Local Transport Bill [Lords]

First, I apologise for not having been here for the opening speeches; unfortunately, I have been engaged in the Welsh Grand Committee for most of the day. I am particularly anxious to speak in this debate as I wish to address the uniquely Welsh aspect of the Bill. It starts in clause 115, which is designed to create framework powers conferring legislative competence on the Welsh Assembly. It would do so by inserting a new matter in field 10 of part 1 of schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006, effectively conferring competence for the making, operation and enforcement of road charging schemes for vehicles on Welsh roads. That provision concerns me considerably, as no equivalent provision is proposed in respect of English roads. Indeed, Members will recall that when a similar proposal was mooted last year, it attracted opposition in the form of 1.7 million signatures on the Downing street website. Until recently, at least, it appeared that that had resulted in the proposal being abandoned. As with the framework powers inserted in the Planning Bill, the clauses on framework powers appear to have been inserted relatively late in the day. The proposal was not contained in the draft Bill that went out to consultation in May 2007 and could not therefore be considered by the Transport Committee when it performed pre-legislative scrutiny in summer last year. Furthermore, it is clear from the Hansard record of a debate in another place that even in November last year, Ministers were not fully aware of the background to the proposal. Lord Bassam of Brighton dealt with the clause rather perfunctorily, saying:"““All that I can say of value…at this stage is that the Welsh provisions were put in place very much at the behest of the Welsh Assembly. We aim to work very closely with Assembly Members in putting this legislation together.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2007; Vol. 696, c. 802.]" Proposals to impose charges for the use of roads will inevitably cause concerns, and such concerns have been raised on several occasions in Welsh debates. The former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), consistently sought to downplay the impact of the proposals by asserting, as he did during Welsh questions last year, that the powers sought by the Welsh Assembly Government were"““not meant to impose nationwide tolls in Wales or anything of the kind…they are specifically targeted to help in specific ""instances, including the M4 relief road.””—[Official Report, 21 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 1177.]" We do not need to examine the clause in any great detail to see that if it is anything, it is not specifically targeted. Indeed, were it specifically targeted to create an M4 relief road by tolling, my party would have no objection to it. On 13 November last year, the Welsh Assembly Transport Minister gave a briefing to Members of this House. He made no mention at all of the M4 relief road, but said that the Assembly Government had been"““looking at the debate across the UK over road pricing””" but had not yet adopted policy to introduce road charges. However, he said that the Assembly Government would like the power to do so. In other words, that Government have no idea of the use to which they would put the road charging powers, but would nevertheless like those powers. The vagueness and opacity of that Government's stance was underlined by an Assembly Government statement, made by the same Minister on 4 December 2007. He said:"““The Assembly Government has yet to decide what role, if any, road pricing may play in addressing current and future transport challenges.""This power will however enable us to adopt a coherent approach towards any road pricing proposals that may come forward within Wales or any future UK scheme.""The Bill makes clear that the revenues from any trunk road pricing scheme would have to be used for transport purposes in Wales.””" Clause 115 does indeed provide that the proceeds of any charges imposed for the use of roads in Wales would have to be applied"““towards purposes relating to transport””," but that is a particularly wide expression. In other words, the charges, or the proceeds of the charges, need not be applied to the infrastructure over which the road passes, or even to any other closely associated infrastructure—it can be used for any purpose related to transport. A particular worry of mine, expressed by Conservative peers in another place, is that such a provision effectively amounts to a tax-raising power in favour of the Assembly that goes beyond its competence as set out by the Government of Wales Act 2006. A Government spokesman in another place denied that that was the case, saying that the application of the proceeds of the charge to ““purposes relating to transport”” meant that it was not a tax because the proceeds would have to be applied for a defined purpose. However, I remain concerned that it would amount to a charge, given that although the proceeds of the scheme would have to be applied for ““purposes relating to transport””, there would be nothing to prevent the Welsh Assembly Government from applying the proceeds of the charge to the transport budget line and then removing from that budget line an equivalent sum freeing up the sum so released for purposes other than transport. That seems to amount to taxation by the back door and to go well beyond what was contemplated by the devolution settlement set out in the 2006 Act. My greatest concern, however, is that the imposition of the charge for the use of Welsh roads would amount to a significant additional financial burden on Welsh business. That fear is shared by industry representatives from across Wales. The Freight Transport Association says:"““Our Welsh members are concerned that in using Wales as a guinea pig for this scheme, they are putting Welsh businesses and ""jobs at risk. For example, a company based in Cardiff pitching for business in Wiltshire may soon have to face a Cardiff congestion charge, Welsh road pricing and Avon road pricing schemes to deliver the products, versus a company based in Kent that would not. It would not be surprising who would get the contract for the work.””" North Wales Tourism—the organisation that represents hospitality businesses from across north Wales—points out that some 90 per cent. of holidaymakers arrive in north Wales by car, and states:"““As a tourism membership organisation representing over 1,300 SMEs throughout North Wales and as a member of the Wales Tourism Alliance, we would strongly oppose the introduction of any road pricing schemes on any roads within Wales. Road pricing would most certainly have a detrimental impact on the tourism industry which is crucial to the economy of North Wales. Tourism contributes in excess of 15 billion pounds per annum to the local economy and provides employment for over 35,000 people. Road pricing for Wales in isolation would most certainly provide England and Scotland with a significant competitive edge. In North Wales one of our main competitors is England's Lake District and this would further divert business away from our region.””" NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales have expressed concern about the impact that road pricing would have on agriculture, which has recently been hit hard by foot and mouth disease and bluetongue and is a significant user of the road transport network.