---

Road Pricing

: I do sometimes. The hon. Lady suggests that I take a train from a sedentary position—well, one cannot take a train from a sedentary position. I usually take the train, but occasionally I must drive, so I do. Many motorists like me used to drive up the M1 until they almost reached Derby and then drove straight across to Stoke. We have ceased doing that, which might in part explain why the figures have changed. That is not a standard example, however, so it is very difficult to draw satisfactory conclusions from it. Similarly, none of the schemes under consideration are fiscally neutral. The Government recommend a fiscally neutral solution. The Select Committee, in part, advocates that. I have studied the Government response in some depth and contrasted it with the rather more forceful statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport when, not so long ago, he excited us all with the imminent appearance of a national road pricing scheme. For all the reasons I have given, the language of the Government response to the Select Committee report is far more tentative than that statement. It uses words such as ““consensus””, ““research””, ““complexity”” and ““setting milestones””; there are lots of ““whethers”” and ““ifs”” in the text. Such caution is partly justifiable, but three things are certain: first, the Government will not find support, nationally, locally or, probably, in Parliament, unless the evidence for the policy is convincing. Secondly, they will not find support unless the public can, however begrudgingly, see the need for the action. One reason for congestion charging not becoming a political disaster was that most people could, from time to time as they travelled around London, easily identify the futility of the previous arrangements. Anyone who, in 2001, got in a taxi and asked to go anywhere and just sat going nowhere with the clock ticking over recognised that something needed to be done. The public must recognise the necessity for action, and there must be open, manifest and forceful public dialogue. Thirdly, the detail of any scheme, whether local or national, needs to be carefully thought through. The devil is often in the detail and that is true of road pricing. There is no need to be dogmatic or presumptive, but there is every case for holding a good, open and intelligent debate on the subject.