|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 692-ii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
THE DRAFT LOCAL TRANSPORT BILL
Wednesday 20 June 2007 MR STEPHEN JOSEPH, MR JASON TORRANCE, MR DAVID HOLMES and MR PAUL WATTERS
MR NEAL SKELTON, PROFESSOR PHIL BLYTHE, MR HOWARD POTTER and MR MARTIN RICHARDS
MR JAMES FIRTH, MR MALCOLM BINGHAM and MR JACK SEMPLE Evidence heard in Public Questions 245 - 429
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Transport Committee on Wednesday 20 June 2007 Members present Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, in the Chair Clive Efford Mrs Louise Ellman Mr Philip Hollobone Mr John Leech Mr Lee Scott Graham Stringer ________________ Memoranda submitted by Transport 2000, RAC Foundation and the Automobile Association
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Stephen Joseph, Executive Director, and Mr Jason Torrance, Campaigns Director, Transport 2000; Mr David Holmes, Chairman, RAC Foundation; and Mr Paul Watters, Head of Public Affairs, the AA, gave evidence.
Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen, I am very grateful to you for coming. Those of you who have appeared before us know our housekeeping rules: speak up, do not please repeat what somebody else has said; and if you want to catch my eye, please do. Can we just have a little bit of housekeeping first, Members having an interest to declare? Clive Efford: Member of Unite. Graham Stringer: I am a member of Unite as well, I suppose. Chairman: Gwyneth Dunwoody, not a member of Unite, a member of Aslef. Mrs Ellman: Member of Unite. Q245 Chairman: Thank you. Now then, gentlemen, I am going to ask you firstly to identify yourselves for the record and then I am going to ask if anybody wants to say anything briefly before we begin. Mr Joseph: I am Stephen Joseph, I am the Director of Transport 2000. Mr Torrance: Jason Torrance, I am the Campaigns Director for Transport 2000. Mr Holmes: David Holmes, Chairman of the RAC Foundation. Mr Watters: Paul Watters, Head of Public Affairs for the AA. Q246 Chairman: Thank you, gentlemen. Did anybody have anything they wanted to say briefly? Mr Holmes: May I very briefly, Madam Chairman. First, thank you very much for inviting us to give evidence. The Foundation's position is set out in our memorandum and I will not bore you with it. The Foundation supports the principle of road pricing and has done for some years, but national road pricing and subject to safeguards. We believe that the Government recognises that there need to be safeguards because it says so in paragraph 5.6 of the memorandum. This Bill is about local road charging not national road charging and it will, nevertheless, affect a large number of people in the most congested areas. It is our position therefore that the same safeguards as would apply to a national scheme should apply to local schemes. Q247 Chairman: Mr Holmes, it is always a pleasure to see you here. It is not unfamiliar territory to you and it is very helpful to have your views. Perhaps we may explore some of those implications as we go through the questioning. Now then, gentlemen, the Bill seeks to provide greater local flexibility in relation to local road pricing schemes, so has a lack of flexibility been a barrier to new schemes? Who thinks that has been a problem, not been a problem? Mr Joseph: I would say that it has. I think however that the Bill remains unclear where the local charging schemes fit into the Government's long-term view on national road pricing. Q248 Chairman: In what sense, Mr Joseph? Mr Joseph: Well, if we get individual charging in individual cities how are those going to fit into any subsequent national road pricing scheme. The Government has been very clear that subsequent legislation would be needed to move to a national road pricing scheme. What we have said in our evidence is that we want to see experiments adopted to move us in that direction, and I think the RAC Foundation's position is rather similar; we want to see experiments. I think what we are missing here is a route map that takes us from local schemes to some kind of national scheme, and I think that for the local authorities there is a feeling without that roadmap they are in the firing line and the Government is sort of standing back a bit. Q249 Chairman: Would you like to see more than one passenger transport authority able to co-operate in a regional-scale charging scheme as an experiment? Mr Joseph: Yes, I think we would like to see charging schemes involve more than one local authority. To take a specific example, it ought to be possible for some of the revenue from a Manchester scheme to be spent with Lancashire to deal with commuting into Manchester. I think there is a danger that without that that cities will seek to export their congestion problems elsewhere and that the losers will be people who are not voters. So I think we would like to see flexibility in terms of constructing schemes that involve different authorities. Q250 Chairman: However, to be devil's advocate, what you are suggesting would involve a much more complicated bit of legislation, would it not, because once you are tying your experiments to more than one authority, to more than one way of financing you are complicating the machinery, and you have already said that you do not think there is sufficient clarity in what the Government have proposed. Mr Joseph: I think what we are suggesting for the Bill is flexibility. The route map is something that does not need to be in the Bill but does need to be spelt out by the Government in terms of routes. What I am suggesting is that the Bill should allow authorities to involve neighbouring authorities in the charging scheme, particularly in spending the revenue, that the travel-to-work boundaries are not where the passenger transport authorities are, in fact, as we may come on to, we welcome that bit of the Bill which seeks to extend this but that needs to go to the charging schemes too. Q251 Chairman: Let me ask you: is it sensible for PTAs to be given powers to make significant changes to bus services in their area, but not introduce road pricing schemes unilaterally? Mr Joseph: I think it depends what kind of passenger transport authorities we end up with and the Bill is quite flexible about this. At the moment we have got a single type of PTA with joint committees of local authorities. You could imagine a situation with much more centralised PTAs and in those situations you would get a very different kind of road charging. Q252 Clive Efford: Under clause 73 of the draft Bill, only local transport authorities will be able to require an inquiry or consultation into a local charging scheme. Does this allow proper scrutiny, in your opinion? Mr Joseph: Our position is that we should have consultation on schemes and that there should be proper consultation, just as there should be with other aspects of transport, and I think, without going into the detail of the Bill and that clause, we would have to see how that worked in practice, but we think it is helpful to have consultation. I think it is not for the Government to specify what kind of consultation we should have. Q253 Clive Efford: Do you not fear that consultation though becomes a mechanism for just abdicating responsibility for taking action? "Let's have a consultation; we are bound to get a 1.8 million petition on the Internet to oppose it, so we do not have to take a difficult decision"? Mr Watters: I think we need to take a pragmatic approach and, building on what was said earlier, there has been a scheme in London and we can learn a lot from what has happened in London. There was not an inquiry, they chose not to have an inquiry, but I think there is scope to have proper consultation. Given the option, I think local authorities would probably reduce the amount of consultation they have to do, and schemes could become delayed of course if there is a long inquiry but I think there needs to be a basic audit of a scheme to make sure that it is good value for money, and I think that should be shown during the consultation process. If the idea is to try to encourage motorists to buy into charging as a whole it does have to be transparent. I think in London the experience was that some of it was a bit heavy-handed on the part of TfL and there should have been more of an airing of the scheme before it started. Q254 Clive Efford: Are you saying that under clause 73 there is insufficient safeguard then to ensure that there is an audit of the scheme? Mr Watters: Absolutely, I think given the chance if an authority is told it can consult if it wishes, it might choose not to, so it would be better to have some small-scale inquiry on the basic integrity of the scheme. That would at least allay some of the public concern. Q255 Clive Efford: Can I just be clear, are you saying about public opinion or are you saying about the integrity of the scheme, because they are not the same. Mr Watters: It has to be both, the financial credibility of the scheme and an honest transposition of how people feel about it. Mr Joseph: Can I be clear, we support the need for consultation and we think it is very important but we would also like to see, as you said, action rather than just consultation, and the impression we have from a number of transport schemes over the years, not just road pricing, is that when they are introduced on an experimental basis there is a lot of opposition initially and when they are in people actually like them. To take an example of York, which pedestrianised 26 streets in one go, there were 500 objections. They did this on an experimental basis and when they went back a year later to confirm the orders and to extend the hours there were no objections at all. I think the congestion charge experiment in Stockholm on which there was huge opposition in advance and support in a referendum afterwards is also a lesson here. I think we would like to see the option of authorities consulting certainly, I think there should be a requirement to consult before introducing any of this, but to go ahead and experiment with things and then come back for confirmation later. Q256 Clive Efford: This word "consult" is something that we come across not just in relation to road charging. "Consult" does suggest that you gauge the opinion of the area affected and then make a decision based on that, but we are talking about situations like what happened in London for instance where the authority takes a decision that goes against what is perceived to be public opinion. When you use the word "consult" what do you mean? Mr Joseph: Well, I think that it is possible to do consultation in ways that do not get the answer "No" and actually --- Q257 Graham Stringer: Does that mean fiddle them? That sounds as though you are fiddling them. Mr Joseph: No because the automatic reaction from people asked for a change can be "No" and there are ways round this, and there is some good practice in transport consultation which allows people to actually make some real choices, and in fact we have helped groups experiment with this. The short answer is I think it is possible to do consultation badly and it is possible to do it well in ways that involve people in real choices and that you can go ahead with. Q258 Chairman: As long as you have got proper parameters set. Mr Holmes? Mr Holmes: Successive secretaries of state have said, and they are absolutely right, that road pricing will not happen unless the public are prepared to accept it. I cannot understand for the life of me why ministers have chosen to remove the obligation to consult from the Bill. Local authorities can consult and they need not take account of the consultation, as the Mayor in London did when he consulted over the extension of the congestion charge and went against it, there was overwhelming opinion against it but he nevertheless went ahead. To say that local authorities need not find out what the electorate wants seems to be a very strange position to be in given the opposition to road charging now. Q259 Clive Efford: I think we have gone as far as we can with that issue. If I can just move on, should the maximum charges be set by a national authority or does this compromise the ability of local authorities to design a scheme to meet local needs? Mr Holmes: Yes, in our view, there should be a maximum charge not only because it is important to have fairness in this system - and by fairness I include not pricing people who cannot afford high charges off the road - but also to ensure that there is a degree of consistency between one area and another. One of the key problems with this is trust. People do no trust public authorities to do what they say and they do not trust local authorities not to use road pricing schemes the same as they do parking schemes, just to raise revenue. It seems to me that having a maximum charge is a very important tool the Government can use to get acceptance of this policy. Q260 Clive Efford: So you have no faith at all in the democratic process to be a check and balance on local authorities? Mr Holmes: I have got a great deal of faith in it, sir, but I am not everybody and a lot of people do not have faith in elected politicians. Q261 Clive Efford: But do you think that any discounts that might be set on a local charging scheme should be set locally or should there be a national framework for that as well? Mr Holmes: In my view, there should be a national protocol on this subject. One of the reasons is that one wants to make sure that the motorist is not confused when he is entering a charging area about what he can and cannot do. If you take as an example parking schemes, they are all over the place of different size, different hours of operation, and so on. Motorists it seems to me - and it is a point that Mr Joseph made - if this is to be regarded, and we agree with it, as a lead into a national scheme then it is very important to have a degree of uniformity about important things like who is exempt, what are the hours of operation, and that sort of thing. Q262 Chairman: Mr Watters and Mr Torrance, please do not make the same points if you can avoid it. Mr Watters? Mr Watters: We support there being maximum charges set and I think, in the absence of the Secretary of State being involved in local schemes, prescribing maximum charges would at least be transparent to the public to a degree. Although it is said that motoring costs are falling, the average family spends £240 a month on their motoring and so they will see this as a concern if there is going to be an extra cost. Mr Torrance: I would like to say that Transport 2000 does not support the setting of national charges. We have a certain degree of faith in the democratic system and also would like to see local schemes reflect local needs and be set by PTAs or local authorities in accordance with local requirements. Q263 Clive Efford: But Mr Holmes has made I think an important point, has he not, that if you