---

Local Transport Bill [HL]

Sometimes one has to feel sorry for the Government because they are damned if they do and damned if they do not. We spend most of our time complaining that the Government are too centralising and set down too stringent targets for local authorities and on the one occasion when they let something go, we all ask them to put it back. It seems to me that any local authority or ITA that attempted to bring in road user charging without effective consultation would be absolutely mad. However, that links back to the point in previous debates about governance. It seems to me, under the current arrangements, that if a PTA, with representation from across the piece, attempted to bring in a road user scheme that did not have the support of the population, those people would fairly rapidly pay the price. The problem with the form of governance allowed in the Bill is that a single person, whose contact with the wider electorate might be quite tangential, would not be so accountable and, therefore, could bring in a scheme against the wishes of local people. In a sense, the Government’s bind over this is of their own making, because one can either have robust local democratic arrangements, and leave the local area to get on with it, or, if the Government are to insist on controlling the governance arrangements, this House and, as we have heard, the Transport Select Committee in another place will seek to set limits on how much they can impose on the local area. The Government really need to think very carefully about the relationship between the governance arrangements and what they seek to achieve through road pricing.