Transport Bill

HL Deb 17 July 2000 vol 615 cc590-604

3.22 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.

[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 162 [Preliminary]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 199: Page 98, line 39, leave out from ("vehicle") to end of line 41 and insert ("unless incurred in respect of the use or keeping of that motor vehicle on a road by a person in possession or control of that motor vehicle without the consent of the registered owner (in which event that person shall pay the charges in question)").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 268, the wording of which is identical. Amendment No. 268 seeks to amend Schedule 13.

The Bill provides that the owner of a vehicle shall be liable for any charges payable for the keeping or using of a vehicle on a particular road. That is fine, assuming that the relevant charge is paid, but there are, unfortunately, numerous occasions on which the person liable to pay the charges inadvertently is not responsible for his car.

I can best illustrate that point by referring to my son-in-law, whose car was taken from outside his house in Notting Hill some years ago. The police found it about a quarter of a mile away. The thieves had thoughtfully changed the number plates which made identification somewhat of a problem. The car appeared to have been used for almost everything except transport purposes. Under the terms of the Bill, my son-in-law would have been liable for any charges incurred during the time the vehicle was stolen. We do not think that is right.

This simple little amendment is designed to ensure that in such unfortunate circumstances, or in others that people can envisage without too great a stretch of the imagination, the owner should not be liable for the charges that we are discussing. I believe that it is appropriate to include the amendment on the face of the Bill. The question of who should, or should not, pay taxation in particular circumstances is an important matter. Taxation should be introduced by legislation, not regulation. This is a point of principle. I hope that the Minister will adopt a positive attitude and will say that he will take on board what I have said. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the amendments in this group. I am pleased to be able to start our deliberation on Part III by entirely agreeing with the spirit of the noble Lord's amendments. However, I hope that I can assure him that his concern will be dealt with through regulations.

Clause 162 provides that the registered keeper of a vehicle will be responsible for paying road user charges unless regulations under subsection (2)(b) of that clause provide otherwise. We intend that these regulations will provide that where a vehicle is reported to the police as stolen or taken without the consent of the registered keeper, any charges incurred will be the responsibility of whoever took the vehicle. We also propose a similar approach for penalty charges, using regulations under Clause 172, and that the same approach will apply in London. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.

Lord Dixon-Smith

The Minister's response is satisfactory to a large degree in that he has addressed the intention of the amendment. I suspect that on a number of occasions as we progress through this part of the Bill Divisions will occur over what should or should not be on the face of the Bill. As I say, I question whether it is appropriate to introduce taxation through regulation. I shall need to reconsider the matter. Whether my patience on the matter runs out before the end of the day's proceedings remains to be seen. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 162 agreed to.

Clause 163 [Local charging schemes]:

Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 200: Page 99, line 26, at end insert ("provided those policies lead to an overall reduction in local traffic").

The noble Lord said: The amendments in this group are designed to ensure that the money raised through road user charging and the workplace parking levy—which we totally support—is used for the right purposes. The Bill is a little ambivalent on that point. As one of the main objects of the Bill is to get traffic off the roads, that money should not be spent on road building. It should, for example, be spent on better public transport services and on facilities for cycling or walking, much of which may involve roads m one way or another. It should on the whole he applicable only to those purposes which will reduce road use by vehicular traffic. I beg to move.

3.30 p.m.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I have some sympathy with the amendments—although they are somewhat prescriptive in the sense that if the money can be used only for the purpose of reducing road traffic and not, for example, for improving safety on the roads, we shall get into a difficult situation. However, can the Minister tell the Committee the relationship between this Bill and the Road Traffic Reduction Act, which places an obligation on local authorities to reduce traffic in their areas?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for explaining the thinking behind these amendments. Although I am unable to accept them for reasons that will become clear, I am sympathetic to his concerns.

As drafted, the Bill contains the safeguard that local authority charging schemes must help to achieve the policies in a local authority's local transport plan. We have already said that the Secretary of State's approval for schemes introduced in England will depend on the local authority demonstrating that its scheme will have a direct impact on tackling local congestion problems. In particular, we have said that we do not envisage approving schemes that are designed only to raise revenue. We will want each scheme to state clearly its objectives and to set out how its performance will be monitored against those objectives. Consequently, I contend that the noble Lord's amendments are unnecessary.

Further, I fear that the noble Lord's amendments would create unintended difficulties because of the way they have been worded. As drafted, the amendments would mean that a scheme could not be introduced if it resulted in a reduction in the growth of local traffic levels rather than in an absolute reduction in local traffic levels; nor would a scheme be able to proceed if it resulted in a reduction in peak-hour congestion by encouraging the redistribution of road use over the remainder of the day rather than in an absolute reduction in total traffic. Reducing traffic growth or encouraging better use of road space could bring significant benefits to areas where charges are introduced. I do not believe that it would be right to rule out those possibilities.

For the record, I should like to assure the Committee that we shall be working with charging authorities and funding research to monitor the impact of road user charging schemes to make sure that we learn lessons and pass on best practice to others.

I hope that my comments and assurances have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I do not feel that anything in the Bill will be at odds with attempts to reduce congestion elsewhere. On the issues of congestion and pollution, we have said that we are looking to local authorities to begin to benchmark at local level what is required across the country. We are very grateful to the Commission for Integrated Transport—on which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, sits—for its advice on how best that may be introduced by local authorities.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

I thank the Minister for his explanation and reassurances. I shall read what he said. I think it unlikely that I shall come back to this matter at a later stage as I believe that I have received enough reassurances in regard to the Government's intentions and their proposed ways of putting them into practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 201: Page 99, line 26, at end insert— ("(3) In a case where the charging authority is a county council, it shall not make a charge in relation to a particular town in its area without the agreement of the district council within which the town is placed.").

The noble Lord said: Clause 163 deals with the creation of local charging schemes. In drafting the amendment, I debated with myself whether it was appropriate to this clause or whether it should form a new clause. However, I think it sits perfectly well with this clause. Although there are other aspects of the clause which I do not regard as satisfactory, they concern different principles from those covered in this amendment.

In most non-metropolitan areas of the United Kingdom—I am sorry; we should bear in mind that we are talking here only of England and Wales—local authorities have two separate tiers. If this Bill is eventually passed, the authority responsible for the local transport plan—the local transport authority—will be the county council, which will have, rightly, all the powers under the Bill. In giving it those powers, Parliament will create an enormous potential for conflict between those responsible for administering transport policy and, in many cases, those who may feel that they have to sit and suffer the consequences—that is, the district councils.

District councils are rightly proud of their integrity and responsibility within their own areas. In this situation the closest co-operation, consultation and negotiation will be absolutely essential for the smooth running of any transport plan in a shire area. One has to think only of the circumstances which exist in my own county and across many other counties—where even a district council may have three or four main towns within its area—to see that there could be difficulties. Some district councils already have problems with the integrity of a particular town within their district; exacerbating the situation in a large county such as Essex— it has 13 districts, many of which are multi-town districts—could produce real problems.

The amendment seeks to ensure that where the charging authority is a county council, it shall not make a charge—I think the correct wording should have been a "charging scheme"—in relation to a particular town in its area without the agreement of the district council within which that town is located. If we are not to create a series of minor civil wars across the face of this land, that should be on the face of the Bill. It is very important.

It may be that the Minister will feel inclined to say that he has every intention of introducing regulations to bring about the situation I seek. If he has, he could equally honourably say that he will accept the amendment—or, at least, if he does not like the wording, that he will bring back an amendment of his own. I look forward to his reply. I beg to move.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

Again I find myself in sympathy with the concerns of the noble Lord. I certainly expect district councils in two-tier areas to be fully consulted about any proposals to introduce a charging or licensing scheme in their area and their views to be taken carefully into account. I should say that we are talking here only about England and not about Wales. However, we do not consider that it is appropriate to give district councils a veto over the introduction of schemes. The statutory responsibility for the charging and licensing powers rests firmly with the local traffic authority. Allowing district councils to veto plans would blur that responsibility.

