Local Transport Bill [HL]

I query the effects of Clauses 97 and 98 as they stand in the Bill. Clause 97 abolishes the need for confirmation of English charging schemes by the Secretary of State. While the reasoning behind removing the Secretary of State's responsibility for approving each road pricing scheme is understood, and I have no wish to return to the Transport Act 2000 situation, there should be some form of central government control in ensuring that these schemes are fully harmonised in their objectives and fully interoperable. Clearly, legislative and statutory guidance from the Government can help to achieve that objective and Clause 100 seems to take a first step towards that, but, in my view, central government should clearly demonstrate what mechanism will be in place to ensure that a local authority, implementing a scheme which fails to meet the statutory guidance, will be brought to account. Currently, that remains unclear and I suggest creates a degree of uncertainty. The House of Commons Transport Committee echoed those views. I quote from its report: "““Regulations and guidance governing local charging schemes must balance the need for consistency, interoperability and fairness against the need to provide flexibility to tailor schemes to local requirements. The strengths and weaknesses of this framework will play a key part in determining whether or not the local schemes are successful. We believe that Parliament should have a clear indication of the framework the Government intends to put in place””." If consistency and interaction between schemes is not achieved, it will become extremely complex and confusing for all motorists; for example, there has to be consistency in terms of technology. If motorists are unable to register with one central scheme for payments, each driver must end up with several black boxes or tags in the vehicle at great expense. There has to be consistency in terms of discounts and exemptions. If discounts do not have a degree of harmonisation, a driver could think that his vehicle, which is exempt for being a low-polluting car, say, under a specific local road pricing scheme, is therefore exempt under all other local schemes. That would equally apply to 100 per cent discounts for hybrid vehicles or blue-badge holders. It would be very wrong to expect motorists to check each time they travel somewhere the particular rules and regulations regarding each local road pricing scheme, or for that matter even to know that they exist. Not all road journeys are planned in advance. One could easily leave a motorway to do some emergency shopping in a town only to find that one has inadvertently strayed into a road pricing scheme. There has to be consistency regarding equipment and signage. It would be paramount to ensure that all schemes adopt a common approach on road traffic signs warning motorists of the operation of a local road pricing scheme and what they have to do about it. There are also the limits on the charges payable, a degree of standardisation on penalty charges and other provisions in relation to enforcement. All in all, this clause, which merely abolishes the need for the Secretary of State’s approval without putting any other effective controls in its place, does not seem to be adequate. It is important for the motorist who travels all over the country to have confidence in a fair and just system that does not try to trap him or her into making mistakes and that there is a national template which is statutorily enforceable. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know what guidelines will be put in place in addition to those in Clause 100, whether local authorities will be legally required to abide by them and how he intends to get that on the face of the Bill. Clause 98 abolishes the power of the Secretary of State to insist on a public inquiry or consultation as regards road charging schemes in England. While I have no wish to force a public inquiry on anyone, I think that proper consultation is essential. I realise that the local authority may still consult and may hold its own inquiry, but I do not think that is good enough when one considers the effects that these schemes could have on those who might visit the urban centre in question, especially—I mentioned this at Second Reading—those who live in the surrounding parishes and who depend on vehicular access to the particular town or city for their livelihood and services, especially services such as health and hospitals. Proper consultation is vital in terms of achieving the objective of harmonised road pricing schemes, and as I say, those who will be impacted by road pricing schemes inside and outside the area where the scheme is to be introduced should be able to put forward their views on a local charging scheme. Again, this is a view echoed by the House of Commons Transport Committee which stated: "““Proper consultation should not be seen as an obstacle to introducing local charging schemes; it is an essential part of their proper introduction and a means of ensuring that they are well designed, that they meet local needs and that road users understand why they are being introduced and what the expected benefits are. We recommend that””—" this clause— "““be omitted from the Bill””." Without consultation, schemes could end up not being fit for purpose for the local and wider community. When I looked at this clause this morning it seemed that the problem could possibly be dealt with by making a small further amendment to Section 170(1) of the 2000 Act, changing the charging authority's duties from ““may consult”” to ““must consult”” and possibly adding, ““according to guidelines issued by the Secretary of State””. But however it is done, it is essential that there is some form of mandatory consultation on the part of the charging authority, and just to leave it in the air would be a mistake. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.