Clause
104
Abolition
of power to require consultation or inquiries for English
schemes
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I shall probe the Minister on a matter that we
discussed earlier. The clause removes the ability of the Secretary of
State to engage in consultation on the subject of an English road
pricing scheme, or to hold an inquiry in respect of it. The Government
will claim that this is a localist measure and on one level that is
true, but as have explained before, the problem with removing the
Secretary of State’s power to consult on or approve such a
scheme is that nothing has been put in its place.
The Government have taken the
first step and put the power to make road pricing schemes in the hands
of local authorities. They must now take the second logical step, to
transfer the whole consultation and inquiry process and power from the
Secretary of State to the local authorities and put those obligations
on the local authorities. A moment ago, the Minister said,
“There is the expectation”, and I am sure that she will
say that it is inconceivable that a local authority would implement
road pricing without consultation, but that is not good enough. I can
see no good reason why local authorities currently have the discretion
not to consult or hold an inquiry, but there is a safeguard in that the
Secretary of State has to confirm the road pricing scheme. It is
crucial that local authorities are obliged to consult and I would
prefer the Bill to go further than that and require local validation,
but there is a robust case to say that the imposition of a local road
pricing scheme can be done only if the local authority is obliged to
consult.
While I accept
the proposition that the Secretary of State no longer has to approve
the scheme, what concerns me about clause 104 is that unless something
else is put
in its place and despite what the Minister said earlier—unless
she will now reassure me that that commitment appears elsewhere in the
Bill—there is a possibility, however unlikely, that schemes
could be implemented in a local authority without any consultation by
local transport authorities or integrated transport
authorities.
Ms
Winterton:
I reassure the hon. Gentleman in the same way
that I have before: changing the power of the Secretary of State does
not have any effect on the ability of local authorities to consult. We
will still expect them to consult in the ways that I outlined
previously—that is, through the Local Government and Public
Involvement in Health Act 2007 and the other ways that I mentioned. The
removal of the power makes no difference to that
whatever.
Stephen
Hammond:
I hear the Minister’s reassurance. I am
usually delighted to accept her reassurances, but in this case I am
not. This issue is so fundamental that it should be dealt with in the
Bill. I am extremely concerned that it is not, and that there is a
major loophole. The Bill rightly goes one step towards giving local
authorities the power to make local charging schemes, but it does not
take the next logical step which would impose safeguards and
obligations on them. I remain extremely concerned about
that.
Question
put, That the clause stand part of the
Bill:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
5.
Division
No.
20
]
Smith,
Ms Angela C. (Sheffield,
Hillsborough)
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause
104
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
105
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
106
Supplementary
provision as to charging
schemes
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Knight:
I have a question for the Minister, but I am not
entirely sure whether this is the place to raise it. If I can raise it
and remain in order, I will do so
now.
The Minister spoke
earlier about leaving local decision making unfettered in some
respects, but, if we have to have charging, there are certain aspects
for which it would make sense to have uniformity. What
are her plans to make it easier for motorists who are likely to enter
two separate charging areas to make one payment in
advance? I am thinking
of a business man who lives in Derby. If the hon. Member for Derby,
North gets his way, there will be charging in Derby. The business
man’s place of work may be in Birmingham, which, let us say, has
its own scheme. In both cases, the motorist has to travel on roads
subject to charging schemes at times when they are in force. Will there
be provision for that motorist to be able to apply to a single point to
prepay, let us say a year ahead, rather than have to make daily
payments? That would be time-consuming and unnecessary in this age of
technology.
Stephen
Hammond:
The clause has an innocent title, but behind it
lie a number of issues that need to be explored. It enables the
Secretary of State or other appropriate national authority to make
regulations about fairly specific elements of road charging schemes:
who pays, how they pay, where they pay, how the money is collected and
so on. Given that the intention is to put road pricing decisions in the
hands of local politicians, I do not understand why that power is
appropriate.
It
appears that the Secretary of State, despite giving local authorities
the chance to put a scheme in place, is ensuring that she has the power
to micro-manage road schemes. That prompts the question whether this
whole part of the Bill is just a chance to introduce a national road
pricing scheme by the back door. It seems to me that schemes should be
introduced, defined and implemented by local politicians, after
validation by the local electorate, with the needs of local people in
mind and tailored to local circumstances. If that is the
Government’s intention, as they seem to have stated, I am not
sure why the Secretary of State will make regulations about the
specifics of how, by whom and from whom money is to be collected. Such
things should be defined by the local road pricing
scheme.
Why does the
Minister want that regulation-making power in the Bill, and why does
she want those matters to be set out in regulations rather than in
guidance? Will it be a one-way process of the Secretary of State making
regulations for local authorities, or will local authorities be able to
make representations to the Secretary of State about the regulations
that she intends to
make?
