Local Transport Bill [HL]

I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. Under Section 169 of the Transport Act 2000, a local charging scheme can come into force only once the order making it has been submitted to and confirmed by the appropriate national authority. As noble Lords have explained, Clause 97 would remove that requirement for schemes in England only, where the appropriate national authority is the Secretary of State. The purpose of local road pricing schemes is to bring benefits to local areas. We think it is right that democratic accountability for the design and implementation of local schemes should be at a local level. Removing the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in approving schemes will leave the Government freer to offer support and practical advice at the development stage. That will help to provide clarity for local debate about local scheme proposals, increase the likelihood of sound, locally-supported proposals being put forward, and remove the uncertainty involved in an approval process. There are a number of checks and balances to ensure that powers are used appropriately. That includes comprehensive guidance produced by the department to help local authorities to develop good quality schemes. There are also powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations under the Transport Act 2000 proposed in Clauses 100 and 103, which will allow the Government to ensure consistency between schemes where necessary and appropriate. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his opposition to this clause. On Clause 98, I am grateful to noble Lords for their explanation of their concern. Clause 98 removes the power under Section 170 of the Transport Act 2000 for the Secretary of State to consult or to require an English local authority to consult or hold an inquiry in relation to a charging scheme. The power for Welsh Ministers would remain. The most important thing to note is that this clause does not remove the ability of a local authority to consult or to hold an inquiry in relation to a charging scheme. The clause sits in partnership with Clause 97, which removes the Secretary of State’s approval role. It is the Government’s view that local road pricing schemes should be free from this national government role and that the power for the Secretary of State to order further consultation or an inquiry should also be removed. We have consistently stated that we expect local authorities to consult fully in relation to a road pricing scheme. We believe that it will be in the interests of any local authority to do so and that it would wish to consult for the very reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Clearly, any local authority that did not consult properly would pretty soon end up in the dog-house with local voters. While we believe that it is necessary to consult, the Government also feel that it would be inappropriate to impose a set manner of consultation or set consultees. We want local circumstances to dictate such things, rather than a centralist model. We believe that it should be open to local authorities to consult appropriately and proportionately on their specific local road pricing scheme proposals and to ensure that they engage with the public adequately on their proposals. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. He is right to say that it will separately impose a duty on local authorities to involve local representatives in the exercise of any of its functions, as it considers appropriate. There is no change there. That is what we want. I may be able to clarify a few other points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to harmonising objectives. We agree with that but objectives are, and should be, entirely a matter for the local charging authority. The current need for the Secretary of State’s approval does not affect that, so the removal of the need is not a change to an existing provision. On interoperability, we agree that there needs to be consistency between local schemes to help avoid unnecessary costs and complexity for road users. We very much take on board the need to provide greater clarity on technical standards for local schemes. Given the existing powers in the Transport Act 2000 and the new proposals in the Bill, we have set aside several powers to ensure that consistency on interoperability between schemes. For example, the Bill allows us to regulate the use of equipment so that standard data formats and equipment numbering systems can be specified, and interoperability between schemes allows a road user to have a single account that covers all interactions with local schemes rather than having to deal separately with each local scheme operator. It is likely that most interoperability issues will be addressed through application of the EU interoperability directive, and that will require electronic charging schemes to be accessible to subscribers through a European electronic tolling service. As yet we have no firm timetable by which the interoperability decisions will be made under the directive but in the mean time we believe that we need explicit powers requiring compliance with the interoperability requirements that apply to all schemes, not just those caught by the directive. So we have included such provisions in the Bill. It is also hoped that given the potential benefits to the road user it will be in the interests of scheme operators to offer an interoperable service and it is very likely that allowing interoperability will be commercially attractive to service providers. Therefore, we think that these objectives will be met through close working and co-operation between schemes without necessarily needing to use regulation. In essence, we are approaching this in a deregulatory spirit. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, asked about drivers knowing where road pricing zones start, and mentioned coming off the motorway and suddenly finding yourself in Durham, which I think is the only place apart from London which has a scheme at the moment. Issues such as where schemes start and finish and informing road users are facts to be dealt with in the detailed design of local schemes. It will be for local authorities developing schemes to consider those points. However, the experience of London, where the scheme is well and clearly advertised, is encouraging. If a charging authority fails properly to promote and identify charging zones, in the final instance the department has the power to direct it to place and maintain traffic signs in connection with a scheme under Section 177 of the Transport Act 2000. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, also referred to rural drivers, as I believe he did at Second Reading. The transport innovation fund guidance on road pricing already recognises that problem. It says that a local authority should consult its neighbouring authorities and use its best endeavours to offer those who regularly enter or have business in the proposed charged area the opportunity to comment on the plans. That sounds as though it does the business. It ensures that they should consult and they would be very foolish not to. I know that it is not unknown for local authorities to fall out but this is an area where it is in everyone’s interests for them to co-operate and work together. If road pricing schemes take off, as I know many wish to see, and bring the benefits that they promise, intra-authority and inter-authority consultation will be very necessary indeed. A duty is also imposed under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which requires local traffic authorities to do all that is reasonably practicable to manage the network effectively to keep traffic moving on their roads, and to facilitate this on the roads of other authorities. There is already an understood obligation. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the difference between consultation on English and Welsh schemes. Welsh schemes will still be subject to approval by the appropriate national authority, so the existing powers of the Transport Act 2000 will still be appropriate. I think that I covered that point earlier, but it was worth reinforcing. There will of course be an overriding import to consult locally when schemes are proposed. I cannot believe that local authorities will not do that, because it would be politically foolish for them to do otherwise. I hope that, having said all those things, I have answered most of the questions asked. If I have not, I apologise. This has been a useful little run around this issue.