However, I assure Members of the Committee that we will ensure that district councils are properly consulted over any proposals, using our scheme approval powers, or regulations on the procedures for making scheme orders. If there is a disagreement between a local traffic authority and a district council I envisage that that is something the Secretary of State would consider as part of his approval of schemes. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore agree not to press the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

We are on more or less the same ground as we were previously. Will the noble Lord consider bringing forward amendments to the Bill to give effect to what he has said rather than simply do it by ministerial fiat or by regulation? We really do need to see this case decided clearly.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

I am not able to offer that assurance. However, in the context of all the other assurances that I have offered—not just on the use of regulations on procedures but on scheme approval powers—I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the point.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, decides what to do about his amendment, can the Minister tell the Committee how he sees the situation when congestion charging or a reduction in congestion is being sought not in major towns such as Nottingham or Derby, which are recognised centres for their areas, but in one of our smaller towns, where total cessation of movement of any kind is most likely to occur? If a scheme was introduced in small town A but no scheme was introduced in small town B, all the traffic would move to small town B in order to try to get into the town for free. How does the Minister think the Secretary of State would deal with that kind of observation were it to be brought to him during the course of his approval activities?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

We would respond to that situation by ensuring that there had been full consultation and that the Secretary of State was well informed of the concerns expressed by the smaller towns. If there was going to be any disproportionate effect on any specific area, that would be taken into account by the Secretary of State as part of his approval of the schemes.

Lord Dixon-Smith

In his reply the Minister makes it remarkably difficult to disagree with him. The problem is that an outcome which is satisfactory as to conclusion but is not satisfactory as to method is not one which I find to be wholly satisfactory. Although it is early in the afternoon and we are not used to walking and exercising at such an early hour, I nonetheless want to test the view of the Committee.

3.43 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 201) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Ampthill, L.	Hanningfield, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.	Hayhoe, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Henley, L.
Attlee, E.	Hogg, B.
Blatch, B.	Holderness, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Hooper, B.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Howell of Guildford, L.
Burnham, L. [Teller]	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Butterworth, L.	Kimball, L.
Byford, B.	Kingsland, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Liverpool, E.
Cope of Berkeley, L.	Lucas, L.
Courtown, E.	Luke, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Lyell, L.
Denham, L.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.	McConnell, L.
Elles, B.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Fookes, B.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Geddes, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Glentoran, L.	Moynihan, L.
Hanham, B.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Noakes, B.	Reay, L.
Northbrook, L.	Roberts of Conwy, L.
Northesk, E. [Teller]	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
O'Cathain, B.	Seccombe, B.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.	Sharples. B.
	Strathclyde, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.	Swinfen, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.	Trumpington, B.
Peel, E.	Vivian, L.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.	Wilcox, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Hughes of Woodside, L.
Addington, L.	Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Ahmed, L.	Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Allenby of Megjddo, V.	Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Alli, L.
Amos, B.	Islwyn, L.
Andrews, B.	Jay of Paddington, B. (Lard Privy Seal)
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Bach, L.	Laird, L.
Barnett, L.	Laming, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Layard, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Lea of Crondall, L.
Berkeley, L.	Lipsey, L.
Blackstone, B.	Lockwood, B.
Blease, L.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Borrie, L.	Ludford, B.
Bradshaw, L.	Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Brennan, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
Brett, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Brookman, L.	McNally, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Maddock, B.
Burlison, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Carter, L. [Teller]	Marsh, L.
Christopher, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.	Massey of Darwen, B.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Morgan, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Craig of Radley, L.	Morris of Manchester, L.
David, B.	Orme, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Palmer, L.
Dholakia, L.	Patel of Blackburn, L.
Dixon, L.	Paul, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Peston, L.
Dubs, L.	Pitkeathley, B.
Elder, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Ezra, L.	Redesdale, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.	Rees-Mogg, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.	Richard, L.
Filkin, L.	Roll of Ipsden, L.
Fitt, L.	Russell, E.
Gale, B.	Russell-Johnston, L.
Gavron, L.	Scott of Needham Market, B.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Sharp of Guildford, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Shepherd, L.
Grabiner, L.	Simon, V.
Greengross, B.	Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Grenfell, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Harrison, L.	Taverne, L.
Haskel, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hayman, B.	Tenby, V.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.	Thornton, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Tomlinson, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.	Tordoff, L.

