Transport Bill

HL Deb 17 July 2000 vol 615 cc611-51

4.57 p.m.

House again in Committee (on Recommitment).

[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch

I was told that I was expected to be on at 3.30 p.m. and had to wait here for a whole hour. Given that my noble friends dealing with the Bill think that they are due to be out of the Chamber for 40 minutes, I wonder whether the House agrees that it would be appropriate to adjourn for a few minutes until they arrive.

Noble Lords

Here he is.

Clause 167 [Charging schemes to be made by order]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 206: Page 100, line 23, leave out ("any of").

The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee. I was caught out by the speed with which the Minister dealt with her education Statement. It was unforgivable of me.

Curiously enough, the amendment is designed to help the Government. Clause 167(2) deals with the variation or revocation of charging schemes. It says: The charging authority or the charging authorities (acting jointly) may by order vary a charging scheme under this Part and the charging authority or any of the charging authorities may by order revoke such a scheme".

It is entirely proper that the agreement of all the authorities concerned is needed before a scheme is brought in. However, it appears that any single participating authority could unilaterally revoke t. That is rather peculiar and cannot be right. Ira scheme has to be brought in by joint effort, it cannot be correct that any of the charging authorities can revoke it. I hope that the Minister will accept that there is at least a point to our amendment that he could accept. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I am always grateful to the noble Lord when he is helpful. I understand what he is driving at. The problem is that the amendment would lead to the opposite situation, because it would require all local authorities involved to agree before a joint scheme could be revoked. That would make it impossible for a single authority to decide that it was no longer in its own interests to participate.

Our general approach has been to avoid having too many barriers for authorities that decide to revoke a charging scheme. Therefore, the consequence of that approach is that a single authority would have the right to revoke its part of that scheme.

The noble Lord is concerned that the right of a single authority in a joint scheme may be used precipitately as a result of this clause. There will be plenty of other safeguards to ensure that that will not happen. In practice, a scheme would not be agreed or approved unless there was a clear period of notice before any of the participating authorities could withdraw from a joint scheme. No doubt there would be also a number of other contractual arrangements in relation to the operation of the scheme which all participating authorities would have to consider.

Therefore, although the noble Lord's amendment appears to be aimed at stability, in fact the nature of the schemes will provide a fair degree of stability. The requirement that all authorities participating would jointly have to agree the revocation is too onerous and would reduce the flexibility and accountability of the individual local authorities concerned. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment despite the fact that I recognise his good motives in that regard and he points to a problem. However, this amendment creates another problem.

5 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

We are dealing with a question of what I can only describe as relative problems. But what the Minister has not said in his reply is that the individual local authority which is participating in a scheme may withdraw from the scheme in relation to its own territory. The Bill says that it can revoke a scheme.

I accept that there will be a great number of safeguards. Obviously, any joint scheme will have fairly tight contractual arrangements, such as periods of notice and so on. I accept that there will be a degree of stability. But we need to be extremely careful about the words on the face of the Bill. I can understand an authority in a joint scheme being able to revoke a scheme in relation to its own area so that what was formerly a joint scheme would no longer apply in that area. The Minister says that if a transport authority which is part of a joint scheme wishes to withdraw, the whole scheme will go. That is beginning to fly in the face of the earlier remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, about the intended disincentive effect of the existence of those charges. These are supposed to be matters of national significance, with the purpose being to provide a major disincentive to all traffic permanently and for ever. But here, a local transport authority may revoke a scheme because it does not like it. Therefore, that impact will immediately be lost.

It seems to me that that is an inconsistency in the Government's position as between one amendment and another, although it is not relevant to this amendment. I shall study what the Minister said and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 167 agreed to.

Clause 168 agreed to.

Clause 169 [Charging schemes: consultation and inquiries:]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 207: Page 101, line 23, leave out ("may at any time") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 207 is grouped with a large number of other amendments. Paradoxically, the Minister has already spoken to this amendment which makes mandatory consultation on the introduction of a charging scheme.

We have had this debate on many occasions. I am sure that we shall continue to have it. In his reply, the Minister will no doubt say, as he has done before, that in legislation, the word "may" is normally used and for "may" read "shall". But if one were to refer to the dictionary, "may" does not mean "shall". It is as simple as that.

When these schemes are being introduced, it is important that the obligation to consult is of the widest and, indeed, that obligation should be spelt out on the face of the Bill.

Other amendments in this group seek to ensure that the people who are consulted are "interested" people. The Bill provides something about consulting such other people as the local transport authority considers desirable. It should be "such other interested people" who are desirable. It should not be those whom the local transport authority considers desirable but rather those who are interested or their representatives. Likewise, there will always be affected organisations; for example, those interested in the transport organisations or representatives of business and commerce. They should be consulted. Such matters should be on the face of the Bill.

Wrapped up within this group of amendments is another amendment which is highly desirable. The amendment requires the local transport authority, when it is undertaking consultation on the introduction of a charging scheme, to introduce a cost-benefit analysis; in other words, to show to the local community that it will receive something back for the money which it is being forced to contribute. That is not at all unreasonable. It will be an extremely useful discipline for the local transport authority to have to stop and think with care and in detail what it will do with the funds which it is extracting from its community or, indeed, from visitors or people simply passing through who will be likely to be caught.

These amendments are repeated in relation to the workplace parking levy. The same arguments hold good in relation to that. If we are to have these schemes, it seems to me that they must be very well thought through in the first instance and then very well explained and acceptable to the community. If they are not, all that will happen is that there will be a political revolution come the next local elections and somebody will be brought in who will do something different. That is the nature of politics. The comparison between these charges and levies and the poll tax has been made.

It may well be that when those charges and levies are in place at some point in the future, they will have a similar impact. I should not go so far as to say that that is certain, but it is certain that there will be extremely negative reactions to the introduction of those charges if the consultation process is weak—under the Bill, there is potential for that—and if, more importantly, the community cannot see that it will gain, rather than lose, as a consequence. I beg to move.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My noble friend makes an extremely good point. It is far from my intention to suggest that the whole of officialdom is high-handed, arrogant and rude. I really do not make that suggestion. However, undoubtedly parts of it suffer from certain defects. That being the case, I think it unwise to use the words "may at any time". In the unlikely event that the charging authority is not naturally good mannered or considerate of the rights of others, it should be obliged to consult. My noble friend is right. He has done a good service to the Committee in making the point by moving the amendment. I hope that the Government will at least give it serious thought, if they do not decide to accept it. I can see no reason why they should not do the latter.

Lord Lea of Crondall

I wish to speak to Amendment No. 263A in this grouping. The measures in Part III will need all the support they can get when they come to fruition. Much still has to be done to integrate transport policy with the workplace. Both limbs of the measures in Part III have much to do with the workplace, which is the main cause of peak period congestion, and we now have the proposal for a parking charge.

I would go only some of the way with noble Lords opposite in predicting revolution as a result of the Bill coming on to the statute book, either for national government or local government. There will certainly be much debate in the workplace when the Bill comes to fruition. Amendment No. 263A is connected to Amendment No. 263B, which has been moved to a different part of the grouping and to which I shall speak later. It is important that we have reassurance on the face of the Bill that employers will be consulted. That, in turn, will act as a stimulus to employers to draft their own green transport plans, which I shall come to later.

Lord Berkeley

I rise briefly to support the comments of my noble friend Lord Lea on Amendment No. 263A. I support everything he said. Perhaps I may add that I am pleased to have received a briefing from the Confederation of British Industry which states that, in principle, it supports the scheme. That is significant.

The CBI has attached to its support a number of conditions. The main one in connection with this amendment is that it would prefer to see the need for consultation to be a statutory requirement. If it is not, it would like to see the Bill accompanied by statutory guidance as to how consultation can be achieved. We spend a great deal of time on this and other Bills talking about consultation, and the discussion can sometimes become ethereal. However, all noble Lords who have spoken so far in Committee have stated that it is a practical necessity to get ownership of this scheme for those who will be affected by it. I am not so frightened. I believe that if it is explained properly, many people will support it and see the benefits which will come to them. However, I believe that, at the very least, statutory guidance should be issued so that there is consistency of consultation where such schemes are proposed.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Whitty

Perhaps I may say, at the outset, that we believe that effective consultation will be central to the charging or levy scheme at local level. The Government attach considerable importance to that. Indeed, as we said in our response to Breaking the Logjam, consultation with local people and businesses will be one of the core elements of any local scheme before it is approved by the Secretary of State. It is clear that consultation is a major part of that process.

Moreover, we have emphasised that charging schemes should support the objectives of a local authority's local transport plan, which is subject to extensive consultation. Every road user or workplace parking scheme will contain much detail and have a direct impact on the interests of many sections of the community. It must, therefore, be subject to a separate and detailed process of public scrutiny and consultation.

Furthermore, Clause 169 provides a power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to direct a charging or licensing authority to undertake further consultation if the appropriate national authority deems that the original consultation was insufficient.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, anticipated, in providing for such consultation we have used the normal terminology "may". I see no good reason to change that. To ensure that that is turned into full and effective consultation we shall issue guidance. In due course, regulations will be issued using the powers in Clause 167(3). We shall list a number of consultees, the core of which will be similar to those for traffic orders. It will include additions, such as chief police officers, district councils in two-tier authorities, RDAs, national parks authorities and so forth, where appropriate.

For workplace parking schemes, which do not affect such a wide group of people, a simpler list of statutory consultees will be more appropriate. It will include, for example, neighbouring authorities likely to be affected and a requirement to consult and actively involve local people, local employers, local trade unions, transport operators, transport users, representative groups—for example those for the disabled—and such organisations as are appropriate in the locality. In some cases that would require consultation with other public bodies. The guidance will clearly spell out the need to consult widely and meet the objectives set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others.

Amendment No. 263A was spoken to by my noble friends Lord Lea and Lord Berkeley. The amendment would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to draw up model guidelines on consultation with employers, along the lines the CBI would want. I assure my noble friends that we fully intend to issue such guidance. At present, through our Charging Development Partnership, we are working closely with those local authorities which have it in mind to introduce such schemes. We shall need to learn from that partnership and build on the experience it has encountered in issuing and developing guidance.