Ms
Winterton:
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and
the hon. Member for Wimbledon mentioned the importance of consistency
for road users in schemes. The right hon. Gentleman raised the
possibility of having one account if that were considered
helpful.
We would like
to see co-operation on achieving that. As the hon. Gentleman said,
there is currently guidance, but we are taking the powers in question
in case they are needed in future for the benefit of the road user. If
we were unable to achieve co-operation, we could make regulations to
ensure the interoperability that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon.
Gentleman referred to. That is the simple
explanation.
Mr.
Knight:
Can the Minister confirm that it is her intention
to at least encourage schemes to offer a one-stop shop for payment, so
that a motorist in the circumstances that I mentioned earlier could pay
up front? To give an example, when I was last in America, I was being
driven by someone who had to go on four different toll roads, not all
operated by the same authority. He had affixed to his windscreen a
disc, which I think had a metallic strip in it. When he went up to a
barrier, it recognised the strip and opened, and he had to take no
further action. There was no time-consuming telephoning or giving of
card details. He had prepaid for the whole year. If we are to have
these schemes, we should have that sort of payment
scheme.
4
pm
Ms
Winterton:
That is exactly the kind of approach that we
want to
see.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 106
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
107
Suspension
of charging
schemes
Mr.
Knight:
I beg to move amendment No. 265, in
clause 107, page 84, line 4, at
end insert—
‘(d) any
specified motor
vehicle.’.
The
thinking behind the amendment is as follows. I told the Committee of my
interest as chairman of the all-party historic vehicles group. Across
Britain, many historic rally events take place on a regular basis. In
some towns and cities, they have a heritage festival to celebrate their
long association with transport. Coventry does that and it would not
surprise me if Birmingham did it as well. Fundraising charitable
organisations often have charity parades involving historic or classic
vehicles for fundraising purposes.
The Bill gives power to
authorities to suspend charging schemes for special occasions. It
allows for part of a charging scheme to be suspended—the
authority could choose to suspend two or three streets down which a
rally was taking place. It also gives permission to exempt any class of
motor vehicle. What it does not do is to give power to suspend the
scheme for any specified motor vehicle. It may well be that there are
vehicles of different classes in a classic parade or rally.
In every such case that I have
been made aware of there is a requirement by the organisers that the
vehicles must be pre-booked into the rally. The organisers will have a
list of registration numbers of those cars genuinely taking part in the
charitable event. It would therefore make sense to give the operators
of the scheme a power to exempt only those cars that are taking part in
the rally or parade.
I
accept that the permission to hold the rally could be achieved by
suspending the scheme, but it may well be that those running the scheme
would argue that that would lead to substantial loss of revenue and
they do not particularly want to make the area free to all for a
particular day. They could equally argue that if the scheme was
suspended for a historic rally—an occasion
when older vehicles are going to be on the road—there may be
massive congestion because everyone else who wanted to go shopping
would know that the scheme was being suspended and may decide to go
into the town or city on the day of the suspension. It would be common
sense to allow the operators of a scheme to be able to say, “We
are not going to lose much revenue, we have the list of the 50 vehicles
taking part in the event. It is a good cause, it is supported by the
local population, we will exempt the following vehicles”, and
then publish the list of vehicles so
exempt. That is what my
amendment would do. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a
wrecking amendment. It is a helpful amendment, because it would allow
the charging of everyday vehicles to continue on the dates when the
rally or festival was taking place. I would be interested to hear what
the Minister has to
say.
Ms
Winterton:
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, his
amendment would mean that where a charging authority operating a scheme
is partially suspending a scheme, it could do so in respect of specific
vehicles. As currently drafted, the clause allows for the partial
suspension of a scheme in the event of an emergency or to facilitate a
temporary event—for example, a parade, or carnival—to
take place. That means, as he said, certain roads within the charging
scheme could temporarily have the charge suspended to allow traffic to
be diverted down them so as to avoid a road closed for an event such as
a marathon.
Where, for
example, an historic vehicle rally was being held within the charging
area it would already be open to the charging authority, using the
power in clause 107, to suspend charging on the roads that the rally
would use and for the duration of the rally. Under the Transport Act
2000, it is already open to any local charging scheme to provide for
exemptions or to reduce rates of charging which could be applied to
defined events. A scheme could be drafted to exclude from the charging
scheme vehicles taking part in a rally or charitable event. It would be
possible, if vehicles were officially in the rally, for specific
vehicles to be exempted from the charging scheme. I hope that is
helpful.
Mr.
Knight:
I think I have got what I want. I would like to
reflect on what the Minister has said when I can see her words in the
Official Report
. I thank her and on that basis, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
s
108
and
109
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
