Clause
92
Power
to promote
well-being
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
1.45
pm
Stephen
Hammond:
It is not very often that the Committee shouts,
“Three cheers for the Local Government Act 2000,” but I
know that at this very moment all the people who know that fabulous Act
will be doing so, because it will shorten dramatically my remarks on
this clause. The Minister and I have many times discussed definitional
issues, and I am sure that, had we not had the benefit of that
wonderful Act, we would be spending hours over the meaning of
“well-being”. As there is now established legal practice
as to what “well-being” might be, I do not intend to
probe that—although we could, of course, have another half
hour’s fun on the meaning of “economic”. None the
less, I shall resist that temptation this afternoon.
Clause 92
talks about undertaking a wide range of activities to improve the
quality of life for local residents, local businesses and also those
who commute or visit—all of which is understandable. The
subsection in the clause that allows integrated transport authorities
to work with other bodies is also understandable. Where I have a
problem, and am looking for the Minister to help, is in subsection (3),
which seems to bear some greater examination—particularly
subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f).
Subsection (3)(b) allows for
“financial assistance” to be made. What exactly is
financial assistance? Is it pay, expenses, individual grants to
individual bodies, or is it just a more wide-ranging power of subsidy?
Can the Minister say exactly what financial assistance is, how it is
determined, by whom and for whom, to ensure there is a restraint on
potential abuse?
Equally, what is the purpose of
subsection (3)(f)? Is it just transference between statutory bodies? Is
it a power to subcontract? Is it a catch-all power so that consultants
and contractors can be moved around or fed and watered? Can the
Minister please give us some guidance as to the exact purpose of
subsections (3)(b) and (f)?
Mr.
Knight:
I shall follow on from my hon. Friend’s
point regarding subsection (3)(f). Reference is made to the fact that
the power given here includes the power to
“provide staff, goods,
services or accommodation to any
person.”
Can the Minister
tell us of any situation that might arise where she envisages living
accommodation being provided to any person, or is the reference here to
office accommodation only? If it is to office accommodation only why
does the subsection not say “office
accommodation”?
Ms
Winterton:
As the hon. Member for Wimbledon says, this
clause extends the well-being powers that local authorities already
have under the Local Government Act 2000 so that they also apply to
integrated transport authorities. Integrated transport authorities have
to operate within a framework laid down by statute. That means that
they have no powers to take action except where legislation authorises
them to do so.
There
is a range of statutory duties that they will have to fulfil and a
wider range of permissive powers enabling them to undertake particular
activities if they choose to do so. This clause takes this a stage
further and provides ITAs with the power to take any steps that they
consider likely to promote or improve the economic, social or
environmental well-being of their local community without the need for
there being a specific provision in other legislation.
As the hon. Gentleman said,
these powers have already been granted to local authority by means of
the Local Government Act 2000. For example, North Tyneside and
Newcastle City councils have already used them to enter a joint private
finance initiative to replace and repair street lighting in their
areas.
In terms of
financial assistance, this would enable an ITA to give grants to any
person. It would be the ITA’s decision, subject to their
financial abilities, to give the money. This extends to the point that
the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire raised about accommodation. It
is not linked in the Bill to any particular type of
accommodation—it could be staffing accommodation, for example.
It is important to remember that the judgment about whether the power
is properly exercised—I think that that is the point that both
the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman raised—would be
subject to the usual rules for local authorities on proper accounting
for expenditure and acting according to best value criteria. I hope
that that explanation is
helpful.
Mr.
Knight:
I thank the Minister for her reply, but I am not
entirely happy with it. Is she saying, then, that if, to help the
environment, a chairman of an authority did not want to drive 10 miles
to work and back, he could set up a grace and favour flat for his own
use under this
power?