are somebody driving from one locality to another, you have got to have some idea of how that charging scheme will operate. If they are all completely different from one another are people going to fall foul of them by simply driving into a charging area? Mr Joseph: The Bill provides for parameters to be set in technical terms but you were asking about whether the Bill should prescribe maximum charges for local schemes, and on that basis - this is a democratic point - if people do not like the charges they can change those, just as we do not have a maximum or any kind of national charging scale for car parking and that is left, rightly, to local authorities to decide according to local circumstances. Q264 Clive Efford: But I also asked about the framework for exemptions as well. Mr Joseph: I think perhaps that is more of an issue for certain groups like the disabled and I think that is something that is worth discussing nationally, particularly among the authorities considering charging, but in terms of pure maximum charges I do not think that is appropriate. Q265 Mrs Ellman: All revenue from local schemes must go to transport improvements. Do you think that takes away from local authorities the flexibility they might need, for example in compensating "losers" of particular schemes? Mr Holmes: No, I do not think it does. I think it is an important provision for two reasons. One is that it shows the person paying the charge that they are getting something from it. We said before, and I will not repeat it, these schemes will not happen unless people accept them and they will not accept them if they do not see some relevant improvement. You may be charged quite a lot of money to travel down a congested road but if you know that a tram or underground railway is going to be built then you are more willing to accept it. That is one reason. The second reason is that it is generally accepted that transport in this country is heavily underinvested relative to other modern economies and this would be a way of supplementing the amount of money that goes into transport investment. Mr Watters: I think a key point is how much revenue is actually going to come from the scheme. The schemes are quite likely to cost quite a lot of money and actually there may not be compensatory revenue from the scheme and it may take a long time for it to pay for itself, and so there may not be enough to invest to show the users that are paying where the money is going. Mr Torrance: Certainly we would like to see more clarity from the Government on where the revenue would be spent. I think there is a potential danger for money to go into improving transport infrastructure such as improving junctions or road building, et cetera, rather than improving people's travel choices and improving public transport, which I think should be the key really. Q266 Chairman: You are not suggesting you exclude those sorts of things, are you Mr Torrance? Mr Torrance: What I am suggesting is --- Q267 Chairman: How can you have a line of demarcation that says: "You may put in this bus lane but you may not improve that corner"? You obviously know different parliamentary draftsmen from me. I am not clear whether that is what you are suggesting. "If I say it is a good thing you may spend money on it because it is the sort of transport I approve of. If it is something I do not think is altogether acceptable you may not spend money on it." Is that the kind of flexibility you are looking for? Mr Torrance: No, we have a dire need at the moment to improve our public transport and to tackle climate change and I am suggesting that improving junctions, et cetera, is probably not the best use of generated revenues. Q268 Mrs Ellman: Who should decide that? Do you think that government should specify what constitutes an improvement? Should it be laid down that you cannot carry out infrastructure improvements, it has to be done another way, or is this just an opinion you are expressing? Mr Torrance: No, I think there needs to be very strong, explicit guidance from government. Q269 Chairman: "You may not improve the A534 corner at Crewe roundabout but you may however ..." It is great fun but it might be rather a long Bill, and I expect they will put Mr Scott on that as well! Mr Joseph: I think the point here is that we want to see charging schemes that contribute to reducing carbon emissions and reducing travelling rather than the shift in traffic from the centre of a city to the suburbs. Chairman: I think we have a vague idea of what you stand for; what we are trying to work out is what the hell you are saying, which in not the same thing. Q270 Mrs Ellman: How far do you think government should actually start prescribing how a local authority interprets transport improvements in its own area? Mr Joseph: What we are saying is that carbon-generating developments should not about some of the things that are funded by congestion charging. Q271 Chairman: Is that your view, Mr Watters? Mr Watters: No, and I think as the Eddington study suggested there should be investment in all forms of infrastructure to make cities work, and if that means fixing a junction you fix the junction. Q272 Mrs Ellman: Who should take the decision on whether fixing a specific junction is the right thing to do in relation to the Transport Bill? Mr Joseph: Local authorities but within a framework that the Bill starts to provide which is having regard to reducing climate change and carbon emissions from transport rather than leaving road user charging in a box marked "dealing with congestion" and tackling climate change as happening somewhere else. Our argument is that charging needs to be related to and contributing to reducing carbon emissions. Chairman: I will come back to you Mrs Ellman but Mr Scott on this. Q273 Mr Scott: You have just said you think local authorities should be the ones making the decision. Mr Joseph: Yes. Q274 Mr Scott: But if you take as an example the extension to the London congestion charge where both residents and the local authorities did not agree it was the right way and the Mayor took no notice at all; who arbitrates and says "You are not listening to public opinion"? Mr Joseph: The Mayor is a local authority in this respect. Q275 Mr Scott: He thinks he is God actually. Mr Joseph: I take the Mayor to be a local authority in this respect and that there may be other local authorities in that respect. Q276 Mr Scott: So in essence a regional authority such as London would overgo a London borough, there would be this higher entity? Mr Joseph: I think the point we were discussing then is that we argue that transport plans of all sorts have to contribute to carbon reduction. If of course Kensington & Chelsea decided that there were better ways of reducing carbon emissions from road transport then they should have put that forward, but the Mayor has argued that the charge is a way of doing that. Q277 Mrs Ellman: How should the duty to take account of climate change be assessed? Do you think it is stringent enough in the Bill? How would you suggest it should be changed if it is not? Mr Torrance: No, I do not think it is anywhere near stringent enough. I think in such times as today paying due regard to guidance on climate change is very different from specified action, and I think we would like to see some very clear guidance coming from national government to extend the due regard over and above PTAs to local authorities and perhaps to have some targets associated with local transport plans for carbon reduction. Q278 Mrs Ellman: How would you like to see that work, specified targets for each area? Mr Torrance: Yes I think local authorities/transport authorities should have targets for carbon reduction as part of local transport plans or the new plans. Mr Holmes: I would make two points on this. Firstly, climate change, which in this context is usually about the production of carbon dioxide, is one of the external costs which should be taken into account in setting charges. Other external costs are the costs of congestion and the cost of road accidents, they are all relevant and in fact the cost of producing carbon dioxide is not the major factor in the external costs, congestion and road accidents are much bigger than that. The second point is that in taking account of climate change, local authorities need to take account of the extent to which road pricing schemes divert traffic to other places. My Foundation did some surveys last year of what motorists would do if there were congestion charges and a third of them said if they were charged £5 to go and shop in the city centre they would go somewhere else, go to an out-of-town park where the parking was free and there was no congestion charging. If they did that that would actually produce more CO2 because they do more mileage. So it is a complicated question and one should not simply assume that stopping people driving into the city centre will reduce carbon dioxide. It may have exactly the opposite effect. Q279 Mrs Ellman: Does that mean that you would be against the idea of setting targets? Mr Holmes: Not at all, there are national objectives about reducing carbon and obviously there are lots of ways of doing it, one of which is making cars much more fuel efficient. All I am saying is that simply loading on a charge to people travelling into city centres does not in itself necessarily reduce carbon production; it may actually increase it. Mr Watters: I think the Bill provides some scope for flexing the charge based on the CO2 of the vehicle and so perhaps from that direction we may be able to make some impact and incentivising the smaller, cleaner car by charge may have some effect, I think in London the impact of the charge you would still have traffic coming into the city and so setting targets may not be the approach, but incentivising could be used through the charging mechanism. Q280 Mrs Ellman: Should there be any other criteria in assessing whether a scheme can go ahead, things like dealing with social inclusion and accessibility? Do you think those other criteria should be part of the consideration? Mr Watters: Absolutely, I think one of the things that is lacking in the Bill is a requirement to mandatorily consider the economic impact and social impact of a scheme. I know there is a requirement to consider certain impacts of the scheme but an economic test is not mandatorily required, and I think that should be an element of it. Mr Joseph: We would support an accessibility and social inclusion dimension to this but we would like to see that extended across transport. We argue that social inclusion considerations are not given enough weight in appraisal of transport schemes generally and we would not want to single out charging schemes in this respect. Q281 Mrs Ellman: Do you think that the requirement to improve public transport as a condition of going ahead with these schemes is a strong one? Mr Watters: I think in London it seems to have worked quite successfully. I think that is what the public would be looking for. That is sold as the motivation for charging and so it will have to be delivered in advance really or in tandem with a scheme coming in, but again the travel patterns are different outside of the capital where 70% of trips in cities are still by car, and so it will be much harder to make an inroad. Mr Holmes: I very much agree with that, one cannot take the central London congestion charging scheme as a model for this because the public transport system in central London is, relatively speaking, so much better, and outside London there are very different factors, and I think the evaluation of whether to go ahead with that congestion charging scheme would be much more complex in the West Midlands or in Manchester than it is in London. Q282 Mrs Ellman: How do you interpret the decision to remove the Secretary of State from having to approve local charging schemes? What view do you take of that, is it so that more support can be given in the future or is it to take away national responsibility for schemes and make it local? Mr Holmes: I would not like to hazard a guess as to what was in the Secretary of State's mind. It does seem to me that he may want to distance himself from decisions on these local schemes. If that were the case I think that is a pity for a number of reasons. One is it seems to me that local people would want to know that there is some independent check on what local authorities do, bearing in mind of course that people who are affected by local charging schemes are not necessarily electors in the areas where the charging scheme is being imposed. Secondly, and I think it is a point that has been made before, if one is using these schemes as an experiment to work towards a national scheme then it seems very desirable that the Secretary of State should be able to satisfy himself that they are moving in the right direction and not moving eccentrically. Chairman: We have got quite a lots of things to cover, Mr Stringer? Q283 Graham Stringer: What is at the core of all these schemes is freeing up road space provided at taxpayers' expense for buses primarily to go along. Do you not think it would be sensible (because if there are twice as many buses and three times as many passengers on bus companies would make more profit) to put down a legislative framework which would allow profit-sharing between the local authorities and the bus companies to pay for further investment in public transport? Mr Joseph: In principle, yes, and I think that in some ways the quality partnership framework and the quality contract framework could both be developed in that direction. It is not specified in the Bill. Q284 Graham Stringer: At the moment it just allows for control of bus fares and frequency. Mr Joseph: Yes, you could use the partnership framework, perhaps with contracts, to develop that. One of the arguments that we have made in our submission is that at the moment the Government is offering some quite stark choices, which is the quality contracts regime (which is akin to London franchising with fares and so on) or otherwise you have a quality partnership scheme which tends to be, on past form, route-specific. We argue that you should have long-term quality partnerships covering all operators and whole areas covering the same terms as the integrated transport strategies in local authorities so that you have got bus operators fully bought into the broader strategy and so that you can ally improvements in bus priority with improvements in bus services and build up services over time. At the moment it tends to be all rather route-specific and you cannot put frequency and fares in the quality partnership framework (and the Bill does allow that and that is helpful) but there is not a strategic framework that allows the kind of development that you are suggesting, Mr Stringer, in terms of genuinely developing bus services together. Q285 Graham Stringer: Thank you. Mr Holmes, you talked about safeguards before