In the mean time, every charging scheme will need the approval of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly and will therefore be subject to careful scrutiny before it starts. I assure the Committee that we do not intend to approve schemes unless there has been appropriate consultation with people and businesses.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, also drew attention to Amendments Nos. 210 and 242 on cost-benefit analysis. Again, we shall issue guidance to authorities on the way in which they should assess the likely impact of the scheme. That will be slightly wider than traditional cost-benefit analysis. They will need to look at the benefits to the community as a whole and the impact on the environment. However, it must be a robust assessment of the impact of that scheme.

On that front and on the consultation front I hope that my assurances have convinced Members of the Committee that the Bill as it stands and the regulations which will follow meet all their objectives in this regard. I hope, therefore, that they do not see the need to move their amendments.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I do not wish to detain the Committee. However, it seems odd to give an authority permission to consult. Surely authorities do not need permission to consult. They should be put under a duty to consult. In replying to the amendment, the Minister voiced unexceptionable sentiments. I agree with almost every word he said. I would have thought that almost the whole tenor of his argument would have led to an acceptance of this sensible and modest amendment, which is not even lengthy; it is short and inserts one single word: "shall" consult instead of "may" consult. It is perfectly sensible.

I hope that the Minister will not think that we, on this side of the Committee, are being obstinate. I hope that he will concede that there may be a point here. Merely to permit an authority to consult is meaningless. I do not understand its value. The Minister said that consultation is a major part of the process. So why not make it obligatory? I fail to understand that. I do not know how many times the noble Lord used the word "guidance", but he must understand—he is a modest and reasonable man—that government guidance is not always what the Opposition look for or are content with.

I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again and not simply accept the advice of his officials that the Bill is immaculate and does not need any change.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My noble friend Lord Peyton kindly argued in support of what I too felt was a perfectly reasonable proposition. Paradoxically, the Minister agreed with us. But he said that he would not do anything about it; he would deal with it in other ways. The Minister says that "may" means "must", that authorities will have to consult, and that there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill. I find that difficult to understand.

My noble friend Lord Peyton also raised the question of the status of guidance. We have already debated in the course of this Bill the status of statutory guidance, particularly guidance which others are obliged to take note of. The fact is that statutory guidance is about 10 steps away from regulation. At least regulation receives the merest margin of parliamentary supervision; statutory guidance receives none.

There is always consultation as to the content of guidance. That consultation takes into account lots of views. But the guidance then produces what the Minister first thought of. It may occasionally be adjusted, but only because the Government originally intended to adjust it.

A constitutional issue arises here. I am disappointed by the Minister's response. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for his support in an amendment which runs parallel to mine, and to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. There is wide agreement as to the principles of these amendments. The Minister says that he agrees with the principles but does not intend to do anything. I shall study with care exactly how he managed to justify that paradox. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 208 to 210 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 211: Page 101, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: This group of amendments seeks to make compulsory the setting up of an inquiry before a charging scheme is introduced, with a parallel series of amendments in relation to workplace parking. More importantly, in some ways, they seek to appoint an independent person as the chairman of such an inquiry.

In a sense, these amendments follow on naturally from the previous group so I need not take up too much time on them. Once again, the wording of the Bill is "may", and I have no doubt that the Minister will say it means "must". So although those affected by the clause "must", the Bill will say "may". I find that extremely odd.

Again, it is important for the question of acceptance that there should be an inquiry in relation to those schemes. So "may" should be "must" and undoubtedly will be when the Minister concludes his remarks. Even more importantly, another amendment in this group seeks to ensure that the person appointed to chair the inquiry is independent. Unfortunately, if that were not the case, the integrity of the inquiry would be called into question and that would not be in anybody's interest. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

Amendments Nos. 214 and 254 are included in this group. In both cases the amendments substitute a requirement on appropriate national authorities to give directions to local authorities to re-examine, vary or revoke a scheme rather than themselves carrying out an inquiry.

Although I do not always take seriously this quibbling about words, nevertheless when the Minister says "may" means "must" it gives greater weight to my remarks. Apparently, the provision now means that the appropriate national authority "must" cause an inquiry to be held in relation to a charging scheme; and that must be nonsense. After all, the way in which these schemes are set up is extremely detailed in terms of their prescription. Regulations for both kinds of levy to cover exemptions and enforcements are enabled by the Bill; the content of each scheme is described in some detail on the face of the Bill; and the appropriate national authority can, by regulation, prescribe the nature and content of the orders under which the schemes can be produced.

Altogether it is a pretty prescriptive control for a locally determined scheme. My question therefore is: why might the appropriate national authority feel that it should step in and hold an inquiry at a time when a scheme is being brought into effect? Why cannot the local authority simply be instructed to think again about its scheme?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Within this group it will be generally recognised that the authors of Amendments Nos. 211, 212, 251 and 252 on the one hand and 214 and 254 on the other cannot both be right; they both argue strongly in opposite directions.

There is no question here that "may" equals "shall". It is intended that the requirement to hold a public inquiry should be only in appropriate cases. Holding a public inquiry before a charging or licensing scheme is introduced may well be appropriate. It may also be appropriate to hold an inquiry if there is a significant variation to a scheme. It may even be appropriate to hold an inquiry into the revocation of a scheme. But it cannot be sensible to make public inquiries compulsory in all circumstances for all schemes and for any change to each and every scheme, which is what the Conservative amendments seek.

In addition, the amendments would remove the ability of charging and licensing authorities to fine tune schemes—in other words, to make minor changes —or to revoke schemes quickly. So although I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tabled his amendments, they would not be helpful or beneficial.

However, I would not want the Committee to feel that we do not attach considerable importance to proper and effective scrutiny of the details of individual schemes. We have just debated our commitment to full and effective consultation. That is why we have parallel provisions in the Bill dealing with inquiries. Clause 169(2)(a) gives charging authorities the power to hold an inquiry when they deem it necessary, and we will issue guidance on that matter. Clause 169(4)(a) provides the appropriate national authority with the power to direct a charging authority to hold a public inquiry if it feels that this is appropriate. There are identical provisions in Chapter II dealing with the workplace parking levy.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be pleased to hear that we are in agreement about Amendments Nos. 213 and 253. But while we agree with what he is seeking to achieve, I advise the noble Lord not to smile too soon. We do not believe that it is necessary to write such a provision on the face of the Bill because the consequence of any inquiry that failed to meet this criterion would be vulnerable to a successful challenge in the courts. Nevertheless, I reiterate our belief and intention that inquiries should be run by suitably qualified people who are independent.

I turn now to Amendments Nos. 214 and 254 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I agree with the noble Baroness that we do not want to see unnecessary delays in the introduction of schemes. But the power to require an inquiry to be held into the establishment or variation of a scheme is an important reserve power that may be needed if local consultations have not been adequate to safeguard the interests of the local community. The power proposed by the amendments to require the re-examination of specific aspects of a charging scheme is already available to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales through the process of scheme approval.

If we made the amendments, they would also have the unintended effect of giving the appropriate national authority the power to prevent a local authority revoking its charging scheme. As drafted, the power to direct that an inquiry should be held applies only to the introduction and variation of a scheme, not to its revocation. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that authorities should not be tied into schemes without the option to revoke them immediately if they wish to do so. We should not want to see a national authority preventing a local authority terminating a scheme by continuously questioning the revocation order. On that basis, I hope that Members of the Committee, coming at us from both sides, will feel that it is unnecessary to press these amendments.

5.30 p.m.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I thank the Minister for his reply, but I should like gently to point out that I am not under any obligation whatever to agree with my colleagues who sit further along on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, we speak for ourselves and not for anyone else.

I have learnt something today; namely, that the word "may" means "shall" in Clause 169(2), but that "may" means "may" in Clause 169(4). So we have at least got further down the road as regards the drafting of Bills. I shall not chop logic any more with the Minister because he is probably rather better at it than I am. I await with interest to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says about his amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I cannot recall the appropriate quote from the Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but I have the feeling that there is one there somewhere, if only I could remember it! However, I wish to focus on a point made by the Minister. He said that, if an inquiry were established without an independent chairman, it might be open to successful challenge in court. The noble Lord is perfectly right. If we do not stipulate that the chairman should be independent and a local authority makes such a mistake, that would be the inevitable result. It is precisely because I thought that we should avoid the waste of time and money that would be involved in such a case that it seemed to me desirable to put such a provision on the face of the Bill.

Anyone who stops and thinks for only a short while will realise that there have been a number of occasions when local authorities have managed to get themselves into a procedural muddle. They have been taken to court and it has caused a great deal of vexation. Part of the purpose of legislation is undoubtedly to try to avoid such situations arising. If we achieve that aim by the simple addition of a few words that actually cost nothing—except, perhaps, a minor deflation of the Government's ego—I really do not see why we should not do so.

We find ourselves in a rather strange situation. I shall study the Minister's response because we are dealing here with quite a few amendments. However, it seems to me that this may well be a issue to which we shall return at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 212 to 219 not moved.]

Clause 169 agreed to.

Clause 170 [Matters to be dealt with in charging schemes]:

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 220: Page 102, line 25, at end insert ("and for the purpose of this section the class of vehicle should be defined as a powered vehicle with three or more wheels").

The noble Baroness said: Among other things, Clause 170 deals with the classes of motor vehicles in respect of which charges are imposed, as part of the matters to be considered in charging schemes. Our amendment provides that such vehicles must have more than three wheels. That sounds rather curious, but the object of the exercise is to tease out the Government's feelings about motorcycles.

Obviously, the object of road congestion charging schemes is to reduce congestion, but motorcycles contribute to reducing road congestion. The man, or commuter, on a motorcycle takes up far less room than someone driving a car. Therefore, it seems reasonable to hope and expect that motorcycles are either excluded altogether from the category of vehicles that should be charged or, alternatively, if they are included, they should be charged at a lower level. I beg to move.

Viscount Falkland

As a practising motorcyclist, and one of long standing, perhaps I may amplify what my noble friend has just said. From my personal experience of riding my motorcycle in various countries, there is no charging system that does not distinguish between four-wheeled vehicles and those with two or three wheels. Anyone who travels on a tolling autoroute in France, along an autobahn or on to an autostrada will find that there are reduced charges for motorcycles. That indicates the difference in terms of the wear and tear, pollution or anything else that is taken into account in order to assess the kind of charges that should be levied. It is an indication that the differences between the four-wheeled vehicle—whether it be a van, a lorry or a car—and two or three-wheeled vehicles are recognised.

This country has a long history of motorcycle manufacture and use. After all, the motorcycle was almost, but not quite, pioneered in this country. We made a significant industrial contribution to the design and manufacture of motorcycles to the extent that, pre-1960, we were probably the major manufacturer of machines for pleasure, for commuting and for motor sport. With that background, it is rather curious that there is now an equivocal attitude at local authority level to motorcycles. The way in which motorcycles are treated for the purpose of parking, which was discussed under another part of the Bill, is extremely uneven. That applies not only within the London area but generally throughout the United Kingdom.

In the transport plans of various local authorities no distinction is made between motorcycles and other forms of vehicle in terms of the pollution that they are alleged to produce or, indeed, as regards the wear and tear, the costs to taxpayers and the causes of congestion. Motorcycles cause far less pollution and congestion than other vehicles. The Bill as drafted will not encourage local authorities to take a more rational view of that problem.

I am sure noble Lords will remember that the Budget of March 1999 provided tax relief for motorcycles used for commuting as they were regarded as a green form of commuting. Therefore, there is a clear recognition that motorcycles and scooters comprise a different class of vehicle in terms of assessing charging schemes.

As my noble friend said, this is a probing amendment on which it would be useful to hear the Government's views. Thus far the Government have made some encouraging comments about motorcycles. The number of motorcycles and scooters on our roads has grown immeasurably over the past three years. My noble friend talked of a man on a motorcycle. However, current registrations show that more women are applying for motorcycle licences.

Noble Lords may not have used the facility themselves, but there are good motorcycle taxi facilities available. I am told by fellow motorcyclists with whom I chat when waiting at a red light that it is largely women who use those taxi services. They recognise that they are the best way to get to airports or to meetings. Women now form an important part of the motorcycling community. They complain most vociferously about the uneven and unreasonable—as it is perceived—view of some local authorities which bracket together the larger, more polluting vehicles and motorcycles.

As I say, it would be helpful if the Minister would say whether the Government distinguish between motorcycles, scooters and other vehicles in this regard. That would enormously encourage those who have tabled the amendment and the expanding group of people of all ages who use motorcycles. I do not say that they use them for pleasure because in this Anglo-Saxon environment in which we live I notice that pleasure is not heavily featured in the Transport Bill when we talk about cars. I can well understand that, as there is not much pleasure in driving a car. However, motorcycles are also ridden for pleasure. That is recognised in most countries. However, in this country, people who do not enjoy driving cars and becoming caught up in congestion take a rather dim view of people who get through the traffic and enjoy themselves. However, that should not distract one from taking a reasonable and fair-minded view of the amendment.

5.45 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I do not know which cruel person allocated this amendment to me for a response. On a previous occasion in Committee I made it clear that I am frightened of bikers. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned scooters. Forty years ago I used to ride a scooter. I was frightened as much of myself as of anyone else, particularly when I fell off, as I frequently did.

Motor vehicles, as defined in Clause 197(1), already exclude electrically assisted pedal cycles and other forms of unpowered modes of transport. This leaves us with the question of whether it is right, as the amendment suggests, that the Bill should automatically exclude all powered two wheelers—that is, motorbikes and scooters—from charges in all circumstances. I am not convinced that this would be the right way to proceed.

We addressed this matter in our consultation paper Breaking the Logjam. We sought people's views on the merits of a national exemption for motorcycles from road user charges. Over 60 per cent of respondents thought that there should not be a national exemption. Many suggested that the matter should be left to local discretion. We recognise the merits of an exemption from charges for motorcycles. It could overcome a number of practical problems that might be encountered if they were subject to road user charges.

However, I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that we are discussing congestion charging. There are issues of pollution and also of noise pollution. I do not think motorcycles would be regarded favourably in terms of noise pollution. However, we are principally discussing congestion. It is undoubtedly the case that a two-wheeled vehicle takes up less horizontal road space than a four-wheeled vehicle, or even a three-wheeled vehicle such as a Reliant Robin or a motorcycle with a sidecar. A charging authority might decide that it is appropriate to charge motorcycles if they contribute to local congestion problems.

The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to motorways in other countries. However, in the centre of Rome or Bologna the congestion is caused almost entirely by two-wheeled vehicles and pedestrians. The fact that it will be open to charging authorities to charge motorcycles at a reduced rate on the basis that two wheels cause less of a congestion problem than four wheels is a perfectly rational solution. If that is what the noble Viscount seeks, we seek the same thing.

We believe that it is right to leave local authorities with the discretion to include powered two wheelers within a charging scheme. However, we shall ensure that local authorities carefully consider the case for and against including motorcycles in any charging scheme.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I thank the Minister for that full and, I think, largely satisfactory reply. I shall read what the Minister has said but, for the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 221: Page 102, line 27, at end insert ("for ten years or").

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 are grouped together. They seek to change the psychology of this part of the Bill. Clause 170 is concerned with the contents of charging schemes. Clause 170(1)(e) states that a charging scheme must, state whether or not the charging scheme is to remain in force indefinitely and, if it is not to remain in force indefinitely, the period for which it is to remain in force". I leave aside the earlier argument proposed; namely, that the purpose of the charges is to provide a permanent disincentive for people to drive. Clearly, this part of the Bill at any rate, is not consistent with that.

Amendment No. 220 seeks to amend Clause 170(1)(e) to read, state whether or not the charging scheme is to remain in Force for ten years or indefinitely". The hypothecation period presently provided in the Bill is 10 years. I do not see why a local transport authority should have to bear the responsibility for introducing a tax which may subsequently become a national tax. In my view, that does not accord with the principles of open and honest taxation.

The psychology of the Bill at this point would be improved if the tax—and it is a tax—was to run initially for the period of its hypothecation to the benefit of the local community. If subsequent events necessitated a change—or if a government legislated to bring it about, which would be the open way of doing it—it could perhaps become a permanent charge. The principle of permanence is already eroded by the wording of the Bill—I am delighted about that—but we should say that these are local taxes for local use at the very least. It is important to get the psychology right.

I am a great admirer of everyone involved in local government but, at the moment, local transport authorities may not think sufficiently carefully about this matter. They may not think sufficiently carefully about it in any event, but they would be more likely to think about it if the emphasis of this small part of the Bill were to be altered. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Perhaps I should first say a word about hypothecation, which is a little more complicated than the noble Lord implied. Each scheme starting in the 10 years following the commencement of these powers will be guaranteed at least 10 years of hypothecation. So, if a scheme started nine years from now, hypothecation would continue until 19 years from now. We would then have a general review after 10 years. The Secretary of State may, if he wishes, agree a longer period of hypothecation for an individual scheme at the outset. Every scheme will have established at the outset the exact period of hypothecation that it is guaranteed, and an authority could, of course, decide to link the length of the scheme to that.

As far as I can see, there is no risk whatever of what the noble Lord suggested—that is, that a scheme might run out of hypothecation and could not be brought to an end if the authority so wished. The Bill allows that orders of indefinite length may be revoked at any time if the charging authority so wishes.

Having got that out of the way, perhaps I may turn to the amendments themselves. The amendments seek to require that scheme orders must be either indefinite or of 10 years' duration. Schemes can be indefinite or of 10 years duration now; the amendments would stop them being for any finite period other than 10 years. That could be too restrictive. An authority may decide to introduce an order initially for a year, with the continuation of the scheme being subject to review and the remaking of the order; or it might decide that an order of five years would be right to tie it into the timetable of a local transport plan.

Having removed the fear of a scheme which may run out of hypothecation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will feel that the flexibility provided in the Bill is better than the position proposed in his amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith

We are constantly dealing with what lies behind the Bill rather than what lies in the Bill. None the less, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response, which gives me considerable cause for hope. I shall study his words with care. It may be that there are particular aspects of what he said that I shall wish to explore further at a later stage but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 223: Page 102, line 29, at end insert (", and (f) state whether the charging scheme will cease in the event that the monies provided annually by government to local government for highways and transport purposes (as exemplified in the annual Revenue Support Grant negotiations) are reduced year on year for more than one year").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 223—which I am sure is hopelessly inadequately worded—seeks to give us the opportunity to explore a different aspect of what is now happening in relation to funding as a result of the introduction of these additional taxes—that is, the question of additionality.

Many people think that hypothecation is the essential building block to making this work. But if we were to have a hypothecated source of revenue which allowed the Government to withdraw other available funding—so that one was almost in a position of a drug addict having his addiction forced on him by the possibility of the withdrawal of treatment—we would not be in a very happy situation.

I thought quite hard about how I could table an amendment to bring about that which I wish to ensure—that is, that normal funding will carry on as one would normally expect it to do. I am quite prepared to admit that my wording is not adequate to achieve that purpose—as no doubt the Minister will agree, whatever else he says when he responds to the amendment. In any event, it is far too risky; inevitably as between one transport authority and another, over years their needs will go up and down, as will funding, and my amendment does not permit funding to go down. I admit therefore that we could have a little difficulty.

However, I want to get the principle of additionality to local government generally at the very least debated; indeed, if I could, I should like to get it acknowledged on the face of the Bill. The Minister may say that I am a very untrusting kind of bloke and that I have a suspicious nature. I accept the charge. Those of us who have spent our lives in local government, very regrettably, end up with that as a part of our character. It gives me no pleasure whatever to say that, but it is a fact of life. The important point is that we need somehow to assure those who will be responsible for introducing these charges that they will mean an additional gain to their communities. Without that, we will be in some difficulty.

We have spoken about the question of the guidance. I mention en passant that the psychology of the guidance could also mean that the Government could use its base funding as a tool—heaven help us—to persuade authorities to introduce charges. It has happened before from central government to local government by the simple device of central government saying "You are not introducing these charges; you are not doing what we want; therefore we shall reduce your funds". It has happened to local government from central government as bluntly as that. That is not a proper way to carry on.

It was with all these thoughts in mind that I tabled the amendment. If the Minister can give me concrete assurances on the principle I am trying to get across, it may be that I shall be happier. It is an extremely difficult area, as I am the first to acknowledge. I look forward to the noble Lord's reply. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I should like to add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said. Undoubtedly there is a danger—we have seen it in local government, as the noble Lord said, and in art funding following the creation of the lottery fund—that when there is specific support for a particular item of expenditure governments, no matter what they say, sometimes fall down in maintaining their original programmes of support for that item of expenditure. There is a rather disagreeable reality behind the noble Lord's amendment. We should like whatever reassurance the Minister can give us that the Government will not go down that road. It would be dangerous for local government to depend on congestion charging for funding everything it wants to do in the field of transport.

6 p.m.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that we all have a shared and understandable apprehension about this matter. In the circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, need not confess to more suspicion in these matters. I entirely agree that the revenues from new charges must be additional to existing funding and that this must be clear for all to see. We also have to recognise that that will be crucial to the success and public acceptability of any charging scheme. For the record, I repeat the Government's promise that the net proceeds from charging schemes will be additional moneys for improving local transport.

It was with the issue of additionality in mind that Schedule 12 was drafted to require charging and licensing authorities to establish a separate account for the income and expenditure from charging schemes. That account must be published annually. That will guarantee transparency by making it clear to local people and businesses how much money is being raised through charging and how that money is being spent. That will, we hope, help to demonstrate that the revenues raised through the new charges are indeed additional to a local authority's revenue support grant and other grants paid by central government to local government.

Returning to the noble Lord's amendment, I would emphasise that we have been careful to put as few obstacles as possible in the way of an authority that wishes to discontinue a scheme. If it wishes to halt a scheme, on whatever grounds seem appropriate and relevant, then that is a matter for the charging authority to decide. A statement on the lines required by the amendment would not make any difference to that.

We are committed to the principle of additionality but the amendment does not help in any way to fulfil our commitment. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and particularly his assurance that the products of these revenue streams must be additional. I am bound to say, however, that, whatever Schedule 12 may say, it does nothing to reinforce the point of additionality, or, at least, it does infinitely less than his assurance does. His assurance is quite clear.

Schedule 12 requires the keeping of separate accounts and the annual publication of them. That will deal very neatly and properly with the issue of revenue raised and revenue spent. But it does not actually deal with the issue of what happens to the other revenue streams that local government has. Although that may help to make what is happening more obvious, it does nothing to guarantee the continuity of those other revenue streams. That is what I would call a "peccadillo" in what was a helpful reply, and one for which I am grateful. I will study with care what the Minister has said, as is my wont. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 223A: Page 102, line 29, at end insert (", and ( ) specify an alternative route for through traffic that can be followed if a vehicle is unable or unequipped to pay the charges required").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 223A deals with the question of producing an alternative route for through traffic if a scheme is introduced. The purpose of the amendment is to tease out something about the administration of these systems. As my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who is no longer in his place, said, we always need to remember that the purpose of roads is to help movement. The difficulty we shall have at some point in the future is that some towns will go for automated systems of charging. That will be good and fine, provided that there is a national standard and nationally agreed equipment. We may well be coming to that, but we are certainly not there yet. The alternative would be to put at the border of a district something such as one sees at the end of the Dartford crossing. I happen to have the border of a district on my land. It would be a marginal joy to me if the local transport authority came along and said that it required three or four acres of land in order to put in a tolling station for the benefit of the local community. It would also benefit me somewhat. So I declare an interest in this question.

There is a serious issue, because we will have to provide systems which will permit the charging a through traffic. If we are to have these schemes, one cannot afford to let the issue get away, not for the monetary reason but for the reason of principle. Therefore, I brought the debate on to the Floor of the Committee so we could see what was going on.

Amendment No. 224, which is grouped with Amendment No. 223A, would permit different charges for different classes of road user. At present, the Bill provides for different charges for various circumstances but it does not refer to different classes of road user. When we were having a debate on motorcycles, it occurred to me that it was a perfect example of what I mean with this particular amendment. I believe that different levels of charging for different classes of road users is entirely appropriate. I thought that that should be added. There is an amendment to that effect in the group.

Amendment No. 225, which is also in the group, deals with the question of the publication—we are in the business of informing the public—of the reason for imposing different charges for different cases. I have no doubt that I shall be told that that will be part of the pre-consultation and that these details will be gone into. In my experience, a good many people will riot wake up until after the scheme is in place. They will suddenly say, "I have heard nothing about this; I know nothing about it". The public would be disadvantaged if the reasons for differential charging are not a part of the scheme so that they can be read about at that stage. I hope that at the very least the Minister will be sympathetic to that point, although I have no doubt that his sympathy will be much as it has been so often this afternoon. The noble Lord is so charming. It is very difficult to argue with him. He agrees with you but says that there is no need to do anything about the point that you are raising. These are important little amendments.

To go back to where I began, the problem of dealing with through traffic for long distance journeys will be a considerable one, particularly initially. It would be a trifle unfortunate if we were to step back to the 18th century and have tollgates as one crosses from one local transport authority to another. That is almost implicit in the situation that we are creating. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this group of amendments. I feel that I must almost apologise for finding myself yet again in general agreement with the intentions behind his amendments, if not the exact proposals.

The purpose of Amendment No. 223A is to require that a charging scheme must specify an alternative route for through traffic that can be followed by vehicles unable or unequipped to pay the charges. I am sympathetic to the practical point about giving people the option either to pay a charge or take an alternative route. We would expect that schemes will be designed to give information to motorists so they can choose whether or not to enter a charged area or structure. If they do decide to enter the area, they should be prepared to pay the charge. That is the same for currently tolled bridges.

However, while I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve, I think it is undesirable to have such a requirement for a number of reasons. It would prevent a charging scheme proceeding if an alternative route was not available, as is the case in the schemes being developed in the Peak District National Park and by Durham County Council in its attempts to protect the unique world heritage site of Durham city.

Furthermore, the alternative route would have to be suitable for the class of through traffic which the noble Lord is considering. However, one purpose of a charging scheme could be to encourage a shift between modes to protect the environment which would be rendered pointless if diversion of traffic was encouraged. I remind the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that he does not envisage approving schemes unless some public transport alternative is available. It is not clear exactly what the noble Lord means by "unable"— unable because the driver has forgotten his or her money? We could be moving into a legal minefield with this amendment. Therefore, I cannot support it for the reasons I have outlined.

Subsection (5) of Clause 170 provides examples of some of the factors under which charges may vary. Those include different charges on different days and different charges at different times of day. The list is not, however, exclusive or exhaustive. Other possibilities are not ruled out and to add, different classes of road-user", as Amendment No. 224 seeks to do, is not necessary. Furthermore, Clause 171 specifically provides for exemptions and reduced rates of charges. Using these provisions, charging authorities could also, if they wished, charge lower rates for local residents or other classes of road user.

Amendment No. 225 would require that a charging authority must specify the reasons for charging different amounts in different cases. I agree with the principle, but my preference would be for local authorities to include a justification for different charges when they consult locally on their proposals. That could also be one of the factors we consider in scheme approvals. I would add that local authorities, if challenged on the issue by an application for judicial review in the High Court, would in any case have to be ready to justify different charges.

I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will agree that his amendments are unnecessary and will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 223A.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I shall certainly agree to study with great care what the Minister has said. As always, he argues his case persuasively and sympathises with my intentions. I find that quite charming and indeed—dare I say it?—disarming. But one needs to be certain that even with what he has said—again, he must forgive my scepticism—we have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Although I am infinitely more happy than I was before we had this short debate, I cannot be entirely satisfied. I shall have to give the Minister's reply more thought than is possible immediately on the Floor of the Committee. I shall study the noble Lord's remarks very carefully when they appear in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]

Clause 170 agreed to.

Clause 171 [Charging schemes: exemptions etc.]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 226: Page 103, line 14, at end insert ("which shall include exemption for recognised emergency services, people undertaking repairs to public utilities, and doctors, nurses and mid-wives visiting patients").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 243 to 247 and Amendment No. 261. This group of amendments deals with the question of exemptions. I have tabled them in part to tease out, if that is possible, what the Government are thinking in this regard. These are very important issues.

The Government have apparently accepted that the concept of universal charging is inappropriate. They have done so because they have recognised that, particularly with regard to people working for the health service who have to travel to and from work for duty at all hours of the day, it would not be appropriate that they should be included in these charging schemes. That is fine. But many other classes of user will also come within that category one way or another. As the principle is the same, this group of amendments crosses over into workplace parking levies.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Why did the noble Lord choose this specific case? Why did he not choose five, 10 or 15 other cases? Could not all such cases be mentioned in regulations which can be considered later? All the Government are doing is making room for the provision later on of certain circumstances. The noble Lord has chosen one circumstance. Why did he not choose another, or five others?

Lord Dixon-Smith

If one considers just Amendment No. 226, I agree that it mentions only emergency services. However, Amendment No. 243 deals with businesses in a rural area; Amendment No. 244 deals with a business providing fewer than 10 workplace parking spaces; and Amendment No. 245 deals with a business which has introduced a "green transport programme" in relation to its employees. Another amendment deals with a business for which it is necessary to work shifts and one is dealing with the absolute obligation on the employer to introduce double the number of parking places. All those are perfectly reasonable exceptions to argue for if one accepts that exceptions are valid in the first place; and the Government have accepted that.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I do not take exception to the idea put forward by the noble Lord. What I take exception to is the fact that he has taken the opportunity now rather than when the regulations come to be debated by the House.

Lord Dixon-Smith

Perhaps I may make two points about regulations which may arrive before the House in the future. First, at this stage we do not know what the regulations will contain. Secondly—I debated this point with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as recently as last Friday—with regulations one can only approve them or reject them. One cannot amend them.

Furthermore, we should bear in mind the principle I mentioned earlier this afternoon; namely, the question of when and whether it is appropriate to put detailed provisions on the face of the Bill or whether they would be better dealt with in regulations. The fact of the matter is—and as a matter of principle—I would argue that we would be wise to place as much as possible on the face of the Bill. I accept that complications can arise in so doing, because unless we are careful, the Bill may become more rigid than is intended. However, at least if a matter is placed on the face of the Bill, we can debate it thoroughly, consider the detail and possibly divide on it.

As regards regulations—I have forgotten the exact number of pages of regulations we debated on Friday last, but it was around 40 to 50—we are faced with Hobson's choice: take it or leave it. One can vote either for or against regulations. That is not a good way to proceed.

Baroness Turner of Camden

Does the noble Lord accept that the making of lists is always fraught with difficulty? It is extremely easy to leave out groups of people who should be on the list. For example, in the list provided by the noble Lord's amendment, while he has included, doctors, nurses and mid-wives visiting patients". I should remind him that health visitors need to visit patients and clients. They are not included in the list.

As I have said, it is difficult to avoid the problem of leaving out those who have an equal claim.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I absolutely agree with that comment, but that is part of the purpose for which we debate these matters in detail. We can then ensure that such lists are absolutely right.

I do not claim for one moment any degree of infallibility in this area. However, the same argument applies in the case of regulations. It can apply even—heaven help us—in the case of statutory guidance. We can only do our best.

I do not wish to argue that the list provided in my amendment is by any means the last word on the subject. However, I believe that it is worth arguing on behalf of these particular cases. For example, businesses in rural areas generally should be exempted from workplace parking levies. Such businesses do not cause congestion. Almost invariably, the only way of reaching the business is by car. Occasionally, an employee will live close enough to use a bicycle, but generally speaking, the car is the only realistic means of transport. I believe that we all wish to encourage the establishment of small businesses. Many schemes have been set up so to do. It seems to me that workplace parking levies could well provide a disincentive. They may discourage some people from doing something which otherwise they would do.

As regards businesses that introduce a green transport policy, I should remind noble Lords that some businesses have already done so. Indeed, we debated this a little while ago because one business found that its employees were being taxed because a taxable benefit had been provided for them. However, what that company had done was in fact in everyone's best interests. I find that to be an interesting point.

I have already mentioned the case on behalf of those who work in shifts and, of course, those who work in the recognised emergency services. Their case goes without saying.

I believe that the main point to stress is that, once it is admitted that the principle of universality is not appropriate here, all the other issues will become open to debate. Furthermore, as I have said already, as a matter of principle, I prefer to see all that can possibly be put on the face of the Bill being put on the face of the Bill—inconvenient, difficult and awkward though that may be. The issues can then be debated fully to decide whether to include or reject them. However, in regulations the opportunity for detailed supervision does not arise. All that can be done is to accept what has been put before one in toto or reject it in toto. Very often, for other reasons, rejection is not practicable. In that case, one is forced to accept matters which otherwise would not be acceptable.

I believe that these amendments are entirely reasonable. No doubt I shall receive the usual helpful, sympathetic and spirited negative response from the Minister. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw

Before the Minister replies, I should say that I am almost moved to sing to him the hymn, Courage, brother, do not stumble", after having looked at the list of possible exceptions. We on these Benches broadly support the intentions of the Government here. Exceptions are a great trial.

When we began to put in the traffic management scheme in Oxford, we received pleas for exceptions from almost every conceivable quarter. Had we given in to those requests, we would not have achieved clear streets. Almost everyone can make a case for exception. It was notable that when the London red routes were set up and parking was restricted on those routes, huge protests were lodged by small businesses. However, it turned out that most of the parking spaces were being occupied by cars and vans that belonged to the proprietors of the small businesses themselves. The vehicles were parked on those main roads all day, thus preventing shoppers and others from using the premises. Objective and independent research into the effects of the red routes has revealed that the number of visits to such premises has in fact increased enormously now that the proprietors' own vehicles are no longer parked in front of their shops.

As regards concessions, I was disappointed when the Deputy Prime Minister conferred an almost blanket exemption to the employees of National Health Service trusts. As regards hospital sites, with which I am familiar, I would estimate that perhaps 20 to 30 per cent of those using the parking spaces are those engaged in shift work, who could not reasonably use public transport. However, the usual collection of administrators and people in the finance department (they seem to outnumber everyone else) work from nine to five. They, too, are to be covered by that exemption, but there is no reason whatever why those people should be exempted from the rules.

I ask the Government, in considering their response to the amendments, to trust in the judgment of local authorities. Local government is best placed to draw a reasonable balance as regards requests for exemptions. Indeed, we pay an immediate penalty—usually the following May by being turned out of office—if the job is not done properly.

Perhaps I may make a specific comment as regards the exemption requested for those, undertaking repairs to public utilities". The phrase "public utilities" used to embrace a small well-defined group of undertakers. It is regrettable that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, is not in his place. He would confirm that those undertakers comprised the gas board, the electricity board, water and telephones. Nowadays, I believe that 80 or 90 different groups appear to have the right to set up roadworks, use skips, dig holes and generally obstruct the flow of traffic. Indeed, we have also seen the rise of the phenomenon of "white van man". He usually parks on the pavement and proceeds to use his van as a mobile workshop, leaving the van in place all day. In all honesty, such people have got to be brought under control, otherwise our streets and pavements will no longer be available to those who have legitimate business.

My plea to the Government is this: be robust on this matter and put some trust in local authorities. Do not try, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has suggested, to put everything on the face of the Bill. It is not possible to cover all the detail. The Bill will simply become longer and the process of consultation will be even more tortuous than it is now.

Viscount Simon

Amendment No. 227 in this group, standing in my name, is very simple. It is well recognised that registered disabled people are limited by their individual and specific form of disability and therefore need to have special arrangements in respect of use of their vehicles. It is hoped that they will have the new blue disabled persons parking badge, which has replaced the old orange badge. It will enable them to avoid certain parking fines and to park in places not available to other motorists.

Some years ago, I was told the definition of a disabled person. It is very short: it is someone who is unable to travel by public transport. There are numerous people who have chronic illness which prevents them from using public transport. I am one, and I understand that my difficulty is not unusual. I have a nasty problem with my immune system whereby if I inhale certain chemicals which are now worn by men and women, or tobacco smoke, I can have what my GP describes as akin to an anaphylactic attack in that it is almost instantaneous and vicious. So, in order to avoid the problem, I am allowed to travel only by car. This restricts my life considerably. But to all intents and purposes I am fit and healthy. I can drive without any problem, park normally and comply with every rule, regulation and Act of Parliament. This will illustrate the problem faced not only by me but by other motorists who have chronic diseases that restrict their travelling to only one mode—their own private vehicle.

If it is accepted that disabled people should be exempted from road user charging because of their disability, it follows that those who have chronic illness should also be exempted from such charges. My noble friend will doubtless ask how this can be managed so as to avoid any abuse of the system. That is easy. It does not form part of this amendment, but it could be covered by regulation. I should be happy to discuss the mechanics further with my noble friend should he so wish.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Berkeley

I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 227A standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall, which is in this group of amendments concerned with exemptions, although it could apply equally well to workplace parking.

I support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that there should be minimal exemptions. I am sure that that is the right answer. Shiftworkers could be considered; and my noble friend Lord Simon has made a powerful case for another group.

My concern is that, human nature being what it is, those who create parking schemes will face a terrible temptation to make sure that they are all right first. That could apply to a local authority; it could apply equally to this House and another place; it could apply to workplace parking and to traffic charging schemes. As I have said previously in Committee, setting an example and getting ownership of all those who will be involved is vital. If the charging authority does not set an example by making its own employees, consultants, advisers and members pay the same amount as everyone else, under the same conditions, the scheme will have failed. That applies to Members, officials and everyone else in this House and in another place.

This is a probing amendment to see what my noble friend the Minister thinks about the matter and whether he can give some robust suggestion that everyone must be treated equally.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I do not usually oppose my noble friend, because he served me well when I held the transport portfolio when my party was in opposition. However, I believe that the right thing for my noble friend to do is to make representations at the proper time to my noble friend the Minister. What I have said about the noble Lord applies equally to him. Both have made out good cases individually. But it is wrong at this stage of the Bill, which is lengthy enough in any event, to make representations on behalf of individuals or organisations—unless my noble friend has reasons that are not apparent to me. My experience indicates that he has an open mind on the matter, that he has representations in mind concerning individuals and organisations, and that he does not need the help that either my noble friend or the noble Lord opposite is prepared to give.

Lord Swinfen

On the question of road user charging and workplace levies, I have great sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. But as regards road user charging, it is likely that automated schemes will be introduced to check moving traffic. People will either have to buy in advance the right to take their vehicles into certain areas, or be billed afterwards. Therefore, are the Government proposing increased allowances for people who are registered disabled so as to take account of road user charging and to reimburse them for it? In the long term, that is probably the most practical method of dealing with the matter in order that there will not be delays at checkpoints while the validity of a driver, or indeed the passenger if that person is so disabled that he or she is unable to drive, is checked to verify that the vehicle is exempt. In relation to disabled people who must use a private vehicle, there should be a proper exemption from the workplace parking levy.

It would be helpful if at this stage the Government would indicate what they have in mind in the way of exemptions, or compensation for lack of exemptions, in regard to both road user charging schemes and the workplace levy. That could help us at later stages in the Bill and might well mean that we need not table quite so many amendments in future. I am sure that the Government have given themselves plenty of time to think about this matter.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

I should like to thank noble Lords for raising the important matter of exemption from road user charges and workplace parking levies. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for lending me his considerable weight in matters of procedure. Some of the suggestions by Members of the Committee for possible exemptions or concessions make good sense, but again we differ on the approach.

