---

Road Pricing

What a good debate we have had, but that comes as no surprise when we are discussing a report prepared under the stewardship of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I am delighted that she will be gracing the school with her presence tonight, as she graces us with her presence in the Chamber. I welcome the debate on road pricing and the Transport Committee report on it. Road pricing is part of the wider debate on our transport system, the acute problem of congestion and the public policy decisions that have put such a strain on our transport infrastructure. In introducing the debate, the hon. Lady identified the effect on traffic; she talked about the displacement effect on smaller roads, and other possible results of road pricing. She dealt with the effect on individuals and communities, when she spoke about social exclusion. I want to deal with that in some detail. She also spoke about the effect on revenue, when she highlighted the tension between revenue-neutral and revenue-raising approaches. Those effects will permeate much of my speech, and they have permeated much of the debate so far. I am sure they will be central to the Minister's considerations. I am pleased that the Government and the Transport Committee recognise the severe problem of congestion. There is cross-party concern about it, and it is not a matter of partisan politics. I also welcome the willingness of the Committee and the Government to consider new ways of dealing with the problem of traffic on the roads. The Committee has done a good job of identifying the key difficulties, examining the possibility of a road pricing system and posing some key questions for the Government about such a scheme. I want to amplify some of those questions, and I hope to add some of my own. I intend to continue in this consensual vein, not just out of personal taste, but because we all want to support fair and effective measures that relieve the problems of congestion. However, I hope to ask some of the many remaining fundamental and critical questions about the Government's intentions. The Department for Transport anticipates a 30 per cent. increase in road traffic compared with 2000 levels by 2015. The Committee states:"““Congestion already has a strangle-hold on many of our towns and cities at rush hour and on important parts of the strategic road network.””" The danger of the Government's approach is that it fails to deal with the root causes of that extra demand. The answer cannot be simply to price the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society out of travel, when it is becoming increasingly difficult to go about one's everyday business without embarking on long and numerous journeys. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that there are two ways of dealing with congestion and, for once, I disagree with him to some extent. He said that the problem can be dealt with either by taking a non-interventionist approach and allowing congestion or by intervening and introducing what I think he described as a measured form of pricing. However, there is a further way of dealing with that problem—by examining and adjusting demand. Indeed, when the Government came to office, they were quite bold about that. In their early days, they recognised that transport policies were not simply a matter of reacting to an inevitable circumstance of ever-growing demand and were prepared to look at how that demand could be altered. I therefore want to talk a little about the change in traffic, travel and transport, and how public policy can affect demand. Although everyone recognises that growth in the opportunity to travel for pleasure has enriched our lives, the travel revolution has also had less desirable effects on necessary travel. People have become obliged to travel more and for greater distances than ever before in pursuit of everyday objectives. Government policy means that people have to travel further and for longer not only to work, but to access core public services. For example, policing has become increasingly remote: one in four police stations has closed since 1990, obliging people to travel ever greater distances to report a crime, or to deal with the police in an everyday way. The threat of regionalisation of health and other services is also likely to lead to greater demand for travel. There is also a greater obligation to travel to access shops. The average distance that we now drive to shop for food each year is 898 miles, compared with 747 miles a decade ago. The goods that we buy at supermarkets also travel for longer distances before they reach us. Although our lives have been enriched by the availability of exotic fruits—I imagine, Sir Nicholas, that you enjoy a star fruit or a kiwi fruit with the best of people—many products that could be produced locally now travel ever further to get to us. I represent a rural constituency in Lincolnshire where people grow a lot of vegetables. If I went into the supermarkets in Holbeach and asked for a cauliflower grown in Holbeach, I suspect that people there would look at me as though I was mad. They would not know where the cauliflower had come from, and even if it had been grown in Holbeach, it is quite likely that it would have been transported to a distribution centre and then sent back to the supermarket close to where it originated. We therefore have a serious problem not simply with access to shops, but with the distance travelled by the products sold there. The official figures show that the distance that food travels—known as food miles—increased by 15 per cent. in the 10 years to 2002. The use of heavy goods vehicles to transport food has doubled since 1974, and food transport accounts for 25 per cent. of all miles driven by heavy goods vehicles on our roads. As a result, the CO2 emitted by food transport has risen dramatically. Some 19 tonnes of CO2 were emitted in 2002 as a result of the transport of food—an increase of 12 per cent. since 1992. According to a Government report, time lost through traffic congestion, wear on roads, ill-health caused by air or noise pollution and accidents—all caused by food transport—cost the UK £9 billion a year. That is half the value of the food and drink manufacturing sector, which is £19.8 billion. The amount that we are obliged travel has risen also as a result of the Government's housing, planning and employment policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) is a doughty defender of the interests of his constituents, and is known in his area as someone who will stand up against Government plans to create unsustainable communities. He will know that the Government plan to build 200,000 houses in four growth areas in the south-east of England. To drive that new development through, the Deputy Prime Minister is taking control of planning away from local communities and giving it to unaccountable and distant regional bodies. Incredibly, however, the Government have failed properly to assess the environmental and infrastructural impact of those decisions, despite repeated warnings from Committees of the House. The Environmental Audit Committee recently reported:"““It is astounding that despite the clear need for an assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposals for the Growth Areas as a whole, nothing has been done to date by ODPM or DEFRA to address this issue.””" In short, it is important that the debate on road pricing and congestion is seen in the context of a broader debate—one about the impact of public policy on the need to travel. It is important that we consider the effect that obligatory travel has on quality of life. We want the Minister to liaise, co-operate and collaborate with other Ministers to ensure that decisions made by Government—the problem is not peculiar to this Government—are consistent in respect of their impact on transport and infrastructural costs, and the environmental consequences of those costs. That is the nature of the fundamental and wide-ranging debate that needs to take place, and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to it briefly. Early in this splendid report, the Committee says:"““What we urgently need is a proper evaluation of the costs of congestion and an understanding of the impact congestion has on the UK economy.””" The Committee recognised the wider context that I have tried to highlight. An effective road pricing scheme will obviously depend on the evaluation that the Committee suggests. The Government's response to that is that they are"““taking forward a research programme to look into this area.””" Will the Minister elaborate on what that programme is, and to what timetable it is operating? Can we have a proper debate on finances—the taxation and revenue aspects of the subject? There is a fundamental difference between revenue-neutral schemes and tax-raising schemes, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made clear. A revenue-neutral scheme would replace existing taxation with a new form open to more subtle manipulation, although the possible effect of displacing traffic from trunk roads to rural and smaller roads has already been highlighted. The logic of a revenue-raising scheme is that the ever-increasing demand for road use can be suppressed only by higher taxation. To tax road use is to treat a symptom, not the disease. The real issue is that we are obliged to travel more as part of our everyday lives. If we do not deal with that, we will be punishing the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens; we will be restricting their ability to travel, even when it is essential that they travel to maintain a decent quality of life. I make a special plea to the Minister on behalf of rural motorists. As I have said, I never waste an opportunity to advance the interests of my constituents—something I have in common with you, Sir Nicholas. You will know that I represent a rural constituency with a sparse population, many of whom do not have of the luxury of easy access to public transport. For them, the subject is vital. Imagine if they were charged to do the basic things—getting to school, work or the most fundamental facilities. Compare that to the example of the citizens of leafy Ruislip-Northwood, who, we understand from the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), have more cars than they know what to do with and easier access to all sorts of local services. I have nothing against Ruislip—I do not want to suggest that for a moment—but the challenges and difficulties are entirely different in the two areas described in my speech and that of my hon. Friend. Let us be clear: it is impossible to have a meaningful debate about road pricing if the Government do not set out their position on the fundamentals. Would road pricing be revenue-neutral or an additional tax? The Government response to the report makes no mention whatever of the Committee's conclusion, which states:"““There are strong arguments behind introducing road pricing on a revenue raising, rather than a revenue neutral, approach, if a national system were to be implemented.””" Why have the Government failed to respond, or will the Minister respond today? This is not a question of detail; it is fairly central. It is vital to address it if we are to inspire confidence in the Government's intentions and if we are to have the clarity of purpose mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood as well as an open and honest debate on the difficult issues and the related challenges they throw up. There is an ethical issue, which the Committee described as an issue of social exclusion. It is perhaps even bigger than that: how do we regard freedom to travel and where is it on the scale of importance? What do we believe people's rights and opportunities should be? As a Conservative, Sir Nicholas, like you, I do not hold much truck with natural rights, but having said that people have become accustomed to having the opportunity to travel freely and in a way of their own choosing. We need to take the broader ethical question of the balance between obligation and freedom into account as part of this important debate. I know that the Minister takes such matters seriously, and, as I have said, much of the subject goes beyond the partisan Punch-and-Judy politics that sometimes characterises our exchanges in this place and elsewhere. The report also notes that"““without complementary planning restrictions, cheaper road travel in rural areas could promote out-of-town land-use development, and would further reinforce car dependency””." I would be interested to hear what discussions the Minister has had with the planning Minister about out-of-town shopping and related planning decisions, which will have an impact on road use and maybe on road pricing. The Committee also expressed concern that a road pricing scheme would hit the poorest hardest, as I suggested, stating:"““While improvements in public transport and car sharing options would undoubtedly be an advantage to many people, there will still be disadvantages for people with low income who have no option but to continue to drive on congested roads at peak times.””" To be successful, road pricing must be part of a coherent strategy that addresses the number and length of journeys we are obliged to make as part of our everyday lives. If that is not the case, road user charging will simply displace traffic on to rural roads or make it impossible for vulnerable members of society to go about their business. There is some doubt in this Chamber, which has been expressed by a number of hon. Members, about whether the scheme would be national