Turner of Camden, B.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Whitaker, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Whitty, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
	Winston, L.
Wigoder, L.	Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Wilkins, B.	Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.56 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 202: Page 99, line 26, at end insert— ("( ) Where a local charging scheme is introduced in order to fund improvements to facilitate the achievement of policies in the charging authority's local transport plan, the charging scheme shall cease when the relevant improvements have been paid for.").

The noble Lord said: I have tabled a series of amendments which seek to determine exactly what are the Government's intentions as regards these new taxes. Perhaps I may put it this way: are those intentions honourable and straightforward? Are the taxes intended to be levied locally and then used for the benefit of local people? Furthermore, if an authority cannot think of a good use to which to put them, will they cease? That, I believe, is what should happen.

Unfortunately, the Bill provides otherwise. It states that such taxes can be initiated locally, but subsequently can become national taxes. In my view, that would impose on local transport authorities the odium of having to introduce a new tax which subsequently would be pocketed by the Treasury, to its benefit. I do not think that that is an appropriate way of approaching this.

This amendment provides that, where a local transport authority sees the need for particular improvements to help with traffic flows within its own area, it should be able to design a charging scheme which relates directly to those improvements. Thereafter, the charge should cease.

It is conceivable that the Minister will say that that is perfectly possible. However, we have encountered many problems in the Bill on the matter of hypothecation. The best assurance that we have received so far has been that schemes begun within 10 years from when the Bill comes into effect will have revenue hypothecated to them for a period of 10 years from their initiation. However, anyone familiar with the development of the transport industry over the centuries—from the time of the horse and cart, through to stage-coaches, canals, railways and so forth—will know that one needs to deal with a constantly evolving situation. Transport demands change all the time, and the problems to be solved change alongside them. People will always seek new and often radical solutions.

However, it is almost always the case that those who deal with such problems at the local level know best what needs to be done to improve their own particular circumstances. I have every confidence that if charging schemes are introduced, they will be used well and in the local interest. That is right and proper. However, I am also of the view that if an authority cannot think of any scheme to be funded by the new charge that would significantly improve matters, either the new charge should not be introduced or—this is probably more likely because I suspect that all authorities will be able to devise new schemes—when no more valid ideas are put forward, no more charges should be levied.

That does not mean that the charging system would become invalid. That is because if, after a number of years, new problems are revealed, the power will still be in place under the Bill to introduce a charging scheme to fund the necessary changes to solve those new problems.

This little amendment addresses what is in fact a very important principle for local transport authorities, for local government generally and, indeed, for national government. If the amendment were accepted, that would signal that national government had accepted—almost for the first time in my long experience in local government—that local government can, and does, behave responsibly and that it acts in the interests of local communities. That, in itself, would be rather novel. I accept that the amendment may not be perfectly worded, so if the Minister would like to take it away and bring forward an improved version at a later stage, I should be a happy man.

I repeat: the issues that lie behind this little amendment are both profound and important. I felt that it was important for us to hold a short debate—even if that debate is to be held between only myself and the Minister. I am sure that we shall have several fascinating discussions across the Table today. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford

The noble Lord has rightly said that the amendment raises an important philosophical point. It goes to the heart of the purpose for which road charges are to be levied. If the amendment were accepted, it would reduce road charging to an entirely pragmatic and practical device for dealing with local problems: for example, easing some physical phenomenon causing congestion or introducing some scheme to even out traffic flow through the day so as to lessen congestion.

At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the Bill had been conceived in the context of wanting to deal not only with practical issues but with environmental ones. In the broad environmental context, the secondary purpose of road charging is to deal with physical problems in local areas. Its primary purpose, however, is to deter people from using their cars as much as they presently do. If that is the primary purpose and it is the Government's intention that it should remain so, I very much hope that the amendment will be resisted. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would reassure the Committee that one of the reasons for charging, whether on trunk roads or in local areas, is to deter traffic and to encourage people to find other means of going from A to B, or indeed to encourage them to travel less.

If that remains the primary purpose of road charging, it could reasonably be said that it will never be achieved. It may work slowly and gradually, but the prospect of lifting the charges simply does not arise, because the necessity to restrict traffic growth will continue, and indeed increase. If we take seriously the recommendation of the Royal Commission that we must cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 50 years, there will have to be an enormous reduction in road traffic use. Charging schemes can play a part—not the only part—in achieving that reduction. The amendment goes to the heart of the philosophy behind the Transport Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond on that point.

4 p.m.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising an important issue. It goes to the centre of the objectives of the charging scheme.

The Committee should be assured that we do not envisage approving charging schemes that are designed simply to raise revenue. The right reverend Prelate went straight to the heart of the matter. We can confirm that we expect the charges to have a direct bearing on local congestion problems. We believe that, to be effective, the introduction of charges must be matched by increased spending on local transport to provide people with real alternatives to the car. Our ground-breaking hypothecation guarantee will ensure that that can happen.

However, it is clear that the introduction of transport improvements alone may, in many cases, not be sufficient to reduce congestion. It is likely that the restraint effect of a charge to enter a town or city will be an essential part of the package that manages traffic demand and delivers lower congestion. One can envisage a situation some years hence where significant transport infrastructure improvements have been paid for through a charging regime, congestion has been reduced, and an authority may decide at that point to discontinue charges. But there is the other important consideration: sustaining the reduction in congestion. That may require that road user charges are kept in order to restrain traffic. It would therefore be wrong to rule out the possibility of local authorities deciding that charges should continue.

Amendment No. 202 ignores the important traffic demand management effect that the charges will have. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will agree not to press his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his contribution on the problems created by congestion, particularly carbon dioxide and other noxious emissions produced by the internal combustion engine. Those problems will be solved not as a result of provisions in the Bill but as a result of developments taking place in the motor industry, as we still call it, because what will happen over the next 25, 30 or 40 years is that the internal combustion engine will become out of date.

I should declare not so much an interest as a fascination. I chaired the sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee which examined the future of the internal combustion engine specifically in regard to exhaust emissions. There is the obvious progress that is being made with the internal combustion engine, but that is not an answer in itself. The committee arrived at a conclusion that surprised me; namely, that we shall see fuel-cell-powered cars on the roads. Initially, they will still produce carbon dioxide, but not all the other noxious emissions. Ultimately, they will be hydrogen powered and will produce nothing except water. At that point we shall face an ethical dilemma. We shall have completely non-polluting vehicles that are absolutely silent. I can see the time coming when we put bells on them, rather like bicycle bells, so as to warn pedestrians that they are coming—but that is a slight red herring. That is the way in which the industry is moving. The provisions in the Bill to deal with pollution will not provide a solution before the motor industry itself provides the technical answer.

Congestion could be argued to be a voluntary tax paid by society for the benefit of enjoying a reasonably high degree of mobility. I would always rather pay a voluntary tax than a compulsory one. It is a simple principle. The Minister seems to be saying that he would prefer the situation to be the other way round, and that we should reduce the need to travel. That need could have been reduced voluntarily, apart from the fact that we have spent 30 or 35 years developing a society in which we do need to travel. Anyone who thinks that the hundreds of thousands of housewives whom I see shopping every week, coming out of the supermarket with a trolley laden with goods that must often weigh more than a hundredweight, are going to carry that home on a bus has another think coming. They will pay a road congestion charge if they have to, because, sadly, there is now no alternative—unless we return to having large numbers of small shops and, more importantly, unless housewives are prepared to spend the time to go shopping every other day, as my mother used to do. I do not think that that kind of reverse revolution in society will take place. The issues are important. I do not believe that the situation will necessarily be better if these moneys are continued on a national basis rather than being decided locally.

