Local Transport Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 120: 120: After Clause 111, insert the following new Clause— ““Charging schemes: exemptions (1) In subsection (1) of section 172 of the TA 2000, for ““may”” substitute ““shall””. (2) In sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 11 of Schedule 23 to the GLA Act 1999, for ““may”” substitute ““shall””.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the same as the one I moved in Committee. As I said to the Minister after his reply giving his reasons for not accepting it, there is a point to the amendment. There is a class of disabled people for whom using the car is not optional. In particular, blue badge holders cannot be expected not to use their cars for journeys of less than a mile, nor is it likely that they will readily be able to use public transport as an alternative. Blind and partially-sighted people are not drivers themselves, have considerably restricted mobility and may be similarly dependent on the car. They do not necessarily qualify for a blue badge either. For those for whom driving is not an option, congestion charges, if they have to pay them, are a tax on disabled people, not a charge on congestion. The case for a national exemption for disabled people is a strong one. When I moved the amendment in Committee, the Minister laid out a number of objections that he had to it. First, he said that exemptions and discounts from local road pricing schemes are, in the first instance, a matter for the local authorities considering introducing such schemes. The Government believe that it is right for the local authority to propose its own charge level. Secondly, he said that as part of any stakeholder engagement on a proposed road pricing scheme, a local authority should address the exemptions and discounts that a scheme offers. Interested parties will have an opportunity to make their views known through the consultation process. It will be especially important for local authorities, as part of the development of a scheme, to assess the impact of the scheme on different groups, including, in particular, those with disabilities. Thirdly, in developing local road pricing schemes, local authorities will also have to observe their duties under the Disability Discrimination Acts. That should ensure that disabled people are not unfairly treated through the introduction of a scheme. Finally, the Transport Act 2000 already allows for national exemptions. The Act provides the appropriate national authority with the ability to make regulations on exemptions and discounts, and on limiting the charges that local authorities are able to introduce. However, the Government have yet to make decisions on whether—and, if so, how—they might exercise those powers. They believe that it might be more appropriate to issue guidance to local authorities. Section 193 allows the appropriate national authority to issue guidance to charging authorities and the authorities must have regard to it when exercising their functions. This may be a more suitable way of approaching the principles that local authorities are expected to follow. The Minister also made clear that the Government are looking at the best way of achieving these aims. This could include issuing guidance on the manner in which exemptions and discounts from a scheme should be implemented. They aim to have completed that work well in advance of the introduction of any local road pricing schemes so that the public and the scheme operator can be clear on what is envisaged. They therefore think it unnecessary to specify in the Bill that the appropriate national authority must make regulations. Before the Minister runs away with the idea that I am making his speech in reply for him, there are certain points that I wish to make in rejoinder. First, it cannot be quite right that the Government are proposing to bring out guidance in advance of any congestion-charging schemes being introduced, because some have already been introduced and more are in the pipeline. I note that it will no longer be a requirement for the Secretary of State to approve schemes, including details of any exemptions. While I welcome the fact that guidance on exemptions and discounts will be produced, I am concerned that, with the removal of the requirement of the Secretary of State’s approval, local authorities may produce exemption schemes for disabled people that do not meet the needs of all those who, because of their impairment, are unlikely to use public transport and are reliant on a private car for their mobility, either as driver or passenger. As the Secretary of State’s permissive power under the Transport Act 2000 and the Greater London Authority Act 2007 to prescribe exemptions has not been exercised, the amendment provides that the appropriate national authorities be put under a duty to make regulations concerning exemptions. With the removal of the requirement for Secretary of State approval for road-charging schemes, it will be even harder to enforce good practice if there are no regulations specifying minimum exemptions for disabled people. As a permissive power under the Transport Act 2000 has not been used, it would be appropriate for the appropriate national authorities to be put under a duty to make regulations concerning exemptions. I can understand the Government’s reasons for not wanting to fetter in the Bill the discretion of local authorities, and for saying that they do not want to accept this amendment because they are still developing the framework of congestion-charging schemes. Yet, this amendment is in effect only asking that the principle that there be minimum exemptions for disabled people is in the Bill. By requiring in the Bill that the appropriate national authorities should make regulations, we are simply stipulating the principle that provision will be made for this; we are not saying anything in detail as to how or when. By obliging the appropriate national authorities to set a minimum, local authorities will still have the discretion to go above the minimum, while the needs of disabled people are protected. The Government can also wait to develop the regulations until it is clear how they would fit in with the rest of the package of regulations and guidance affecting congestion charging. I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say in response. If he is not minded to accept the amendment in full, I finally ask that the Government might be willing to investigate the potential impact of charging schemes on various classes of disabled people and to publish the results. Then possibly, in the light of that, we could form a better assessment of whether congestion charges were bearing harshly on disabled people. I beg to move.