The Government's response to the consultation paper, Breaking the Logjam, sought views on possible exemptions or concessions. We invited views on what exemptions from charges or other concessions should be specified nationally, and what exemptions or concessions would be best left to local discretion. A copy of the response was placed in the Library in February.

In England, we are proposing that there will be a national exemption from both road user charges and workplace parking charges for emergency vehicles. We are proposing that there will also be some form of exemption from both charges for disabled persons. In addition, we are proposing some form of exemption or concession from the workplace parking levy for National Health Service hospitals.

However, we are firmly of the view that these national exemptions from charges should be specified in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. This regulation-making power is provided by virtue of Clause 171 for road user charging and Clause 186 for workplace parking levy. This will ensure that we can work with appropriate interest groups, such as organisations that represent disabled people, to ensure that our proposed exemptions or concessions are workable and equitable. That could not be guaranteed if we sought to specify exemptions now on the face of the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Simon proposes an exemption for registered disabled people and those with chronic illnesses that prevent them from using public transport. I was sorry to hear of my noble friend's inhibiting disability, which does not allow him to travel by public transport. The work done by the Commission for Integrated Transport shows that of all European countries, the UK is foremost in provision for travel by disabled people on public transport.

I am grateful for the opportunity to restate our commitment, in our response to Breaking the Logjam, to some form of exemption in England for disabled motorists from road user charges and the workplace parking levy. We are undertaking further work, so it is too early to say what the best approach to an exemption will be. We are working with experts and representative groups to develop our proposals, on which we will consult in due course. Key issues will be who should be included in the scope of an exemption and how an exemption can be enforced fairly and effectively. We are firmly of the view that the best way is to use the power in Clause 171 to make regulations—rather than put something prescriptive in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will therefore agree not to press his amendment.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for raising the important question of how public sector organisations and charging authorities themselves should be treated. His amendment would prevent regulations made by the Secretary of State from exempting charging authorities or other public sector bodies from road user charges—but it would not prevent a charging authority from exempting itself from road user charges or from offering local exemptions to other public sector bodies.

We said in response to Breaking the Logjam that we do not envisage approving a workplace parking levy scheme if exemptions are proposed simply on the basis that buildings are council owned. The same logic applies to a charging authority's liability for road charges. Nor do we propose widespread exemptions from road user charges for public sector organisations. The public sector bears part of the responsibility for causing congestion and would reap the benefits of reduced congestion. It must therefore bear its part of the responsibility for tackling congestion. Widespread public sector exemptions would be impossible to justify to other sectors of the economy and would undermine the effectiveness of schemes to tackle congestion.

We propose, however, national exemption from road charges for emergency vehicles—which have no discretion over the time, destination or means by which they travel, and whose work is often a matter of life or death. We propose that regulations under Clause 171 should provide for national exemption. As the police, fire and ambulance services are public-sector bodies, Amendment No. 227A would prevent that happening. I hope that my noble friend will accept my reassurance on the treatment of charging authorities and that they will not duck their liability for charges, and that my noble friend will understand that a national exemption for emergency services is essential.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, proposes a number of exemptions additional to those we intend to specify in regulations. I have made it clear that we are committed to giving local authorities responsibility for devising charging and licensing schemes that reflect local circumstances, priorities and needs. On that basis, we have kept national exemptions to a minimum. Local authorities may want to add other locally decided exemptions but we are firmly of the view that decisions about others and concessions—other than the small number that will apply nationally—should be taken locally in the design of an individual charging or licensing scheme.

Local authorities may want to set a threshold that exempts the first few parking places at a building from the workplace levy—and there are good arguments in favour. A threshold could help small businesses and reduce the administrative effort of managing and enforcing a scheme. However, in advance of working with the first levy scheme proposals and giving further consideration to the impact of thresholds, we are not in a position to consider whether a national threshold is appropriate or the level at which it should be pitched. The threshold of 10 parking spaces proposed by Amendment No. 244 might work in one town but another level might be more appropriate elsewhere.

Amendment No. 243 suggests that any business in a rural area should be exempted. These are enabling powers, so it is for each local traffic authority to decide whether and where to use them. Each is subject to our approval and we have said that in approving schemes, we envisage and expect that every scheme will have a direct bearing on local congestion problems—rather than simply being a means of raising revenue. If a rural area has no congestion problems, our expectation is that there will be a presumption against our approving a scheme—although the Secretary of State would have to give fair consideration to the merits of any put forward.

As to Amendment No. 245, I accept that there may be merit in giving exemptions or concessions to businesses that have agreed green travel plans that minimise their employees' reliance on car travel. I hope the Committee accepts that it would be best to tackle the matter locally, perhaps with guidance or regulations—not least because of the problems of definitions exemplified in the amendment's wording. A "green transport programme" is not defined in statute and there could be endless arguments in the courts over what constituted a significant reduction in the need for travel by car.

Amendment No. 246 suggests that all parking by any shift workers should be exempted from the workplace parking levy. Workers driving to a shift that began at 9 a.m. would be adding to peak-hour congestion in the same way as any other workers. There would be no logic to their exemption. I accept that there is a concern about people working during the night, when there may be little alternative to driving. Local authorities will be able to limit the hours when a parking licence is required, to exclude evenings and nights if that makes sense locally. It is worth noting that a licence to park a maximum of 50 vehicles, for example, will cover 50 vehicles during the day shift and an entirely different 50 vehicles during the night shift at no additional cost.

I accept also that there is then an issue about how shift handovers are managed. For a limited period, as one shift departs and another arrives, there may be an unavoidable need for excess parking. We intend to give guidance to local authorities to ensure that such situations are dealt with flexibly. We envisage that an employer would be allowed additional parking during a defined shift handover period at no extra cost.

We propose a national exemption for emergency vehicles from the workplace parking levy and road user charges but not for parking by employees at, say, an ambulance station. The public sector must take its share of the responsibility for congestion, and there would be the same value in public sector employees switching from car commuting as any others. Having spelt out at some length and in detail the Government's position on exemptions from new charges, I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw or not move their amendments.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Swinfen

The Minister did not answer my question about moving vehicle charging, where it may not be possible to identify whether the driver or passenger of a vehicle is disabled. Will there be some form of compensation for disabled people who might otherwise be exempt when they pass through a charging point?

While the Minister was speaking another thought came into my mind. A number of people work from home and often have assistants or secretaries who visit them. Will a workplace charge be levied on a person who works from home or his secretary or assistant? At some stage that may be a contentious point.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

I apologise for not having addressed that question directly. I assumed that I had, at least indirectly, given comfort to the noble Lord. In regulation we shall provide for the disabled, but the exact form of that provision is subject to further consultation. We believe that some of the issues raised by the noble Lord are better defined during that consultation period.

Lord Swinfen

Will the Minister answer my question about the treatment of those who work from home and their assistants or secretaries?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

That is exactly the kind of detailed question that is perhaps best addressed in consultation. Therefore, at this stage I do not want to respond to the noble Lord's question definitively.

Lord Dixon-Smith

We have had a very constructive, useful debate. If all of us have come to the subject from slightly different perspectives at least we are agreed on the principle, even if the detail is not accepted. The problems of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in relation to white van man are, all too often, almost the opposite of mine, but perhaps that is inevitable given that his experience is urban and mine is rural. However, if white van man is not permitted to park on the pavement because somebody has a gas leak we shall experience real problems. It may be that that is a fairly rare occurrence, but we must be able to deal with white van man in both contexts.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen in relation to the registered disabled. I deliberately did not table amendments to deal with it because I was absolutely confident that others would do so, as they have. There is a very persuasive case in that situation. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may not agree that he supported me, but he did. In seeking to tackle a fundamental aspect of the problem in this particular field the noble Lord spoke to what I might call a negative exemption.

The Minister has given a very detailed exposition of the flaws in our drafting, among other things, and the difficulty of dealing with such matters on the face of the Bill. I am the first to accept that they are difficult to deal with in legislation. However, they are no less difficult to deal with in regulation and certainly in guidance. They remain problems. The only difference is that, to a greater or lesser degree, by being dealt with in that way they escape our supervision. As to that there is a fundamental difference.

That said, the appropriate national authority, be it the Assembly for Wales or the Minister in England, will be charged with making these regulations. He will make national exemptions. Further, because he has power to approve local schemes in effect he will make regulations which local people wish to apply. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If one is a wild optimist it will work beautifully; if, like me, one is a sceptical old pessimist it will not work quite so well. The whole purpose of this process is to ensure that it works as well as possible. Nothing in this world is perfect.

In the previous clause we accepted wide differences in principle and differentiation in charges at different times. I do not see why more of the considerations that the Minister dealt with in his detailed response cannot be put into the Bill. They must be put onto paper and spelt out in detail in due course. Somebody must account for it, even in this Chamber. Therefore, in part this debate seeks to prevent future trouble.

The debate has been helpful. The Minister has dealt with the matter as helpfully as possible, for which I respect him. I believe that in this instance the Minister has helped all Members of the Committee. I shall study the response of the Minister with great care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 227 and 227A not moved.]

Clause 171 agreed to.

Clause 172 [Penalty charges]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 228: Page 104, line 10, after ("if") insert (", with intent to avoid payment of a charge imposed by a charging scheme under this Part,").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 228 is another simple amendment. The Bill provides that the removal of a penalty charge notice from a vehicle is a criminal offence. I entirely accept that in appropriate circumstances it should be a criminal offence. However, the Bill is drafted in such a way that if the notice is removed inadvertently, or whatever, somebody may be charged with a criminal offence when he has no such intention; indeed, the removal may have been done by somebody else. It appears that the mere fact of its removal makes the owner of the vehicle automatically liable to the charge.

It may be that the Minister will tell me that this matter is to be dealt with subsequently by regulation. Here we go round the mulberry bush again. None the less, this particular group of amendments is designed to produce consistency and to introduce intent in relation to criminality. It would be unfortunate if inadvertence became a cause of criminality. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this group of amendments. Perhaps I may take a few moments to explain our thinking behind the enforcement of charging schemes. In so doing I hope to convince the noble Lord that his amendments are unnecessary as the Bill already provides for what he seeks to achieve. We amended the Bill in another place in response to concerns raised by his honourable friends on this very subject. The criminal offences described in Clauses 172 to 174 deal with both wilfully defrauding a charging authority and the effective enforcement of schemes.

If an enforcement agent has reason to believe that an individual has the intent to avoid payment, or has been identified as having failed to pay, he must be able to undertake certain actions. Those actions, for example entering a vehicle, need to have the same sanction as the original misdemeanour in order to be effective. If that was not the case it would make schemes particularly difficult to enforce. Thus, in this instance what the noble Lord seeks is already catered for within the Bill.

However, to require proof of intent for each criminal offence would make some charging schemes unenforceable. For example, schemes that rely on manual enforcement need effective sanctions. If there were no effective sanction to prevent a person from removing a penalty charge notice from a windscreen, or tampering with an immobilisation device, regardless of whether or not he had a financial interest, a scheme that depended on that type of enforcement could be unenforceable.

If with that scenario the noble Lord's amendment were carried, the enforcement agent would have to demonstrate that whoever interfered with the penalty charge notice of the immobilisation device did so intending to avoid paying a charge. If the person concerned was, for example, a passenger in the vehicle and therefore not liable for the charge, he would also be able to act without risk of prosecution. I do not imagine that that is what the noble Lord intends.

I hope that the noble Lord can see the logic behind the balance which we have sought to achieve, taking into account the arguments of his noble friends in another place, and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

Once again, the Minister explained the difficulties involved in trying to put into words the concepts with which we are dealing. He has given assurances which are most helpful and which I shall study with care. I hope that I shall have no need to return to the subject and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 172 agreed to.

Clause 173 [Examination, entry, search and seizure]:

7 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 229: Page 104, line 41, leave out ("or requiring").

The noble Lord said: This group of amendments is aimed at giving to local authorities, rather than to the "appropriate national authority", power to decide how they want to enforce the schemes. I dislike the term "appropriate national authority" because it sounds as though it is connected to a science fiction society. However, now that we have various forms of national authority we must use the term.

If local authorities want to devise a scheme they should have the power to decide how to enforce it. Subsection (5) enables the national authority to insist that a charging authority must take a power to seize and detain anything as evidence of the commission of an offence. I do not see how one can bring a charge connected with the commission of an offence unless one collects the evidence. It struck me that the provision almost authorised local authorities to employ one of the local car thieves to enter a vehicle in order to remove evidence.

I well remember after a garden party being stuck in The Mall with a car which had locked itself. Its locking system completely floored the AA, the RAC and all the local police. Eventually, a Flying Squad car came along. The officer got out and said, "I see you have a little difficulty". The driver confessed that that was the case. He said, "Well, don't look", and in three seconds the car was open. There is no need for that because we can deal with the matter by other means.

However, I am back in the business of arguing for local discretion. If we are to have local schemes, we should leave them to the locals, particularly when dealing with powers which relate to property. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the reasoning behind the amendments and his personal experience. It needs to be clear that the provisions under which any charging scheme is introduced are enabling powers only. That remains the case. It is therefore not a requirement that local authorities adopt any particular arrangements for those schemes.

However, as regards enforcement, where local authorities adopt charging schemes there must be some prescription on the method of enforcement. The noble Lord will recognise that it would not be sensible for different local authorities and their agents to have different powers in enforcing schemes they have chosen to introduce.

If we were to do so, it would mean that arrangements and procedures for entering vehicles, collecting evidence, immobilising vehicles and so forth would he different from one authority to another and entirely at the discretion of the charging authorities. In many case, such discretion would not be appropriate and would not reflect the current practice under road traffic law; for example, wheelclamping or immobilisation.

We already have prescriptions on such issues in road traffic law. That does not necessarily mean that all local authorities adopt the same schemes, but where they are enforcing charges they must be subject to national regulation. We are dealing with entering property, with restraining property and with the enforcement of fines.

The regulations will be fair, effective and equitable. If it were left entirely to local authorities, some strange anomalies could arise. The noble Lord's amendment would allow that to happen and I hope that he will not press it.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I had always understood that one of the reasons for having local government was to permit the creation of diversity. I do not believe that diversity in these matters would be a problem. None the less, I shall study the Minister's reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 229A to 231 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 232: Page 105, line 19, at end insert— ("(7) In exercising its powers pursuant to regulations made under this section, a charging authority shall exercise reasonable care and use the minimum force necessary, and shall be liable to compensate the registered owner of the relevant motor vehicle and any other person for any loss suffered by him as a result of its failure to do so.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to protect property rights. It ensures that if an authority in its pursuit of evidence is unreasonably violent with someone else's property and does unnecessary damage, there is a right of compensation to the owner as a result. I hope that we can all agree with that principle and that we do not need to argue about it.

There should never be a need to damage a vehicle if one requires evidence. As the Minister pointed out, there are other ways of solving the problem; for instance, clamping the vehicle and waiting until the appropriate person arrives. You can then get anything you want, voluntarily or compulsorily as the case may be.

I believe that the issue of compensation is worth writing into the Bill and with that in mind I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Would the noble Lord care to indicate why his amendment is different from the present law?

Lord Dixon-Smith

I do not know whether it is different from the present law. The Bill creates new powers and I believe that in doing so we should have some regard to their possible abuse. That is all the amendment is directed at; it is a limited point.

Lord Whitty

We all agree that it is necessary for citizens to have safeguards against enforcement agencies overstepping the mark or going about their business in the wrong way, and that some form of redress is necessary. I also agree with the implication behind the question asked by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis—that the common law already provides for that redress. Our judicial system allows those who believe that they have been wrongly treated by enforcement agencies to gain redress. That is no different from any other area where enforcement agencies of the local authority or, indeed, the police are subject to the common law in that respect.

Therefore, although I agree with the noble Lord in principle—indeed, if I may revert to the previous amendment, some of his arguments provided a good reason for having regulations—I believe that the issue of redress is dealt with adequately in existing common law remedies.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance because it is precisely what I sought. Our difficulty is in ascertaining precisely whether what we do impinges on the common law. I am glad that this does not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 173 agreed to.

Clause 174 [Immobilisation etc]:

[Amendments Nos. 233 to 236A not moved.]

Clause 174 agreed to.

Clause 175 [Equipment etc]:

[Amendment No. 236B not moved.]

Clause 175 agreed to.

Clause 176 [Traffic signs]:

[Amendment No. 236C not moved.]

Clause 176 agreed to.

Clause 177 [Preliminary]:

[Amendment No. 237 not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 238: Page 107, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee for taking so much of its time but it seems that no one else wishes to discuss these particular points; therefore, perforce, I must.

The amendment deals with the workplace charging levy. Clause 177(2) provides for the occupier of the premises in question, or any person specified in regulations by the national authority, to be liable for the workplace charging levy. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the right of the appropriate national authority to specify the person liable in regulations. The payment of the charges is a matter of taxation. I believe that the matter of who pays the taxes should be on the face of the Bill and not simply a subject of regulation.

In a way, this is a matter of principle. This issue comes under the same principle as we argued earlier—the question of whether taxation should be by regulation or by legislation. We considered that this was a matter for taxation by legislation and that the question of liability should not be decided subsequently by regulation.

I accept that there is a potential problem with regard to the workplace parking levy in that the levy is intended to target the employee in order to dissuade him from using his car. Therefore, ideally he will be the person who pays. However, if that is the case, that should be referred to on the face of the Bill and I do not believe that we should leave the differentiation to simple regulation. Of course, if the Minister says that it is a matter for local determination, then we should say so and I should be happy with that. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

There is no great conspiracy behind this issue. We envisage that in the vast majority of cases the occupier of a premises will be responsible for paying the workplace parking charge. However, in a small number of cases it may be more appropriate to make someone else liable. That is why we included the regulation-making power, which we shall need to consider as schemes are developed. For example, regulations may be required in order to cater for liability at premises which are shared by more than one occupier, or where a car park at a premises is used but not owned by the building occupier—in other words, perhaps a neighbouring employer and not the occupier of the premises uses the car parking space.

The provision allows the covering of such loopholes by regulation. The range of potential loopholes on which we need to base the regulations will become apparent only as and when schemes are developed. However, in general this is not a "coach and horses" matter, and in the overwhelming number of cases the occupier will be liable.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister. He is his usual charming self and very persuasive. I shall study what he has said and may well need to return to the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 239: Page 107, line 28, at end insert— ("( ) No licensing authority shall introduce the workplace parking levy before 1st January 2004 and then only if they can produce evidence that expenditure on transport infrastructure in the relevant area has already increased by at least 20 per cent above the level of such expenditure in 1999–2000 and as a result congestion has reduced by 20 per cent.").

The noble Lord said: If I interpreted correctly what I read in the press, the Government said that they do not wish to see workplace parking charges or, indeed, other charges introduced until local transport authorities have improved the traffic environment within their areas. That, of course, is wholly laudable. It may be what I would call politically necessary. However, the amendment sets out simply to quantify that statement. It probes precisely what the Government mean by "improving" the local traffic environment before the charges are introduced and what level of improvement they might consider desirable or necessary.

In part, the amendment seeks also to discover whether the Government are serious about achieving improvement or whether they are merely in the business of politics (with a small "p") and trying to make the unpalatable more palatable. I believe that we would all prefer improvement to palatability. Therefore, this is an important matter and I believe that we should try to clarify what the Government said. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, makes an unusual distinction between politics and life. Palatability is one of the tests that the national authorities must meet in relation to the scheme. Therefore, it is important that with the introduction of a workplace parking scheme those who have been consulted—businesses and local people—can see a benefit for their area in terms of congestion and traffic flows. That is part of the total assessment and an authority will be judged on it, as it will be on the technicalities of the scheme itself.

