Examinations of Witnesses (Questions 300-319)
MR CHARLES GEORGE QC and MISS JOANNA CLAYTON, BIRCHAM
DYSON BELL.
The Petition of David Loudon, John McGoldrick and
MR JOHN McGOLDRICK examined
300. Would you care to say something?
(Mr Wilkinson):
We have had ferries crossing the River Mersey for centuries and
they are still operating across the Mersey. The fleet is owned
by Merseytravel; we have three boats and we run a commuter service
in the morning and afternoon, a heritage cruise in between times,
and late night cruises during the summer. There are still a number
of people who choose to cross the river by the ferry rather than
go on the railway or go in a car or in a bus through the Mersey
Tunnels.
301. The ferries are not car ferries?
(Mr Wilkinson):
They are passengers only, not car ferries.
302. MR GEORGE: Mr Bates is going to give
the figures for the numbers on the ferries, but I simply remind
my noble Lady that under Clause 91(3)(d) there will now be a power
to spend surplus toll money on operating the ferries. They have
become expressly one of the groups on whom money can be spent.
That concludes the evidence of this witness.
Cross-examined by MR McGOLDRICK
303. MR McGOLDRICK: We are proceeding a
lot faster than we anticipated.
304. CHAIRMAN: I am delighted to hear it!
305. MR McGOLDRICK: I get the impression
you want us to be as quick as possible, so I will try and follow
that. Mr Wilkinson, you mention the history of the tunnels, and
the early days, and you said that there was never any intention
that the tunnels would be financed by the ratepayers. Is that
correct?
(Mr Wilkinson):
That is my understanding of the original intent in 1934. Reserve
power was provided for rate aid and was, in fact, used. As I
understood it, the legislation was created on the basis that the
tolls would be charged to the users for a period, ultimately,
of 40 years expiring in 1974, and in the intervening period funds
would be created which would pay for all subsequent operating
and maintenance costs. The tolls would simply be removed after
40 years.
306. I am going to go through volume B and the various
tables Mr Wilkinson has commented on and just ask questions, basically,
in the order they are in the book. Item B.5 is a graph which
shows in blue the vehicles going through Birkenhead Tunnel and
yellow the vehicles going through the Wallasey Tunnel. One of
the points you made is that the tunnels are reaching capacity,
at least during the peak periods. This graph seems to indicate
that the Birkenhead Tunnel, since it reached a peak, obviously,
shortly after the Wallasey Tunnel opened (although based on this
graph it looks as if it actually dipped slightly before the Wallasey
Tunnel opened) has now got a lot less vehicles going through it.
How does that match up with the fact that the tunnels are near
capacity?
(Mr Wilkinson)
When the Birkenhead Tunnel was carrying traffic of 18 million
vehicles per annum the local newspapers I have brought
some of them along with me were talking about rush hour
traffic chaos, hundreds leave buses and walk to work, what can
be done to avoid this. The newspapers at the time were calling
for another crossing. That is the position which I am trying
to avoid or which I referred to when giving evidence. The reality
was that from the late 50s and early 60s onwards the Birkenhead
Tunnel was a struggle with chaotic traffic jams and Liverpool
and Birkenhead were gridlocked.
307. MR MCGOLDRICK: I agree that was the case
at one stage. You said that the solution to that was building
the Wallasey Tunnel, was anything else done that alleviated a
lot of this congestion?
(Mr Wilkinson)
Considerable sums were spent on ventilation work in the Queensway
Tunnel, something in the region of about £6 million had to
be spent because the queues were so long, they were backing up
through the tunnel and the fumes were growing to dangerous levels.
308.MR MCGOLDRICK: Was anything done to alleviate
the congestion before the Wallasey Tunnel?
(Mr Wilkinson)
I am not sure I understand the question.
309. CHAIRMAN: My interpretation of that
is were there other traffic crossings, any other roads built,
ferries put up or some other form of transport?
(Mr Wilkinson)
I know of nothing else that was done.
310. MR MCGOLDRICK: Mr Wilkinson said that
he knew of nothing else but there were substantial things done
to alleviate congestion, the three main tolls on the Liverpool
side were moved to the Birkenhead side, a lot of the congestion
was due to the toll and by relocating on one side reduced the
congestion in Liverpool city centre considerably. The second
thing was the construction of the flyovers in Liverpool and Birkenhead
to segregate the tunnel traffic from other traffic, again that
made a tremendous difference in the congestion. The other thing
was vast marshalling areas were created in Birkenhead.
(Mr Wilkinson)
The first two issues mention may have brought temporary relief
to the operation of the Queensway Tunnel. We now collect tolls
on the Wirral side of the river for both tunnels. The flyover
referred to, one at least has come down, the marshalling yards
which are being referred to which were needed, at Kings Square
on the Wirral was just a means of stacking up the traffic and
trying to organise it into two fairly orderly lines for going
through the tunnel. It was a series of marshalling yards in which
traffic had stacked up, it just had to wait until the traffic
lights allowed people to go forward. My understanding, based
on a discussion last evening, with the General Manager of Mersey
Tunnels, is that those marshalling yards did not work very well
and motorists did not wish to confirm to the traffic lights and
therefore it did not work as well as I think the petitioner is
suggesting.
311. MR MCGOLDRICK: Right. You mentioned
at one stage the authorities were trying to get Government aid.
I think you mentioned eight applications for government aid.
Can you tell us when the last application for government aid was
made?
(Mr Wilkinson)
I can tell you precisely if you want the detail, it was just
prior to the increase in the Mersey Tunnel tolls from 60 pence
to £1 for cars in April 1992. The application was made by
Merseytravel trying to avoid such a draconian toll rise. The
only success we got from that was an allowance for two years for
credit approval to help finance a small modicum of refurbishment
work. We had no promise of any other form of government aid.
312. CHAIRMAN: No attempt has been made since
1992.
(Mr Wilkinson)
The tunnels have been breaking even since 1992.
313. The answer is yes.
(Mr Wilkinson)
The answer is yes.
314. MR MCGOLDRICK: Can I ask you to turn
to table B20 at page 73. Paragraph 4.3 mentions the fact that
the tunnels have been able to accelerate the redemption of debt
by £3 million 2000/01 and 2002/03 in each case. In relation
to the last accelerated redemption of debt why did Merseytravel
decide to do that when at the same time they were seeking an increase
in the tolls?
(Mr Wilkinson)
My Lord, there was substantial under spending in that year on
refurbishment costs. In those circumstances there are effectively
two things you can do, you either hang on to the money in the
reserve and renewals fund or it could be used to repay the Tunnel's
debt and by so doing you reduce the debt charges of Mersey Tunnels
beyond that point which means that you stand a chance of improving
your viability position from that point on. I choose to do that.
As to why it did not contribute or why I was trying to get a
toll increase all I can say is that the Passenger Transport Authority
took my advice that there was a clear engineering need to build
emergency escapes, passageways or refuges in the Queensway Tunnel.
It would be irresponsible for the Passenger Transport Authority
not to take some steps to seek the means of financing a scheme
which at that point in time was estimated to cost £10 million.
In engineering terms we have been able to cut the job into a
number of bits and we are only spending £6 million in the
first phase. I said that on a previous occasion. At that point
we were looking for £10 million and I felt that the right
way to proceed and the ideal way to proceed would to be get borrowing
consent to get us over that temporary problem but every avenue
I explored with the Department for Transport officials got me
nowhere, that was the position at the time, and I really felt
that a toll increase was the only way forward and a toll increase
would have brought enough income to pay for the lion's share of
the work on a permanent basis. When it came to the closure of
the accounts for 2002/03 I was offered or saw an opportunity to
again repay the tunnel debt. At that point in time of rebuttal
of my request for credit approval I saw signs of the Government
Office for the North West agreeing with us, they were at least
giving us an opportunity to re-bid for credit approval for the
work. I felt this was worthwhile doing because I could see we
could get an opportunity here to finance the work in the way I
described earlier.
315. Approval is permission to borrow.
(Mr Wilkinson)
Yes, it is.
316. When did you initially apply for credit approval?
(Mr Wilkinson)
Initially in September 2002.
317. That was presumably turned down.
(Mr Wilkinson)
No, I got no reply.
318. No reply.
(Mr Wilkinson)
So I wrote again.
319. When did you get a reply?
(Mr Wilkinson)
I never did.
| 
