Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460-476)
MR JAMES
WALSH, MR
MICHAEL ROBERTS
AND MR
DAVID FROST
26 JANUARY 2005
Q460 Clive Efford: You
would see the London scheme as a stepping stone to a system that
would charge by road use, so according to the amount of use you
make of the road you would pay more?
Mr Roberts: Yes.
Mr Walsh: I do not think the London
scheme has caused us to change our view which has been in general
to support road pricing but it certainly caused us to develop
it. It has been a very useful case study. As an organisation that
supports road pricing, we very much want to see the London scheme
being regarded as a success. I do not think we can say it has
been an unequivocal success. We have asked our members what their
view is and whether they would like to see more urban charging
schemes. The balance of opinion is narrowly against seeing more
urban schemes. There are two main reasons for that. The first
is the fairly crude nature of the scheme. It is not particularly
flexible over the course of a day and so on. The second is that
one of our criteria that we judge road pricing schemes by is that
it provides extra road capacity or public transport capacity.
Obviously, in a major city like London, it would be impossible
to provide extra road capacity. Our members clearly feel that
there has not been enough effort put into adding capacity on the
public transport side. Those are two weaknesses that give rise
to concern: the rather crude nature and the fact that it has not
provided the extra capacity that members want to see from road
pricing schemes.
Q461 Clive Efford: On
a pricing scheme, what sort of issues should be taken into consideration
when setting charges?
Mr Walsh: The business impact
is very important. There is still not a lot of evidence on this
but there have been a couple of surveys. The London Chamber has
done some work and John Lewis also commissioned a survey from
a group of pretty well respected academics. Both those found there
was an adverse business impact on the retail sector, restaurants
and the like. That is a very important concern and that needs
to be very carefully borne in mind. We would propose that in a
future urban congestion charging scheme it would be very important
to assess first the likely business impact. Unless a positive
business case can be proven, we would be very wary of supporting
future schemes.
Q462 Clive Efford: What
about the wider costs of car travel—for instance, air quality
and environmental costs? Should they be taken into consideration
or should it purely be the costs of motoring?
Mr Walsh: You have to take those
wider factors into account but you will appreciate that our prime
concern, representing our members from the business point of view,
is primarily on the business case side.
Q463 Clive Efford: Mr
Frost, do you have any comments since your survey was quoted on
the issue regarding what should be taken into consideration when
setting the charge?
Mr Frost: The business impact
must be very much to the fore because if the net result is that
you have an exodus of businesses away from those urban areas you
have gained very little. Yes, I understand about the importance
of air quality but the point is often made by businesses that
it is far worse in terms of air quality and pollution to have
cars stacked in congestion than allowing them to free-flow, through
putting in extra capacity.
Q464 Clive Efford: What
should happen to the revenue raised through road pricing? Do you
have any views on what that money should be spent on?
Mr Frost: It should be reinvested
either in additional road capacity or public transport infrastructure.
Mr Walsh: We would very much agree
with that but there is also a case for looking at reducing the
costs of road use associated with taxation. Clearly, that has
to be paid for in some way.
Q465 Clive Efford: Would
your organisations say that the political will to deal with road
congestion exists at local level?
Mr Frost: No.
Mr Roberts: I do not think the
will is sufficiently strong across a range of areas in the country.
One of the critical issues that now needs to be addressed by policy
makers in central government is to identify ways in which local
authorities might be incentivised to make that decision, where
it makes sense economically to introduce a pricing system.
Mr Walsh: I do not think we detect
that there is widespread political will in town halls up and down
the land to go for local charging schemes but that may simply
reflect the fact that there is only a relatively small number
of urban centres which have sufficiently severe congestion problems
to warrant the major investment required in getting a scheme up
and running. Could I come back with one more point on your previous
question about what use the revenue should be put to? I stressed
the importance of putting in extra road capacity. Part of our
case is that you should take a slice of those revenues and use
them to reduce motoring taxation and there is one important reason
for that, which is that if you put prices on road use you will
find there are some road users who may not see the benefit from
extra capacity, perhaps they do not live near one of the new roads
or they are not on a new bus route. If we have a cut in motoring
taxation, preferably on fuel duty, all road users would benefit.
Q466 Clive Efford: Mr
Frost, you said no to that.