The amendment specifies two further restrictions. The first is the date. The noble Lord is correct to say that we envisage that schemes will take some time to introduce, partly to give time to assess public opinion. We believe that it will be four or five years before there are major schemes in operation, although some may come before that. However, there is no point in specifying an artificial date for the start of schemes at 1st January 2004. If authorities are able to introduce schemes before that, which are supported, we shall encourage them in doing so.

The other obstacles are hopelessly mechanistic. The amendment says that before a scheme starts, spending on transport infrastructure must have increased by 20 per cent on current levels and congestion must have been reduced by 20 per cent—again on current levels, I assume. If I were to make a party political point, I could argue that the money available has already increased by 20 per cent, and no doubt we shall receive further good news from the Chancellor and from my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston later this week. That may meet the spending criterion, but it may be inappropriate to put a 20 per cent hurdle on congestion benefits, particularly given the timescale. Some may take longer to reach such benefits. Local people, local businesses and the community at large might think it ridiculous to reject a scheme that has given a 19 per cent improvement in congestion.

The Secretary of State will have to make a judgment on whether a scheme is robust and has sufficient public support and whether it will lead to reductions in congestion and produce other environmental benefits, but it is not sensible to specify figures in the Bill.

Another problem with the amendment, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, is that the requirement will be ineffective unless the legislation includes a definition of congestion. I know to my cost that that is not easy, and no definition is included in the amendment. I hope that he will not pursue the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I was well aware, when I tabled my amendment, of the arguments that it was mechanistic and too detailed. However, it seemed important to try to tease out what the Government meant by the statements that had been made. With all deference to the Minister, I cannot say that I feel any great confidence arising from his reply. Nor was there the precision I was seeking. But perhaps that was too much to hope for. I do not want to get into statistical arguments about past, present or future levels of expenditure. We all know that we can prove almost anything if we are selective with our use of statistics. I am as guilty of that as anyone else. The public become confused when we have such debates.

I think that the Minister intended his reply to be helpful and I found it so. I shall study it with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 240: Page 107, line 28, at end insert— ("( ) A licensing scheme shall be agreed at a regional level between local transport executives and charges shall be consistent across that region.").

The noble Lord said: I apologise for not having been here to move Amendment No. 237. There are a number of reasons for that. One is the swiftness with which we went through the amendments immediately before it. Another is that I could not work out what I had meant by it when I tabled it.

However, I know what I mean by Amendment No. 240, to which I shall speak briefly. It deals with a problem that we all know can arise when particular freedoms are devolved to certain areas. When a scheme is set up, however good it is for that area, some industries may decide to move to the next-door area and take away the benefits that their presence brings to free themselves from the restrictions of being in that area. My suggestion—it is only a suggestion at this stage—is that licensing schemes should be agreed at regional level so that conditions are consistent over a large area. That would make it harder to evade the schemes and reduce the likelihood of patchwork provision. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

Regardless of the detail of the amendment, I support the point that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, makes about the need for schemes to have more than just a local and parochial basis. If we had regional authorities, they would be considering exactly these issues. I do not know whether we would support consistent charging, but vie would certainly like a regional element to the decision-making.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I think that both the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, support the idea of the workplace parking levy. I am afraid that the amendment would hinder the concept. I recognise the merits of consistency, but we think that it should be for individual local authorities to decide whether to introduce a scheme in their area as part of their local transport plan.

The Bill already provides that local authorities can work together to bring forward joint schemes, which, if they could be organised, could well cover a whole region. However, some authorities may prefer to wait to see the effects of a scheme in a neighbouring authority. One authority may have such an urgent need that it will want to go ahead without waiting for anybody else. The amendment would rule out both possibilities.

We also believe that local authorities should have the flexibility to apply different charges, not just between one authority and another, but in different parts of their area, and to decide when the charges would apply. I know that the word "consistent" does not mean the same as "uniform", but the search for consistency might be a drag on the establishment of workplace parking levies, rather than helping. Congestion problems vary between and within authority areas. Our approach enables local authorities to design and bring forward the schemes that will best help to tackle traffic congestion, which they know about, and promote local transport objectives, which they set.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support of the idea behind the amendment. I still think there is much to be said for it, but I accept what the Minister said. There is a finely balanced argument to be had about how much power to give at what level. I take the Minister's points and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 177 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dixon-Smith

In opposing this Motion, we are seeking to excise Chapter II of this part of the Bill. We thought that we should have this discussion because, as this is proposed, it is a straightforward increase in corporate taxation.

The occupier of the premises is to be the person who pays the bill. We have heard that in the vast generality of cases that is what is intended. We need to know that that is what is intended. One must then ask: what will happen? This provision is supposed to reduce congestion and pollution. There is a question as to whether the employer can pass the charge on to his employees. If this Bill is supposed to act as a disincentive to employees to travel, it might have been more honest for the Bill to require those employees to pay the charge; but it does not. And so it is an increase in corporate taxation.

Ultimately, who will pay for that? Again, we should be quite clear about that. In effect, this will become a cost on business. It will have an inflationary effect because businesses will seek to defend their financial position. Therefore, there will be a little price rise here or a little price rise there or even, heaven help us, a big price rise somewhere else. That is what will happen. The impact of that on the economy, particularly in those sectors which are not immediately highly competitive, may be extremely damaging and may have an adverse effect on the economy as a whole.

We do not believe that the workplace parking levy as proposed will have the desired effect on travel and transport which the Government envisage because of the way it is put on the face of the Bill. So we thought that we really should argue the case against this clause and it is patently obvious that that is what I am now doing. I do not expect to receive a great deal of sympathy—why should I?—from Ministers on the Bench opposite. But I do not apologise to the Committee for raising the issue. I commend the Motion to the Committee.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

It is not possible for us on these Benches to support the Motion that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. That is for various very simple reasons. It may be argued that workplace levies will not be imposed very often. It is assumed that it will not be a popular method of attempting to reduce congestion and pollution in towns and cities.

Other methods are available which are used elsewhere; for example, prohibiting entry into towns between certain hours. There is a whole range of other options. But this Bill does not oblige local authorities to go down this route; it enables them to do so if it is a suitable adjunct to their general purpose of reducing traffic, traffic congestion and the damage that that causes in the context of their local transport plans. As such, it is a useful tool which local authorities can use if they wish to do so. No doubt if pilot studies are carried out of this tool and how it operates in practice we shall all learn a great deal more about it and its potential usefulness. Therefore, I am not prepared to support the Motion.

Lord Whitty

I am gratified that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is not expecting a great deal of sympathy from our Benches on this matter. While most of his amendments are either probing or designed genuinely to improve the Bill, this Motion comes close to being a wrecking Motion because it would take out a major part of the Bill.

This clause introduces the whole concept of the workplace parking levy which we regard as a major new tool for the control of urban traffic in particular. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, we make those new powers available to local authorities but we do not oblige them to use them. We shall certainly not force them to do so. Therefore, the powers are discretionary. But the authorities which adopt them must go through an extremely rigorous process of making clear that a workplace parking scheme fits in within their traffic objectives in their local transport plans.

We all know that the availability of convenient and free or cheap parking at work is a major encouragement to travel to work in the car during the most congested part of the day, even when there is available good, appropriate, clean, fast and safe public transport. Because it involves finance, the levy will focus the minds of business on the provision of parking and they may then assess how their employees get to work and encourage them to adopt patterns of travelling to work, and perhaps patterns of operating the business, which reduce car reliance.

It is important also from the point of view of local business that the recycling of all the revenue obtained from the scheme will be to the benefit of transport within that locality, which will, of itself, be of benefit to business.

Prior to the approval of any plans, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that they will help to tackle congestion; that they will be accompanied or preceded by improvements in public transport; that there has been adequate consultation; that there is an appropriate assessment of the impact; and that 100 per cent of the funds obtained will be spent on improving local transport.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked: who will pay? I ask: who will benefit? Many of our cities are clogged up with traffic, particularly at certain times of day. A huge contribution to that is people who are driving into the centre of those cities for work because there is the provision of free or cheap parking.

It is greatly to the benefit of business that that clogging up of traffic and gridlocks within our cities are removed. The removal of such traffic by this disincentive would greatly improve access to those business premises; improve ability to deliver through those difficult times; and improve the journeys and reliability of journey times for all sales persons, delivery persons and clients of those businesses.

The noble Lord sees this matter through one end of the telescope and says that business will pay. I look at it through the other and I see that business can achieve a major benefit from this measure. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this wrecking Motion. That would not be to the advantage of those local businesses for which the local authorities see advantage in providing such a scheme and, of course, local authorities will be obliged to consult local business before introducing it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Motion.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I had difficulty in appreciating his reference to good, appropriate, clean, fast and safe public transport. In my experience, most people use public transport out of sheer necessity. It is a matter of bitter experience that those adjectives do not apply.

It may be that there would be some benefit to business if congestion were reduced. But if one looks at the relevant transport system, the idea that it is ever going to be an alternative to the mobility which a car provides is unbelievable.

We need to pause for a moment and wonder why people use their cars. It is easy to say that they do so because public transport is not available and that there is a chicken and egg situation. However, the fact of the matter is that public transport is appropriate where a lot of people want to make the same journey. The reality is that the diversity of employment and movement is such that the majority of people, rather like a blob of mercury hit with a hammer, every morning fly in a vast number of different directions. In those circumstances it is not easy, except in the metropolitan areas, to see how a public transport system will help to a great degree.

There is also the fact that as the economy grows, the demand for movement grows. There is precious little evidence at present that we have managed to get the growth in public transport to run faster than the growth in the economy. Growth is talked about in rail and bus use. There may be a picking up in growth but so far it is not faster than the growth in the economy. Therefore, there is a real difficulty. None the less, I shall study carefully what the Minister has said. The Committee will be relieved to hear that at this hour and this stage I shall not oppose the Motion that Clause 177 stands part of the Bill.

Clause 177 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Committee Stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.