| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.45 pm
However, there is no linkage between the places where public transport needs to be improved and where the tax would be raised. The tax would plainly be raised where congestion is worst--primarily the inner cities and some of the bigger towns--but much of the public transport improvement is needed in the countryside, in small towns and in the suburbs of our large towns, where provision is wildly inadequate. In London, for example, the tube is very important, but it exists only north of the Thames. To the south of the Thames there is only the Northern line. Would the money raised from congestion charging north of the Thames be used to improve public transport south of the Thames?
There is also no linkage between those who would pay the charges and those who would benefit from the spending. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made a good point about that. People coming into a city would pay the tax, but would not benefit from the subsequent improvements in public transport.
Thirdly, there is no linkage between the amount that would need to be spent on improvements to public transport and the amount that might be raised by the tax. What if the tax were seriously inadequate? Would the Government top it up in areas where it did not raise enough?
The Whip on my right hand side is making worrying noises about sitting down and giving the Minister time to reply. It is important that he should reply, because this is a wildly misplaced policy, as his colleagues in London are beginning to realise. That is why they object to it. It will not raise anything like enough for the public transport improvements that he describes. The policy is a public relations con designed to attract voters who would be happy to pay the tax if it cleared the roads of other people, but there is no evidence that the money raised would be spent on the public transport improvements about which the Minister has talked so often. For the money to be hypothecated properly, as it must be, it will need to be additional and permanent, not just for 10 years. It must also be targeted at those who pay the tax, who are not necessarily the same people who are suffering from traffic congestion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have had an interesting debate, which, mercifully--with the possible exception of the speech of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)--did not simply cover the ground that we had already covered in Committee.
We all recognise that the use of revenues raised by road user charging is an important issue that will be central to the success and public acceptability of any charging scheme. I should say at the outset that I cannot accept the new clause, but I should like to explain the reasons and remind the House of the ground-breaking arrangements for the use of the proceeds from charges that are already contained in schedule 11.
The Conservatives seek the indefinite hypothecation of the revenues raised by local authority road user and trunk road charging for spending on road improvements and public transport for the benefit of those who are subject to the charge. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) highlighted one of the clause's defects when he asked whether someone who was no longer subject to the charge would be entitled to receive the benefit. There are issues relating to people who do not own a car or people who have not used their car for particular journeys before the introduction of charging. I fear that if the new clause as currently drafted were incorporated in the Bill, it would almost certainly be an invitation to the litigious to challenge the validity of any road user charging scheme. However, I do not intend simply to fall back on the point that we believe that the new clause is defective. We accept it in the spirit in which it was offered and will address it in those terms.
It was a real pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) who had the difficult task of presenting the case for a new clause that was designed to make the
best use of the proceeds of road user charging, while at the same time swearing his party's undying opposition to the principle. It was not surprising that there was a smile on his face as he went through that process. I was reminded by the observation by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the hon. Member for Poole had presented the voice of sweet reason from the Opposition Benches in Committee.The hon. Member for Poole raised the issue of London, as did a number of hon. Members. As you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the legislation does not cover London, other than in a few consequential ways. The powers in respect of congestion charging and road user charging were given in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, so this Bill is of more relevance to other areas. However, as the London issue has been raised, let me make it absolutely clear that it is for the mayor to decide whether a congestion charge should be introduced. That is the arrangement in the Greater London Authority legislation.
It is not the role of the Assembly to promote particular proposals; that is for the mayor to do. The role of the Assembly is to scrutinise, and its Labour Members will certainly scrutinise closely and carefully any proposals from the mayor, to ensure that they have been properly thought through, are well judged, proportionate and deliver real benefits for London.
Mr. Syms: The Conservatives oppose congestion charging, and I understood from the Labour manifesto on which the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the Assembly Members stood for election that there would be none of it for four years. Do I take it therefore that the Labour party and the Conservative party could combine to stop the mayor introducing such a scheme for at least four years?
Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by reminding him of the terms of the manifesto that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) put to the electorate of London. He said:
- As mayor, I will have the power to introduce congestion charging. However, while I am not against congestion charging in principle, I do believe that we need to have public transport alternatives in place first; and if we are going to have them, we had better do it properly. Transport experts say that a proper electronic scheme could barely be introduced before the end of the mayor's first term.
Although he opposed charging, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, the hon. Member for Poole conceded that the decision should be left to the local authority. I welcome that view, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be ingenious when he--or perhaps it will be one of his hon. Friends--moves new clause 29, which refers to making, varying and revoking charging schemes, and would make it impossible for any scheme to be introduced without an affirmative resolution of the House. I would be most interested to know how the decision is to be left to the local authority in the light of that proposed new clause. That is a pleasure for us to look forward to later in this afternoon's proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, in his usual highly informed and colourful way, stressed the importance of local authority discretion and sought
reassurances about the application of the proceeds of congestion charging to improve public transport arrangements in the areas concerned. He will know that we have already given assurances that the proceeds must be used for the purposes of transport in line with the individual authority's local transport plan. Approval will be given only to schemes that have demonstrable benefits in line with such plans. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with that assurance.The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) emphasised again the importance of local decision making. He asked about co-operation between authorities, using the proceeds of congestion charging in neighbouring areas, if appropriate. I can happily give him the assurance that he seeks. That will be possible--provided, as I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, that the application is consistent with the authority's local transport plan.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who apologised personally to me for not being able to be here for my winding-up speech, gave a paean of praise to the joys of motoring. He cited the mayoral candidate, Mr. Steven Norris--to whom, incidentally, and perhaps significantly, he referred as the mayoral candidate rather than the Conservative mayoral candidate--as an advocate of motoring. Indeed, he quoted Mr. Norris's well known and much quoted comments about the pleasures of travelling in a motor car, but he sadly disappointed us by not reaching Mr. Norris's punchline about the implications of travelling on public transport with, I believe the phrase was, "dreadful human beings". Such an approach should not govern rational decision making about the benefits of respective forms of transport.
We have set out the principle of hypothecation and confirmed that hypothecated revenues will be available for 10 years, following which there will be a review. It seems a bit rich for the Conservatives to be pressing for the indefinite hypothecation of revenues from charges that they claim to oppose in principle. It is all the more curious, given that their 1996 Green Paper, which was in favour of giving local authorities charging powers, contained no guarantee that the revenues would be spent on improving local transport. That is an indication of how far the Conservative party has moved away from any credible position on transport.
The Bill represents a major breakthrough by guaranteeing at least 10 years' hypothecation for any charging scheme starting in the first 10 years. Unlike the previous Government, we recognise that that is crucial to the success and acceptability of a charging scheme. This is a new provision, and it is right that it should be reviewed after 10 years. In any event, it would not be appropriate to guarantee hypothecation indefinitely, because that might not deliver value for money in terms of transport improvements in the medium to longer term. That is why the Government intend to conduct an informed review of the hypothecation arrangements in schedule 11 before the hypothecation guarantee expires.
The review may decide that 100 per cent. hypothecation of charging revenues for transport spending should continue. Indeed, many hon. Members believe that more than 10 years' hypothecation will be necessary. However, that is not a decision that we need to take now. It will be much better to take it later, as is provided for in the Bill.
As for geographical coverage, I am sure that local authorities will want to spend much, perhaps all, of their net resources on improving the attractiveness and accessibility of the charged area. However, it may not be sensible to spend all the money in that way. Better road maintenance and better street lighting in suburban areas might well be an appropriate use for part of the proceeds from a scheme that derives its revenues from a city centre charge. That option is open to local authorities, and it is better that the decisions should be taken locally than centrally. That is why the Bill allows the money to be spent for any transport purpose covered by the local transport plan. That is surely the right approach.
I invite the hon. Member for Poole to think again and to resume his role as the voice of sweet reason on the Opposition Benches by withdrawing new clause 28.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |