Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 299)
WEDNESDAY 28 JANUARY 2009
MS MICHELE
DIX, MR
KULVEER RANGER
AND MR
NICK LESTER
Q280 Sir Peter Soulsby: I would just
like to follow up the revenue predictions which were made at the
outset and the extent to which those have differed from what was
predicted, particularly perhaps the extent to which the proportion
of revenue which comes from fines has differed from what was originally
expected.
Ms Dix: I do not know that it
has necessarily differed because the proportion assumed from fines
depended on the level of compliance and originally people did
not necessarily comply, either because they forgot or they did
not know, or in some instances they thought maybe they could get
away with it, but the level of enforcement associated with this
scheme was very high and we have seen a marked decrease in the
number of PCNs which have been issued from the early days. So
we had a range of forecasts but we were not being reliant on the
PCN revenues. They only form 25% of the revenues that are collected
at present and that is despite the fact that we have put in a
lot of measures to try and make it easier for people to pay and
also we introduced Pay-Next-Day, which was a big improvement as
far as the public were concerned because if they forgot come midnight
on the day they travelled, they then actually had another whole
day, and that saw PCNs fall by 15%.
Q281 Graham Stringer: The administration
of the scheme is about 50% of your income. Do you think compared
with other schemes around the world that is fine?
Ms Dix: It is high according to
the figures we have about other schemes around the world and we
have been around the world talking to other areas to try and understand
the differences. Some of the differences relate to our scheme
having a high level of enforcement and the enforcement costs being
attached to the total costs of the scheme, whereas in some countries
enforcement costs are not in the figures quoted. Also, to make
it more convenient there are lots of different ways in which you
can contact the organisation and lots of different ways in which
you can pay for the Congestion Charge and they add to the cost
of running it, but we have actually issued a new contract for
the congestion charging scheme and there will be cost savings
in the way it is operated going forward.
Q282 Graham Stringer: Roughly how
much?
Ms Dix: Sort of 10 to £15
million.
Q283 Graham Stringer: So not a huge
percentage but a reduction?
Ms Dix: Yes, but they are savings.
Q284 Graham Stringer: When Ken Livingstone
came to this Committee before the scheme started he said that
he was going for the simplest scheme so that it would work and
he said his political career depended on it. I was involved in
the discussions around the Congestion Charge in Manchester and
that was a much more complicated scheme, in fact it was a double
scheme. They have tag and beacon as well as number plate recognition
and 14 day accounts or longer to pay, and yet when I compared
the costs of the proposed Greater Manchester scheme with yours
they were much less. Do you think that was credible? Are you unbelievably
inefficient, or were we being told porkies in the Greater Manchester
scheme? It must be one or the other.
Ms Dix: All I would say is that
when the work was originally done for the Central London congestion
charging scheme before the scheme was adopted by Mayor Livingstone
the estimates for the set-up and the operation of the scheme were
considerably less than those which actually came back when we
procured it, i.e. because of the complications of the scheme.
I am not saying that people have told porkies at all, but I am
not sure that unless you have procured it you have actually got
the full range of costs. But I do believe we are trying to reduce
the costs which we have on the system. We are aware of these comparisons
across the world and there are ways in which we could reduce costs
by removing some of the services.
Q285 Graham Stringer: Let me ask
the question again. Do you think it is credible to run a more
complicated scheme for something like a quarter to a third of
the administrative costs you are using?
Ms Dix: Without looking at the
Manchester costs in detail, I cannot say what they have included
or not, but I would always want to have a look and be, I suppose,
a bit sceptical. I was certainly sceptical about the Edinburgh
figures.
Q286 Graham Stringer: About a quarter
of your income comes from fines. Do you know the composition of
the people who pay those fines, how many of them are from outside
of London?
Ms Dix: 2% of PCNs that are issued
are for foreign vehicles.
Q287 Graham Stringer: From people
outside? I get constituents in Manchester who write to me and
say they did not understand the Congestion Charge. They have not
been sent a fine for it, which they would have been happy to pay,
the original Charge, but they just did not know how to do it.
I just wondered what percentage of that 25% of your income comes
from people who just did not understand it because they did not
live in London or the South East.
Ms Dix: I am afraid I do not have
that figure in my head, so I will have to come back to you on
that, unless you know, Nick?
Q288 Graham Stringer: Do you think
you could tell us, because it is a concern?
Ms Dix: Yes, I will find out for
you. It is just not a number I have in my head.
Chairman: You can send that information
to us.
Q289 Mr Martlew: I think, Chairman,
we should put it on the record that we did invite the Mayor to
come and he was unavailable. I think it is unfortunate because
obviously the panel we have got before us are very reticent to
go on about future policy, whereas I am sure Boris would not have
had that constraint! Looking at the technology which is being
used, if you were starting again would you be using GPS? Would
you look at a totally new technology?
Ms Dix: If we were starting right
now we would probably think about using tag and beacon technology.
Certainly we did a lot of trials of different technologies in
London and their suitability for application in London. This is
since the original scheme was introduced. All these trials were
done sort of 2005, 2006, to understand whether the technologies
which were being advocated by others would work in London. We
were concerned whether or not if we had GPS technology the number
of satellite readings, the accuracy of picking people up on a
particular road would work in particularly Central London where
we have got a lot of high buildings. So some early trials did
not convince us that it was ready for a link by link charging
system. We looked at tag and beacon, which was to read vehicles
as they came in the zone or different locations in the zone in
order to automate the scheme more and the results of those trials
were much more compelling.
Q290 Mr Martlew: The Committee visited
the Netherlands and obviously we had deep discussions about their
scheme and they are going for the GPS scheme. One of their objectives,
the main objective, is to reduce congestion. I accept they do
not have such a number of high buildings, but I think it was Mr
Ranger who said billing people out. Surely that is the way forward,
sooner or later, whether we get Galileo or whatever? The technology
you have got now is rapidly becoming out of date, is it not?
Ms Dix: We can use the camera
technology which exists now to introduce the billing system which
Kulveer is talking about. If we want to introduce accounts we
can use the camera system we have got available. If we want to
introduce more flexibility in the system we would have to move
to a new technology such as tag and beacon. If we want to get
to a distance based charging scheme, whether or not you would
want to invest all that technology just for the Central London
area and all tracked by time of day when in fact congestion in
fact exists all day long, it might be inappropriate to have a
complicated piece of technology if you have got a simple problem.
If there was ever a need to look beyond Central London and have
a wider distance based charging scheme, then you would need to
improve the technology, but if you want accounts right now you
do not necessarily need to change the technology.
Q291 Mr Martlew: My final question:
do you think the sort of Congestion Charge around a city like
we have got in London and like they have not got in Manchester
has had its day? After the referendum in Manchester, do you think
that if we go forward it is going to be a national charging scheme?
Ms Dix: I think the referendum
in Manchester and also the recent vote in London about the western
extension, the vote in Edinburgh and the online petition on charging
which we had point to the fact that the acceptability argument
is not being won and the rationale for introducing these schemes
has not convinced people necessarily that they are the right way
forward. So if we had a national scheme would that make a difference?
It would only make a difference if you were introducing it and
taking something else away.
Mr Ranger: Could I add to that?
Going back to some of my original comments, I think we have to
look at schemes and how their benefits then get eroded and whether
people still see a value in them. I think public transport in
London is exceptional in terms of the amount of choice and it
makes it unique in terms of why the Congestion Charge was applied
to Central London. So in different areas of the United Kingdom
it would be difficult because of the uniqueness of London as an
area. We have to take into account over the oncoming 10, 20 years
and further—I think some of you may have seen the Mayor's
document Way to Go, which is looking to present an initial
vision for discussion and how we see transport in London. That
is looking at some of the major infrastructure we are looking
to deliver, such as the line upgrades on the Underground, Crossrail,
the cycling revolution bike hire schemes and maintaining and improving
the bus network there already is. All of those, plus just the
construction periods for those and projects like Thameslink, will
have a huge bearing on how we see traffic and congestion in Central
London. So we are trying to understand the impact of all those
schemes in their periods of delivery as well as in their periods
of operation, and then where does congestion sit and how do we
deal with it through that period of time. That is some of the
work which we are looking to do through the development of the
new Mayor's transport strategy in conjunction with revisions to
the London Plan.
Q292 Mr Clelland: I am just a bit
concerned that Nick Lester seems to be having quite an easy time!
What doe the London boroughs think of the Congestion Charge? How
would they like to see it developed or what changes would they
like to see?
Mr Lester: I think there is a
number of views on the Congestion Charge scheme varying from borough
to borough. Clearly the boroughs of West London had strong views
on the western extension, which they expressed at the time. At
the occasion of introduction of the scheme in 2003 the majority
of boroughs were supportive. Again, some of the boroughs had problems
in detail. I think all of the boroughs are convinced about the
need to improve issues such as fairness, which Kulveer Ranger
mentioned, the way in which the scheme operates more efficiently
for all sorts of reasons and to make the maximum benefit for the
opportunities it releases for managing traffic more effectively.
Q293 Mr Clelland: Are any of the
boroughs perhaps thinking about having their own congestion measures
because presumably the congestion problem in Central London can
also be a problem in some of the boroughs themselves? Have they
any plans to introduce congestion charges or other measures to
reduce congestion in their own areas?
Mr Lester: There is a variety
of ways in which people are looking at measures to reduce congestion.
There have been some discussions and some thoughts about specific
charges in one or two places. Greenwich has been mentioned, Heathrow
Airport has been mentioned. None of those have got to the stage
of a formal decision to go forward as yet and I know that the
authorities in those places, with TFL, are looking carefully at
all of the options to see what is most acceptable and most effective
to deal with particular traffic problems in those areas. I know
that one of the issues which was raised in the context of the
Low Emission Zone is the restriction which existed in the legislation,
for perfectly good reasons, of having only one charging authority
on any one stretch of road. The existence of the Low Emission
Zone means that TFL is the charging authority for every road or
almost every road in London and so of necessity any borough which
had a proposal to introduce congestion charging in any area would
need to work very closely with TFL to have a scheme which was
acceptable both locally and London-wide.
Q294 Mr Clelland: Give the measurement
of opinion on the western extension and given the referendum in
Manchester, do you think that any future proposals for congestion
charging would have to be accompanied by a referendum or some
measure of public opinion?
Mr Lester: I would have thought
it was impossible to introduce any form of charging scheme without
having a very clear view of public opinion, and indeed that was
the case in 2000 when at the first mayoral election for London
Mayor Livingstone stood on a clear platform of introducing a congestion
charge. He chose not to have a referendum but presumably (although
I am putting words into his mouth, which I am very hesitant indeed
in doing) he could have advanced the argument that the Election
which elected him meant that a referendum was not necessary.
Ms Dix: The public opinion vote
at that time was very positive as well, particularly because of
the hypothecation.
Q295 Mr Clelland: Is your perception
that public opinion continues to support the current Congestion
Charge?
Ms Dix: The Central London congestion
charging scheme has support; it was the western extension which
was in question.
Q296 Mr Clelland: So in his quest
for fairness, if the Mayor of London decided to have a referendum
on whether he should continue with the Congestion Charge in Central
London, you are confident he would win it?
Ms Dix: No, because I think referenda
do not necessarily attract the same sorts of views as if you undertook
a consultation.
Q297 Chairman: What about the views
of business towards the Congestion Charge? How would you assess
those?
Ms Dix: Business was very, very
supportive of the original scheme. Businesses were very much behind
the original scheme, wanted it and were supportive of it. Businesses
were concerned about the western extension in the first instance,
big business as well as small business, but with the western extension,
when it went it and it worked, big business was more neutral on
it in terms of the effects it had, but small businesses were concerned
and remain concerned because they felt more directly affected.
Q298 Chairman: We have been told
that as far as vans and HGVs are concerned, in terms of deliveries,
the time saving is very insignificant and therefore is not of
much value to them. Has that been reflected in what you have heard?
Ms Dix: There were time savings
for deliveries. One of the opponents of the original congestion
charging scheme was the Evening Standard and it was one
of the first ones to say that it actually saved time following
the Congestion Charge with its deliveries. So time savings were
gained. Some of the bigger winners were some of the financial
services businesses because people getting to and from meetings,
et cetera, were saving time. I suppose the biggest winners were
those who do not pay (i.e. they had the benefits of the Congestion
Charge, they did not pay) and those were public transport users
and bus users in the main, but small businesses have felt the
impacts of the Charge and small businesses continue to lobby about
the impacts of the Charge.
Mr Ranger: I think we have to
bear in mind that 95% of people who come into Central London come
on public transport or walking and cycling, so there was a small
number who were being affected by the Central Zone. I think the
western extension was very, very different in terms of the makeup
of the people there, the types of businesses which were being
affected and the residential population as well. Businesses still,
I think, engage and see the Central London Zone as a positive
effect.
Q299 Ms Smith: I just want to challenge
a statement, Mr Ranger, you made when you said that London is
unique in terms of its transport and road networks. Can you explain
why you think that is the case?
Mr Ranger: In terms of the number
of options people have for public transport, the capacity of public
transport, the infrastructure which currently is in place and
also the investment that is going into that infrastructure. So
by implementing a charge people still have a variety of options
and choices about how they can travel if they are not going to
take their vehicle, whereas the majority of the rest of the UK
I would say would probably not have that level and capacity of
public transport which London has.
Ms Dix: Could I just add to that?
I think in many ways it is Central London which is unique.
Mr Ranger: Yes, Central London.
Ms Dix: 90% of users are public
transport users and it is also unique in the fact that congestion
is all day congestion. It does not have a morning peak and an
evening peak like a lot of areas, it is all day congestion. So
it has different challenges and different options perhaps, rather
than being entirely unique.
| 