Ms
Winterton:
As I have said, we are trying to give powers in
the Bill so that ITAs in the circumstances that we are discussing can,
if they wish, make proper provision in respect of, for example, staff
accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman gives the specific example of a
grace and favour flat. The question would be whether that was a proper
use of public money. Was it properly accounted for? Was it
signed off by the financial director? Was it within the best value
criteria? The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Committee
has a choice: do we not give any powers that would cover quite
reasonable expenses and expenditure by a local authority and try to
dictate exactly what every single penny should be spent on? Frankly, I
do not think that we can do that. This is about striking the right
balance.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 92
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
93
Limits
on power to promote
well-being
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
We have considered the wide-ranging powers to
promote well-being, and that is fair and understood. Clause 93 provides
that these wide-ranging powers cannot override the constraints already
put in place by the legislation. The powers do not include the power to
raise moneys, and the Secretary of State can make orders to prevent the
powers to promote well-being from being used by an ITA. Two issues
arise from that. First, it has been established in Committee that we
all believe the consultation principle to be a good one, but it seems
slightly odd that when the Secretary of State wishes to make an order
that prevents an ITA from using the power to promote well-being, she
has to consult that ITA. Presumably, she already knows what it is going
to do; it has already stated that. It therefore seems slightly odd that
that is what
happens.
Secondly,
subsections (7) and (8) say that before exercising a power to promote
well-being, the ITA must consult some people specified, but not
everybody, and not everybody specified in previous provisions of the
Bill. I again bring to the Minister’s attention the
inconsistency throughout the Bill in respect of people who are
consulted. There seems to be no consistency at all—a point that
this clause highlights yet
again.
Ms
Winterton:
Clause 93 gives more detail on how the new
well-being powers for ITAs will work. As the hon. Gentleman says, it
allows the Secretary of State to make an order listing certain actions
that one or more ITAs would not be able to do under the well-being
powers, subject to representatives of ITAs, local authorities and other
relevant people being consulted. I emphasise that we certainly do not
expect that such an order will have to be made often, if at all.
However, in the case of the Transport Act 2000, Parliament decided that
it would be sensible to take such a reserve power in case such
circumstances arose, and we think that it is wise to make similar
provision in this Bill. Any order would be subject to the affirmative
procedure in both
Houses.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 93
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses 94
and 95 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
96
Power
of ITAs to make charging
schemes
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Knight:
On a point of order, Lady Winterton. The Prime
Minister recently announced a new Government initiative of listening
and learning where there is public concern. The Bill was published
before that policy announcement was made and before a recent poll,
carried out by the Automobile Association, which showed that 90 per
cent. of all motorists did not trust the Government in respect of road
charging. In view of that, I wondered whether as part of the listening
and learning process the Minister had decided not to move any of the
clauses relating to road charging.
The
Chairman:
That is clearly a point of debate and not a
point of order.
Stephen
Hammond:
The reason I wanted to speak on clause 96 is that
it brings us into a new part of the Bill that concerns local and London
charging schemes, which we need to examine in some detail. The
Government were once wedded to a national road pricing scheme. The then
Secretary of State for Transport made positive noises and the then
Prime Minister appeared to support it; the new Secretary of State
appointed by the new Prime Minister then started to withdraw from that
view and it seems to have disappeared, so the Government have dithered.
We then had 1 million people voting on the Downing street website
against national road pricing in the poll to which my right hon. Friend
refers.
Mr.
Leech:
I am well aware that the Government’s policy
on road pricing and congestion charging is somewhat confused, but will
the hon. Gentleman explain Conservative party policy on congestion
charging and road user
pricing?
Stephen
Hammond:
I know that you look forward eagerly to my
speeches and, of course, you will be getting that full explanation
towards the end of my speech. For exactly the reason you have stated,
it is
important—
The
Chairman:
Order. I am not eagerly looking forward to
anything at all, other than perhaps the end of this
Committee.
Stephen
Hammond:
I apologise profusely, Lady Winterton. I have
managed to get through nine sittings without making that error. The
point that the hon. Gentleman was making was that the
Government’s position is confused, which was the point that I
was starting to outlay. It is only fair that at the start of this major
new part we explore the Government’s position and ask the
Minister for clarification. I do not know what the Government’s
policy is, and the hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not know
either.