There are two possible outcomes. One is that local authorities levy the charges and they are called in aid of other local expenditure, which may or may not be reasonable. If we are simply creating another form of local revenue, so be it. But that is not what we are told the Bill is about. If the money is to be part of the national revenue, we are in an even worse situation. The initiative for introducing the charges will have been taken locally. There is no certainty, apart from the small piece of blackmail in the guidance to which I have referred, that local transport authorities will necessarily introduce these charges all over the country. There is no compulsion to do so. I can envisage that they may not be introduced by a number of authorities in less well advantaged parts of the country than the South East. Not the least of the problems that any government in this country face is that after a time they are seen as representing the South East. Many parts of the country may be reluctant to introduce charges, where there is high unemployment and too many socially disadvantaged people. Welcome though an additional source of revenue may be, the disincentive to industry and other employers would be such that not introducing charging would be a positive incentive.

We should not blithely assume that everybody will leap into road charging with any speed. There will be considerable caution. In any event, Ministers in the other place have touched on traffic flow improvement in an area being seen before charges can be introduced—post facto. We need to consider little parts of the proposal as well as its totality.

The Minister answered in favour of the right reverend Prelate, who I think is wrong. Nevertheless, I will study the noble Lord's response. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 163 agreed to.

Clause 164 [Joint local charging schemes]:

[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]

Clause 164 agreed to.

Clause 165 [Joint local-London charging schemes]:

[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]

Clause 165 agreed to.

Clause 166 [Trunk road charging schemes]:

On Question, Whether Clause 166 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dixon-Smith

This clause concerns the creation of trunk road charging schemes and I thought we should debate whether or not it is appropriate or useful. What will happen when a trunk road passes, as many do, through a town centre? A specific example is the A3 through Portsmouth, which is virtually the only means of accessing the Isle of Wight—which gives Portsmouth the power of ransom over the island. It would have to be a Secretary of State scheme because the A3 is a trunk road, so he should exercise extreme caution. He may find that doing what one community wants would have untold consequences for another down the road.

Regrettably, there are many towns without bypasses. We may hear something to improve that situation within a few days. One never knows what the future holds. In this rather leaky age, there have been occasional minor hints that even I can understand. One has to be careful when talking about England and Wales (where the appropriate national authority is the Welsh Assembly), but where a trunk road passes through a number of urban centres, another problem is how to congestion charge private travellers or commercial users—who might pass through 10 town centres in a day. There are technical problems to solve before charging schemes can work in the way that the Minister wishes.

I hope that more noble Lords will involve themselves in this aspect because side issues are fundamental to the way in which present society lives and works.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Berkeley

There are many different ways of reaching the Isle of Wight and they do not all involve travelling through Portsmouth. It is clear from Clause 166 that a trunk road charging scheme can be used only if the local traffic authority agrees. If Hampshire County Council is the charging authority, presumably a scheme need not cover the whole county but could apply to only one or two towns. I considered tabling an amendment to delete subsection (2) because I am enthusiastic about trunk road charging but Clause 166 is good as it stands and I oppose its removal.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

Paragraph 148 of the helpful Explanatory Notes states: Clause 166 also provides that the occupier of a premises will be responsible for paying charges, but allows the Secretary of State or NAW powers to specify other persons in certain circumstances through regulations. Unless I have got it wrong, that explanation does nothing but add to the confusion.

Perhaps I have totally misunderstood it.

I am obliged to my noble friend for speaking to the Question whether Clause 166 stand part. My forlorn hope is that someone somewhere will remember that originally roads were designed for movement. When I wallowed in the Department of Transport and vaguely suggested that from time to time, it was regarded as an old-fashioned and wholly reactionary idea that I should cast out of my mind without delay. It is still my belief—I hope that it is not entirely misconceived—that roads exist to help people to move around and are not intended primarily as parking lots.

Highway authorities and the organisation known as the Highways Agency are apt to forget the principle that, on the whole, roads are intended to facilitate movement, and they find every possible means to obstruct movement. Almost every week I travel the road to London from the M3. I salute the inventiveness of the Highways Agency in finding new means to obstruct the traffic. It never leaves that stretch of road alone. All of the authority's most energetic and inventive minds—I do not suggest for a moment that the number at its disposal is in any way limited—are devoted to finding, with minimum effort to themselves, yet further means to create bottlenecks. When those bottlenecks have been created, they remain totally unmanned and nobody cares for them. The bottlenecks, being very obliging, stay where they are and nobody does anything about them.

