Examination of Witnesses (Questions 64-79)
MR EDMUND
KING AND
MR DAVID
HOLMES CB
12 JANUARY 2005
Q64 Chairman: Good afternoon
to you, gentlemen. Firstly, may I ask you to identify yourselves.
Mr Holmes: Madam
Chairman, my name is David Holmes. I am the Chairman of the RAC
Foundation. On my left is Edmund King, who is the Executive Director
of the Foundation.
Q65 Chairman: You are
both very welcome and very familiar with our ways. May I ask you
if you would like to say anything before we begin?
Mr Holmes: Our memorandum sets
out our position on road pricing. It was the result of the work
of an independent group we set up two years ago to look ahead
50 years at the whole range of traffic and transport issues. Our
conclusion is that we support road pricing in principle as a national
scheme provided it is part of a system giving the country a first
class transport system which includes more investment in roads
and in public transport, and we see it as part of that package.
We have a number of conditions which we attach to road pricing
and no doubt these will emerge in the course of the discussion.
We do see that it is important that charges should be independently
set and there should be a form of regulation to prevent abuse
of a monopoly.
Q66 Chairman: I think
that is helpful. Do you agree that it is impossible to build your
way out of congestion?
Mr Holmes: Yes. Clearly there
are certain areas where more capacity cannot be provided. For
example, there are urban areas and areas of Outstanding National
Beauty where it would not be sensible or politically possible
to build more capacity. We do believe there are many corridors,
particularly on the inter urban network, where more capacity is
urgently needed and can be provided.
Q67 Chairman: Do you have
an estimate or have you done any guesswork about the scale which
might be required?
Mr Holmes: We looked at a number
of alternatives in our study. We came to the conclusion that a
reasonable balance would be investment in the national road system
of the order of two billion pounds a year, which is roughly twice
what the Government was spending and rather more than twice what
the Government is planning to spend in its latest forecast. Also,
there would be a commensurate increase in local authority road
investment, although we have not got a precise figure for that.
Q68 Chairman: Do you think
some kind of road pricing is inevitable?
Mr Holmes: I think in the very
long run it is inevitable.
Q69 Chairman: What is
a "very long run"?
Mr Holmes: It is some time. Politically
it is not going to be very easy to introduce it and, because of
the long time scale it is going to need the Government to build
up a consensus, some measure of acquiescence and support for it.
After all, the thing is 12 or 15 years ahead and there will be
three general elections between now and then and several secretaries
of state. The Government needs to build up an agreement that road
pricing is necessary. I think unless the Government does that
it will be a very long time before it is introduced.
Q70 Chairman: You do not
think congestion will rise at such a rate that people will almost
automatically require a more urgent response than a 12 or 15 year
timescale?
Mr Holmes: There is no doubt congestion
will rise unless very dramatic action is taken to increase capacity.
We forecast that the number of cars is going to grow by 45% over
the next 30 years, so congestion will grow. How people will deal
with that is difficult to predict. Whether it will result in a
demand for road pricing, I do not know. Road pricing will not
happen unless the Government prepares the way for it, both in
political terms and technically because there are a lot of technical
issues to be resolved.
Q71 Chairman: You are
unusual as a motorist organisation in saying that you support
road pricing. Have you done any estimate of what percentage of
the general public agrees with you?
Mr King: We have polled motorists
on a number of occasions and there are very interesting results.
If you asked motorists if they felt it was fairer for motorists
to pay according to the amount of time they drive in congestion
rather than fuel tax or vehicle excise duty, 60% think that would
be fairer. On the other hand, if you said to motorists, should
there be a toll on all roads and would you be willing to pay it,
84% said no. I think what is more interesting in the kind of package
approach which we are putting forward is if you said, "Would
you support a nationwide system of tolls if there was an equivalent
reduction in fuel duty?", 76% said they would support it.
What we have been saying to Government is that it is absolutely
essential to get the trust of the motoring public. If you said
to the motoring public, "Would you trust Government to deliver
a fair scheme?", I am afraid, Madam Chairman, nine out of
ten said they would not. If you then said, "If an independent
inspectorate was set up to administer the scheme, if it was totally
transparent, do you think such a scheme would then work and would
it be acceptable?", the acceptance rose to 74%. We are saying
to Government that we think motorists can accept a national scheme
of road pricing, but they will have to be convinced these guarantees
are watertight. Even though the London Scheme has been very successful
in central London and we supported it in principle, at the moment
we are somewhat concerned about the matter of trust with it because
now it looks like the toll is going to be increased from five
pounds to eight pounds, which is a 60% increase, even though when
the scheme was introduced we were told, categorically, the scheme
was introduced to reduce congestion and not to raise revenue.