More
Machiavellian figures than I might wonder whether part 6 is nothing
more than an attempt by the
Government to reintroduce national road pricing by the back door, by
allowing integrated transport authorities to make charging schemes
singly. Evidence for that view is that the recent round of applications
to the transport innovation fund was available only to local
authorities that had plans to implement a road charging scheme
contained within their bid. Whether or not a local authority wanted a
road charging scheme or thought that it was appropriate, it had to
include one in its bid if it were to receive any funds. I fail to see
that investment in a local transport infrastructure should necessarily
be linked or dependent on a road pricing scheme. The second piece of evidence of
an attempt at national road pricing by the back door is that there are
several clauses in the Bill where the provisions could be used to
impose road user charging on local authorities, even if they decided
that they did not want it. Here at the outset, it would be helpful for
the Government to lay out their position in some detail. I often find
when discussing the whole aspect of road user charging that there is a
confusion between road user charging and congestion charging or low
emission zones. The former, road user charging, is a continuous toll on
a road, the latter allows for variable rates at variable times of
travel. We want to be clear that, if the Government are going to
introduce blank road user charging, they must ensure that it is
cost-effective.
2
pm
In London, where
the initial scheme was set up, 47 per cent. of the revenues go to the
cost of running the scheme. The Evening Standard produced
evidence last year that adding together the operating expenditure and
the capital expenditure repayments, together with the depreciation,
accounted for 97 per cent. of the revenues. One needs to be pretty
cautious. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley will want to talk
later about the scheme in Greater Manchester, but that scheme was
clearly dependent upon the first point that I made—it came about
as a result of the need for TIF. That position seems to be put forward
regularly by various local authorities in that
area.
I am also clear
that we need to be absolutely certain about the definitional aspects of
road user pricing, congestion charging and low emission zones. I am
absolutely clear—for the benefit of the hon. Member for
Manchester, Withington—that there should not be a national road
pricing scheme. I am absolutely clear that local schemes, be they road
user pricing, congestion charging or low emission zones, need local
validation—consent—before they are introduced. I am also
clear that if there is the possibility at local level of using road
user pricing to supplement or increase funding, or in conjunction with
the building of local transport infrastructure, then that road user
pricing should also have local
validation.
I hope that
is a clear exposition of my party’s position. As I started out
by saying, the Government’s position seems entirely muddled. It
is only fair to the Committee, at the start of this important part of
the Bill, that the Minister give us some
indications.
Mr.
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): Does the hon.
Gentleman not accept that if public validation in some form had been
required for the congestion
charge scheme in London, the public would probably have voted against
the scheme? Now the scheme is in place, most people would probably be
in favour of
it.
Stephen
Hammond:
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When we
discuss amendment No. 14, with which I have a lot of sympathy, he will
see that I have followed his line of argument—there is a problem
with referendums as local validation. However, in other countries, they
allow validation to be at the time of, or at some stage within a
certain period after, the introduction of a charging scheme. In some
cases, after the introduction of a scheme, when the validation process
has been sought by referendums, the scheme has remained in place, while
in other places it has been taken away. I want to explore that point
more when we discuss amendment No. 14. However, it is probably only
fair that I now give the Minister a chance to reply and to explain in
detail and with clarity the Government’s position on national
road user
pricing.
Mr.
Knight:
I support my hon. Friend in what he has to say
about those charging schemes. One can perhaps acknowledge that the
Government are at least being honest—they have dropped all
reference to “congestion”, and have simply included a
number of clauses giving councils power to introduce charging schemes.
I, too, am interested to know where the Government now stand in respect
of that policy.