local schemes were implemented. Do you think you could expand on that? Mr Holmes: Yes, well, we said something about this in our memorandum. Q286 Graham Stringer: It is the five points you put in your memorandum, is it? Mr Holmes: Yes. Q287 Graham Stringer: That is what you were referring to. Are not those five points really deal breakers? How can you protect people's privacy if there is an electronic scheme? How can you stop vehicles being priced off the road? That is the nature of these schemes, is it not, that you will be able to trace where people are and if the scheme is to work then poorer motorists will be priced out of their cars? Mr Holmes: With respect, I do not think they are deal breakers. As regards privacy the Minister of State, Dr Ladyman, has said that it is possible to operate these schemes and maintain people's privacy. Q288 Graham Stringer: Do you believe him? Mr Holmes: I would not want to disagree with the Minister if that is his view. The public may want to be reassured that that is actually the case, but as regards pricing people off the roads, there is a very serious problem with people who are on low wages who have not got the flexibility on the hours that they work and who have to travel on congested roads to get there. I am not saying that it is a deal breaker but I am saying that there should be a period of adjustment to enable people to change their lives, change even where they live, change their jobs, so that they are not suddenly faced with a huge cost of getting to work. I think these things are possible. I do not think people will accept road pricing unless it does have a human face to it as well. Q289 Graham Stringer: Thank you. Just going back to the questions Mr Efford asked about consultation because I would like to put a line under it, is it not irrelevant whether consultation is in the Bill or not because no PTA or local authority could possibly go about one of these schemes without consulting on it? They would be judicially reviewed within half a second, would they not? Mr Holmes: I entirely agree and so I am puzzled why the Secretary of State is minded to remove this requirement. Q290 Graham Stringer: It is irrelevant, is it not? Mr Holmes: It may be but it would be interesting to know what his reasons are. Mr Joseph: As I have said, we want to see consultation and we expect there to be consultation for the reasons you have said, but we do not think that a requirement to consult or have inquiries is necessary in this context. Chairman: I do not want to go back if I can avoid it. I understand the point but if we could move on a bit. Q291 Graham Stringer: It is a question I have asked in a different inquiry but I would like people's views on it: are these local schemes that may be very specific to Birmingham or Manchester or Newcastle, or wherever, the sensible place to start a national road pricing scheme? Mr Joseph: I was asked that I think in your Transport Innovation Fund inquiry and I said I thought that we should have those schemes but alongside them we should have other kinds of developments, lorry road user charging and voluntary-based schemes of the sort Norwich Union did with pay-as-you-drive insurance. We have said this in our paper - we want to see those two. What I think local schemes, or indeed all kinds of experiments will do is test road charging and people's behaviour in practice against complex economic models that the Department of Transport and transport consultants are very fond of but which we have found in practice have a tenuous relationship with reality. I think that one of the benefits of having local as well as other trials of charging is that we can actually see what really happens as opposed to what the models tell us. The models will tell you that a pound spent in petrol duty has exactly the same effect on travel behaviour as a pound spent in a mileage charge. We know from parking and other charges that that is not the case and that is why I think we need a dose of reality thrown at some of the modelling that goes on. Q292 Chairman: I cannot imagine that there is a tenuous connection between the Civil Service and reality! Mr Holmes: It has been said before, Madam Chairman. I would agree that it is sensible to start on the local schemes because one is assuming that the big cities will go for them first and that is where the congestion is the most serious, and - and I think this is putting Mr Joseph's point in a slightly less offensive way - it would be very interesting to know how people actually react. You cannot ask the man in the saloon bar what he thinks about road pricing because he has no view, he does not know what it is, so you need to have a practical experiment and why not start in the big cities, but I do think that they should only be a start. Mr Watters: The problem with a local scheme is that it does not offer the opportunity to flex fuel duty and road tax and that is what the essential element of a national scheme would be, so these schemes would be an additional charge/tax and it would be harder to gauge a reaction to a national scheme. Q293 Graham Stringer: Can I just ask two last questions. In Transport 2000's evidence you say that you want to abolish the bus service operator grants and relate bus subsidy really to the number of passengers carried and then you move away from that in the rural areas and say that maybe something else. Would it not be a good idea to target all that subsidy to subsidise passengers rather than the profits of bus companies? Mr Joseph: I think that the problem that comes with any change in the bus service operator grants - and we have said this - is that if it is linked to patronage, say, it could disadvantage rural areas and you would need to recognise that. What we have set out are some of the disadvantages of moving away from the bus service operator grant. It is relatively fraud-proof and if you went to something related to ticket machines for instance, I remember one operator saying what you do then would be to take the ticket machines home and get your toddler to play with them and add numbers to them, although clearly new technology might avoid some of those things. The thing about fuel is that you have either bought it or you have not and you can check that it has been bought. On the other hand, it is contrary to climate change to subsidise the burning of fuel so if we can find alternatives we would like to see them. We have suggested ways of extending the rebate, we have suggested that you should look at other options, and we support the Government's proposal which is to divert bus service operator grants to local authorities in the areas where quality contracts exist. Chairman: We have got very little time now. Mr Leech? Q294 Mr Leech: Overall does Transport 2000 think that the measures in the Bill will improve bus services? Mr Joseph: Overall they will but we want to see more. Q295 Mr Leech: What is missing then? Mr Joseph: Long-term quality partnership arrangements to bring together operators in a particular area to plan networks over a whole town rather than on route-specific basis, recognising that not everywhere is going to have quality contracts. They have not gone nearly far enough on transforming the traffic commissioners into a passenger-focused bus regulator or indeed in dealing with competition law. Q296 Chairman: Are the new criteria for quality contracts being well-drawn? Mr Joseph: Yes, they are well-drawn. What we have argued though is that we need some experiments with different kinds of quality contracts so as to check out what actually produces improvements. At the moment we have got one model which is London, which has a very heavily franchised system, and we have a free-for-all elsewhere. We would like to see experiments with contracts in between that allow different kinds of services. Q297 Clive Efford: Just on that because what we have at the moment is heavy concentration on very popular and well-used routes outside of London, how are we going to deliver the sort of assessment of social exclusion that we talked about earlier on? How do you get a bus company to expand its network when somebody is going to have to cover the cost of that? How do you see your way through those negotiations to create a network we all want to see? Mr Joseph: With quality contracts you can do that. Q298 Clive Efford: It all comes down to cost in the end. Mr Joseph: It does and we can see ways in which you can apply funding, road charging is one route, through extending fuel duty rebate or the bus service operator grant if you want to do that. We do argue that more money is needed for bus services to support them but we also argue that bus services have to be framed within a wider policy framework. Q299 Chairman: I want to ask you one final question, gentlemen: are you concerned that the changes in the Bill will actually change the competition test? Mr Joseph: We do not believe that they go far enough and in fact we have commissioned a Barrister's opinion from John Swift QC who a lot of members of the Committee will remember as the Rail Regulator but who is one of the country's foremost competition lawyers, to see whether you can change the competition law as it applies to bus services to put a genuine public interest test so that co-operation between operators is positively encouraged where it is in the public interest, and we hope to have that opinion by July to influence this Bill. Q300 Chairman: Mr Holmes, Mr Watters, is that your view? Mr Torrance: Yes, I have nothing to add. Mr Watters: I have nothing to add. Chairman: Gentlemen, you have been very helpful, thank you very much indeed, we are very grateful to you. Memoranda submitted by Intelligent Transport Society for the United Kingdom and Green Light Group (Institute of Civil Engineers and Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport)
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Neal Skelton, Head of Professional Services, and Professor Phil Blythe, Professor of Intelligent Transport Systems, Newcastle University, Intelligent Transport Society for the United Kingdom; Mr Howard Potter, Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers' Transport Board and Chairman of the Green Light Group, and Mr Martin Richards, Member of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport Road Capacity and Charging Forum and Member of the Green Light Group, Green Light Group, gave evidence. Q301 Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. I wonder if you would be kind enough to identify yourselves, starting with my left. Mr Skelton: I am Neal Skelton. I am Head of Professional Services for the Intelligent Transport Society for the United Kingdom. Professor Blythe: I am Phil Blythe, Professor of Intelligent Transport Systems, Newcastle University and ITS UK. Mr Richards: I am Martin Richards, I represent here the Green Light Group and the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport. Mr Potter: I am Howard Potter. I am Chairman of the Green Light Group and a Transport Board Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Q302 Chairman: Did any of you want to start off! We have got your evidence. Mr Richards? Mr Richards: Can I just say that we welcome many of the measures in the Bill but we are concerned that the Government is not providing the strong leadership that is necessary if congestion charging is to be effective in managing congestion across the country within the next ten years. It does not seem to me at all consistent with the programme identified. Q303 Chairman: The Department plans to issue statutory guidance and regulations to ensure local charging schemes have technical specifications which meet the wider public interest. Are these the right technical aspects, Professor Blythe? Professor Blythe: I have a slight concern with this that it is compartmentalising the local transport road user charging from the wider national road user charging. Q304 Chairman: In what sense? Professor Blythe: In the sense that it is giving guidance for local authorities on local charging as opposed to the longer-term aspiration of the Government which seems to be distance and time and place charging, and it is not clear how the two would fit together as well as they could. Q305 Chairman: So are you worried that this is going to limit innovation? Professor Blythe: I think it may and my real concern is that it is looking to some extent at road user charging and the road user charging systems necessary to deliver it in isolation from all the other technologies that local authorities should be being encouraged to implement so that we have a cohesive, integrated transport system. Q306 Chairman: So what are you saying, that they should not specify data formats or numbering systems or encryptions? Professor Blythe: That is all to do with road user charging. What I feel is it needs to look wider than that because once you have a system that can deliver road user charging it is going to give you a lot of technology within the local authority areas to implement other demand management measures and support mobility and that essence is missing from this as it stands. Q307 Chairman: The only thing is do you not think that this is, after all, an experiment and will give a certain amount of flexibility to local authorities to look at what they want? It does not necessarily have to be an exclusive suggestion, does it? Professor Blythe: I agree with that but my caveat to that would be that many of the local authorities, particularly the smaller ones, do not have expertise in-house or even consultants that really understand road user charging to advise them to make the better decisions in terms of what is the best form of road user charging, what is the best technology to adopt within the framework that the DfT is trying to define here. Q308 Mr Scott: Clause 77 of the draft Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to give notice to the Greater London Authority that its existing charging scheme is incompatible with the new regulations and the equipment may no longer be used. Do you think that is reasonable? Mr Richards: As I understand it, this roads change is adding instructions for use. In the GLA Bill of 1999 those powers exist in relation to equipment, and I may have misread it but looking at it very carefully I read it as relating to the addition of instructions for use, so if what is being done in London does not comply or is detrimental to interests outside London in the rest of England then the Secretary of State can require London to cease to use that equipment. It seems to me to be not unreasonable but most unlikely to be called upon because I suspect London is going to call the tune because London is so far ahead of the rest of the country. Q309 Mr Scott: So you are saying you think the rest of the country will follow the sort of scheme that we have in London? Mr Richards: No, I am saying I cannot see the incompatibility that the Bill provides for actually arising. I think it is most