Local Transport Bill [HL]

I can see that there is a reason for road charges to be varied, depending on the means of recording, administering or paying a charge. In the case of paying a charge, it is evident that certain methods will be less costly and will have fewer overheads than others. By objecting to Clause 99, I simply wanted to explore the potential implications of allowing the variation of charges. The payment method should ultimately be up to the road user making the payment to decide. For instance, some methods, such as internet payments, may be more appropriate for those who are more technologically able, and some may be less so. The direct debit is the favoured payment method of companies, and of me, as it allows a near guaranteed payment direct from the customers’ bank accounts. However, that is not to say that mistakes do not occur, and people sometimes object to direct debits because of their long experience of being wrongly charged. That objection should be allowed to stand. However, payment by other means is often penalised through higher charges that do not reflect the true administrative costs. For this reason, customers may base their decision on cost alone. By allowing charges to be varied, road-charging schemes could make road users decide their means of payment solely on the basis of cost. Users could actually be coerced into paying in a certain manner to which they may otherwise object. Some sections of the community may not even possess a bank account and will automatically be ruled out of any preferential pricing. I understand that administrative costs, payment methods and overheads vary, and that charges should allow them to vary accordingly. Perhaps the clause could be amended to avoid any potential abuse. If an authority were required to demonstrate that the differential pricing that it proposed reflected the true administration cost of certain methods, there would be no potential for penalising certain methods of payment. I reiterate that if a road-charging scheme is to be a success, it needs to be in the public interest and have a transparent approach. The clause could undermine all this.