TOLLING OF THE MERSEY, THAMES AND HUMBER CROSSINGS

Early day motion 655, tabled 18 April 2000 by Andrew MacKinlay (Labour). Signed by 17 members.

That this House notes that the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill are economical with the truth in asserting in their statement in support of the Second Reading, that Parliament has already accepted the principle of annual index-linked toll increases for esturial crossings by enacting the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988; cannot be fooled, remembering that the following provisions of the 1988 Act are hypothecated and time-limited to repaying the capital cost of the new bridge crossing the Thames; welcomes the fact that the day when the cessation of tolling shall, in accordance with the Act, soon be achieved; considers that if the Government want, as a general principle, to continue or introduce tolling of esturial crossings then this shall only be done following a period of consultation, the publication of a White Paper and a Public General Act and not piecemeal by private Acts; considers that there must be parity of treatment throughout England and Wales as to the tolling regime and charges including the dispersal of the revenues; and believes that if continued tolling for the Thames, Mersey and other crossings was to be enacted this would, logically, have to include currently free crossing of the Humber.

Signatures by party: Labour 15, Labour/Co-operative 1, Liberal Democrat 1.