unlikely. Q310 Mr Scott: In that unlikely event, would you agree that it would be a monumental and astronomical waste of money that has already been laid out on equipment? Mr Richards: But the GLA Act already provides for it on the basis of the equipment and what this is doing is instructions for the use of that equipment, so the basic provision is there as I understand it. Mr Potter: I would say that it is a difficult test to demonstrate that incompatibility leads to detriment of the type we are talking about. I do think it is important for the Secretary of State to be able to carry out some sort of summary test or assessment of these initial, albeit crucially important, initiatives around charging because the whole route map that we and others are looking for through this very controversial area needs to be taken steadily and securely. There are risks that some of the local authorities may make some ghastly mistakes and therefore there does need to be some sort of central assessment, and we can offer suggestions as to what some of the checks and balances should be. Q311 Mrs Ellman: Do you have any concerns about the use of the data from road pricing equipment in relation to civil liberties? Mr Potter: No, simply because there are many instances of detailed transactions of individuals being processed by various organisations and it is usually for personal or national security reasons, so I do not see why road pricing is very much of a difference. I am talking about financial transactions and mobile cell phone technology. Q312 Mrs Ellman: You do not feel that information about the movement of individuals over long periods is significant? Mr Potter: Personally I do not believe that that is a problem. It will always be put up as an objection from those who do not like the idea of being charged in a more detailed way than, shall we say, the London scheme does at the moment, but that does have to be countered in a very clear way, and that is one of the issues that the Green Light Group is determined to explain in very factual layman's language. Q313 Mrs Ellman: Does anyone else want to comment? Mr Skelton: I would support Mr Potter's opinion that the privacy issue is one that is very much to the public's attention and has to be addressed to their reassurance. The management of data in many transactions is undertaken perfectly correctly and perfectly adequately, and provided the systems are transparent on the management of data, then I see that issue should be resolved to the satisfaction and reassurance of the public. Q314 Graham Stringer: We have heard from previous witnesses and from the Minister of State that the technology can guarantee people's privacy. Is he right to have such trust in the technology? Is he accurate in his description? Professor Blythe: I believe that it can protect privacy. There are a lot of urban myths around user charging at the moment about "spies in the sky" tracking vehicles. You can build a technological and legal framework to protect privacy. The important thing is getting that message across and the point about transparency is so important that it is necessary that people actually understand that that is indeed the case. Q315 Graham Stringer: Do any of the systems that are operating around the world at the moment have that privacy factor built into them or are you predicting something about the future? Professor Blythe: In terms of the systems that are actually operating in either road user charging or toning at the moment, the systems have different levels of privacy built in. In terms of the toning systems on some of the inter-urban road infrastructure, people tend to opt into the system and have a central account with the operator so there is some identification of the individual. In some of the road user charging schemes that are being mooted at the moment there is an opportunity to have wholly anonymous use of the system. I would not advise that is the best way to go in the UK. What I would advise is that there is a relationship and an agreement in terms of level of privacy between the individual and the operator of the system, and that operator may be a third party operator, and it may not be the local authority itself. Mr Richards: If I can add, there is a tradeoff between the individual having an audit trail and privacy. If he wants to have an audit trail of his transactions then that does create privacy issues. If he is quite happy not to have an audit trail, to just pay the charge in cash, then privacy can be assured. Q316 Mrs Ellman: What impact will the European Directive on the Interoperability of Electronic Till Collection Systems have on local charging schemes? Professor Blythe: The impact it will have is confined to two particular technologies that should be used to ensure European interoperability. Short-range road-to-vehicle communications using microwaves, what is known as DSRC, short-range communications, and also satellite-based systems, and the view is that you can use both within the charging regime or one or the other and hopefully, although it is yet to be proven, that will help to deliver a level of interoperability that we have not seen in Europe so far. I think these standards are a culmination of 20 years of work to try and bring together the toll operators and the urban charging operators around Europe into a single framework. Q317 Chairman: It does not rely on Galileo does it, Professor Blythe? Professor Blythe: No. There is the argument that the satellite-based navigation element of road charging will be enhanced with Galileo but clearly the timescales for Galileo are slipping back all the time, so I think in the short term you should not rely on that, although when the Department published its feasibility for national road user charging back in 2005 it said that national distance and time-based charging could be ten years away and that was based on the assumption that Galileo would be delivered by 2008 and then there would be a number of years for type approval, and clearly Galileo --- Chairman: They have always been wildly optimistic, the Department for Transport, as we all know. Mrs Ellman? Mrs Ellman: Does the Government comply with the European Directive? Q318 Chairman: Does somebody want to have a guess? Professor Blythe: It is quoted as saying it will use --- although the European Directive and then the European Electronic Toll System are yet to be fully defined, it was supposed to be delivered at the end of 2006, and we had a meeting with people from the Commission in Denmark yesterday and it is still not quite there. Q319 Chairman: It is still what? Professor Blythe: The EETS is not fully defined, this is the European Electronic Toll System. Chairman: So we have a choice of Galileo that is not there yet or this one that is not there yet. "There was a man upon the stair ..." Q320 Graham Stringer: Can I just follow that up. You mean that the European authorities have not defined their scheme yet or that the schemes in the UK are not defined to be compatible? Professor Blythe: The European Electronic Toll Service, the EETS --- Q321 Chairman: Professor Blythe, have some pity on our notetakers. Professor Blythe: The European Electronic Toll Service was supposed to be fully defined by July 2006. There are still some elements, should I say loose ends, that are not tied up yet. Q322 Chairman: You mean no, it is not defined, those are the words that you are finding difficulty in getting out. So I do ask you again: the attempt within this legislation to suggest a certain type of equipment which should lead towards some form of harmonisation is fairly academic since neither the basic pillars of that policy are actually in place or likely to be in place? Professor Blythe: That is true as far as satellite-based charging is concerned. I suspect - and this is a personal opinion - that within the urban areas, within the local authorities, the TIF authorities, it is probably more likely that you will see tag-and-beacon, DSRC-based systems, being used for urban charging. Q323 Chairman: But are they acceptable within the parameters in the legislation? Professor Blythe: Yes, I think so because it does refer to the CEN and ISO standards which define those elements. Q324 Chairman: You were wanting to make a comment, Mr Potter? Mr Potter: My information, Chairman, is that it would take two to three years to complete the system's architecture, as it is called, that would be of a type that would satisfy the position between ourselves and the EU, but there are some steps to go through at the moment. I think it is adequately covered in the legislation. Q325 Chairman: Now I am confused. I am sorry; I will come back to you, Mrs Ellman, but I am really now confused. What you are suggesting, Professor, is that fairly straightforward and acceptable technology is being used generally? Professor Blythe: I was saying that in the urban areas it is likely that most local authorities will plump for the DSRC tag-and-beacon technology. Q326 Chairman: Are you telling me, Mr Potter, that that is not the case and the parameters are such that you will need two or three years before it can be implemented? Mr Potter: I think it is the GPS aspect where there will need to be about that length of time before anything ----- Q327 Chairman: You are telling us that you think Galileo will produce 29 more satellites in three years? Can I take it that you are almost as great an optimist as the department? Mr Potter: We cannot be certain about the completion for Galileo. There are satellite capabilities already and I think it is more a question of the nature of the design of the systems that would secure general EU agreement which would take a certain amount of time. Q328 Clive Efford: Is the GPS system though currently capable of pinpointing where people are, sufficient to operate these schemes? Mr Potter: In the sense that it has been trialled and tested, certainly the evidence from London, as I understand from TfL, is that it is accurate to within a few metres and it has only lost signal contact in the deepest building canyons in the most narrow streets. Chairman: So it is all right for the City of London? Q329 Clive Efford: That is interesting because near to the A20, which is in my constituency, there is a road that comes very close to it and these GPS guidance systems find it very difficult to differentiate between the two roads because they are in close proximity to one another. Does that not cause a problem? Mr Skelton: It does, and there is considerable effort at the present stage to improve that degree of accuracy because that is where the areas of concern and suspicion about schemes will arise. Q330 Clive Efford: Can that be done here or has that got to be done by people up in space? Mr Skelton: Again, just a variety of methods and means. Q331 Clive Efford: Is that a yes or a no? Mr Potter: No, it is not. It relies upon ----- Q332 Chairman: Mr Richards? Mr Richards: What is important here is what your charge base is going to be. If you are using satellite to determine whether you are within a charged area or outside a charged area, then, so long as you have a fairly fuzzy boundary that allows for some inaccuracy, you can use satellites. If you are using GPS-based technology as a distance base which is independent of the type of road you are on, your concern does not apply because it does not matter which road you are on. If you are saying there is a difference in charge between road type A and road type B and the two are running very close together, then you can have a problem and you would here come across the issue of privacy. Norwich Union, with their pay-as-you-go insurance, have solved those problems but they have solved those problems back at base by knowing where you are and doing some fitting. Q333 Clive Efford: Let me just come back at you on that because if, say, the London charging scheme were based on GPS positioning, and let us take the Elephant and Castle where, if you leave by one junction, you enter the congestion charge zone, you are going to come within very close proximity to the boundary of the congestion charge zone just by driving round that roundabout. Mr Richards: Yes. Q334 Clive Efford: Is it capable of differentiating in that close proximity? Mr Richards: That is where I think you have to have a fuzzy boundary, so you have to be well inside the zone to be sure that you are there so that you do not get people just going round the roundabout. Q335 Chairman: I think we have established the point. Professor Blythe, did you wish to expand on it because I want to come back? Professor Blythe: Very briefly. My own view is at this point in time GPS is not good enough for urban charging. There is work to be done on map matching, and Galileo may offer some benefit to that, but at this point in time, no; maybe in a few years' time. Chairman: You have made your point. Q336 Mrs Ellman: Authorities have to take into account climate change when putting together their charging schemes. How can that be done and do we have the technology to do that? Mr Potter: This aspect gives me some concerns, and we have said so in our submission, first because the measurement of the impact of the pricing measure in terms of its consequence on climate change is going to be extraordinarily difficult to demonstrate and prove with any accuracy. I would prefer to see a more simple check and balance of a scheme in the sense of what impact it will have on vehicle miles within the area that it applies to and what effect it will have on, if you like, modal change from car mode to public transport mode and alternative modes. That is as close as you are going to get to what I will say is useful evidence. There is a connection which I find interesting and that is obviously the whole exemption scenario with any charging scheme, and I feel that it is advantageous, at least in the early stages of the charging initiatives, to use the charging exemption route to encourage a conversion to greener, less emitting vehicles, but I am concerned that there is over-much dependency on, if you like, gaining approval to these schemes simply on the basis of claims for climate change. Q337 Mrs Ellman: Does it mean that there should be different charges for different vehicles related to their emissions? Mr Potter: I would like to see that being possible, yes, and we see initiatives with local authorities going their way with parking charges and there ought to be parallels that might be reflected there. Having said that, I do feel that there needs to be guidance or, if not, some sort of maximum charge or range of charges set by the Secretary of State, which is a question that the previous session had. Q338 Mrs Ellman: Mr Skelton? Mr Skelton: I agree, but it does require a degree of rigour to ensure that the vehicles you are seeking to charge are charged appropriately because there would be a great desire for people to distance themselves from the type of vehicle they have and try to make sure that it was legislated for