or local. The Committee reported in paragraph 58:"““If road pricing were introduced, the business and haulage sectors would want to see a single, seamless interoperable system with single billing. Without some co-ordination the administrative burden for businesses which had to deal with a number of different systems could be significant.””" In paragraph 62, it went on:"““Local and regional authorities must be involved in determining design and charges, but an overriding national framework would provide consistency for the user, as well as lowering the costs of implementation for the local authority.””" Will the Minister address in his winding-up speech the fundamental point of whether the charging scheme would be a single, national programme or a variety of local schemes? Is there any guarantee that the Government would use the revenue raised by road pricing to benefit motorists? Would that money be hypothecated? Would it be ring-fenced? Would it be ploughed back into the many important causes that are dear to our hearts and which assist travel? We expect one of the coldest winters in recent years, yet the Government are consulting on a proposal to remove the tax exemptions enjoyed by snow clearers and gritters. That is shocking, and surely not a responsible action. I cannot believe that this sensible Minister would have any truck with such a policy. It must be an error, which I hope his words in this Chamber will put right. The Association for Public Service Excellence has warned that"““the move to remove exemption from winter maintenance vehicles in particular will have a considerable impact on budgets in what is a crucial and highly visible local authority service. The effect will range from authority to authority but could be as high individually as £125,000 . . . With limited budgets the implication is that the financial resources would result in a reduction in the mileages of treated roads . . . It is estimated that the cost of a single fatality on the roads is over £1.5 million. There is therefore a substantial risk that the suggested £0.5 billion savings in fuel fraud will be less than the cost to the wider economy and the proposals will have an adverse effect on the overall economy of UK . . . the actual cost of these proposals will be borne by the public by either increased Council Tax or reduced services””." I digress a little, Sir Nicholas, and I am grateful for your indulgence. I shall conclude by posing serious questions: some are amplifications of what the Committee has said while some give further weight to hon. Members' comments. First, as we have heard during the debate, the Government support the development of local and regional demand management road pricing schemes through their transport innovation fund. Will not that give rise to a plethora of schemes that are based on different technologies? If so, those schemes will do little to inform a nationwide scheme that uses one technology only. How will the results be judged and then scaled up for a nationwide scheme? Secondly, which of the several road pricing schemes around the world have the Government studied? Will the results of those studies be published? Thirdly, what risk is there of the Government abandoning any future national road pricing scheme, as they did the lorry road user charging project? Abandoning that scheme cost the companies that were working to implement it tens of millions of pounds. I must take the opportunity to say what a powerful point the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made about foreign heavy goods vehicles escaping the legal obligations that British hauliers endure. It is not really appropriate for our hauliers to be put at a commercial disadvantage because of the Government's inability or unwillingness to create a level playing field on which they could compete with foreign hauliers. The hon. Lady also said that that is a matter of great concern to her and to her Committee. It is of great concern to the Opposition, too. I hope the Minister can satisfy us that he is on the ball and dealing with that problem; I hope he urgently introduces proposals in the House. What assessment have the Government made of the possible effect that the local trials will have in displacing shoppers and traffic to neighbouring areas? How will businesses that find themselves suffering inside local congestion charging areas be compensated? Most will be familiar with what is often known as the cliff edge problem, whereby a business is located just inside a congestion charging area, but most of its customers and clients are outside—for example, a shop or a nursery. Where the scheme begins and ends is a real problem, although the Minister will have thought about that and, with his usual ingenuity, will devise an appropriate solution. Will any local or regional scheme under which drivers, at their own cost, volunteer to have positioning satellite receivers in their cars produce skewed and irrelevant results? Will car-tracking data be held? If so, by whom and for how long? What work is being done to ensure the compatibility of road pricing schemes across frontiers in the European Union? That matter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). How much will the GPS box cost? How can drivers predict how much they must pay for a given route? Will hire cars and foreign cars be treated in the same way as UK ones? We know that in London, for example, within the congestion-charge area, some embassies pay the charge and some do not, or so I am told. Does the Minister know anything about that, and might that precedent spread alongside congestion charging? It is right in principle to discuss this matter—the Secretary of State has called for a debate, the Transport Committee has examined the issue, we are having this debate and we will have an ongoing discussion on these aspects—but I suggest to the Minister that the debate would be better informed if it were clearer where the Government stand and if they answered some of the questions posed by me and the Committee. The Minister will not be able to answer all those questions today, in the short time available to him, nor would I expect him to. I am happy for him to write to me, and he will wish to take the matter further in future debates. He might wish to adopt the style of inductive reasoning, whereby he starts with a theory and tests it. At the moment, we must deduce the outcome from sometimes disparate information and from uncertainties, rumours, hints of what might happen and the line that the Government might take. That is no way to hold a meaningful and productive debate. I hope that the Government can go some way to correct that. We must take these matters seriously: they involve the UK economy, the UK's communities and the well-being of our constituents—the citizens of the United Kingdom.