Without trying to be facetious, I ask the noble Lord to remind these bodies, in particular the Highways Agency, that they exist to help people to move around. I hope that what is sought to be done under this clause will not be used to add to the number of people whose talents and inventiveness are wholly devoted to obstructing and hindering people who wish legitimately to use the roads for movement.

Lord Whitty

I have come to understand that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has at some point, and possibly repeatedly, been deeply scarred by the activities of the Highways Agency. I can only convey the authority's apologies to him and assure him that its practices and techniques are now directed at exactly what the noble Lord seeks; namely, to speed up maintenance and complete it as rapidly as possible and to ensure, as far as possible, the free flow of traffic. That is also the objective of this clause. We want to make sure that appropriate traffic, both economic and passenger, which has no other means of moving from A to B is able to get through.

As to the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the Explanatory Notes were based on the original clause numbers prior to the Grand Committee stage. I believe that the clause to which he refers is now Clause 177. No doubt the noble Lord will return to the point.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggests that we should remove this clause. This is a very important but limited clause. It is not a provision of the kind to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred. The clause provides for two very limited circumstances in which congestion charging can be raised on the trunk road network: one relates to bridges and tunnels and the other, on which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, concentrated, relates to those cases where part of a trunk road affects any local charging scheme. The power can be used only at the request of the local authority in order to complement its own charging scheme. That scheme will itself have been subject to a substantial period of consultation. In the case of Portsmouth—to correct my noble friend, Portsmouth is a unitary authority and therefore has highway responsibilities—the authority would be required to consult the Isle of Wight and other surrounding authorities, businesses and others within its own area. Therefore, that consultation would already have taken place.

The power does not permit the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly, to introduce widespread charges along the whole length of the road; nor does the Secretary of State have to agree with the local authority to impose charges, if requested, to complement the scheme. Therefore, in circumstances where it seems to the Secretary of State that the scheme is detrimental to the general flow of traffic or to neighbouring authorities, he will have the right not to accede to the request.

In general terms, however, it is important that as to those stretches of trunk road which impinge on the local authority area where major diversion would otherwise occur or the scheme would be undermined, the Secretary of State should have ability to raise charges. Therefore, this clause is necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will not continue to oppose it.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I welcome the Minister's assurance. The noble Lord has a very pleasant manner when he is communicating good news. When he tells me that the Highways Agency is there to help movement, that is very good news. I very much hope that evidence of that fact will reach me.

Lord Dixon-Smith

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that it would be remarkable if in debating a Bill of this kind, there was universal agreement on the amendments. I should be wholly surprised if somebody, perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did not oppose the Question that the clause stand part.

The Minister has spared me the necessity of explaining the difference in status between a city as important as Portsmouth and a county council as significant as Hampshire. The fact is that Portsmouth will be a local transport authority, which was implicit in the response of the Minister.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. If he achieves nothing else, he always makes us think. His statement that roads are to facilitate movement is fundamental. That is very nearly a point on which there is a fundamental division within the Committee. One may argue about what facilitates movement; occasionally, even limited restrictions do so. Therefore, in this matter there are deep shades of grey.

I was delighted to hear the Minister say that in considering its particular problems Portsmouth would be obliged to undertake a very wide degree of consultation. Therefore, the Minister is supportive of a group of amendments in my name which are to be debated later. The Bill provides that the local transport authority may do something. We believe that the word should be "shall", not "may". I should be satisfied that Portsmouth would consult the Isle of Wight if the Bill said that it should do so. However, the Bill does not say "shall" but "may". We shall turn to that point later, and I am delighted to have the support of the Minister for those amendments.

We have had a very good debate. As is very often the case with clause stand part debates, the purpose of debating the Question that Clause 166 shall stand part is to be clear exactly what will be the consequences of what we seek to do here. Often, Bills are obscure in that regard.

I do not believe that I have wasted the time of the Committee in initiating the debate and I withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 166 shall stand part of the Bill.

Clause 166 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

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

House resumed.