On 6
May The Times carried a report with the headline
“Manchester polls deal blow to congestion charge
expansion”. The report
stated:
“Plans
to extend congestion charging to cities across Britain are in disarray
after the policy’s strongest supporter lost his council seat to
an anti-charging candidate. Roger Jones, the Labour chairman of the
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, was pushed into third
place in Salford. His seat was won by the Community Action Party (CAP),
which ran a campaign based on opposition to the £5 daily peak
period congestion charge that was proposed by Mr.
Jones. With the Conservatives coming second in what was a safe Labour
seat, the result will make other councillors cautious about supporting
congestion charging.”
The
report quotes Mr. Jones, who
said:
“I have
got to get myself a job because I’m unemployed for the first
time since I left
school.”
It is clear that
there is overwhelming public opposition to further charging
schemes.
I heard what
the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe had to say—that such
opposition should never be the sole test when assessing new policy
initiatives. To be fair, he has a point; there are other issues that
one should take into account, but at the end of the day, we have to
remember that we are democratically elected politicians, and if we go
so far in one direction against the wishes of those who elect us, we
cannot complain if we are turfed out on our ear for so doing.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman
should spend some time in the centre of Sheffield speaking to people
there, some of whom may not be his constituents but visitors to
Sheffield wanting to spend their money and create wealth and jobs in
the city. He could then find out what they think of the proposal to
introduce widespread road user charging. It is a betrayal of the pledge
that the House gave when it introduced vehicle excise duty.
The argument used when vehicle
excise duty was introduced—I think it was in 1908—was
that motorists were fed up with having to pay tolls and charges as they
moved around the country. The duty allows motorists to pay up front a
flat fee in tax to the Government for the privilege of using their
vehicles on our roads. The new policy runs counter to that
pledge.
Mr.
Leech:
Would the right hon. Gentleman not accept that a
charging scheme could be introduced if people around the country
thought that there would be some significant benefits? For instance, a
cost-neutral charging scheme could be introduced under which there
would be a significant number of winners as well as some losers. If we
introduced the polluter pays concept, people who used their car on an
irregular basis on uncongested roads in towns, villages and rural areas
could benefit financially from the introduction of a national road user
pricing
scheme.
Mr.
Knight:
I do not want to stray too far from the provisions
in the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman’s intervention was very
sensible.
If a
national user charging scheme were to replace other taxes—for
instance, if fuel duty was cut and vehicle excise duty was
abolished—there are arguments in its favour. It would encourage
people to use the roads at different times of day and thereby reduce
congestion; for example, by making it cheaper to drive in the evening
than in the early morning. A national road pricing scheme would have
some attractions if it replaced other motoring taxes.
I understand that such a policy
would be supported by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington.
However, we are dealing with the power to introduce charging schemes
with no rebate on other motoring taxes. In other words—I will
use the phrase—it is a stealth tax. That is what the Committee
is being asked to support. If the charging schemes were coupled with
local fuel duty reductions, one could make a good fist of a case for
introducing them, but the Government propose no such thing. Some people
may say, “Ah, but we must think of the environment. If we exempt
electric cars, it will further help in our campaign against
emissions.” To those who might put forward that argument I say,
read the recent report published by Professor David Newbery of
Cambridge university. He looked at the question of the environmental
cost of motoring and concluded that if motorists were asked to pay for
their share of the emissions they caused they should be paying tax at
the rate of 20p a litre of fuel. Tax is currently 60p a
litre.
Ms
Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): I invite
the right hon. Gentleman to do what my hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield, Attercliffe does weekly—if not daily when he is in
his city—and come to the centre of Sheffield. He will see that
the problems with traffic congestion are not just about emissions
levels but that congestion damages Sheffield’s economy. That is
why the Sheffield chamber of commerce is demanding action to deal with
the problem on economic grounds, if nothing
else.
Mr.
Knight:
I am happy to accept the invitation. I am probably
the only Conservative Member of Parliament who has appeared at
Sheffield Attercliffe working
men’s club— a few years ago when I played the drums in a
band. I know Sheffield quite well. I regularly visited the Fiesta club
when it existed. I am happy to go back and have a guided
tour.
