Examinations of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
MR CHARLES GEORGE QC and MISS JOANNA CLAYTON, BIRCHAM
DYSON BELL.
The Petition of David Loudon, John McGoldrick and
MR JOHN McGOLDRICK examined
80. The matter was subject to detailed debate -
and your Lordships may find this particularly helpful - in the
case of the Forth Bridge because that went through under a Scottish
Act which then gave order-making powers and it was controversial
and I make no bones about it. There were some people who said
it was wrong to be spending tolls in this way but, in the debates
on the Scottish Act 2001, the matter was given detailed consideration
and your Lordships will find reference to that at A32. The particular
statutory provision is article 7(2) of the Forth Estuary Transport
Authority Order 2002, article 7(2) in the middle of page 198,
"The Authority may develop, support and fund such schemes
and measures including roadworks, traffic management and public
transport services, which it considers appropriate …"
and they can do that from the tolls on the Forth Bridge and the
debates are set out at page 209 and following and I simply take
your Lordships to page 218 which was the Minister for Transport
in Scotland and she is speaking to the Transport and Environment
Committee on 22 November 2000 and, one third of the way down page
281,
81. "Sarah Boyack responded, 'It is vital that
we encourage a much more integrated approach to the strategic
transportation planning of the road bridge, the traffic using
the bridge, public transport alternatives and related road traffic
routes across the Forth …'" and then she goes on to
say, "The new joint board will have wider strategic and funding
powers to tackle worsening congestion. … It will let us
deliver better traffic management and improve the road infrastructure,
to address traffic congestion …" and that is precisely
what is planned here. None of the five district councils proposed
that the money should be ring-fenced to the Wirral or to Liverpool
City; they are all content that it be spent across Merseyside
generally and indeed it would not really be sensible otherwise
since the local transport plan to which I have already referred
covers projects which are Mersey-wide and the idea is that the
money should be spent on the projects which are in the local transport
plan.
82. I am sure your Lordships are aware that the
principle of what is called hypothecation, that is taking revenue
and then using it for a single purpose rather than a general purpose,
here a transport rather than a general purpose, is now I think
fairly widely accepted by both parties and is of course a key
element of the Transport Act, 2000. Your Lordships will know
all about parking levies and so forth which are contained in that
measure whereby money is taken and is then used almost always
in accordance with the local transport plan. The statutory provision
provides for it. That is all that is going to happen here; the
surplus tolls will be used for purposes in accordance with the
local transport plan hypothecation which, as I say, is really
sanctioned by the 2000 Act although of course our Act is entirely
freestanding and is made under the 2000 Act.
83. CHAIRMAN: Mr George, before you continue,
may I ask two questions. With regard to 198 - I do not think
any member of the Committee has had the ability to look at these
before and thank you for supplying them - in the paragraph that
you quoted to do with the Forth Bridge, paragraph 7(2), as I read
that subparagraph, the further revenue, let me call it that, are
restricted to the use of public transport across the Firth of
Forth. They seem to be restricted simply for river crossing not
for other forms of transport; is that correct?
84. MR GEORGE: You are quite right, they
have to be related but it is quite widely because, insofar as
any improvements to any road scheme in the area has the effect
of meaning that there is less traffic coming on to the bridge
or on to its approach roads, then it is covered, but your Lordship
is entirely right, it has to be related in that way.
85. CHAIRMAN: My second question - I am
going backwards because I want you to finish where you had got
to - is, when you talked about the possibility of £25 million
annually being available, excuse my lay language, for other transport
purposes, are you going to give us an explanation or are your
witnesses going to discuss the rate of amortisation of the present
debt?
86. MR GEORGE: I think you will find that
all of that is dealt with by Mr Wilkinson and he is going to show
that that sum only builds up … That is the figure for 2028.
I would not want anyone to think that there is £25 million
available much earlier. He also deals with the rates of interests
on the debts and as to what happens if you repay any elements
of the debt earlier. All of those are matters with which he is
going to deal and, if he does not deal with them, I am sure your
Lordship will ask him.
87. CHAIRMAN: The one is absolutely crucial
on the other because, if you vary the rate of amortisation or
indeed the rate of interest, so the surplus figure itself will
alter, will it not?
88. MR GEORGE: Most of the debt is at fixed
interest rates and therefore it does not vary. That makes it
a little simpler than it might otherwise be.
89. CHAIRMAN: But Mr Wilkinson is going
to address this point.
90. MR GEORGE: Mr Wilkinson will deal with
that matter.
91. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions
from the Committee on this point three because it is a really
important point?
92. PROFESSOR THE LORD BRADSHAW: On that
point you made, my Lord Chairman, I believe that the money from
the Firth of the Forth can be used to improve railway services
from Fife to Edinburgh and it may be used and is being used for
a Park & Ride scheme which has been built on the banks of
the Firth to encourage people to go over into Edinburgh by public
transport. I believe that to be the case.
93. MR GEORGE: I believe that everything
Lord Bradshaw says is right but I think that those only squeeze
in, you have to show some nexus between them and aspiration that
it will have an effect on the local conditions. Provided you
can show that logically there should be some connection, then
you can in fact spend on matters which are at quite a distance
from the bridge itself but there has to be some connection.
94. The fourth section I can take much quicker.
That is to allow the authority to undertake and finance noise
insulation work to properties adjacent to the Kingsway tunnel's
approach roads. This is an uncontroversial matter as I understand
it. At the Wallasey end of the Kingsway tunnel, that is on the
Wirral end, there are numerous residential properties and they
are sufficiently close to the approach roads to the tunnel for
the tunnel and the tunnel traffic to have a considerable noise
impact on them. Had those approach roads been built in the ordinary
way, ie not pursuant to a private bill, because that tunnel was
built pursuant to its own bill, had they been built by a highway
authority in the ordinary way, the whole matter would be dealt
with by the Noise Insulation Regulations and if any property were
going to be adversely affected by the new road, subject to the
criteria of the Noise Insulation Regulations, they would be entitled
to have noise insulation measures installed and that consists
of sealing your windows, putting in a grill for ventilation and
providing some form of double-glazing.
The fact is that you do not hear as much noise, but
you do have adequate ventilation. It cannot be forced on anyone,
but you are entitled to call for it if you are adjacent to a new
road which is going to cause you a noise level increase of more
than one decibel, provided at the end your overall noise will
be more than 68 decibels measured over an 18-hour period.
95. The fact is that is all dealt with in the regulations,
but those regulations did not apply to these particular approach
roads, and your Lordships may have no difficulty in appreciating
that there is a certain amount of grievance in the area that these
people have the noise, but if they want to do the noise insulation
they have to do it themselves, and no matter how sympathetic Merseytravel
is to them, it simply does not have the power to finance the works
at present. All that this schedule does - and it is schedule
2 to the Bill - is that it treats these properties as if the noise
insulation regulations were in force. What will happen is this:
that as of the date of Royal Assent - if this particular Bill
does achieve Royal Assent - there will be noise measurements at
properties in the vicinity of the tunnel entrance, and there will
also have to be a calculation as to what the noise would have
been if the tunnel was not there. This is quite a complicated
matter, but it is a matter which a noise expert can readily do,
to work out. One simply subtracts the existing noise from the
tunnels. Then the question will be that all those properties
which have a noise level above 68 decibels to which one decibel
is attributable to the traffic on the approach road to the tunnel
will qualify to have free installation of the acoustic measures,
and there is a schedule set out in the noise insulation regulations
that tells you what you are entitled to, and various British Standards
apply.
96. There are always people that say it is not the
right form of noise insulation, and so on, but they will qualify
for the standard pack which everyone in the country gets in the
case of a new road. Some people say "Why isn't there a schedule
listing the exact properties which are going to qualify?"
The answer is we cannot do that at present, because it is going
to depend on who falls within the regulations as at the date of
the Royal Assent. We can give a broad indication, but we do not
want to leave anyone out, and the fact of the matter is that anyone
who falls within the statutory criteria will qualify. To that
extent, the noise insulation regulations will themselves be self-defining;
they will define the area rather than it being defined on a map,
and if there is anyone who says "I have been left out",
they will be able to get in touch with Merseytravel, there will
be a discussion on what the relevant figures are, and if they
can show that they are over 68 decibels but there is one decibel
coming from the road, then I am afraid Mersey travel will find
themselves having to install the insulation. That is why all
we can say is it is adjacent to the tunnel but it is not shown
precisely on a plan.
97. PROFESSOR THE LORD BRADSHAW: There is
a point of principle here. The tunnels were, I believe, opened,
or the Kingsway Tunnel was opened in 1971 or 1972 and of course,
the people who live there in the properties on the Wirral side
are probably not the people who were there at the time. There
are many people throughout the country who live in properties
where the noise level has increased subsequently from what it
was to what it is now, around airports and tunnels and so on.
Are you absolutely confident - and I am not against those people
- that you are clear in your purpose of compensating these people
for the noise?
98. MR GEORGE: Lord Bradshaw, if I may say
so, has a good point, in that the provision is a generous provision
because, in addition to matters which Lord Bradshaw mentions we
are not seeking to go back to the date of the opening of the tunnel
and say you only qualify if as at the date of the tunnel you would
have qualified. We are prepared to look to present flows. To
that extent, it is a generous provision. I am told that the sum
budgeted is some £300,000, so it is not a vast sum. Again,
it may be a little bit more, or it may be less, depending on the
takeup. Some people may not want to take it up. That is
the sum, though, which has been budgeted, and it is intended to
be a generous provision. Those who have stayed there from when
the tunnel opened have put up with it for 30 years and in some
cases there may be people who moved there and this may be a windfall
for them, if they bought their house at a lower rate and paid
less because of the noise; there will be a bit of swings and roundabouts
in it. But it is very popular in the area. It is very popular
with the Wirral authorities themselves, and in their report -
and it is A17 - they refer to a longstanding problem in this area,
and it is that which we are attempting to meet. The document
is at page 48, paragraph 3.1(vi), where there is a reference to
the longstanding problem in relation to noise insulation. There
have been various debates on this Bill, it has been quite contentious
at various stages, but noone has so far suggested that this
schedule should not be included and that these people should not
benefit. They will become an additional demand on the toll, so
to speak. At present there is not any power to spend the tolls
on this. It will become lawful to spend money from the tolls
on this, but it will be a one-off matter. It is not intended
that for ever after you can show; it will have to be geared back
to the date of the Royal Assent, so it is a one-off offer which
is being made.
99. CHAIRMAN: Can I just be absolutely clear
on this. We are talking only, in this context, of the Wallasey
Tunnel, not the Birkenhead?
|
