Local Transport Bill [HL]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Low, makes his usual persuasive case on issues that he draws to your Lordships’ attention. In the end, I cannot agree to accept the amendment but I am going to come to his offer of having a look at the potential impact of exemptions in different localities. First, I will make some points that bear thinking about. The noble Lord in good measure anticipated some of my lines of reply, and I congratulate him for that. He obviously studied carefully what was said when we debated the issue in Committee. As the noble Lord said, the Transport Act 2000 contains powers for the appropriate national authority to make regulations specifying national exemptions and discounts from local schemes and the maximum charge payable. At this time, we do not think it appropriate to change the legislation to compel the appropriate national authority to make the regulations. The key words in that sentence are ““at this time””. In respect of limiting the charges that local authorities are able to introduce, it is right for the local authority to propose its own charge levels as part of the detailed design of local schemes, which should be left to the local level. It is on the detailed design of local schemes that we need to focus, because congestion charging will vary in the way in which it is operated in each locality that develops a scheme. The local authority will be able best to determine the impact of that scheme on particular transport user groups; for example, car users. An authority would therefore be best placed to set the charge level that is most appropriate for tackling the problems in its local area after a careful economic modelling exercise. We do not want to set an arbitrary price for all schemes across the country when there is a need for difference depending on location, scheme design and scheme objectives. Exemptions and discounts for road users are integral to the detailed design of local road charging schemes and should be left to local determination. That is consistent, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, anticipated, with our desire for local authorities to come up with tailor-made schemes. In our online transport analysis guidance, we have given guidance to local authorities that scheme design will need to identify at-risk groups and consider how any negative impacts on those groups could be minimised or mitigated. There may be ways of doing that other than by offering exemptions or discounts. We expect local authorities to consult relevant interested parties on a full range of issues, including any proposals for exemptions and discounts, which will ensure that the needs of any specific group are adequately taken into account. We have today underlined this issue in relation to disabled people by amending Clause 10 so that local transport authorities will have a duty to have regard to the needs of all disabled persons when developing their transport policies and local transport plans. The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Low, has encouraged us to adopt, which would disability-proof the legislation, will assist in ensuring that disabled people are not unfairly discriminated against at a local level. Local authorities making road charging schemes will have to facilitate local transport policies developed in accordance with that duty. Local authorities have a general duty to observe under the disability discrimination legislation. The amendment should be a further reminder to them. The best approach is for local determination, so that it can reflect different designs of schemes. There is a big difference between, for example, the London scheme, which applies all day, and the proposed Manchester scheme, which would apply only at peak times. As such, it is inappropriate to be overprescriptive in coming up with a solution to the issue that the noble Lord raised. I also appreciate that there are concerns about individuals having to engage with a number of specific schemes. It is worth reminding ourselves that at this stage there are only a small number of areas with serious proposals for road pricing. To date, the department has received only two bids for transport innovation fund money with proposals for the development of road pricing. We only have two congestion charge schemes—one in London and one in Durham. If we were to go along the route suggested by the noble Lord, we would be trying to cover all bases and design a set of regulations nationally for a maximum of four schemes, one of which is rather large in scale and one, in Durham, very small. Exemptions and discounts for certain users are a matter for local authorities in the first instance. We acknowledge that under the Transport Act 2000, the Secretary of State may make regulations for national exemptions and discounts. As proposals for local schemes are developed, we will of course be happy to listen to views on exemptions and discounts for users. We will want to ensure that we strike the correct balance between local discretion and national consistency, which is the point at issue for the noble Lord, Lord Low. We think that it is unnecessary, therefore, to specify in the Bill that the appropriate national authority must make regulations. We do not think that we need to go that far. The noble Lord offered to help us investigate the potential impact of schemes on people with disabilities who have, for good and sensible reasons, incurred congestion charges. That is a very helpful suggestion, which I will take away with me. In consulting, we ought to carry out some research, and if we can do that jointly with groups representing different disabilities, that would be very helpful. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that. For the very good reasons of local design, the need for local flexibility, the fact that we do not have a vast array of schemes yet within our view, and because we can deal with this issue more than adequately in guidance, it would be inappropriate to incorporate the amendment in the Bill as it stands. However, I certainly recognise the importance of ensuring that local authorities work in concert and with knowledge of each other’s schemes. That will be reflected in the way in which guidance is drafted and in the form of consultation that is undertaken. I hope that, having heard the reassurances that I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Low, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will be content with my commitment to ensure that we continue to have further discussion with him on the way in which this issue works and the way in which people with disabilities will want to ensure that they are fairly treated regarding exemptions.