In London it appears that the rules have been changed and our
worry is if motorists see that happening in London they will be
much more cynical about a national scheme.
Q72 Chairman: You said
that the charges are always set by an independent regulator rather
than the elected representative, but has not the accountability
of such regulators not been called into question over the last
few years, particularly in the transport sphere? Mr Holmes, you
know all about regulators, tell me what you think.
Mr Holmes: Madam Chairman, as
you said earlier yourself, one should not take the railways as
a model for how to organise something.
Q73 Chairman: I do not
think I mentioned that.
Mr Holmes: There are examples
of regulators, for example in the water and energy industries
who I do not think have come into the same sort of problem. Railways
may have come into a problem because one is trying to regulate
an industry which is publicly subsidised. It is possible to have
regulations. As we would see it, there would be a political decision
about the level of congestion which was acceptable in a particular
area and that is a matter for elected representatives. Once that
decision is set then the question of what the charge should be
to produce a desirable level of congestion should be set objectively
by a technical person. One would maintain the political accountability
but one would not have political intervention in detailed lengths
of charging.
Q74 Chairman: You would
accept that it was precisely the way a regulator interpreted what
was the correct percentage of money needed by the industry concerned,
in this case the railway industry, that got them into such trouble
because the regulator's view was so very different from anybody
else at any level. You think that will deal with the problem of
public trust?
Mr Holmes: I think the regulation
issue in roads would be easier than it is in railways because,
as I suggest, the level of congestion which would be acceptable
would be set by the political authority. Then it would be the
job of the technical person to say, as a matter of fact, what
is the level of charge which would produce this level. The job
of the regulator would be twofold: firstly, to make sure that
level of charge had been applied correctly and, secondly, that
the proceeds of the charge were applied to the purposes which
Parliament had decided.
Q75 Mr Donohoe: Has the
M6 toll road made a significant difference in terms of reducing
the congestion in that area?
Mr King: We have found, from the
motorist's point of view, that they have found the M6 toll to
be very successful. It is used by approximately 40,000 motorists
every weekday and slightly less at the weekends. The opinion from
the motorist is that three pounds—it was two pounds and
then three pounds—is a price worth paying. I did an interview
on Radio Five Live this morning and someone text in and
said they save two hours a week by using the M6 toll and, therefore,
it is worth paying that amount. There have been various polls
on BBC websites and, generally, the response has been positive.
Something like a fifth of the traffic going through the West Midlands
conurbation is now using that road. I think before that motorists
may have been much more opposed to the concept of tolling, they
already pay £42 billion a year and only six billion pound
is spent on roads, et cetera, but when they have got a choice
and they see the time benefit, I think the majority are willing
to pay.
Q76 Mr Donohoe: What is
the average time saved by using the toll? You said two hours a
week, how many times does that motorist use the road?
Mr King: That was five journeys
a week in both directions. I think more than the time—and
this is what some of the freight people were saying—it is
the reliability. With many of the journeys in the West Midlands
on the old M6, even though the journey might only have taken an
hour, you had to give yourself an hour and a half because of the
unpredictability. What the M6 toll has brought is a greater sense
of predictability and reliability. To some extent that is worth
more than the time saving because you do not have to give yourself
extra time for the journey.
Q77 Mr Donohoe: What has
been the effect, if any, on the number of road accidents on that
section of the road?
Mr King: I am not aware of the
accident figures either on the new road or on the old M6. I am
not aware of it increasing.
Q78 Mr Donohoe: Do your
recovery vehicles have to pay the toll?
Mr King: The RAC Foundation is
separate from the RAC. They are a different body, but I believe
they are exempt, no, they are not, sorry, I was taking the advice
on that from someone from the RAC.
Q79 Mr Donohoe: I was
told you have to pay. I think I was given the wrong information
when I asked the question.
Mr King: They do have to pay.
| 