by a different class of vehicle, ie, a less polluting one. I think it is right to look at different charges but it is important to be conscious of the need to correctly apportion them. Q339 Mrs Ellman: How would you assess the London charging scheme in relation to its impact on climate change? Mr Richards: Going back to your earlier question, Transport for London decided in the end that it was not possible to forecast the emissions impact of the charge in any detail. It requires very sophisticated models which do not exist today and there are lots of challenges. Hence we have a concern about this specific requirement, whether it is a requirement that can be practically satisfied in a way that those people who might want to prevent the implementation of a charging scheme might be able to use it. We think the department has to show how it would be used effectively, how those planning and assessing a scheme could satisfy this requirement because we are not satisfied that they have thought that through. It was a problem in London and monitoring is very difficult because I remember advising the London Assembly from the Institute of Public Health and they were explaining how, certainly as far as local pollutants are concerned, in London there are so many other factors - wind, all sorts of things, that are really much larger scale than what could be expected to be changed through the congestion charge. Q340 Mrs Ellman: Does anybody feel that the impact on climate change can be monitored and assessed in any accurate way? Mr Skelton: Yes. Without going into specific details, ITS UK has a specific interest in these areas and is looking at how intelligent transportation can be used to monitor exhaust emissions and carbon emissions and is trying to find the appropriate means by which to give the travelling public the best means to do that but at the same time reduce the carbon footprint. Q341 Mrs Ellman: You are saying it can be done and the technology is there? Mr Skelton: It is cheap. Professor Blythe: As part of encouraging people to think more innovatively about demand management in road user charging in urban areas there are projects developing, such as boxes to go into cars to advise drivers how they can drive in a more environmentally friendly way and reduce their CO2 emissions. There are ITS projects developing small wireless sensors to be put on lampposts; you can measure the build-up of pollution on the roads as traffic builds up, and you can introduce demand management strategies to overcome that. I think in the longer term, as demand management for road user charging and carbon footprints become more mainstream in the way we think about we travel, you could envisage having a carbon allowance for travel. You could envisage tackling specific problems, for example, very short journeys when the engine is cold. The pollutants emitted by a cold engine when it first starts up are tens of times higher and if you built that into a charging scheme you could begin to tackle these issues more directly. Q342 Chairman: Can I ask you a question that I think arises directly from that? Is it really possible to frame these regulations and legislation in a way that does not almost assume that the Government is picking winners? Professor Blythe: I think it is to some extent framed like that at the moment. It is in part in my view left very much up to the local authorities to try and deliver what is in here without a great deal of guidance in the Bill. Q343 Chairman: And is that good or bad? Professor Blythe: It has good and bad elements to it. The bad element is that many of the local authorities that are not proactive and innovative may ----- Q344 Chairman: The point that was being made before is that you do not have the degree of expertise within local government to be able to judge these systems, so I will ask you again. The department is going to issue statutory guidance and regulation to ensure local charging schemes have technical specifications which meet the wider public interest. Is there anything omitted from that? Is there something that should be included? What about the technical specifications? Should there be a balance between flexibility and centralised co-ordination? Professor Blythe: I think the issue is how much hand-holding local authorities will need to go through that process. It is not clear how far back the department will stand from assisting local authorities. Will they give guidance and then leave it completely up to local authorities? Q345 Chairman: Except that we are talking about legislation here, Professor. We are not talking about an indicative letter issued to transport authorities. Is it going to limit innovation if centralised rules are laid down? I am not clear whether you are saying to me that the department is being too prescriptive or not prescriptive enough. Professor Blythe: I think that in part the danger is that local authorities will feel they are unable to deliver part of this because it is too vague. For local authorities who are innovative it probably will give them the opportunity to do things in the way they see fit for their particular local problems. Mr Richards: The issue here is that the department ought to be providing very clear guidance, probably clearer than it has done thus far, on the performance specification, and allowing some freedom for those local authorities who have the competence to do it with their advisers to innovate, but the crucial thing is interoperability, and that relates in some ways to performance specification. Do not exactly say how the nuts and bolts are going to work together but what comes out at the end, what is required. Q346 Chairman: Should that include the M6 toll? Mr Richards: As you move towards this interoperability across all road user charging - the M6 toll, the Dartford crossing, there should be full interoperability. Q347 Chairman: Do you expect that to happen, Mr Richards? Mr Richards: If that does not happen, and if the Government has not encouraged and created a situation in which that will happen, its prospects of moving towards a national scheme - and we question what "national" means; whether it means some roads across the country or all roads but let us just keep "national" however defined - are very much reduced because I think charging will get into disrepute. Q348 Chairman: Mr Potter, did you want to comment on that? Mr Potter: Yes. I think harmonisation and compatibility are very important in these areas and I am advising in London at the moment. We are, for example, trying to get greater interoperability between the M25 toll, the Dartford toll, the potential East Thames crossing and also, as and when, any further developments in congestion charging, so there will need to be ----- Q349 Chairman: How easy is that? Mr Potter: It is not easy and therefore there is a reason to encourage that process by being to a degree somewhat more prescriptive in order to encourage that kind of harmonisation. The M6 toll is another case in point. In time these types of tolling will need to talk to each other. Q350 Chairman: Who is going to check the compliance? Mr Skelton: I suspect the central authority. Q351 Chairman: The local authority? Mr Potter: No, the national authority. Q352 Chairman: And they would enforce the standards? Mr Potter: Yes, within the boundaries determined, which is one of the reasons why we are so concerned that there seems to be a standing away by central government from this local transport initiative to do with charging and it is one glaring omission in our view. Mr Richards: The interoperability requirements of the EU should indeed solve this. Everything complies with those. We are not saying exactly what the bells and whistles are but we are saying they must be able to talk to each other. Professor Blythe: Yes. Q353 Chairman: Mr Richards, forgive me: I am afraid you have to talk to me, not the Professor. Mr Richards: I am sorry, Chairman. Q354 Chairman: We are boring like that. Mr Richards: My apologies. Q355 Chairman: I am very interested in this but ITS said that the data gathered from the devices can be used for evidential purposes as at present only images are regarded as sufficiently robust as primary evidence, and you were saying that because you feel that inspection and enforcement are fundamental to the schemes. Am I right? Mr Skelton: They are essential parts to ensure the systems operate properly, yes. Q356 Chairman: So are you absolutely satisfied that there will be under this legislation sufficient checks that the technical specifications will be of a certain standard and that that will be clearly demonstrated by some form of control mechanism, and who should control the control? Mr Skelton: I do not think those measures are there in the explicit terms they should be. Referring back to the images, the physical images are the present technology whereby offences are detected and prosecuted in due course. As the intelligent tags and devices become available they will be subject to the same degree of evidential rigour to ensure that they can provide the necessary degree of exclusion, but in answer to your question of who monitors the licences, there has to be a response, whether it is within the local authorities or elsewhere, that monitors centrally to ensure there is a degree of consistency throughout the country. Otherwise you will end up with certain authorities being far more proactive than other areas. Q357 Mrs Ellman: The Secretary of State would no longer be there to approve charging schemes. What interpretation of that do you have? Is it a good or a bad thing and what is it about? Mr Richards: I think there are two sides to this. On the one hand, having seen increasing centralisation of powers, it is good to see powers being returned to local authorities, but on the other hand, if you look at the consultation document, if you look at the record of correspondence and speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, it is not difficult to conclude that the Government is stepping back and leaving, as indeed has been suggested with the London scheme, local authorities (and Ken Livingstone in the case of London) to be the fall guys so the Government can stand back and say, "It is their responsibility; it is not ours because we no longer have to approve the schemes", although, in fact, no scheme is likely to go ahead in England without TIF funding and the provision of TIF funding does imply de facto Government approval of that scheme, so there will be de facto approval but no de jure approval and we are concerned about that. We think that if the Government wants to move forward and these schemes form part of its road plan it has to be seen to be more actively supporting those schemes. Mr Potter: I think it is also the case that some of the charging areas will have, either directly or indirectly, some sort of impact on national roads and that therefore there should be a clear provision somewhere for that particular responsibility to be dealt with, ie, by the Secretary of State, the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency. Q358 Chairman: Can I just come in here? What concerns me a bit, gentlemen, is that you seem to be saying on the one hand that there should be sufficient flexibility for the authorities to be able to tailor their own schemes. You also say you do not think they have got the expertise to do it. You also say that the Government should not specify too carefully what kind of equipment it should be, but on the other hand it must make sure there is interoperability, that there is a relationship between private schemes and national schemes. Are all of you not asking for something much bigger than there is in this legislation? Mr Skelton: You are absolutely right in what you are saying, that there are so many imponderables, and it is seeking to find a happy compromise that satisfies all which is the difficulty. Q359 Chairman: All I want to know from you, Mr Skelton, is, is this particular piece of legislation workable? Are there bits of it in the technical sense that could be better drawn and have omissions? Are you suggesting that central government is not laying down tight enough parameters in this legislation? These are political questions but I need to know whether you think that is the case or not. Mr Skelton: Yes, I would agree with you. I think there is scope within the Transport Bill for greater clarification and for it to be more focused on some of these issues because that will assist local authorities and in due course it is for them to be able to propose schemes within strict guidelines. I think they would find that supportive. Q360 Chairman: Anyone else? Mr Potter? Mr Potter: You mentioned emissions. There are two matters that we drew attention to in our written evidence. One was the apparent exclusion - and it would need detailed legal scrutiny to understand whether it is there or not - of a relationship with national roads in these charging schemes where they may interact in some way, and also we were very disappointed to note that there was no attempt in this local Transport Bill (and I put the emphasis on the word "local" in this context) to repair the shortcomings of the TA2000 in respect of workplace parking levies. It is a perfectly justifiable mechanism for encouraging different behaviour and driving and switching modes (and workplace parking has been demonstrated elsewhere), when applied differently from that in TA2000, to be effective, and we are very disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken in this draft Bill. Q361 Clive Efford: Can I go back on one thing, Professor Blythe, that we were talking about earlier on about differential charging for vehicles of different sizes and emissions? How much should we be planning ahead for tackling congestion and/or climate change because with new technology, advances in clean burn engines and different forms of cleaner fuels are we going to end up with a situation where it is congestion we are worried about more than the impact of vehicles on climate change? Professor Blythe: I think the emphasis here is congestion to a large extent. It is the Eddington view that we are losing productivity because of the congestion. I think in the longer term we need to start building up more our understanding of how we can utilise new technologies and demand management to deal with the climate change, the greenhouse gas aspects, and I think it is a long term set of thinking we need to do now. One report which I think it would be quite helpful to look at is the Office of Science and Technology's Foresight Intelligent Infrastructure study, which looked at how we should look at investing in new intelligent infrastructure for transportation over the next 50 years and some of the advantages that may offer and some of the difficulties we may encounter if we do not begin to think about some of these new technologies and encourage their development now. Q362 Clive Efford: Do any of you have a view on where clause 73 does not have any requirement of an authority proposing a charging scheme to consult local communities? Mr Richards: I was listening to the evidence in the previous session and I was a little surprised at this because my reading of the Bill is that what is being proposed is the removal of the power of the Secretary of State to call for public consultation and a public inquiry and that brings other local authorities outside London into line with the GLA Act which only leaves that decision to the Mayor, so the Transport Act 2000 is rather strange because it says that local authorities "may" consult and "may" have a public inquiry and, on top of that, there is a double whammy because, whatever they day, the Secretary of State could also do the same and my reading of it, and I hope I am right but I may be wrong, is that all that has happened is that the Secretary of State's right to require public consultation and a public inquiry on a local scheme has been removed. The local authority may - and the wording of the Act is "may" - still do that but it does not have to. Q363 Clive Efford: What about the impact that may have on the decision-making process? Do you think there should be a requirement to consult? Mr Richards: As Mr Holmes said earlier today, a local authority that sought to proceed without adequate public consultation would find itself in grave difficulty, just as (although he did not in the end) the Mayor of London found himself subject to legal challenge. I am sure that although the Bill only says "may" any local authority wanting to proceed would have to demonstrate that it had consulted. I think it would be very difficult to proceed without demonstrating that it had undertaken effective public consultation. Q364 Clive Efford: Whether or not its decision was in line with the outcome of that consultation? Mr Richards: Indeed. Q365 Clive Efford: The consultation document suggests that the Bill will provide greater local flexibility in relation to road pricing schemes. Has the lack of flexibility in the past been a barrier to introducing schemes? Mr Richards: The barrier has been the political will and the funding to do that. If you compare the Transport 2000 Act and the GLA Act, apart from this crucial thing I talked about, the powers of the Secretary of State, I do not think there has been a barrier because they are quite similar. Q366 Chairman: Gentlemen, I want to ask you one or two very quick questions before I let you go. Ought the national authority to set maximum charges? Mr Potter: In my view, Chairman, yes, because there is a lot of opposition to charging that is centred around unreasonably high prices and it tends to take away the will to proceed. Q367 Chairman: That worries me. Do local authorities then have enough flexibility to set their own schemes? Mr Potter: Yes, indeed they would. I think the way that tolls are set in legislation there is usually a range of tolls and a decision is taken to hold the price within that range. I do not think there is anything unusual in that if it were done in this case. Q368 Chairman: Clause 65 says that local charging schemes can only be made if it directly or indirectly facilitates the achievement of local transport policies. Is it just enough to say, "I am raising revenue for transport"? Mr Potter: No, it certainly is not in my view, because that has been proven time and time again. The degree of progress that could be made towards any charging scheme, if it is seen to be raising revenues, is likely to be limited indeed. Congestion must remain the main driving point. Q369 Chairman: Professor, is there anything that ought to be in this Bill about bus services? Professor Blythe: Clearly, if you are introducing congestion charging, you need to offer the alternatives, the carrots and the stick, the stick being the charging, the carrots being better and additional choices of transport, so I think that needs to be thought out. Clearly, different local authorities will have different ways of trying to deal with this but without the carrots you are never going to be able to sell the concept. Q370 Chairman: So is there some aspect of bus management that ought to be in this Bill and is not there? Professor Blythe: It goes back to one of my first comments, that I feel that what this Bill is not doing is looking at the wider potential for using intelligent transport technology to make a step change in terms of improvement of local transport, and that includes bus location information systems and, hopefully, eventually a national system for smart car ticketing rather than what we have at the moment. Q371 Chairman: But these are going to be experiments, are they not, and they will have to be paid for? Presumably most local authorities will expect to get a fairly hefty subsidy from a central point. Professor Blythe: I would think so, yes, but the important thing with the experiments is that if we can have some successful showcases that we can show other local authorities and the politicians, the decision-makers and the financiers that we can find solutions for individual local areas and their problems then we will have the flagships. To be fair, I think what London congestion charging has done has been to let out the genie of congestion charging, so many cities around the world are following suit. Chairman: Gentlemen, you have been very interesting and very helpful. Thank you very much indeed. Memoranda submitted by Freight Transport Association and Road Haulage Association Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr James Firth, Manager for Roads Policy, and Mr Malcolm Bingham, Head of Roads Policy, Freight Transport Association, and Mr Jack Semple, Director of Policy, and Mr Roger King, Chief Executive, Road Haulage Association, gave evidence. Q372 Chairman: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Would you be kind enough to identify yourselves for the record, starting on my left? Mr Bingham: Malcolm Bingham. I am Head of Road Policy in the Freight Transport Association. Mr Firth: I am James Firth. I am Road Policy Manager in the Freight Transport Association. Mr Semple: Jack Semple. I am Director of Policy at the Road Haulage Association. Mr King: Roger King, Chief Executive, Road Haulage Association. Q373 Chairman: Thank you very much. Do either of you have something you want to say before we start the questions? Mr Bingham: First of all I would like to offer an apology. I am mandated to do that from my Chief Executive, Richard Turner, who has asked me to express his regret at not being able to be here. His enthusiasm for road charging is only surpassed by his enthusiasm for the management of safety in the road haulage industry and he is with Mrs Bell in the north west traffic area this afternoon doing exactly that. Q374 Chairman: Even I know my place. I would always take second rank to a traffic commissioner, Mr Bingham. Mr King? Mr King: I have nothing to say. We are happy to answer the questions. Q375 Chairman: I think it would be helpful for us to know your views on clause 72, which removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to approve local charging schemes in England. Is that a good thing? Mr King: I think you are asking perhaps whether we would welcome any charging schemes at all. The answer as far as our members are concerned is that we do not welcome charges for goods vehicles in a charging zone. We cannot identify why anyone would want to charge them. Even the draft regulatory impact assessment suggests that freight operators and delivery companies are likely to incur charges because there is limited flexibility as to the times at which deliveries can be accommodated. However, as noted under "benefits", these businesses are also likely to place a high value on journey time savings and increased reliability. What is the point of goods vehicles paying charges in the charging area when it will not have any impact on the commercial vehicle movements? It becomes just another journey tax. Q376 Chairman: Mr King, congestion costs industry quite a lot of money, does it not? Mr King: I am not saying that you could not have a charging regime for motorists because you can make a difference there. They can elect to travel by alternative transport. They can re-time their journeys. That is not the same for commercial vehicles. Cars are going to work; lorries are at work. That is the big difference. Q377 Chairman: But a lorry's ability to unload, to get to its point of destination, to speed up the whole management of its interaction with its customer, must be dictated to a certain extent by the congestion that it meets and the ability it has to unload in particular areas at particular times. That costs money, does it not? Mr King: Yes, it does. Q378 Chairman: And therefore the facility to get to a particular point in an urban area must be of benefit to the lorry, must it not? Mr King: Absolutely, and if you can reduce the amount of other vehicular traffic through alternative transport modes and by using the pricing mechanism to get people off the road, that will leave clearer paths for the movement of vital freight, but we cannot understand why you would want then to tax the truck because the purpose of zone charging is to make the user of the roads re-time their journey for an alternative period. That is not an option available to goods vehicles, ever. Q379 Chairman: In your view the industry times all of its deliveries and all of its provision so efficiently and so inflexibly that it knows exactly what it has to do and it has no way of varying that? Mr King: The contracts that are placed with customers with hauliers are very often these days for just-in-time deliveries. They are timed to certain times of the day, to the hour, almost to the minute. That is how challenging it is for the operator to be able to arrive at a destination when the customer wants it. If you are going to price trucks off the road at certain times of the day and park them up somewhere so that they can come in off-peak you are going to create other problems such as further congestion of heavy goods vehicles. You are also going to cause a situation where drivers are going to run out of hours and working time in addition to where these vehicles are going to be parked waiting for a cheaper rate. Chairman: You have started the hares running now. We will come to you in a minute, Mr Bingham. I am sure you have some equally interesting ideas. Q380 Mr Leech: Mr King, is not one of the potential benefits getting some of those trucks off the road and putting the freight on the railways? Mr King: There is a limited amount that you can put back on rail. Rail is already saturated with passenger traffic and freight traffic tends to move at night. As I mentioned, just-in-time deliveries to supermarkets, to factories, cannot all take place at night. They have to take place continuously during the day. That is part of the manufacturing/retail cycle. That is what makes British industry competitive and productive, so I do not think you can have all goods moved by rail or even a significant extra percentage. You cannot deliver to McDonalds, for instance, by train. It has to be by truck and for that purpose that matches other supermarkets, other high street deliveries. There is no real alternative to the truck. Q381 Mr Scott: Mr King, on that point, would you agree that if charging is brought in for haulage ultimately it will be the customer who is going to pay the extra money if it is going to increase costs? Is that a fair assessment? Mr King: It is, and I am reminded of the Trade and Industry Select Committee report recently which was looking at the changes in work and fortunes of the motor industry, which was migrating towards eastern Europe, and indeed to China. Two of the points they made were the comparison of wage rates but also transportation costs. Are we actually suggesting that the way this country is going to grow economically is by ratcheting up transport costs for the basic commodities, finished goods, raw materials, that are brought in by truck? It only makes us less competitive. Q382 Chairman: I want to bring Mr Bingham in. I do not want this to be entirely a one-man show. Mr Bingham: Chairman, reflecting on those comments, there are some issues that this Association feels could have been addressed within this Bill. We feel a little disappointed that they are not. We feel that it is a local passenger transport bill and we can understand why the emphasis is in that area but we have seen a number of areas where we feel that charging in certain areas can be beneficial if there is sufficient payback, if there is sufficient benefit given to whoever is using that system. In the road freight industry we are looking at areas where we can start to change around the times that we make deliveries but very often we are restricted by local planning consents, by a number of areas, and we feel that this is an area where we might be able to say that if there is, let us say, a £5 charge to get into a town or city but there is a benefit - and the problem is we cannot work out what that is yet - to the operator of £5 or £6 in time, it would help to keep the transport costs at a norm. If there is a disbenefit, if the benefit is only £4 or less to that £5 charge, inevitably that difference in money will be passed on to the customer at the end of the day. Q383 Chairman: If you were to go to your members and ask how many of them actually factor in the cost of congestion, both in their carriage of goods from one set point to another and also in their ability to deliver in congested urban areas, how many of them could give you an accurate assessment? Mr Bingham: I think more and more could. Whenever we survey our members at the moment congestion is one of the two hot areas of cost concern for major companies and their operation. Indeed, many of them have been factoring into their contract arrangements with their customers clauses that would allow for increase of costs should congestion continue to increase. Q384 Chairman: So they would regard that as part of their overheads that they have to assume at the present time when they are negotiating a contract because the reality is that congestion costs them a great deal of money and delay can add to their overheads? Mr Bingham: Yes, but I should emphasise that it is part of the negotiation, as you quite rightly pointed out, and very often that negotiation is not successful on the part of the carrier. Q385 Chairman: Mr Bingham, we are not saying that even the brilliant members of your association automatically get everything they want in every negotiation they enter. What I am asking you is something totally different. If congestion costs your members money do they factor that in when they are looking at the overheads, either in relation to a commercial deal that they are doing with one of their customers or into the overall overheads, the cost of running their businesses, and if that is so then tell me why they should find