Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 118A: 118A: Clause 100, page 76, line 38, at beginning insert ““reasonable variations in charges based on”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have tabled this amendment as a refinement to our objection to Clause 18 in Committee. We feel that the exact point of our concern was not fully realised then by the Minister. I shall reiterate our position. Road pricing per se has proven a rather difficult exercise to sell to the public, given the numbers that were put on the last Prime Minister’s website, with at times very vocal opposition. If we are to have road pricing, we have to lessen the confusion and the lack of clarity in how pricing schemes happen and are communicated to the public. Therefore, we would like to ensure that any provision to make such schemes more widespread has clear aims and is transparent in its approach. The issue raised in this amendment relates to variable charging. The Bill contains provision to allow authorities to vary their road pricing, depending on how charges are recorded, administered or paid. I can see that certain methods will be less costly, but our amendment seeks to ensure that any variation is justifiable and reasonable. I voice our argument again: we want to make certain that charges cannot coerce road payers into using one particular payment method solely to avoid paying what might be a penalty for using other methods. The Minister seemed to well understand our intention to protect those road users unable to possess a bank account and allow their charge to be taken by direct debit. Obviously, if you have a bank account you can pay by direct debit. If you do not have one, you have to find other ways of paying a charge, particularly a general charge for everyone. This illustrates how certain groups might be unfairly disadvantaged by variable charging, and we want to pursue and have the Minister acknowledge these problems again. However, of equal importance is the consideration that has to be given to those road users unwilling, even if they are able, to set up a direct debit or whatever is their preferred method of payment. The extra charges that they might have to pay by not having a direct debit might be considered a penalty rather than a disincentive. An analogous situation can be found in the mobile phone operator market, where the industry has been criticised for practices such as charging up to £5 extra for non-direct debit payments. It is inconceivable that this can be justified in any kind of road-charging schemes. Furthermore, some customers might not wholly trust the direct debit system. Recent reports have highlighted how incorrect amounts can be taken via the system and not refunded properly in accordance with the direct debit guarantee. Some people have even had funds taken from accounts following cancellation of direct debits. We have heard throughout the discussions on this Bill that the Minister is keen on including matters in guidance. I contend that variable charging is such an important problem that it should be considered in the Bill. I beg to move.