---

Local Transport Bill [HL]

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has just said. I want to make it absolutely clear why we object to Clause 98. Consultation is essential if a proposed road charging scheme is to be in the interests of local people. Above all, a transparent approach will be valued by the public. We would argue that there is a great deal of suspicion from the public around road charging, and neglecting consultation requirements will serve only to increase that and distance communities from their local authorities. I believe that the Government made a pig’s ear of selling national road user charging to the public and allowed scare stories to prevail. The Minister seemed to agree with our view at Second Reading. Indeed, all of the Government's responses agree that consultation is important. Why, therefore, do we have a clause in the Bill to abolish the requirement to consult for English schemes and why are Welsh schemes different? That is very odd. It may be the case that local authorities considering charging schemes are expected to develop strategies for consultation which are best suited to local circumstances. But this is hardly the approach of other parts of the Bill, where comprehensive lists of organisations and people are given in the consultation requirements. Why do quality partnerships and quality contracts have explicit consultation requirements listed in the Transport Act 2000, when road charging has the potential to be much more contentious and directly affects motorists and is proposed to have no explicit consultation requirements? In the Government's published response to consultation, it is stated that the general requirement about engagement with citizens in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 will have effect once that Act comes into force. That may be true, but why abolish the absolute requirement to consult? Will that be yet another matter for guidance?