Mr Frost: The evidence would seem
to show that this has been talked about endlessly for a number
of years and no one has got on and done it apart from London.
It is part of a wider malaise that has certainly been expressed
to us through the business community about the fact that we know
there is extra road capacity needed. Major strategic routes like
the M6 toll took 20 years and two public inquiries to get a 27
mile piece of road built. We are talking about the earliest date
for the M6 expressway being completed as 2016. We live in a globalized
economy with significant pressures on business and congestion
is a very significant part of this. Why does it take so long to
get major road schemes developed in this country?
Q467 Clive Efford: You
see it as an issue relating to major road schemes. Would you see
it as introducing charges for the existing road system? You are
concentrating very much on paying for new capacity, are you not?
Mr Frost: That is correct, yes.
In terms of time, this has been talked about for many urban areas,
but it has just been talk.
Q468 Clive Efford: Are
there any urban areas where the Chamber of Commerce are calling
for a charging scheme that has not been introduced?
Mr Frost: No.
Q469 Chairman: Finally,
I just want to ask Mr Roberts a question. You talked about an
independent regulator. The history in the last four years of so
of independent regulators has not been overly impressive. Do you
think the accountability that that would provide would be enough?
Mr Roberts: I think the important
point about the need for a regulator stems from my point earlier
about the need to build trust between government, whether that
is national or local, and the road user who may be paying in a
different way for road use. The principle of a regulator, although
in practice there may be difficulties associated with setting
up such a body, is a strong one in that there is a need for an
arm's length body to establish transparency about the ways in
which charges are implemented and to ensure the money that is
raised is then spent in a manner which is both appropriate and
acceptable to the road user who ultimately is paying that charge.
Q470 Chairman: Very briefly,
gentlemen, if we have a national pricing scheme, should it be
brought in all in one go or phased in?
Mr Walsh: It would be marvelous
to think that we could jump from where we are now to a nationwide
all-singing, all-dancing scheme, but I think in practice that
is impossible. I think the likelihood is that we are going to
advance in a fairly piecemeal fashion, as we are doing at the
moment. We have advanced over the last few years from having one
major urban charging scheme to one significant toll motorway in
the Midlands. I suspect we are going to continue to develop in
that way. The interesting crunch may come when we get to a stage,
I hope sooner rather than later, when we have got the satellite
technology available to run a proper national scheme.
Q471 Chairman: You have
been a bit skeptical about the economic benefits of the London
scheme. Would you accept inter-urban congestion is a major problem?
Mr Walsh: Intra-urban congestion?
Q472 Chairman: Yes.
Mr Walsh: I am not clear what
you are asking about. Are you asking about the motorways or urban
areas?
Q473 Chairman: Motorways.
Mr Walsh: We accept there is a
major problem of congestion on motorways.
Q474 Chairman: Do you
not think we could bring it all in in one go?
Mr Walsh: I think it is unlikely
to happen and I think recent history proves that we are advancing
in a piecemeal fashion. We have got the M6 toll. We are now talking
about a possible expressway.
Q475 Chairman: Do you
want an overall scheme, Mr Frost?
Mr Frost: I think it would be
nice. History would tell us that our ability to introduce high-tech
computerized systems of this sort of scale in the country has
not exactly been a giant success story. Equally, in Germany, where
trials have taken place, it has not been a big success either.
Q476 Chairman: They got
there eventually, did they not? Mr Roberts, is that your view?
Mr Roberts: I would agree that
we need to work towards the implementation of a national scheme
which implies a phasing and a programme of activity. I think the
critical thing is for there to be a clear sense at the outset
of where we want to get to. I think the danger is that we may
indeed end up with a piecemeal approach and with different types
of charging schemes being taken forward. If there is not a clear
sense of what these are supposed to add up to when that national
scheme is eventually possible then I think there is a danger of
perverse consequences, of different systems running to different
rules and not achieving the maximum economic benefit. Work towards
a national scheme, do not implement it as a "big bang"
approach, but be clear about what you want to achieve at the end
of the day. The Government needs to start taking some decisions
now if we are likely to have a chance of seeing a national scheme
implemented within the next ten years.
Chairman: That is very helpful. Gentlemen,
thank you very much indeed.
| 