it so difficult to accept a charging scheme which might facilitate, indeed will facilitate presumably, their commercial dealings with their customers in congested areas? Mr Bingham: On the first point, there is a growing awareness of the issue about congestion and the way they need to factor that into their costs, and therefore all across the industry they recognise how to deal with that, but there is a growing awareness that they will deal with it particularly on the large companies. On the second point, what they are looking for within a charging scheme is, as I said earlier, whether there is benefit in that to their operations that will allow them to move more freely, or whether there are ways that local authorities, in setting up those charging schemes, can put incentives in place, such as allowing night-time deliveries or sharing priority lanes, that sort of issue. What they are looking for is to try and keep the cost base at a level without an increase in cost which they are particularly worried about in terms of local charging because they cannot defer that journey. They have to make those journeys to make the deliveries. Q386 Mr Leech: I have two small questions for Mr Bingham and Mr King. Would it not be fair to say that local authorities or towns, where they have residential areas which are quite close to where you are delivering, would not really have the leeway to allow you to deliver at other times of the day because of the disturbance it is going to cause to residents? Mr Bingham: I think that is a fair assessment, and equally I think it is a fair assessment that you cannot always share bus lanes in every area because those bus lanes are needed to get passengers into the towns and cities. We have seen examples in the north of England where we have another role looking after policy there with places like Manchester and Newcastle and Merseyside, which are looking at ways of trying to facilitate freight into those towns and cities by putting in that sort of measure. We think that that could be coupled within this Bill to allow that to happen, but there is very little in this Bill to accommodate freight. Q387 Mr Scott: Mr King? Mr King: That is correct. We would support that view, that the pressure on residents and an urban environment is very significant and we get night-time lorry bans, as you well know. Those bans were created a number of years ago. Trucks today are considerably quieter and some release of the pressure on deliveries would benefit society generally. We think more work should be done on that. One of the things about the Bill is that it is all very passenger transport orientated. Commercial freight deliveries are not that prominent in it. One wonders whether, as a passenger transport authority exists, a freight transport authority might be a very good idea. The trouble is, that stands for FTA so we would have to think of something else, such as a goods transport authority, which would help overcome of the restrictions we operate under in a variety of ways and bring together a common policy as opposed to lots of individual policies like low emission zones in London, et cetera. Q388 Mr Scott: Where congestion charges are already running in London have your members noticed a decrease in congestion or is it still as difficult for them to carry out their deliveries? Mr King: I am not aware that we have too many members in goods trucks with large HGVs coming into central London nowadays. They tend to avoid it. Q389 Mr Scott: Because of congestion? Mr King: Because of the congestion charging but because they would not deliver there anyway. Those that do, and one thinks of some of the supermarket vehicles, I think have learned to live with it. I think marginally there have been improvements but it is a question of it improves and then it gets slightly worse and then the prices go up and it improves again. Whether or not that is a good thing I do not know. Mr Bingham: I think there is a balance here between the benefit of it and the cost to the company of dealing with a congestion charge. From the London experience we recognise that the charge itself is only the tip of the iceberg for the vehicle operator who is trying to move his vehicles in and out of the areas and deal with the charge itself. One of our worries is that we are starting to see proposals for different schemes across the country. We know, for example, in London that a major company has started to employ people to administer the charging regime, so there is a cost to the companies in dealing with that. If we start to see different regimes across the country our fear is that that will multiply the administration problem for companies, so there is a cost element to it. Coming back to your original question, in the centre of London certainly our supermarket members have recognised that there is a free movement in the central area. Where they have difficulty is getting past the congestion into the central area. Q390 Chairman: Mr Semple? Mr Semple: I wonder if I could make one or two points. In a meeting with our members only last week in the north of England, to take one specific example, which is the Manchester TIF bid, they were unanimous and strong in their view that they are at work rather than going to work and that the purpose of taxing a lorry for its journey would be different from the purpose of taxing a car. If we were to take the Manchester TIF bid, for example, at the moment one of the key issues for an operator is to keep his costs down and make the best use of his drivers' available time, and the pressure on that is going to increase in the future rather than decrease. At the moment trucks tend to try to avoid congestion. The practical consequence of the Manchester TIF bid, as far as we can assess it at the moment, with the increase in bus lanes may well be to reduce the capacity for other road users. If there is no displacement clearly that is going to increase congestion If there is displacement some of that displacement may well be to early times in the morning where the trucks are predominant in order to avoid congestion and will therefore increase congestion at those periods, and with the increase of the Manchester bus lanes there is no guarantee at all that the displacement from the charge will be greater than the reduction in capacity and the congestion that that charge creates in the bus lanes. Therefore, to take the point in the RIA, it is likely to be a disbenefit quite possibly to trucks rather than a benefit. It is far from certain that there will be any benefit to truck movements at all. The administration costs and the costs of collecting the charges for what will be a journey tax are one of the key points that our members are keen to make. Q391 Mr Leech: Mr Semple, is there any evidence that that assumption is made on? For instance, when the bus lane was put in on the A6 or when the quality bus corridor was being put in on Barlow Moor Road in my constituency, is there any evidence that your trucks have then been struggling to get along those routes? Mr Semple: In terms of the Manchester scheme which you are talking about, it is early days but from what we can see there is a clear intention to reduce the amount of road space available for lorries. Chairman: I think you were being asked a different question, Mr Semple, not what do you think the scheme will do to you in future but is there evidence? Q392 Mr Leech: Where bus lanes have been put in in Manchester is there any factual basis for your assumption that there have been longer journey times for some goods vehicles? Mr Semple: I will need to get back to you on that, I am afraid. Mr King: Chairman, the point is that if you increase the number of bus lanes and introduce charging you will have a very different situation than you currently have where you have still got normal access, although slightly restricted with bus lanes, so that the game will change very much. Q393 Mr Leech: In a positive way rather than a negative way? Mr King: You may levy a charge to reduce the amount of cars using the road but if the cars are then restricted by increases in bus lane provision you are almost back to where you started, so you gain nothing except another tax. Q394 Clive Efford: Have any of your members complained of losses as a result of the London congestion charge? Mr King: Losses in their business? Q395 Clive Efford: Yes. Mr King: None that I know of because they have simply charged for the delivery of goods into the area. Mr Bingham: I come back to the point I made earlier on, Chairman. The comments on losses were on the extra administration costs they incurred in employing people to deal with the charging system. There has been some improvement, in fairness, in the London system with the fleet schemes and I think there is a lot to learn from London in the way we deal with this, but that is their main concern, the administration costs. Q396 Clive Efford: Has it led to any more efficient use of vehicles, such as sending one truck where in the past you might have sent three during the course of a day? We have all sat in the traffic jam and when you get there there is a truck with the back up and you can see that there is one parcel in the back of a very large truck that has caused a huge traffic jam. Mr Semple: A parcel lorry can leave the depot with 60 or even 70 parcels. There is going to be a stage at which there is only parcel to deliver before it goes back to the depot to get some more. Q397 Clive Efford: The point is still made. Has there been any more efficient use of fleets of vehicles as a consequence of congestion charging? Mr King: I think the answer is yes, there must have been more efficient use because of the reduction in congestion, but whether that is a saving in terms of the flexibility that the operator used to enjoy beforehand where no charge was made is something that research would have to provide. Q398 Mrs Ellman: Given that there are going to be charging schemes would a requirement to consider freight interests be of assistance to you? Mr Bingham: There is in our view a very distinct area of concern for us where the passenger transport authorities are being given the power to direct local authorities in their local transport plans and because of that the concern is that not all passenger transport authorities have a freight interest. Many do, but not all, and we have seen examples in the past of passenger transport authorities having a distinct preference to obstruct freight movement because of the need to get passengers around, so we feel there is a very necessary element that must be put in this for freight interests within those areas where the charges are put in place and that that freight interest should be reflected through the system. Q399 Mrs Ellman: There are plans in the draft Bill for an approvals board which would be separate from the local authority to assess quality contract applications. Would you like that same process to be used for approving charging schemes? Mr King: In terms of the charging scheme? Q400 Mrs Ellman: Yes. Mr King: Do you mean the actual rate of charge or just the scheme? Q401 Mrs Ellman: This will be approving schemes. Mr King: For the scheme itself? Q402 Mrs Ellman: It will include the rate of charge. Mr King: I think we would want as much consultation as possible if that is part of the administrative arrangements. We heard earlier about the charging scheme and whether there should be a national limit to charging schemes. One of the difficulties here is that you cannot really have a national upper limit because the whole purpose of a charging scheme is to make a seismic change in the amount of use of roads at certain times of the day and local authorities must have the power to levy a charge sufficiently high to get that change and it will differ from area to area. That is why I think they need to consult very closely with those people that will be using the roads in those zones and having to pay the charges. Q403 Mrs Ellman: Does there need to be any consistency in charging in the different schemes from your point of view? Mr King: Throughout the country? Q404 Mrs Ellman: Yes. Mr King: As I say, I do not think there can be if it is going to work because the charges in London would have to be higher than perhaps in Newcastle because wage rates are different and if you were charging Newcastle rates in London people might say, "That is so cheap I am going to continue to use the roads". I think you have to take into account the zones and the areas of the country in which the charge is going to operate. You cannot have a national tariff. Q405 Mrs Ellman: Are there any other views on that in terms of consistency? Mr Firth: There is a requirement for consistency in style, certainly, with the appearance of the Manchester scheme, which is different in the way it operates from the London congestion scheme. If we end up with ten different schemes out of those that have shown interest in the TIF schemes that is going to require education of drivers and training on what different things they will expect to encounter when they come into different cities. On that basis we would like to see the way in which you are charged to be continuous across regions and that would be an additional requirement of the Secretary of State. Q406 Mrs Ellman: Except in these proposals now the Secretary of State in fact would not be approving them. Is that a problem? Mr Firth: In answer to the Chairman's very first question, we would like to see the Secretary of State having final approval on schemes and on the application of the revenues generated from those schemes. Q407 Mrs Ellman: Regulations made under clause 75 could make provision so that a road user could register with one charging scheme, install the equipment and then choose for these arrangements to apply to other charging schemes. Does this satisfy your concerns about interoperability? Mr Firth: Yes, we would want to see the highest level of interoperability. There is also the question that is addressed in the Bill of instructing London that they will have to conform with the interoperability. We would like to see any scheme kept as simple as possible because complexity brings administration costs. I have spoken to one member about this who is part of a national operator who has 32,000 vehicles, and if we are talking about having lots of different types of charging schemes which a national operator would have to take account of then that expense is going to be multiplied, and in the proposal from Manchester that describes the windscreen tag as having a refundable deposit of £15 to £20, so there is not really a point at which an operator can see they are going to ask for their money back. They are always going to need that, so it is a cost to them, and to an operator with 32,000 vehicles, okay, they might not all expect to go into Manchester but it is a significant cost. Q408 Mrs Ellman: Are you satisfied with the adjudication arrangements for technical problems? Mr King: I think we would have to wait to see what the outcome of that is. There are going to be a lot of big questions to ask and equally big answers given as to how the system is going to work. We have heard about the very big operator. As for the very small operator with seven or ten trucks, with customers all over the UK, if there is a possibility of going into Manchester or Birmingham does he fit every vehicle in his fleet with a device, most of which will not go near the area? What happens if a vehicle not fitted with the device, in the interests of not running empty, is diverted to go into Manchester or Birmingham to pick up a load? How does he then, as he is going in without a tag, pay his charge? These are the things that have got to be decided and are going to be quite problematic, because a national scheme will be just one card and you are charged on every single road. In theory that is very easy to do but this is going to involve half a dozen separate schemes with probably different interpretations, so we need to have somebody who can adjudicate on the fairness of each one. Mr Semple: The operator with 32,000 vehicles may well have in absolute terms a very expensive administration. The administrative burden on an operator with seven or eight trucks or 32 trucks will be that bit greater possibly in terms of the percentage of his costs and available time. Q409 Mrs Ellman: Would it be better for you if there was a national scheme? Mr King: In theory, yes, and one of the things we would like to see with road pricing, which we tried with the lorry road user charge but failed the cost/benefit test, is that, commensurate with a road charge, we would get a fuel rebate and therefore level the playing field with foreign operators increasingly coming into the UK, and also get a charge from foreign operators. The other point, of course, is, what about foreign operators? Are we going to require every one that comes into the UK to have a tag for Manchester, a tag for Birmingham or a common tag for both just in case they go into those conurbations? What will be the arrangements for dealing with foreign traffic? Q410 Mrs Ellman: If there is not to be a national scheme what could be done to deal with your concerns within these proposals or in changing these proposals? Mr King: There needs to be a great deal more consultation on the practical questions, which are not addressed in this particular paper. It simply says we are going to have a charging scheme or allow local authorities to have a charging scheme. There is no indication of what the technology is going to be. There is no indication of when it is going to be available and no-one has any idea how it would actually work and what happens if you have not got a charging device and you have to do it manually? I think under EU rules you have to provide that. You have to have a back-up for the incidental operator. That is what cost the German system a lot of money because the electronic system worked okay eventually, but they have to offer the manual operation for the casual user. I think some of the cities that are thinking about an all-singing, all-dancing electronic system should be aware that they may well be obliged to provide a manual system to back it up. Q411 Mrs Ellman: Does all of this mean you want more rather than less central control over this, or central involvement? Mr Bingham: I think there needs to be more central direction than is indicated in the Bill. One of the problems we see about the enforcement of this, and it was reflected in the comment made about foreign vehicles, is that very often the enforcement is done by ANPR cameras. The difficulty with that is that they are blind to vehicles that are not registered by the DVLA and therefore that creates a system which is deemed to be unfair across UK operators, that possibly foreign operators will get away with not paying the charges. There is a similar concern over the London low emission zone. One of the things that we are encouraging at the moment is the move towards registers of non-UK vehicles and the way that that is being taken forward. It is a possibility for managing and working towards a fairer system of charging. Q412 Mr Leech: Just on the point you made about foreign vehicles that are not registered in this country, would you then support the registration of all vehicles that come into the country? Mr Bingham: By one form or another? Q413 Mr Leech: Yes. Mr Bingham: The difficulty is how do you deal with that? You would probably need further legislation to accomplish it and therefore bring in the element of central control again. Mr King: There is a technical problem as well in that the tractor unit of an articulated unit has a different registration number from the trailer, so that if you are going past a camera you will get the trailer registration plate and that will not lead you directly to the operator of the tractor unit, so there are significant problems there. Mr Semple: The Secretary of State is saying that a lot of the local charging schemes are a precursor to a possible national charging scheme, so he obviously must have some ideas as to where all this is going and perhaps some direction is important, but I think the discussion this afternoon from colleagues has partly served to highlight the very different rationale between charging motorists and charging lorries and also the degree of complexity of the issues involved in charging commercial vehicles and the foreign trucks problem particularly is one that cannot be underestimated because we are getting more and more vehicles coming into the country, and if somebody has come from Romania and is tipping half his load in Leeds and half his load in Manchester there must be an arrangement for that. Q414 Chairman: I do not doubt life in transport is very complicated. Finally, gentlemen, are you happy with the increased powers? We have already established how important traffic commissioners are and so are you happy with the increased powers in the Bill to the traffic commissioners and in particular the creation of a post of senior traffic commissioner? Mr Bingham: We have recognised for a long time that there should be greater consistency across traffic commissioners and we have made various statements about that in the past. Where we are slightly concerned is that traffic commissioners have created a trust within the industry about what they do and how they deal with issues on a local basis and the move in the Bill to give the senior traffic commissioner power to direct other traffic commissioners is a point of concern. I would not like to overestimate that because we do not really understand what it means yet. We understand why it has been put in place, to help the regulation of the bus industry, and we can recognise that, but we would not like to see it degrade the trust that has been created between the goods industry and the traffic commissioners and the way that they deal locally with each other. Q415 Chairman: Are there more powers that should be given to the traffic commissioner or fewer? Mr Bingham: We feel that the traffic commissioner has got the right powers and the right independence to operate, and that is valued. We already have a senior traffic commissioner in place in effect but not by statute, so in some ways we are quite relaxed about the fact that it is being put into statute. The concern is, will it affect the local traffic commissioners' ability to deal with local issues that they understand? Q416 Chairman: You have criticised in your case the proposed introduction of integrated transport strategies and implementation plans for passenger transport authorities. Are you against the principle or the scope? Mr Firth: We are against the principle of these being run by the passenger transport authority, which is defined, as I understand it, in the Bill as a body which has little or no interest in the delivery of goods in urban areas. Q417 Chairman: If they are running an integrated scheme across the whole of a particular area why should they not have an interest in what happens with freight? Are you simply saying that because they are interested in passengers they would never be interested in freight? Mr Firth: I think there needs to be a requirement that they should pay attention to freight, so this would be stipulated in the transport strategies. Q418 Chairman: So it ought to be one of the criteria is what you are saying? Mr Firth: Yes. Q419 Chairman: Before the scheme is fashioned one of its criteria should be to understand the implications for the freight industry and take account of their involvement? Mr Firth: Yes. My only complaint is that it has the word "passenger" in it which gives too much focus on passengers, and I will accept that that is a petty complaint, but if it did stipulate a freight requirement then that is what we would be looking for. Mr King: You asked a question about the traffic commissioner. We have a slightly different approach to that in that we are very concerned about the appointment of a statutory senior traffic commissioner. Q420 Chairman: Why? Mr King: The argument is that there is not consistency or there has been too much inconsistency. The alternative to that is consistent direction. The whole basis of the traffic commissioner and his relationship with the haulage sector and the bus sector for 71 years has been in a quasi-judicial way which has served the industry extremely well. Hauliers and operators know when they go in front of the traffic commissioner that they are getting a fair and open, neutral hearing free from any direction from anyone. A senior traffic commissioner gives advice, of course, as to how his colleagues should interpret things, but the benefits of having a traffic commissioner that sits and adjudicates on the case in front of him and decides according to the evidence presented to him and not as the result of directives handed down by the Department for Transport or VOSA that you should do this or that is a very important one for the industry. Of course the role has to evolve and of course we need to have changes. Indeed, we have incorporated them, I think, over the last few years. The traffic commissioners are more open with their decisions and there is more work to be done on that. Indeed, the RHA is holding a forum with traffic commissioners and other interested parties to look at ways in which we can improve the relationship we have without treading on their judicial abilities. It says in the regulatory impact assessment that the industry would welcome more consistency. That is a double-edged sword. If it is consistency in that the traffic commissioners have to do what the Government is seeking them to do then we do not welcome it. We welcome efforts to improve communications between what the traffic commissioner does and the industry does, that which is already in place at the moment and being used more frequently, and we believe the existing system has served us extremely well. Q421 Chairman: So you have never had any of your members complaining that they have been faced with different sanctions from a same-sized firm in the region next door with a different traffic commissioner? You have never had complaints of inconsistency between the decisions of one traffic commissioner and another? This is an idea which is totally foreign to your members? Mr King: Over 71 years and tens of thousands of hearing, of course that kind of thing has occurred. Q422 Chairman: So what objection could you possibly have to the department laying down parameters that would lead to consistency of decision-making? Mr King: Because the word "direction" comes in. "Direction" means that the traffic commissioners would lose their flexibility to take into account all the evidence they have heard and make a finding. Sometimes we do not like those findings. Sometimes we will argue about it and say, "That was not very consistent", but it is the inconsistency that gives us the trust that each case is considered on its own merits. Q423 Chairman: Do you apply the same line of reasoning to the courts of the country dealing with human beings as opposed to traffic problems? Do you feel that any kind of consistent parameters laid down by the Lord Chancellor in relation to judges are something that cause more trouble than less, or is it only traffic commissioners who are not to be trusted? Mr King: Traffic commissioners receive advice and help from the senior traffic commissioner. Q424 Chairman: I am not clear where the problem is with the consistency. What is wrong in a traffic commissioner in one area being reminded that within certain parameters there should be a degree of consistency between two regions? Mr King: It is sometimes not possible to have a consistent approach. Q425 Chairman: But does the direction in the Bill indicate to you that they will be forced to take decisions against their judgment and against the balance of evidence that has been presented to them? Mr King: That is a worry. There is an underlying belief that there is more pressure from Government. Q426 Chairman: Where in the Bill, Mr King, does it say that consistency will lead us to a degree of direction? Mr King: The Bill and the descriptions do not actually tell us where the inconsistency is occurring. It simply says, "The industry tells us things are inconsistent". Yes, we have had inconsistencies. Q427 Chairman: So you actually told them in the first place it was inconsistent and now you are saying you do not like it? Mr King: We did not tell anybody that the traffic commissioners were inconsistent. Q428 Chairman: Oh, I see. Other people may have done but you have not. Mr Semple? Mr Semple: I think one person's inconsistency can be one of two things. One person's inconsistency can be a traffic commissioner's proper exercise of her or his discretion in an individual case and that may be misinterpreted by the company involved. Secondly, it is possible that there can be a genuine inconsistency given two apparently individual cases. We do not think that is particularly common and there is no pressure from our membership for a change in the system because, insofar as no system is perfect, an occasional inconsistency as opposed to proper exercise of discretion is acceptable. Q429 Chairman: Let me put it to you like this, Mr Semple. You are telling me there is not actually any inconsistency; therefore there is not a problem with the department requiring people to be consistent? Mr Semple: I think the department in its consultation paper specifically says that the industry has a great deal of confidence in the traffic commissioners because of their independence. It perhaps should attach more importance to that assessment, which it makes itself. Our concern is that under the proposal - and it is just a concern; we need more detail - that independence, which the department itself recognises is important, would be undermined. Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen. It has been, as always, very informative. |