There are
various ways to attack congestion. My objection to the Government is
that they seem to think that the only way to deal with congestion is to
attack the motorist and impose higher taxes on him or
her.
Ms
Smith:
Could the right hon. Gentleman outline some of the
alternatives to road charging to reduce congestion on our roads and in
our big
cities?
Mr.
Knight:
Birmingham city council had a very good idea for
reducing congestion. Two of its most congested roads were where one
lane had been taken out of action because it was marked as a bus lane.
The council removed the bus lane, to local delight and joy, until the
then Secretary of State for Transport, who is now Chancellor of the
Exchequer, threatened Birmingham city with a loss of grant unless it
reinstated the bus lanes. There are many innovative ways to deal with
congestion. The
Americans—
Mr.
Knight:
I am answering the hon. Lady’s first
question.
The
Chairman:
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives
way—if he intends to—we should return to the matter in
hand and not go as wide as the Committee is going at
present.
Mr.
Knight:
I am happy to write to the hon. Member for
Sheffield, Hillsborough listing a few other initiatives that have been
tried in America and which do not involve imposing extra tax on the
motorist.
Over the
past 10 or 12 years, I have not normally quoted from The
Times, because it has been a Labour party-supporting
newspaper. However, early last year on 20 February it carried a report
with the headline, “Make a start on road pricing or ‘lose
out on £1.4 billion’”. It
stated:
“The
Government is attempting to ‘blackmail’ local authorities
into introducing congestion charging by refusing to fund public
transport schemes unless they are linked to a new tax on motorists. The
Department for Transport has established a £1.4 billion fund for
investment in local transport but has told councils that any bid for a
share of the money must include congestion charging”.
Taking that report
together with The
Times
report I quoted earlier
about what happened to Mr. Jones in Manchester,
Labour Members ought to reflect, before they cast their vote on this
part of the Bill, on what might happen to them if this unpopular scheme
goes ahead. On the sort of swings we have seen recently, the hon.
Members for Stafford, for Sheffield, Hillsborough, for Derby, North and
for Bristol, East, as well as the Minister, could be in danger. All
those seats could go if the public react in the same way to road
charging in
their constituencies as happened in Manchester, so I hope that to save
her throat and her seat the Minister will get up and say that she is
dropping this part of the
Bill. 2.15
pm
Mr.
Betts:
I am glad that the right hon. Member has just
confirmed that the Conservative candidate for Sheffield, Attercliffe
has no chance in the next election.
Mr.
Knight:
I recall saying no such thing. I said that I was
happy to come to the constituency to meet local people there. If I do,
I would certainly expect to meet the Conservative candidate, who I
anticipate will be the next MP there.
Mr.
Betts:
To move on to the matter in hand, I accept some of
the right hon. Gentleman’s points. It is a difficult issue to
convince the public about. I am in no doubt about it. I have been vocal
in Sheffield about my support for examining the possibility of
introducing a congestion charging scheme. I have gone public with it
and written articles in the local paper. Generally, the letters in
response are not terribly supportive and sometimes not very
complimentary. That is because the public are not convinced and think
that, somehow, they are being done down and will simply be charged. It
is hardly a stealth tax as it is such a public issue.
In this instance, we are talking
about a power for ITAs to be able to introduce a scheme if they think
it appropriate for their areas. It is right that that power should
exist, because if the right hon. Member feels that there are other
measures for dealing with congestion, this clearly is one potential
method that will have to be considered properly.
I am in no doubt that it will
not come about quickly in cities such as Sheffield because the reality
is that not merely my Labour colleagues but the party that now has a
majority in Sheffield, the Lib Dems, are committed to opposing any
congestion charge scheme, probably because they both believe that it
will be politically unpopular. They are probably right, but sometimes
there is a responsibility on politicians, as democratically elected
representatives, to try to give a lead.
