many people completely depend. That is a far cry from a tax. The kernel of my argument is this: we are trying to achieve a system whereby the finances of the tunnel are determined locally by the proper authorities through a limited power that enables them to increase tolls only by the retail prices index—in other words, by the rate of inflation. My hon. Friends repeatedly fail to mention what happens when costs increase and the tunnel is not breaking even—I accept that it is now—or not making a small profit. In those circumstances, my constituents, few of whom use the tunnel, have to pay the difference as council tax payers. It has happened in the past and it could happen in future.The position is even worse. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West also have to pick up the bill. Moreover, the majority of their constituents, who do not use the tunnel regularly, will have to pay the bill in the circumstances that I described. I do not understand why that was not grasped earlier in our proceedings.
Mr. Joe Benton (Bootle): My hon. Friend's comments are accurate—the preparations for next year's council tax prove his point. Perhaps he would like to comment on that.
Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend knows, I greatly value his friendship and wisdom. His wisdom shines through yet again.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) represents everything that we know about the modern Conservative party. Although he has occasionally criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby for inaccuracy—she has been accurate at all times—he generally takes up everyone's cry. If an hon. Member cries, "This is taxation", the hon. Gentleman takes it up. If another hon. Member says, "No taxation without representation", he does not think about or analyse the statement, he simply takes up the cry. Although I have much respect for some of the arguments that have been presented during the Bill's passage, the hon. Gentleman is pathetic.
6.42 pm
Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) has said most of what I wanted to say so I shall be brief. I have a great regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). We are old friends from many years back—we negotiated matters on both sides of the river that affected airports; we considered the Labour party's manifesto for the 1987 election and more successful manifestos in recent years. However, we fall out on the subject of our debate because of his point about the funding arrangements that prevail.
My constituents regularly use a sub-regional transport infrastructure, which is a mish-mash, owned and managed by different agencies. The missing link is
an overall regional strategy to manage transport and make the case, about which my hon. Friend and I agree, for a further Mersey crossing. That needs to be incorporated in a strategic review of the area's transport needs.I shall reiterate briefly my constituents' principal complaints. Whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, they have to use the tunnel, as he admitted. They have little choice about that. They contribute significantly to the wealth of the region, and therefore have a right to be consulted. That right is currently being denied them, and I urge the promoter of the Bill to consider that as it goes on its way through to the other place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South put forward some interesting arguments on the environmental issues. In relation to the London congestion charge, I drive a Vauxhall Vectra, which was made in my constituency, and it runs on liquefied petroleum gas. It is therefore exempt from the charge. There are powerful arguments for introducing similar measures in relation to electric or LPG-powered vehicles in other urban centres, particularly where levies are currently involved. Many similar issues also need to be examined.
Regarding the debate on section 92, I half got the hint from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), but when the Bill is down at the other end of the Corridor, I hope that their lordships will look carefully at the use of that section and seek to amend the Bill to incorporate conditions on the section's application. It is too loosely drawn at present.
I echo the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South. I too am very disappointed that the Bill has got this far, and I hope that it will be substantially amended at the other end of the Corridor, so that we end up with a rational structure that will benefit all the people of the region in which we live, and not just those who are governed on one side of an artificial boundary or the other.
6.47 pm
Stephen Hesford: My closing remarks are designed for the other place. I want to put it on the record that there was an earlier attempt to introduce a Bill. That Bill failed to come before the House and was then abandoned. I would like their lordships to consider, in the context of the second Bill, that the first Bill tried to privatise the management. The reason for doing that was to bring an element of efficiency to the running of the tunnels. I am pleased that that was abandoned, but we then had the second Bill.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) that this is a bad Bill. It is badly thought out, and a fig leaf in terms of the possibility of bad management in the future. No efficiency mechanism has been built into the Bill in relation to toll-raising powers, and my constituents find that very worrying. I should like to adopt a few of the words that my hon. Friend used, which are central to the argument. The Bill is undoubtedly designed to be a cash cow, in all circumstances and for all time. Again, my constituents will suffer as a result of that. My hon. Friend also mentioned feather-bedding, and I agree with the point that he made about that. I ask the other place to think about that issue. There should be no feather-bedding.
The question of efficiency should be addressed, but the Bill does not address the issue of efficient tunnels run for their users by an efficient management.My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) mentioned clause 92, about which I want to say a few words to the other place. The retention of the section in the Bill as a fallback position is wholly unnecessary. In the previous 70 years, there was only one form of fundraising—outlined in clause 92—and there was no fallback position. The tunnels never needed one for any purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) could not think of one example of where the fallback position would be used. There was a curious debate about terrorism, which, frankly, was nonsense. Clause 92 is in the Bill because of feather-bedding.
There has not been an honest debate in the House, although that is not for want of trying on our part. One consistent feature has been the unwillingness of the Bill's promoter to deal with the points put to it at every stage of the Bill. The only item dealt with during the 20 hours or so of debate in this place was not dealt with by the promoter, but by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—the question of insulation. That is lamentable when one thinks of the number of hours that we have spent on this issue inside and outside the House. It is not a good advertisement for what the House can do.
We could not stop the Bill and, reluctantly, we bow to the inevitable. It is a bad Bill, and I still oppose it. It is unnecessary; Merseytravel could exist under the current procedures if it was run properly. I ask the other place to consider the elements that we have brought forward.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |