I beg to move amendment No. 19, in schedule 1, leave out lines 35 to 37.

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 16, in page 3, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert—

'(e) where necessary, to make compensatory payments and payments to provide appropriate noise insulation for residential properties at the entrance of the Kingsway tunnel.'.

No. 3, in page 3, leave out lines 38 to 41.

No. 4, in page 3, line 41, at end insert—

`taking into account that monies spent on such policies should relate to the relative proportions of the origin of traffic using the tunnels.'.

No. 5, in page 4, line 2, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.

No. 6, in page 4, line 8, leave out '(a) to (c)' and insert `(a) and (c)'.

No. 8, in page 4, line 11, at end insert

`(c) unless paragraph (b) of that subsection has been wholly complied with to the extent that monies borrowed for the purposes of the construction and operation of the tunnels have been wholly repaid.'.

No. 9, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.

No. 10, in page 4, line 16, after 'tunnels' insert—

`interest groups, trade unions, the Liverpool and Wirral Chambers of Commerce, the North West TUC and local representatives of Merseyside and neighbouring local authorities'.

No. 11, in page 4, line 24, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.

No. 12, in page 4, line 33, leave out 'paragraphs (d) and (e)' and insert 'paragraph (d)'.

No. 13, in page 4, line 33, at end insert

'(d) it has sought confirmation by the Secretary of State for its plans, to which end it must submit copies of all such objections and representations and such information and particulars as the Secretary of State requires in approving the desires of the Authority as set out in paragraph 5(a)(i) and (ii).'.

The essence of the amendment is to remove new section 91(3)(d) and (e) and therefore to remove the authorisation for the Merseyside passenger transport authority to make grants to

"the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive in connection with the Executive's ferries services operating on the river Mersey"

and to use tunnel income to make payments to

"the Authority's general fund for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies relating to public transport in its local transport plan, or for other purposes."

The Bill has been discussed extensively in the House, but the amendment encapsulates the main concern about it.

To remind hon. Members of the background, in August 2001, a consultation was conducted by Merseytravel that, although it has been criticised, produced some interesting responses. One question asked whether surplus toll income should be used to cross-subsidise and improve local public transport services, thus benefiting the wider Merseyside community. Of the 312 respondents, 23 per cent. were in favour, 208—or 67 per cent.—were against, and 10 per cent. were undecided. The proposals in the amendment are therefore in line with the wishes of respondents, the majority of whom do not believe that people who use the Mersey tunnels should have to pay extra charges to fund wider travel interests beyond the tunnels. It is a simple issue of cross-subsidy.

Another question asked whether there should be a requirement to reduce tolls when the tunnel debt is paid off or whether that should be removed. The requirement is an inherent part of the tunnels' history, as it was believed that the time would come when the tunnels would be paid for, and those who used them would no longer have to pay for any costs other than running costs. In response to the question in the consultation, 71 per cent. said that the requirement should not be removed and only 17 per cent. said that it should. That is another clear expression of will by people who were consulted on that important issue. If the part of the schedule that we are debating had not been included in the Bill in the first place, its passage through the House would have been a lot smoother, as it goes to the heart of people's concerns.

That view is widely shared not just in the House but on Merseyside as a whole. If the transport authority had not included the power to tax in the measure, it would have had its Bill many moons ago.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that confirmation, and I know that he is trying to bring sanity to the issue. When dealing with private legislation, the House works best when there is a spirit of compromise. I do not understand why, disappointingly, we have not seen any of that spirit from the Bill's promoter. One of the weapons available to hon. Members involves trying to delay Bills. There is no point trying to delay Bills just for the sake of it—the purpose is to try to provide extra time for consideration so that people can respond to arguments and concerns. It is sad that, despite the time that has been given to the Bill's promoter to reflect on the wisdom or otherwise of this part of the Bill, it has declined to meet concerns expressed not just in the House but by the wider electorate in Merseyside and the Wirral.

I am not going to say much more about the matter, because most of the points have already been made and will be no better for repetition. That is not to suggest that I and other Conservative Members do not feel strongly about it. We record our surprise that throughout the Bill's passage the Government, instead of abiding by the conventions that private legislation should be dealt with as unwhipped business and that hon. Members should be able to decide such issues on their merits, used their majority to force the measures through. That is most regrettable, because it is unnecessary, unhelpful and does not benefit the people of Merseyside. I hope that today we will have the chance, on a free vote, to determine the real will of the House so that it can take a view on the merits or otherwise of using toll income to cross-subsidise other transport projects.

I want to speak to amendments Nos. 4, 6, 8 and 19, which are tabled in my name and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), and which deal with the various purposes for which the tolls may be applied. I contend that the Bill provides Merseytravel with too great a power when it comes to spending tunnel tolls and that the powers that it already possesses regarding the use of tunnel tolls are poorly applied.

I shall deal first with amendment No. 19. The Bill provides Merseytravel with the power to use tunnel toll receipts for projects other than the tunnels—the principle of cross-subsidy to which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred. In one sense it already does that in relation to the Mersey ferries. The amendment, although essentially probing, would strike from the Bill the provision that allows revenue from tunnel tolls to be redirected to fund the ferries. That is not intended to harm or question the ferry service, which is famous across the globe as a loved and lauded part of Liverpool's image and heritage. I am sure that the ferries will be a key component of the capital of culture status that Liverpool has acquired.

My hon. Friend may recall that a previous Member for Wirral, West, who is now in the other place—Lord Hunt—was involved in the Bill through which the forerunner of Merseytravel tried to abolish the subsidy of the ferries. It had to give up in the end, having failed to win the measure. When the Bill leaves this House today, it goes to the other Chamber, where presumably Lord Hunt will be waiting for it.

I was not aware of that, but I can see why he failed, given the emotional attachment of the people of Merseyside to the ferries.

Everything has its place and its purpose, and Merseytravel's is to cater for the public transport needs of the people of Merseyside. It is not entirely clear where the ferries fit into that. Most people would acknowledge that they are not the most efficient form of commuter transport—indeed, they are primarily geared towards round trips and tourism. A quick glance at the website confirms that they are first and foremost a touristvehicle—and, of course, a successful one. The NorthWest tourist board tells us that they are the second most visited paid admission attraction in the north-west, and they were recently accredited by the north-west visitor attraction quality service.

3.45 pm

Merseytravel's function, however, is to

"co-ordinate public transport through partnership initiatives, with the aim of delivering a fully integrated and environmentally friendly public transport network".

The Mersey tunnels, which are primarily for private vehicles and subsidise a commuter service, are an anomaly. Yet the anomaly pales when one considers that Merseytravel operates a tourist attraction with public funds as part of its stated aim of co-ordinating a public transport network. That is at least questionable.

Only one third of ferry passengers are commuters and instead of making a profit, the ferries cost £2.1 million a year, of which £700,000 is made up from tunnel tolls. The nature of investment in the ferries shows that they are a tourist attraction. For example, there has been investment in Seacombe to incorporate an international astronomy and space centre. There is also to be an expanded leisure and corporate entertainment programme in a new terminal building at Pier Head.

The logic of Merseyside passenger transport authority's avowed motives for the Bill is that tunnel users should pay more money now to prevent people in the outlying areas of Merseyside from having to support the tunnels, which, by and large, they do not use. I reject that logic because the Mersey tunnels are the principal commercial artery of our conurbation and they therefore have an impact on the whole of Merseyside and beyond, in Lancashire, Cheshire and north Wales. The tunnels do not simply serve the people who live immediately at either end. Even if the logic held true and tunnel users should pay more money now to prevent people in outlying areas from having to support the tunnels, why does the same not apply to tunnel users being called upon to subsidise the ferries The ferries are a long-standing and endearing symbol of Liverpool. Would not it be more fitting if they were funded from the precept At least in that way, everybody would pay equally rather than some people being unfairly taxed for the purpose. However, Merseytravel

"works to promote the interests of Merseyside's travelling public while providing value for money for its local tax payers".

In the case of the ferries, neither stipulation is fulfilled. Imposing on people who use the tunnels to subsidise the travel of the ever-diminishing number of commuters who use the ferries is hardly in the interests of the wider "travelling public". An operation that loses £2.1 million a year cannot be classed as "value for money".

The charter that obliges Merseytravel to operate the ferries offers no get-out. It might say that it has no choice but to bear the loss with which the ferries are saddled. However, there should be other ways and the amendment is designed simply to pose some questions. For example, could the Mersey Partnership play a wider role; Could the North-West regional assembly or the regional development agency have such a role? Is there a role for the private sector Amendment No. 4 proposes greater proportionality of the cost and benefit burden for tunnel users. According to Merseytravel, 65 per cent. of tunnel users come from the Wirral area, 16 per cent. from Liverpool, 10 per cent. from Cheshire and north Wales, 7 per cent. from Sefton and 2 per cent. from Knowsley. Those who support the Bill have long argued that people who by and large do not use the tunnels should not have to fund them through their council tax, as happened in the late 1980s. I believe that that is a false contention. If the argument were accepted, I hope that the Bill's proponents would see fit to ensure that those who pay the most in tunnel tolls reap the funding benefits from the receipts. Amendment No. 4 would therefore create such a quid pro quo.

Merseytravel's spokesman at the Opposed Private Bill Committee suggested that the prospective Mersey tram scheme was an example of a project towards which MPTA might wish to direct toll revenues. It is a top priority for the authority. However, regardless of the tram project's merits, I do not agree with taxing and exploiting tunnel users to build that or any other project from which many of them will not directly benefit. They are ordinary people who work in hospitals and factories. They go to visit friends and relatives, and devote their energies and investment to Liverpool and the wider Merseyside sub-region, yet they are being taxed to pay for a facility from which they will not benefit.

The Mersey has no viable road crossings within transferable distance, so to speak, and there is not adequate public transport to absorb the massive numbers of people who could be forced to abandon using their private vehicles to get to work if the tunnel tolls increase. Merseytravel has not shown how it would invest in providing viable alternatives for those displaced tunnel-users, the majority of whom, coincidentally, hail from the Wirral peninsula.

There must surely be other sources of funding available. Manchester managed to get its tram system without taxing a particular portion of its populace; nor does it have the benefits, in funding terms, of being an objective 1 area. The Wirral gains little or nothing from the allocation of excess tunnel tolls, yet it will bear the bulk of the burden of cost. I can see no justification for that imposition, but I stress that it is the principles of the Bill, and the cost to the whole of Merseyside, that worries me most. This issue does not affect one side of the Mersey more than the other; it is a unitary problem.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 propose to restrict spending on other projects until such time as the debt has been paid off. If tunnel tolls are regularly to be increased, at least let it be done in the name of financial propriety. The tolls have been a millstone round the neck of the people of Merseyside since the first half of the last century, and the long and short of it is that the tunnels cost £44 million to build, have collected £500 million from users, yet have debts of £100 million. If it were not for the way in which the tunnels have been managed, and for the money that has been siphoned off, they would now be debt-free and part of the normal road system.

If Merseytravel's current private Bill becomes law, it will be the 13th private Act to deal with the tunnels. Those Acts have served various purposes, including authorising the construction of the tunnels. Many of them also contain sections that have had the effect of postponing the time at which the tolls could be reduced. Under this Bill, that perpetually distant promise would be erased altogether.

Will the hon. Gentleman expand on the interrelationship between what he has just said and the fact that there is to be a public inquiry later this year into raising the tunnel tolls with effect from 1 April 2004

It is indeed curious that the Merseyside passenger transport authority is applying for an increase under the old regime at the same time as it is applying for automatic increases through the Bill. Merseytravel might have good cause to seek increases under the present system, for purposes for which it claims at the time, and in the past, it has always secured such increases, albeit after a public inquiry. I have no problem with tunnel toll increases that are justified and rationalised. I do have a problem with increases that are automatic and unjustified, except for the fact that the price of a loaf of bread has gone up. On that ground and others, I believe that this is a bad Bill.

Whichever way we view it, the debt is a dreadful burden, and the traditional tactics of prevarication and procrastination must stop. Acknowledging the permanence of the debt's presence is not the answer. Each administration sought to pass the buck to the next, and delayed the fabled time of completion to another distant day. It is my hope that amendments Nos. 6 and 8 might focus minds better and that Merseytravel might even work to pay off the debt faster than is currently required. I suggest that a more formalised relationship between the raising of tolls and the repayment of debt is needed.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the sponsor of the Bill has sat on the Liberal Democrat Bench and on our Bench, and has now disappeared from the Chamber? My hon. Friend's important points are not being listened to and, I assume, will not be answered.

I have been remiss; I had not noticed what my hon. Friend tells me. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who is absent from the Chamber, will read the record of the debate assiduously.

It is not so much a question of reading it; we want answers today to take back to our constituents.

Indeed. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby will reappear shortly to take part in the debate.

There needs to be a more formal relationship between the raising of tolls and the repayment of debt. Following the repayment, should the consultation that the Bill obliges it to stage agree to MPTA using the tolls for other projects, it would then have a healthy pot to work from.

It may be that my hon. Friend knows something that we do not. Are the Bill's promoters conceding these points?

It may be that the quality of my argument obliged my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby to leave the Chamber in despair, but I have my doubts about that.

One would think that if one did what I was proposing, it would be big enough to sate even Merseytravel's burgeoning appetite, and that some thought could be given to reducing tunnel tolls and acting in the best interests of tunnel users. It might also mean that the five authorities received the lost money, which would be of benefit to council tax payers all over Merseyside. I will, of course, not hold my breath.

I rise to speak to amendment No. 16, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford). I welcome back to our proceedings and to our Benches my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) who represents the promoter of the Bill. I am sure that she will bear down with her normal forcefulness upon the probing amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) so that we can perhaps understand the mind of the Bill's promoter better than we have hitherto.

The amendment would ensure that the residents in the area surrounding the newer of the two tunnels in Merseyside—the residents of Wallasey—were able to claim to have the cost of insulating their homes met by tunnel users. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West and I tabled the amendment so there could be no misunderstanding locally over that issue.

Some Labour Members may have a wider brief in terms of their disputes with Merseytravel, but mine is narrowly drawn. There are many aspects of Merseytravel's activities of which I approve, none more so than its efforts to provide a more adequate bus service for my constituents while running a system whereby they cannot control those people to whom they give licences. That is the equivalent of the NHS buying treatments from the private sector, but the private sector saying, "We will decide what operations we do on the patients you send us."

We have the ludicrous state of affairs in which Merseytravel has to pay taxpayers' money to private suppliers of bus transportation but cannot dictate how that money is used in the best interests of our constituents.

On all those fronts, I have no dispute with Merseytravel, but I do have a central dispute with the Bill, which I want to put on record. The Bill is a taxing measure, so I wish to underscore the points raised earlier by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) who, for once, did not make the most of the evidence that he put before the House.

4 pm

Usually, when voters are asked in surveys whether they would like someone else to pay tax increases so that they can benefit, most of them say, "Yippee, that is a rather good idea". That used to be the attitude of the Labour movement towards increases in income tax when most of our supporters did not pay it. We were rather in favour of increasing income tax in those days. When the tax threshold fell and practically all voters paid direct taxation, sadly, after a rather long spell, we had to learn the lesson that our voters, like everyone else, do not like tax increases. The consultation of people in Merseyside was amazing and it says something about the generosity of character of fellow voters on the other side of the river that, when they could have taxed Wirral residents to their own benefit, they thought that it was not a good idea. That also tells us something about the measure before us.

I may be corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby when she replies to the probing amendments, but I believe that we should have some list to demonstrate the way in which the Bill's promoter has tried to meet the reasonableness of many, if not all, of the amendments. As the hon. Member for Christchurch said, it is a custom of the House—though sometimes broken—that the promoters of private Bills try to engage with those who are worried about certain aspects and, where possible, do a trade-off with them. How does the Bill differ at this stage of its proceedings from when it was introduced? I suggest that the promoter of this Bill has not conceded a dot or comma to the alternative views put forward

Does my right hon. Friend recall from previous debates that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), whom I see in his place, sat on the Committee considering the Bill? Not only has the promoter failed to engage with those who have an interest in the issues, I recall that it did not engage very satisfactorily with the Committee. My right hon. Friend made a similar complaint on a previous occasion.

Order. It would be helpful if hon. Members dealt with the particular group of amendments rather than previous history.

The message goes out that if we have another private Bill from this source, it would be suitable for some Members of Parliament to object so that they do not have to withdraw at a later stage. The House must be able to give proper consideration to a measure of this sort.

I end where I began. I support much in the Bill, but it is a taxing measure. I am puzzled that the Government have allowed it to go forth without trying to have it amended. I am puzzled that the Government are prepared to use not only the payroll vote to whip the Bill through, but the Standing Orders of the House to allow us to debate it to any hour. Given the danger of a Labour Government being seen as a tax-raising body, the only reason that I can see why the Government are allowing the Bill to go ahead is that they do not understand what is in it. If they did, I suspect that they would have objected to the same provisions to which we object.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Bill is whipped through by the Government—although they say that that is not what is happening—it will be the Government who will bear the blame for the cross-financing of services on Merseyside, and not the Merseyside passenger transport authority?

Some of us are doing our best to ensure that individual hon. Members are not to blame when our constituents are taxed in the manner proposed. If I represented Crosby—I have no wish to do so, as I love representing my constituency— I might have been tempted to introduce a Bill to tax people in Birkenhead to the benefit of voters in Crosby. However, even if I did that, in some muddled moment, the Bill would still not be fair or sustainable.

The Government will get this measure for Merseytravel today, but the Bill will then travel to another place. It has aroused such opposition from some local Members that the Government have had to invoke the new procedure that allows a Bill to be carried over to a new Session of Parliament. It is clear that this Bill will begin to break records, in that it will have to be carried over to a third Session of Parliament. We will not be able to stop the Bill today, but the Government and Merseytravel may run into a lot more trouble in the other place.

I hope that that is the case. I shall be working with those forces in the other place to make sure that the Bill does not become law.

I rise to support amendments Nos. 19 and 16.

Daily users of the Mersey tunnel now pay £500 a year more than most other motorists in Britain. The tunnel was meant to be free: that provision was in the original Bill. Most users want it to be free, and they expect the House to honour the original intention. That would be consistent and fair, and that is why I oppose this Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) explained amendment No. 19 extremely well, so I shall not repeat his arguments. However, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) raised a very important matter in relation to amendment No. 16. The amendment would remove the provision in schedule 1 allowing payment to be used for

"the Authority's general fund for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating the achievement of policies relating to public transport in its local transport plan, or for other purposes."

That is an extremely wide provision. Normally, general taxation would be used for that purpose. That is what happens in all other areas of the country. The Bill represents a further tax measure imposed by the Government. We have had 60 tax rises since 1997, and this would make the total 61—or is it 63 now? I lose count. Moreover, the tax would be a stealth tax, according to any definition. The proposal would amount to an odious tax, and should be resisted—not least because the tax-raising power cannot be removed once granted. It does not have to be reaffirmed by the authority of this House, which is what normally happens with tax-raising powers.

Is the hon. Gentleman giving a commitment on behalf of the new leader of the Conservative party that tunnel tolls will be abolished under a Conservative Government?

I am delighted to be reminded that there is a vote on that matter this afternoon. I have not voted yet, and must not forget to do so. I am not authorised to give any such commitment.

Amendment No. 16 may be one reason why this private Bill has suddenly become, in almost all respects, a Government Bill. The tax proposed is yet another Government tax, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead noted. The amendment would replace lines 38 to 41 in schedule 1 and insert a provision allowing the payments to be used to provide

"appropriate noise insulation for residential properties at the entrance to the Kingsway tunnel."

If there is one aspect of this whole sorry Bill on which we can all be united, it is the need to provide decent noise insulation for local residents. In Committee we began to get round to defining the area affected, its distance from the tunnel, who would benefit from the work and who would not. Unfortunately there was a stitch-up, and we could not consider those important matters in detail. I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, however, and hope that if the Bill is passed—although I do not want it to be—his amendment will be incorporated.

I am sure that the Mersey Tunnels Users Association would also agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It says:

"We believe that the Tunnels are making a profit and there is no need for any Toll increases."

It states cogently:

"Large numbers of people use the Mersey Tunnels to get to work, and lots of small businesses need to use it several times a day. The tolls are a barrier discouraging movement between the Wirral and the rest of Merseyside."

That sums it up well.

I hope that the House will support amendments Nos. 19 and 16.

Amendment No. 3 was tabled by me and also by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). It is an unusual alliance: I think we have travelled together but once—on a train but not, as I recall, through a tunnel.

The purpose of the amendment, and of related amendments, is to enable us to explore an issue that I raised in Committee. It relates to the many users who live outside the catchment area of the shareholders. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), a significant number of them come from my constituency, from Chester, from north Wales and from further afield.

I understand the logic of the position adopted by the passenger transport authority in its survey—a survey that may be accurate in so far as it has canvassed the opinions of people in the catchment area. Where it falls down, however—I make this point to the Minister in particular—is in its failure to address obligations in respect of best-value legislation. It is clear from best-value legislation introduced by the Government in recent years that, when examining matters relating to public services, any public authority must consider the impact on all users of those services, and also consult users' representatives. In my opinion, if the passenger transport authority does not accept that obligation in future, within the framework of the Bill, it will be acting ultra vires in respect of the best-value legislation. That will provide an opportunity for the Mersey Tunnels Users Association, for instance, to seek judicial review of the tunnel operators' actions. That puts an obligation on my hon. Friend the Minister because if that were really possible, as plenty of lawyers suggest, the Government would have to point out to the transport authority that it must consult users further afield and must find a proper mechanism for doing so.

4.15 pm

It is no surprise that, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said, the survey showed that only a small percentage of people in the authority area did not accept that there should be cross-subsidisation. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) will recall the questions that Speaker's counsel posed to Mr. Owen in the Committee. In one exchange, counsel asked Mr. Owen:

"would you agree that it is fair to characterise the Bill which your clients are promoting as being innovative?"

Mr. Owen replied that cross-subsidies were provided for in other legislation, but the Speaker's counsel returned to the point, which was never challenged, that such a provision was a first for a private Bill. That raises some interesting challenges, so the Government should be wary; they need to give the transport authority careful advice.

The essence of the best-value legislation was debated fiercely in the House, but all Members are firmly committed to the law, so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to keep those obligations in mind.

Although the conclusions of the consultation process show that my views are a reflection of only a minority of current public opinion in the five authorities that comprise the shareholding group, I am certain that I express the views of the vast majority of tunnel users, who believe that their opinion should be taken into account when determining future tolls.

Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with the term "No taxation without representation"?

I have read debates on that subject held both in the UK and in Washington DC. The people of Ellesmere Port and Neston, whom I represent, make a substantial contribution to the economic wealth of the region in which we are privileged to live. They have a right to be consulted about these matters. I do not accept that they should have a veto, but their views should be heard and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). who represents the promoter of the Bill, to take that point on board.

I want to refer especially to amendments Nos. 10 and 13, which deal with consultation. Before I do so, however, I want to express my agreement with those hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who have commented that it is regrettable that the Government have taken sides on the Bill and have only come clean to the House at almost the last moment. Had they made their opinion clear at the outset, perhaps we could have had meetings with Ministers and some real consultation with central Government— which, in the light of what has happened since, would have been highly desirable.

I shall address many of my remarks to the Government. I am glad the Minister is present. I do not think that at this stage, while the Bill is in the House, we can change anything, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take some of these points back to Ministers in the other place, and that when the Bill comes before the House of Lords there will be some consideration of Government amendments dealing with some of my arguments.

There is a real need to reinforce the rights of toll users to be consulted. I know that Merseytravel will say, rightly, that it consults widely already. I concede that it does, but the problem is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead mentioned, it takes little heed of what is said. It may well listen, but it takes no real notice. It has already made up its mind, although I think that it came under pressure during consideration of the first Bill. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was an earlier Bill, which was removed and replaced by this one, no doubt because Merseytravel felt that the people of Merseyside were opposed to the privatisation of the Mersey tunnels.

My wish is that the Merseyside passenger transport authority should be required to justify its plans for the debt-free but tolled Mersey tunnels to the Secretary of State, and to listen and act on the ideas and views of consumers' representatives. In the year 2000, Merseytravel began a five-year programme of consultations, through its local transport plan, but those consultations have largely been ignored, particularly in respect of the Mersey tunnel. It is wise to remember whose money finances those consultations.

In the consultation programme, four core objectives were identified. The first was to ensure that transport supports sustainable economic development and regeneration. The second was to moderate the upward trend in car use and secure a shift to more sustainable forms of transport, such as walking, cycling, and the use of public transport. The third was to secure the most efficient and effective use of the existing transport network. The fourth was to enhance the quality of life for those living and working in Merseyside.

On the first point, economic development, I do not think it is at all conceivable that economic growth can be encouraged by a year-by-year increase in the tax that toll payers have to meet. On the second point, we all want an improvement in public transport—there is no difference between us on that—but I do not believe that that should be achieved by methods that would, in effect, impose a tax on toll users and local businesses.

I do not think that the third objective to secure the most efficient and effective use of the existing transport Network—can be met by the sort of cross-financing that has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead: paying for the ferries out of the funds raised from toll users in order to benefit other services. In any event, I do not believe that to be necessary. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), I have great affection for the Mersey ferries. "Ferry across the Mersey" means to me something even more important than the song, and I do hope that with the year 2007, when we shall celebrate the 800th anniversary of the city of Liverpool, and the following year, when the city becomes European city of culture, that investment will come—but not by these means—into the Mersey ferries. That is one of the most attractive means of bringing tourists to Merseyside, and not just to Liverpool.

The final point was about enhancing the quality of life for those living and working in Merseyside. Many workers who live in the Wirral and work in Liverpool use the Mersey tunnels to get to their work. Many Liverpool people and many of my constituents travel to work at the Vauxhall plant "over the water", as we say on Merseyside, in the Wirral. Many of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South commute to Liverpool each day. How can their quality of life be improved by these year-by-year increases in taxation Incidentally, there is a possibility that they will exceed the increases in the retail prices index.

The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned taxation without representation—he will know all about that because it was a Tory Government, under Lord North, who were told that when the colonies parted from the British empire. I often think that that was one of the greatest disasters in history in view of American foreign policy today, but that is another matter.

In its 2001 consultation, Merseytravel asked, first:

"Should the Mersey Tunnel toll levels be index-linked with inflation"

The majority of people said no, which shows that consultations are merely something to be gone though, in the view of Merseytravel. Secondly, Merseytravel asked:

"Should the requirement to reduce tolls when the Tunnel's debt is paid off be removed"

Seventy one per cent. said no. Furthermore, Wirral borough council was among that number—at least one of the local authorities was firmly against that proposal.

Although I accept that no Parliament can bind its successor, confidence in Parliament is undermined when a retrograde move such as that being proposed is made. The treatment of the promise made way back in the early 1930s—that once the debt was covered there would be free runs through the Mersey tunnels—is to be regretted. Incidentally, the tunnel is very much part of the Merseyside economy. It is often said that we are all affected by it. We have a nasal accent and people ask why that it is so—some say it is because of the draught from the Mersey tunnel. The point is that no consideration was given to the case against maintaining tolls, presumably from now until kingdom come, irrespective of whether the tunnel is profitable or makes a loss.

Thirdly, in its consultation Merseytravel asked:

"Should surplus toll income be used to cross-subsidise and improve local public transport services, benefiting the wider Merseyside community?"

Sixty seven per cent.—a majority again—said no.

What is the point of spending public money on consultations if they are never acted upon or are never considered with any serious intent? If the MPTA is to have increased powers and freedoms to spend and charge, it must be made far more accountable. It can be argued, of course, that there is accountability because the MPTA is made up of councillors from all the boroughs on Merseyside. It is a very indirect form of accountability, however. It is very difficult—also, it is rather unusual—for constituents to raise MPTA matters with councillors because only a few members of each of the councils are MPTA members. That is a rather indirect way to keep in contact with the people of Merseyside. The MPTA must be accountable not only to the local people of Merseyside, but ultimately to the Secretary of State.

4.30 pm

There was once an all-party river crossing group—perhaps the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) remembers it—and Eric Heffer, a Labour Member, was one of its leading lights. Many hon. Members believe that the day should come when no tolls are charged. I am opposed to road tolling. Indeed, it is an 18th century concept that goes back to the turnpike trusts, all of which were abolished by 1895, but here we are today debating tolls on a major traffic route that is important not only to Merseyside, but nationally. That is absurd.

We should take our cue from what happens with other natural monopolies. In a 1998 Green Paper entitled "A Fair Deal for Consumers", the Government recommended—and, indeed, later established—a general duties diktat on the regulators, which was enshrined in the Utilities Act 2000. The regulators were to put the interests of consumers first—all consumers: industrial, business and domestic. None of that applies statutorily to the MPTA.

When the Utilities Act 2000 was passed on to the statute book, it dealt with the activities of the gas and electricity industries. The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority was set up, and it can impose financial penalties on utility companies that are in breach of their statutory requirements. Nothing like that exists for the Mersey tunnels. The Secretary of State appointed three members of that authority. The Minister should consider what was done then and what could be done now to ensure real accountability and consultation by the MPTA.

Under the Utilities Act 2000, the Competition Commission was given powers to act if it found that the gas and electricity authorities were not remedying adverse effects on consumers. Nothing like that exists for the Mersey tunnels.

I am anxious not to extend this debate and my hon. Friend's speech any longer than is absolutely necessary, but does he accept—he admitted as much earlier—that by no stretch of the imagination are the tunnels a monopoly?

I certainly reject the idea that the tunnels are not a monopoly; of course they are a monopoly. In fact, they are probably one of the most perfect examples of a monopoly that can be found in the British economy. Indeed, there are signs of competition in the gas and electricity industries, particularly since privatisation, so there can be competition between such companies. There is no competition with the MPTA. If my hon. Friend thinks that there is, perhaps he swims regularly across the River Mersey. There is no other way in which heavy traffic can cross the River Mersey at that point. Heavy traffic cannot cross unless its goes all the way round to Runcorn and Widnes to deliver goods or collect materials.

I hesitate to intervene again, and I promise to behave myself for the remainder of the debate, but to put the matter straight, as my hon. Friend rightly said some moments ago, there are ferries and, as he has now conceded, the Widnes to Runcorn bridge, which my constituents use far more regularly than the tunnels, as well as the rail system that runs under the river. I cannot see how, by any stretch of the imagination, that can constitute any kind of monopoly.

Order. Before the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) responds, I should direct him back to the scope of these amendments. We are not discussing the Bill as a whole. There may be an opportunity to do that on Third Reading, and it would be a pity if the hon. Gentleman stole his own thunder at this stage. I urge him to look at the terms of the amendments in concluding his remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My argument, of course, is that there should be bodies to represent the consumers of Merseyside. In one of the amendments I refer to a number of organisations, such as trade unions and the Liverpool and Wirral chambers of commerce, which should be consulted. What I am suggesting is that some form of consumers council, such as that set up under the Utilities Act 2000 for other utility services, could be a model for consultation on the Mersey tunnels. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) says—I am glad that he is going to behave now, which he usually does, but one never knows with him— we are considering a monopoly rather than an oligopoly, which exists in certain other utility services.

I do not expect that we will come to a conclusion on this matter tonight. When the Bill goes to the other place, however, the Government should consider seriously—I cannot understand how such a rational idea could be opposed— including the question of consultation and a consumers body in a new Government amendment. It seems to me that there is no reason why both sides of our argument about the Bill should not come together on that. I hope that the Minister's reply will at least come close to what I have been recommending in all good faith.

I have listened carefully to the arguments presented by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members this afternoon, and I cannot agree with them about the consultation. I have worked with the promoter of the Bill for a number of years, and I am satisfied that it executes the requirements of its work with regard to consultation with a diligence for which I have a great regard. I therefore ask my hon. Friends and other hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could elucidate that point by giving a couple of examples of how the Merseyside passenger transport authority has responded positively to points made in consultation.

I can understand my hon. Friend's desire to extend this debate for as long as possible, but I believe that all the points that have been raised with respect to consultation have already been covered.

Is my hon. Friend saying on behalf of the promoter of this Bill that people resident in Cheshire, outside the catchment zone of the five district councils that are shareholders, have no rights in consultation? Is she satisfied that that does not breach the statutory duty in respect of best value legislation

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I believe that the door to Merseytravel has always been open and that it is always responsive to reasoned arguments about improvements and the service available.