My hon. Friend
the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough raised the point about the local
economy. The fact in Sheffield is that congestion does real damage. We
want people to come to Sheffield to work, to shop and to enjoy the
leisure facilities and the magnificent new city centre, but they cannot
get in and out easily at peak periods. I take the point that a scheme
for charging people for the use of roads can be a way of switching the
tax on motorists from licence or fuel duty to charging for roads, but
it can also be a means of raising money that should be hypothecated for
improving public transport—there is a package there. However, we
will probably have to improve public transport before we bring the
scheme in.
We have
done some road building recently to try to improve the inner ring road
but if one talks to the highway engineers, there is spare capacity at
peak periods—it varies slightly—of around 10 to 15 per
cent. We know that traffic is growing at about 2 per cent. per year. It
does not take a genius to work out
that at some point the roads are going to be full. That has happened
over the past two years—there were one or two vehicle breakdowns
in the city centre at key points, the whole city was gridlocked and it
took people an hour to move a couple of hundred
yards. There is no
solution in building more and more roads to get us out of that. The
only solution is to try to ensure that people switch to public
transport or travel at different times when they can. The power to
bring in congestion charge schemes, which I accept ought to be
variable—people will not be charged the same amount for
travelling at off-peak periods as at peak periods—linked to some
improvement in public transport is the right way
forward.
Mr.
Knight:
The weakness in the Government’s case is
that there is to be no remission in other taxes paid by motorists. We
would accept a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said if this was
not an additional tax.
Mr.
Betts:
That is a reasonable point, but my first priority
would be to make a scheme work that reduces congestion and gets the
traffic moving. That means trying to get people on to public transport.
Where the public transport is inadequate, as it is in many of our
cities, which is why we were talking about quality contracts
earlier——the two go together—then we need to
invest more in public transport, in schemes such as guided buses and
trams, of which I am very supportive. One can anticipate the proceeds
of a congestion charge by tax income and funding, which the new local
government network has been arguing for, and put a package together,
but it must be a total package. Improving public transport alone might
have attracted people out of their cars 20 or 30 years ago, but I do
not think that it would anymore. There have to be two sides to it:
improve public transport to attract people, but at the same time impose
a penalty for travelling at peak periods in congested areas. I just do
not see any other
solution.
We at least
have to have the debate, and it is our responsibility as elected
Members, even if things are not immediately popular or obvious with the
public, to raise the issues and bring the arguments forward. On this
occasion, we should vote to give powers to ITAs to use where they think
they are appropriate to address the needs of their
areas.
Ms
Winterton:
Opposition Members are getting over-excited,
because these are not major changes. Local authorities already have the
power to make local road-pricing schemes under the Transport Act 2000.
The difference here is that, at present, they have to get permission
from the Secretary of State to make one. We are changing that so that
if local authorities believe it is best for their area, they will be
able to do it. The change also allows ITAs to make schemes jointly
with, for example, metropolitan councils, if it is felt to be necessary
for establishing an integrated transport system.
Finally, the provisions allow
revenue from any scheme not just to be put back into public transport
for the first 10 years of a scheme, but during the whole life of a
scheme. This is not about forcing local authorities to introduce road
pricing but about enabling them if
they feel it is best. Opposition Front Benchers do not want local
authorities to be able introduce statutory partnership schemes, they do
not want them to be able to introduce quality contracts schemes, and
now they do not want them to be able to introduce road pricing schemes.
Basically, the policy of the Conservatives is the status quo: there is
no problem, let us just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that
congestion is not any part of the problems in our urban areas. Frankly,
I think the public will see straight through that. The Conservatives
are bereft of ideas and out of touch.
