Local Transport Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, but I do not think I can agree with the conclusion that he draws from his own amendment. Let us just go through this carefully. Clause 100 amends Section 171(5) of the Transport Act 2000 by adding a further example of how an authority can vary its road-user charges. The clause makes clear that local authorities can offer different charges for different methods or means of recording, administering, collecting or paying the charge. This is not an exhaustive list. Local authorities are of course free to impose different charges for different cases. The amendment seeks to clarify the clause by adding that any variations should be ““reasonable””. On the face of it that does not seem a bad notion, but it is important that local authorities have the opportunity to provide incentives to encourage the use of efficient payment methods. I am still trying to imagine what I would do if I were the county treasurer in Essex County Council. I would probably be encouraging the leader of my local authority to do exactly that. If I did not have the courage to encourage the leader of my local authority to do exactly that, I would probably not be fulfilling my job as the council as a whole envisaged it. It is clearly very important that local authorities use the most efficient and effective means of collecting charges for particular services. Local authority officers have a duty to do that. We are simply trying to enable them to better fulfil their responsibility. It is all about conforming properly with your local fiduciary duty. The Bill as it is assists that process. We have also set out clearly in our guidance to those authorities bidding for money from the transport innovation fund that we expect schemes to accept debit card and cash payment as a minimum. We are clear that providing users the option of cash payments to accompany declarations is necessary for social inclusion and privacy reasons. We have been clear throughout the various sittings on the Bill that we believe local authorities are best placed to make a judgment about decisions on how best to administer their local scheme. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with that. We therefore have no reason to think that local authorities will not act reasonably in this decision, as in all decisions about their road pricing schemes. Local authorities already offer different payment methods for their services. They are also obliged to ensure that in developing their proposals they recognise the impact they could have on all groups. If their decision were unreasonable or irrational with regard to any particular group or category of local residents, then—as the noble Lord well knows—they would already be at risk of challenge in the courts without the need for additional clarification in the Bill. We are trying to help to encourage best practice. The noble Lord will be aware that some methods of collecting charges and fees are more efficient than others. We wish to encourage local authorities in that regard. We give them the local flexibility to determine the best possible payment methods and offer a range of opportunities and options to their customers.