I am afraid that the contribution made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) has left rather a nasty taste in the mouth. Does she really think that when summing up a serious debate in which many hon. Members from both sides of the House have participated, all she need do is assert that all the points relating to consultation have been covered, so that is the end of the argument? She does a disservice to the House because we have put pertinent points cogently and coherently—but not extensively—to the promoter of the Bill. In so far as she speaks for the promoter, we assumed that she absented herself from the Chamber for some of debate to take instructions from it so that she could give us responses.

Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the surprising reticence of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) mirrors exactly the instructions that she has probably been given by Merseytravel?Merseytravel does not want to say anything or engage in debate.

I do not know what instructions the hon. Lady received, but I am aware that she has strong views of her own. If she had received instructions with which she disagreed, I am sure that she would have spoken out. She has fearlessly spoken out on several issues in the House—I agree with that. That is why her reticence when responding to points from the debate is so bizarre.

Does my hon. Friend think that that is even more extraordinary given that the withdrawal of the opposing petitions in Committee meant that there was no light shone on the matter? There was no clarification, investigation or probing, so it was extraordinary of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) to make no comment on the well reasoned amendments.

My hon. Friend makes the same point as me.

I doubt very much whether the other place will allow the promoters of the Bill to get away with such an arrogant approach. The conventions that used to apply in this House still apply in the other place, so Members of the other place who respond to a debate actually deal with points that have been raised. Some Ministers and hon. Members in this House have not complied with that convention for some time. If Members of the other place make points that are not answered, they expect to be able to debate them at greater length on another occasion.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the point is not only that the conventions that used to apply here will apply when the Bill reaches the other place? The Government find it more difficult to get legislation through the other place than this House.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point.

The hon. Member for Crosby is not the only person who has refused to participate at length in the debate. The spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), has not said anything. That might be because the Liberal Democrats have a different policy on congestion charging in different parts of the country. London Liberal Democrats say that they are in favour of it, but we are not sure of the Liberal Democrat position on Merseyside. We know that the Liberal Democrats are against tolls for the Skye bridge, but perhaps that it because the leader of the party represents the constituency in which the bridge is situated.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which he is trying to trivialise the debate only goes to prove the pointlessness of trying to engage him in debate?

The hon. Gentleman will have to judge whether he thinks that I am trivialising the debate. I am trying to be serious, and I have expressed my concern that we have not heard the view of the Liberal Democrats, although that is not unusual.

It is appalling that the Government have not joined in the debate. Why has the Minister not spoken? The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a good contribution in which he laid down a number of challenges to the Government. Why is the Minister not earning his keep by responding?

4.45 pm

The explanatory memorandum says that the Bill will

"assist the Authority in implementing this Government's policies on integrated public transport facilities."

Many of us think that that is a total misreading of the situation. Does the Minister believe that the Bill will assist the authority in implementing the Government's policies on integrated transport? Does it have the overt support of the Government, or are they neutral on it? The Government Whips have been determined to force the measure through. In such circumstances, it is even more despicable that the Minister is not prepared to stand up at the Dispatch Box and allow himself to be exposed to questions from his right hon. and hon. Friends who want to know where the Government stand.

I do not usually get angry in the House, but the past few minutes of the debate have made me extremely cross. The suspicions of people in Merseyside, and on the Wirral peninsula in particular, who think that they are victims of a ghastly conspiracy to do them down and to tax them heavily for their use of an essential route to work are well founded. The behaviour of the promoter and the Minister bears that out.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby made excellent pertinent points. I hope that he will table parliamentary questions to his ministerial colleague to get some answers. Alternatively, perhaps he will complain to his Whips that it is not conventional for a Minister not to respond to points raised by a Labour Member. No one can say that we are short of time. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) spoke extensively in earlier debates and there was no chance for others to join in before the motion for closure was moved. Ironically, the Government were able to hide behind the closure and not explain themselves. That is not possible today because the debate has only been going on for just over an hour. The Minister has every opportunity to explain for the first time the Government's opinion of the Bill and the amendments, but he has manifestly declined so to do. That is typical of the Government's arrogance. If they and the sponsor are not prepared to listen to their own Members, all we can do is hope that they will be forced to change their attitude in another place.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) for contributing to the debate. He brings a special expertise because of his experience of serving on the Committee that discussed the Bill before it was withdrawn. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) asked some important questions that have not been answered. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was right to say that I did not make the most of the strong arguments that should be deployed on how the Bill is a taxing measure, which it is: it is a stealth tax—a stealth congestion charge. It is clear that there is no intention to pay off the debt on the tunnels by using the proceeds of the tolls. The purpose is to try to raise extra charges to deter people from using the tunnels and to transfer money from tunnel users to other parts of Merseyside for various public sector projects. A number of hon. Members have referred to the fact, which is inherent to the debate, that the people of Merseyside will not get good value for money out of the tunnels.

rose—

Ah.

Well, in the interests of consistency I am required to draw something to the hon. Gentleman's attention. He said that the Bill's object is to deter people from using the tunnels, but the promoter hopes to have lots of money to spend on other causes. How can the Bill achieve both?

If that is the sum of the hon. Gentleman's contribution, I am sorry that he did not make a speech. That is exactly what is set out in the explanatory memorandum, and a number of us think that it contains inherent inconsistencies, including the one to which I just referred.

The Bill's promoter has provided no clarity about the objectives. It says that, on the one hand, it wants to have the power to increase tunnel charges by the rate of inflation as a matter of convenience, and it wants to be able to pay off the debt. On the other, it says that the Bill will be extremely useful in assisting the authority in implementing the Government's policies on integrated public transport facilities. But it does not say how it will pay off the enormous overhanging debt that we know to be associated with the tunnels, and surely the first objective should be to use the tolls to meet the costs of the tunnels, rather than to cross-subsidise other public transport activity.

This is a stealth tax, and it is part of the Government's congestion charging programme. The toll will be increased well beyond what is reasonable, and the tunnel users will not be able to avoid it. The cavalier way in which the Bill's promoter and sponsors have failed to respond to the debate is significant, and I hope that it will result in the sponsors losing the vote that I hope we will have on the amendment that I have tabled.

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Government Whips are in place for a coming Division, so the Government's fingerprints are all over the Bill, a tax-raising measure?

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and he does the House a service in pointing that out. There will be people on the Wirral, in his constituency of Birkenhead and elsewhere in Merseyside who find it quite enlightening to see how the Government operate.

The Government are unwilling to come forward and openly justify the Bill, but they are determined to push it through the House against the wishes of many people on Merseyside, including those who were consulted about the measure and who overwhelmingly voted against it. I hope that the amendment will be carried. If it is not carried here, I hope that it will be carried in the other place.

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 6, line 27, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 42 on page 7.

With this we may take amendment No. 34, in page 7, line 45, leave out

'or Section 92 (Further revision of tolls)'.

Amendment No. 34 is consequential on amendment No. 33. Amendment No. 33 would remove existing section 92 of the County of Merseyside Act 1980, which the Bill re-enacts.

We are trying to deal with overkill. The amendments would make the Bill honest. The measure is currently dishonest because it is a con perpetrated on the people of Merseyside, especially the people of the Wirral—my constituents, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and, in a wider sense, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).

However, we are considering a wider Merseyside issue. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was right to remind us of the consultation exercise. It made me recall the Mersey tunnels' current financial position. I am not talking about fantasy finance; I shall read out Merseytravel's comments on the Mersey tunnels' finances in the consultation document, which has already been mentioned. Paragraph 2.3 states:

"The Tunnels are currently breaking even financially, i.e. the toll income is sufficient to meet annual operating costs of about £12 million, debt (capital financing) charges of £13 million, and refurbishment (safety and renewal) costs of about £7 million. The debt charges stem from the use of borrowing to finance the cost of constructing the Wallasey Tunnel (£44 million), and subsequent operating losses incurred between 1968 and 1992 (£116 million). The current volume of debt outstanding is about £106 million, which is being repaid at the rate of about £4.5 million per annum together with interest charges of about £8.5 million."

It is said that the Bill and the section that I am seeking to remove are before the House because those responsible for operating the Mersey tunnels need access to extra finance. The House has already debated at some length the reason for raising that extra money, not least in relation to the cross-subsidy for other purposes on the wider Merseyside transport front. Some of the extra money is said to be needed for refurbishment and safety work, but I am not entirely convinced by that argument. It is an easy argument to make, because it throws upon those who do not take it at face value the unpleasant suggestion that they are not interested in the safety of the tunnels. I reject that entirely. It would not be an honest or proper position for the promoter to take, and it may be that it does not do so.

A group that has been formed in my constituency and elsewhere to look at the finances of the Mersey tunnels has carried out some research. I am grateful to the group—and in particular to Mr. McGoldrick—for furnishing me and my hon. Friends with certain information. On the question of safety, the group found that the Eurotest 2002 report rated the Wallasey tunnel the safest of those tested in Britain, and that the Birkenhead tunnel was the third safest. That could put to bed the idea that there needs to be access to extra funds, certainly for that purpose.

Will my hon. Friend give the House some more information about the group that has provided him with that research? Specifically, will he tell us what its members' qualifications for making these assertions are?

I do not think that it would be helpful for me to go down that particular road, attractive though the question is. Those on whose behalf my hon. Friend speaks—if I may put it that way—know very well who these people are, and he knows very well that they know that. They have had substantial correspondence with the group.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the principal qualification of the group's members for making these statements is that they are users of the tunnel and that, as such, they make representations to the passenger transport authority? Would it not be good if—in these circumstances, if in no others—the authority were, for once, to listen?

My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. The principal qualification of the group's members is that they are users of the tunnels, and as users—and, indeed, as taxpayers—they have tried hard to seek basic information from Merseytravel so that they can understand the situation better and make a genuine and dispassionate observation of the finances of the operation. They found, however, that those responsible for keeping that information were not forthcoming; they said that it was like getting blood out of a stone. It is wrong of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) to ask what their qualifications are. They are simply users trying to understand the situation as best they can.

I am mystified as to why this is such a big secret. My hon. Friend says that I know who these people are, and he knows who they are, but no one else is to be given this information. Would it not be sensible, if my hon. Friend is praying in aid a group that has provided information, that he should tell us who its members are? He knows that these minutes will be read in another place and that people will expect to be told exactly what the qualifications of those providing that information are.

The group calls itself the Mersey Tunnel Users Association, which answers my hon. Friend's question, a blind alley down which I am sure he did not take me purposely.

Why do we need a twin-track approach? The operators of the Mersey tunnel can use the section 92 procedure to raise tolls, a matter that the House has discussed previously. Curiously, while asking for a further toll-raising measure, the operators are also seeking to use the old procedure. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, there will be a public inquiry on that soon.

Current practice can deal with increasing tolls, but the Bill's promoter seeks to retain the section 92 power—I am seeking to remove it—while having the new, more flexible power that can raise money more easily. I ask a simple question that the promoter has so far not even bothered to address; why does it need both? If the promoter is sure that the new system will provide flexibility—with a 10p toll rise every three years—without a public inquiry, fine. I am against it having the new power, but why does it need the existing power as well? If the Bill becomes law and the promoter can raise the funds that it thinks it can—bearing in mind that the tunnel, as I said, is breaking even—why does it need the fallback position? It adds insult to injury for it to have both.

In an ideal world, I would want the Bill to go away, and that we left in place the current system, which is being used successfully to increase tolls at the moment. I suspect that my wish will not be granted, and the House must deal with the point about section 92.

It is not as though the Secretary of State—his assistance must be sought—after having a public inquiry to raise money has ever disappointed anyone. When people went to the Secretary of State under the old system seeking the money to secure the finances of the tunnels, their request was always acceded to. It was never refused. Indeed, the point needs to be reiterated, so I do so. The tunnel tolls have never been denied under what I call the old, or the current, system. Clearly, it works well, because if it did not, the tolls would not be in financial equilibrium. Under existing legislation, the terms are broadly for the tunnel to break even—to pay its way, so that eventually the running costs, the debt and other costs are paid off and the tunnels become free.

Of course, there is another element of my objection to the re-enactment of section 92, which would provide for the current system and the new system. I look forward to a response, which we did not have in the previous debate—[Interruption.] I hear a sotto voce indication that there might be a response this time, and I am pleased about that. I look forward to it, if it comes. It seems objectionable because I have not had an answer to the basic question, "Why both?" Is it because the Bill's promoter has a suspicion that the new system that it wants will somehow not be effective? Does it think that something will go wrong with it? If so, I would be interested to know what that might be.

I am sure that the House would also want to know if it is passing a measure whose promoter believes that there is an inherent probability of something going wrong or an element of mismanagement. I do not mean purposeful mismanagement, but a problem inherent in the system. The system might throw up a set of circumstances that requires the promoter to use a fallback position to raise extra cash.

In opting for the new fast-track procedure, as I call it, to raise money more easily, the promoter has criticised the current system as old-fashioned, cumbersome, dated and responsive to an era that has now gone. I believe that those criticisms still exist, so is it not strange that the promoter wants to keep such an archaic system? Why does it envisage that, at some as yet unspecified time and in some unspecified circumstances—the promoter says that its fears are genuine, so they must be—the despised old-fashioned system will be used?

The promoter calls the current system into question, but it remains on the statute book, even though for one purpose it hates it. It wants the House to believe that it is useless and works against the people of Merseyside and the Mersey tunnels in general, but it wants it to stay on the statute book to use as a fallback position, with all the problems that it acknowledges that it has. Those problems include requirements to publicise the matter in the newspapers, to go to the Secretary of State and to hold a public inquiry. That causes delays and means that the promoter does not get the money when it needs it.

I have said that I do not understand why there are two parallel systems for raising money. The current, criticised system is the fallback position, and it takes a long time. What is the rationale for retaining it?

I and my constituents could understand the Bill better if it contained one simple proposition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has dealt with elements of the Bill, such as insulation, so I shall not discuss them. My constituents might be more sympathetic if the Bill stated that we need a new system because the current one gets gummed up and does not work, and is an old-fashioned and expensive waste of time. That is a simple proposition that we could all understand, but that is not what we are faced with.

Why do we need to keep section 92? That is my simple question. I do not understand why the Bill contains that provision.

I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), is listening with care to my speech. We have not heard from either the promoter or the Government about this matter. From the point of view of business management, the Government want the Bill to go through today, as this is the third or fourth time that it has been discussed on the Floor of the House. The Bill is like a bad penny that keeps coming back. The Government want it to get through, and they will use the heavy hand of whipping to ensure that that happens. The fact that the debate is not time limited means that the business will almost certainly go through in the manner that they envisage.

I oppose the Bill and so do not find the Government's approach attractive, but there is more to it than that. I do not believe that the Government have not read the Bill and do not know what it is about. In fact, I know that that is not the case, as a delegation of which I was a member met the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), and talked about it face to face. The Government know what the Bill is about.

I have addressed my propositions to the Bill's promoter and to the House in general. I hope that the House has some sympathy with what I have said, but I now address my comments to the Government.

What is the Government's logic in this matter? The rules laid down in the original Act are currently being used by the Bill's promoter to raise the tunnel charges. In one way or another, those rules have been used successfully for about 70 years. What are the Government sanguine about, given that the Bill wants not just the new fast-track procedure but the retention of the current procedure as a back-up? If they are, in fact, not sanguine about the use of two parallel tax-raising measures, perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us now.

5.30 pm

My hon. Friend the Minister remains steadfastly seated. It would be easy enough for him to reply to me in a few words. We are not happy about a twin-track procedure for raising money at the expense of my constituents, and we are not persuaded that there is any reason for it. As my hon. Friend is not tempted by my invitation, I must assume—as my constituents must—that the Government are indeed sanguine about the forcing of the two tax-raising measures on them in circumstances that no one has yet explained. The purpose is not to refurbish the tunnels or to get the authority out of debt, because it is not in debt. It is not even to secure a more sensible way of raising tolls— a fast-track approach. If that were the case, the old procedure would not be needed.

What can my hon. Friend and the promoter point to that will go wrong? In what circumstances will the old system be used? Can someone please tell us what the fallback position is?

As I hope the House appreciates, I am doing my best for my constituents. I have asked the promoter and the Government for answers, but for the moment there is a stony silence. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East will serve as official spokesman for the promoter, but he indicated, sotto voce, that he wished to speak. I shall sit down now, but I look forward to elucidation from someone—if not for my benefit, at least as a courtesy to the House.

I shall try to be brief.

Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), I was reminded of a line from a song on The Beatles' "Abbey Road". I quote from memory, but I think it ran, "You never give me your pillow, you only issue your invitations". My hon. Friend seems to have issued invitations to everyone rather liberally in the last few moments.

I think that my hon. Friend rather over-egged the pudding. He spoke at some length about the promoter, Merseytravel. I should emphasise that I represent my constituents, and do not directly represent the promoters.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I have not begun to develop my argument yet.

My hon. Friend says, in effect, that the promoters of the Bill want to take a belt-and-braces approach; as well as the new powers that they seek, they want to reserve the power to continue to use the old system. That is the core of his argument, which I have managed to put in two minutes but which took him 30 minutes.

The simple answer to my hon. Friend's question is that, for all intents and purposes, in all normal circumstances, the promoters intend to use the new system. They want the straightforward power to be able to increase the tunnel tolls in line with inflation, measured by the retail prices index. Whether the increase will be 10p every three years or some other figure will obviously depend on the rate of inflation. However, the promoters want a further option in case something unforeseen happens. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has any experience in public finance, but in every public finance system that I have dealt with—whether in local government or national Government—provision is always made for unforeseen circumstances. I cannot predict what they might be, but any civil engineering project could go wrong. The circumstances might not be within the control of those responsible for managing the project; for example, there could be an act of terrorism or some engineering fault that was not originally evident. There must be some way of dealing with such eventualities.

The promoters have sensibly taken the view that the old arrangement, as my hon. Friend describes it, would be the fair way to deal with such circumstances. There would be a public inquiry. The authority would have to go back to central Government and justify why they wanted to exceed what they had asked for under the initial powers.

indicated assent.

I do not want to put words into the Government's mouth, but my hon. Friend is nodding in agreement. I may have saved him from the need to make a speech.

The arrangements that I have described always apply in any public finance system. Unless my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West seeks only to make mischief, I do not know why he could not have figured that out for himself.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) has half-answered the question that I was about to put to the sponsor of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). I, too, spotted the Minister nodding earlier, so that was helpful.

When I added my name to the amendment, it was to enable me to probe the circumstances in which the promoters would make such an application. What are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might be minded to accede to them?

Will my hon. Friend give way?

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall finish asking my questions and then I shall welcome her answers.

I have made a particular examination of the reports prepared by the German automobile association—ADAC—on the safety aspects. One can see that there could be exceptional expenditure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East described. He made a fair point. He also threw up other possibilities, though God forbid that there should be terrorism. I noticed, on a website, that the

"chairman of tunnel operators Merseytravel, says tolls will have to rise to meet the cost of the revamp"

that stems from the ADAC report, although as always in these matters, different figures are floating around.

That led me—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has been considering this, as she is an engineer by background—to look at some of the engineering issues that have cropped up in previous tunnel incidents. Some awful tragedies have taken place around the world. Thank goodness—and I say, well done—Merseytravel has avoided some of the awful incidents that we have seen.

I looked at the ADAC report, at some work done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology examining damage to concrete walls in the event of fires, and at an extraordinarily detailed report entitled, "The Prevention and Control of Highway Tunnel Fires" published in the United States about three years ago, which went through very detailed evidence surrounding a range of fire situations, and created models of potential fire situations that thus far had not occurred in real life. It is a scary report.

The single question that I should like answered is, am I right that the promoters envisage clause 92 being applied only in circumstances relating to safety? If there are any other circumstances, I want to know; it is a fair question to ask. If it is safety only, I am for keeping clause 92 as it stands. If it is broader and the promoters want to leave it fairly vague, that is not good enough.

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make this intervention. He, like me, will have heard announcements—

Order. Is the hon. Lady intervening on the hon. Gentleman?

I have finished.

In that case, the hon. Lady is actually making a speech.

Given that I am on my feet, perhaps I can address the comment that has just been made. I believe that the exceptional circumstances are unforeseen but would be more than likely to include safety matters.

My hon. Friends will have heard today that the EU intends to formulate a directive on all manufactured chemical products and to determine their impact on members of the public. I was working in the chemical industry when the EU had its first go at that in the mid-1980s. Catastrophic shock waves travelled through the chemical industry as people began to consider the consequences of the general products that had already been produced for the public who were purchasing them. At the time, products that had been on the market for 20 years were exempted from that consideration. It is now proposed to bring all products into the EU directive, so all companies providing products must be able to provide technical appraisals and toxicity appraisals to indicate the impact of those products on the population. I do not know the likely consequences, but I can well imagine that some products that have been used in the construction of the tunnels and other structures might well have an impact on the population that we currently do not assess.

I am grateful; that is helpful.

In what circumstances might the clause be used other than to deal with emergency major engineering works that stem from things like the safety case? If there are no other circumstances, that is fine and the provision ought to remain in the Bill. If there are other circumstances, beyond safety, the House is entitled to know of them.

I cannot foresee any other circumstances in which those powers would need to be used. However, I have worked for 20 years in an industry where unforeseen incidents do unfortunately happen. One still has to have provisions and arrangements that accommodate those exceptional circumstances. If one does not have them in place, one is criticised by the public for failing to do so.

I agree entirely that there needs to be a contingency arrangement. It is particularly important in the context of safety—the safety of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend when travelling through the tunnel and that of the people who work in it. That is a mission critical. Is she saying that those contingency arrangements would extend to the inability of the passenger transport authority to balance its books on some other service?

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me an opportunity to clarify the situation. If there were exceptional circumstances, regardless of how they were arrived at, the matter would be referred to a public inquiry. At that point, I believe that the merits of the arguments put forward to substantiate an increase would be roundly discussed. We cannot prejudge what those unforeseen circumstances might be, but in the case of managerial neglect, huge criticisms would be made of the sponsor and justifiably so. I suspect that they would be told to look for alternative means to balance budgets.

This has been a curious little debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) was expansive—if he gets his way, it will also be expensive for my constituents. He said that if one knows something about public finances, one always needs a fall-back position. I do not believe that that is an accurate statement of general public finance, but it appeared to be his point.

I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). It is my constituents who are more likely to have to pay for those contingencies. Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear in the general debate. When trying to understand what might be the nature of the unforeseen circumstances, there is no substitute for considering what has happened. One of the tunnels has been in existence for 70 years and the other since 1968. None of those unforeseen safety problems has arisen. Perhaps, I did not make it sufficiently clear that, according to my information, one of the tunnels is registered as the safest and the other as the third safest in the country.

I am profoundly not persuaded by the safety argument. It is suggested that some such situation may arise. Do the promoters not have something called insurance? Are they not insured for such things? Is not insurance designed to insure against unforeseen things? That is a rhetorical question, because the insurance industry exists for that purpose.

My hon. Friend has a way with words: to describe my speech, which was four minutes long, as expansive, having spoken for 28 minutes himself, seems an odd use of the English language. For the sake of the record, given the argument that he is now using, can he tell me the last time he was able to insure against a terrorist disaster?

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but he knows, as I do, that those parts of the country that suffer from terrorist activity receive Government funding—for example, when Manchester was rebuilt—so I am afraid that he makes a very bad point.

rose—

No. My hon. Friend has had his chance. He makes a seriously bad point because the idea that some terrorist atrocity would be paid for by such a procedure is nonsense.

My hon. Friend argued, until I intervened, that insurance could cover all contingencies. When it was pointed out that it cannot, he changed his argument. He cannot have it both ways.

Terrorism will not be paid for by such a procedure. When I made that point, my hon. Friend nodded because it is an obvious point. Let us not overplay this. Let us not be stupid about the idea that there is a prospect of terrorism in the Mersey tunnels; there is not. Let us not go too far down that road.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No.

I described this as a curious little debate because of the frequent references to the unforeseen nature of the circumstances. I have dealt with the idea that people can insure against risk. I have dealt with the idea of terrorism. When my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) was asked whether there were any other circumstances, the answer was no. There are no other circumstances in which she could envisage the procedure being used. Therefore, in my submission—whether the House agrees with me I know not—I have heard nothing to persuade me that clause 92 needs to stay in the Bill.

Given the way the debate has been organized—that has been aired already—I do not intend to press amendments Nos. 33 and 34 to the vote tonight. Those arguments will go to another place, as has been indicated. I am sure that those in the other place will read with interest the report of this curious little debate, and I hope that their lordships will have some sympathy with my argument about clause 92. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 24, leave out 'in the vicinity of' and insert 'adjacent to.'.

With this we may take amendment No. 21, in page 9, line 34, leave out

'Except when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section or otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances.'.

These are, by nature, probing amendments, and I hope that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) realises that the essence of a probing amendment is that an hon. Member asks questions in the hope that some answers will be forthcoming.

Fat chance.

As my hon. Friend says, on the basis of experience so far today, there is a fat chance of that. I hope that there is a better chance than that, because almost everyone involved with the Bill is agreed that its best part is the proposal to provide insulation. The explanatory memorandum says that the fourth purpose is

"to allow the Authority to undertake and finance noise insulation work to properties adjacent to the Kingsway Tunnel's approach roads."

I therefore cannot understand why the Bill uses not the words "adjacent to", but the expression "in the vicinity of". I wonder whether the hon. Lady, as the Bill's sponsor, could explain—it does not have to be at great length—why the definition in the explanatory memorandum seems to be narrower than the Bill; or perhaps it is not narrower. I tabled amendment No. 20 to ensure consistency between the explanatory memorandum and the Bill.

I hope that the hon. Lady can also respond to amendment No. 21, which I also tabled. It deals with the exceptions where noise insulation works and grants cannot be carried out. My amendment would remove the qualification from the beginning of proposed new section 109A(4) of schedule 2, which says:

"Except when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section".

I should have thought that that was obvious and need not be stated in the Bill.

I am conscious of the fact that the hon. Lady is now taking instructions on that. The amendments were tabled probably the best part of four or five months ago, so I am surprised that, even after that time, Merseytravel's resources could not be used to communicate with me directly or to speculate on why I had tabled them. At least the hon. Lady is now taking instructions, for which I am grateful.

Why does proposed subsection (4) include the expression

"when to do so would be inconsistent with the provisions of this section"?

It goes on to say:

"or otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances".

Using such words gives a subjective veto the people who provide those grants, so could the hon. Lady give us one or two examples of where such work might be

"otherwise inappropriate in the circumstances".

If she cannot explain that, perhaps she will accept amendment No. 21, which would remove that part of schedule 2.

I shall respond to the two probing amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). With regard to the words used, he is right to note that there is a difference between the words "vicinity" and "adjacent", but, of course, vicinity can mean adjacent. In drafting the Bill, every care has been taken to ensure that the people, communities and properties that need to be afforded noise insulation receive that insulation, and they will do so because they are in the vicinity of or in proximity to the noise source.

In Committee, hon. Members asked for maps that would identify the houses that might benefit from the insulation work. Although some maps were available, it was not clear which houses would be included and which would not and how the phrase "vicinity of" would be defined. It could be defined in a number of ways. Has any map been produced? Have those houses been identified?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that extensive legislation exists with regard to noise, the emission of noise and tolerable levels of noise. I have utter confidence that Merseytravel will seek to ensure that those properties that are substantially disturbed by noise receive the protection for which my hon. Friends have argued.

The second probing amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) introduces the words:

"Except when to do so would be inconsistent… or…inappropriate in the circumstances".

We can all envisage circumstances in which it might not be possible to introduce noise insulation. For obvious reasons, the space might not be available—noise insulation is not just a matter of a few millimetres of board adhered to property. Appropriate noise insulation to a good standard today will invariably mean a structure that needs a base on which to stand and extensive panels, and I am not sure—I do not know every property to which the provision may offer Protection—whether all those properties would be able to accommodate that, or, importantly, whether the solution offered to address the problem will be wanted. I have had noise insulation installed in my constituency and the response from various constituents to what was offered varied enormously. There were those who were prepared to accept significant structures that did the job of preventing noise and others who said, "Thank you, but I prefer to leave things as they are."

Surely the point that the hon. Lady has just made is dealt with in proposed new subsection (3).

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.

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."

She has not explained the conflict between those two. If we were talking about

"the vicinity of the approaches",

why was that not included in the explanatory memorandum? I hear what she says, however. No doubt some intolerant Labour Members will think that this discussion is rather pedantic, but the essence of scrutiny is to ask such questions when there are inconsistencies between what is said in the explanatory memorandum and what is contained in the wording of the Bill.

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.

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 he trees that have preservation—

Order. The hon. Lady will have to content herself with one example.

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 oddߞthis 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.

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 he 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.

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.

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.

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 he 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 nongovernmental 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.

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.

I was asked to chair the private Bill proceedings, so I was witness to the disgraceful conduct of the petition being withdrawn.

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.

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.

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.

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 1 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.

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 clause92—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 UnderSecretary—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.

The Bill is provocative and contentious, and it has been quite a spectacle for Conservative Members to watch one Labour Member fighting another on this issue. The promoter has missed a great opportunity to try to reach a compromise. Clearly it believes in bully-boy tactics, and it is no surprise to Opposition Members that it has found allies on the Government Benches.

On the positive side, the debates have illustrated the importance of strong constituency representation. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Members for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on having fearlessly, persistently and at some considerable length deployed the arguments that needed to be deployed on behalf of their constituents. I should like to think that if those seats were represented by Conservative Members, they would have been equally diligent in defending the interests of their constituents. This is a good illustration of why proportional representation and list systems do not work, and deprive constituents of the opportunity of having people speaking out on their behalf in this House.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), said that his party had no line on the Bill, but the hon. Member for Wirral, West put us right, saying that the Liberal Democrats had consistently voted with the Government on the Bill and against the interests of those living on the Wirral peninsula. The hon. Member for Southport would have been right to say that the Liberal Democrats had not yet found a line to explain the inconsistency between their approach to the Bill and their approach to doing away with tolls on the Skye bridge, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the party. Perhaps in due course we will have a line on that.

The Bill was conceived and started on the fallacious argument that it was needed to prevent Merseysiders having to pay a levy for a tunnel that they do not use. It has been demonstrated in the debate that that is mere scaremongering. The Bill does, however, contain powers to raise stealth taxes on tunnel users to subsidise other transport activity in Merseyside. I am afraid that it is classic double-speak, typical of the present Government.

Conservative Members believe in a fair deal for everyone. The Bill is not fair: it is strongly opposed by local Members of Parliament and local people, and it runs contrary to the results of a consultation process. Conservatives will continue to work with others in the other place to ensure that the Bill is substantially improved.

I have a few brief points. I have been happily involved in the periphery of the Bill—first as Government Whip and now in my current position—and I wish to clarify a few small points.

The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said that the Bill was a precedent, but I do not see how it is a precedent in any regard. If it is about the ability to set in train regular retail prices index increases, it is certainly not unprecedented: Dartford and the Severn crossing are organised in the same way. If it is about the ability to use any surplus tolls for public transport works, it is not unprecedented because of Dartford again and the Forth system.

It may be a measure of the length of time of the different stages that three Transport Ministers have come and gone—I am the third of the thre—while the Bill has struggled through Parliament. The notion of implementing RPI increases has been put on a more solid footing—it has a double lock on RPI plus increases—which is all to the good. It amounts almost to an adjustment to the existing system rather than the introduction of a new system and a fallback system. I believe that it will work well for those living in the area.

A smaller point—though a major one in terms of substance and the impact on people—is the noise insulation works. It is, on the whole, a good part of the Bill, on which many people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. It is certainly not the Government's job to define expressly in the Bill the houses on which there may be an impact at this particular time. We are talking about a Bill that is longer in duration. I shall double-check the answer, but I think that I was right in what I said earlier about the noise insulation regulations in response to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I explained why there were qualifications in the early part of the process.

People knock the private Bill process—andGovernment Bills more generally—and talk about arrogance, pulling strings or exploiting contracts, but I do not agree with that. The points about honesty or dishonesty were not well made by any hon. Member. From my involvement in the Bill—tangentially or otherwise—I can say that there has been a good deal of honesty on all sides and a good deal of scrutiny ad debate and many well made points.

As I have said before, the Government's position on Third Reading is entirely neutral. The Bill does not counter any element of Government policy, hence our neutrality.