Stephen
Hammond:
After last Thursday, the Minister is in a very
dangerous position accusing anybody of being out of touch. She should
not continually do what she has done several times, which is to
completely misrepresent our position, which is clear. We have said that
we support statutory partnerships, completely contrary to what she
said. Our position on quality contracts is clear, because I prefer
partnerships, and we have gone down that road. I suspect Lady Winterton
is just about to tell me not to go down that road again. Finally, as I
set out at the beginning, we support the ability of local authorities
to make congestion charging schemes, or road-user schemes—they
are different—providing that they have local validation. What
the Minister is saying is nonsense and a complete misrepresentation of
the official Opposition’s position. I hope she will acknowledge
that
point.
Furthermore,
the Minister just said, as if it were a good thing, that the Secretary
of State will no longer have to confirm such schemes. It be a good
thing if that scheme were one subject to extensive local consultation,
local validation or tested and validated by an independent inspector.
She may have opened up the problem that we are going to discuss in a
few minutes’ time in clause 104, that without the Secretary of
State confirming it, local authorities may impose these schemes on
local electorates without any consultation whatsoever. That is the
possible consequence of her Bill as it
stands.
Ms
Winterton:
That simply is not true. The hon. Gentleman
knows that local authorities will be expected to consult on schemes;
that is absolutely without doubt. I do not think there is much point
pursuing further the alternatives that the Opposition parties are
proposing, because I do not think they are offering any alternatives.
As I have said, this is not an enormous change to the current position.
There is no question of forcing local authorities to take forward
pricing in their areas. Through the transport innovation fund, we have
made additional funding available to local authorities to explore
whether road pricing, complemented by improvements to local transport,
would be the right approach to tackle congestion in their areas. I do
not think there is any problem with doing that. It is about innovation.
It is about looking at new ideas, but the transport innovation fund is
not the only source of funding for local transport. This Government
have invested very heavily in local transport. That is something we can
be very proud of and I hope the Committee will support clause
96.
Stephen
Hammond:
What the Minister signally failed to do, of
course, is explain the Government’s position on road pricing.
She signally failed to say whether she accepts the Opposition’s
view—a view shared, I
suspect, by some Labour Members—that these local schemes require
local validation. She signally failed to make any response to my right
hon. Friend, who said that there is the potential for this to be just
an additional tax on motorists. And, despite saying that consultation
is “expected”, she has signally failed to answer the
point that, as the Bill is currently structured, local authorities may
only be “expected” to
consult.
People
are expected or hoped to do all sorts of things. The fact of the matter
is that, as the Bill currently stands, by removing the power of the
Secretary of State to confirm a scheme, local authorities are not
obligated to consult. Therein lies a flaw. Local authorities are not
obligated to validate. I accept the Minister’s point that the
power is already there. We support that power, and we would support
this power if there were local validation. I had intended not to make a
great issue of this. I had certainly not intended to press the point,
but the Minister’s arguments have been so inadequate that I
think it is time to make this point. We fully accept that local
authorities should have the right to make congestion schemes, rather
than the road user schemes that the hon. Member for Sheffield,
Attercliffe was talking about. Congestion schemes are undoubtedly one
weapon that can be used to reduce congestion. We fully
support that, and we fully support that local authorities should have
the chance to do that, provided that there is local validation. We are
going to come on to that in a moment. But the Minister also failed to
give any assurance that the funds that might be raised by such a scheme
as the hon. Gentleman talked about could be reinvested in local
matters.
Ms
Winterton:
I was absolutely clear about that. I said that
the change that would be made by the Bill is that it would not just be
for the first 10 years, but for the whole life of the
scheme.
Stephen
Hammond:
What you were not clear
about—
Ian
Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): Lady Winterton was not
clear?
Stephen
Hammond:
I am sorry. Lady Winterton is always clear. I am
occasionally not clear, but I am absolutely clear on this: the Minister
has not answered my point. Making the point that we absolutely support
both the powers of the Transport Act 2000 and local authorities’
ability to create charging schemes with local validation, I am minded
to ask my hon. Friends to vote against this
clause.
Question
p
ut
, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes
5.
Division
No.
18
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 96 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
2.30
pm
| 
