Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) I beg to move,
That this House has considered smart road pricing. It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank the House of
Commons Library, the Transport Committee, whose report is tagged on
to the debate, members of the Greater London Authority, and many
others who helped with the research ahead of the debate. I also
thank Members of all parties who have shown an interest in speaking
in...Request free trial
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered smart road pricing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I
thank the House of Commons Library, the Transport Committee,
whose report is tagged on to the debate, members of the Greater
London Authority, and many others who helped with the research
ahead of the debate. I also thank Members of all parties who have
shown an interest in speaking in today’s debate, and I look
forward to hearing everyone’s contributions.
Before I bite into some of the meat of this policy, I want to
briefly set out some of the constituency context in Carshalton
and Wallington. The London borough of Sutton is ranked 29th out
of the 33 London boroughs for transport infrastructure, and that
includes the City of London. Sutton is the only borough in London
that does not have access to a London Underground station, a
London Overground station or Crossrail, nor it is not on the map
for Crossrail 2. According to a report from City Hall, Sutton is
the least-funded transport borough in the entire city. As we
might expect, given that it is on the geographical fringes of
London, Sutton has some of the highest private car ownership and
usage rates in the capital. Put bluntly, Carshalton and
Wallington residents rely heavily on cars for their work and
personal life, and any policy that impacts on road transportation
impacts on my constituency and constituents. As we work towards
achieving our net zero ambitions, we must ensure that we strike
the right balance for our constituents in order to create truly
sustainable alternatives to high-emission modes of transport.
Road pricing—or road charging, as it is sometimes
known—essentially involves making a direct charge for the use of
a road or network of roads. Sometimes that charge is based on
certain factors, such as the distance travelled, the time at
which one is travelling, or the environmental impact of the
journey, which relates to the vehicle itself. Of course, road
pricing is not a brand-new concept. Much of the modern road
network in my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington—I feel
like I am going back to my maiden speech here, but I hope the
House will indulge me—was built around historic toll roads. The
Carshalton to Ewell turnpike was built in the 1750s and is still
an arterial route going through my constituency today. It is
known better as the A232, Carshalton Road, Croydon Road or the
high street, which is an historic road that passes between the
picturesque Carshalton ponds and All Saints Church, which has
been in situ for over 1,000 years.
Thankfully, the toll road, like so many others, has been
consigned to the dustbin of history. However, we are seeing calls
for a resurrection of road charging across not just London but
much of the UK. Londoners will know very well about the
congestion charge and the ultra low emission zones, which I get
regular complaints about from constituents, who describe the
impact that such zones have on their journeys in and out of the
capital. We have also recently heard about potential plans for a
Greater London boundary charge, which would mean that those
living just outside London, rather than Londoners specifically,
would pay between £3.50 and £5.50 to enter the capital. That was
heavily lobbied against and has now been taken off the table as a
potential option.
As part of the consultation, however, Londoners are now being
asked to share their views on extending the ultra low emission
zone from the North and South Circulars, to which it has recently
been expanded, to the whole of Greater London by the end of next
year. However, it does not stop there. Plans were also announced
in a report commissioned by the Mayor of London, which
recommended the introduction of smart road pricing in London as
early as mid-2020. That was further reinforced by an exchange
that took place between the Mayor of London and Assembly members
during a question time session about Transport for London’s
finances.
In order for us to have a comprehensive debate on this issue, it
is important to distinguish between road pricing in its broadest
form and smart road pricing specifically. Smart road pricing uses
technology to charge users based on the following factors: the
distance driven; vehicle characteristics, such as the type, its
emissions, the weight, the axles and so on; the time of day, day
of the week or even time of the year that the car is being
driven; and the segment of the road being used. In very
simplistic terms, smart road pricing could take a number of
forms. It could look like a taximeter fitted into private
vehicles, with a charge sent directly to City Hall, or other
regional authority, every time it is used. More likely in the
early stages of this technology, it could look like a smartphone
app, which allows the car to be started when someone wants to use
it.
Smart road pricing has become an area of interest in discussions
around net zero, although at City Hall discussions have
predominantly focused on its potential for TfL finances. The main
sources of revenue that fund roads and other Government spending
are vehicle excise duty and fuel duty, which are predicted to
decline due to decarbonisation, essentially the replacement of
the internal combustion with electric vehicles. That revenue
represents about 1.5% of UK GDP, and zero-emission transport has
the potential to wipe out that funding. I appreciate that that
presents a dilemma. How do we decarbonise transportation while
continuing to raise money and invest in roads and other public
spending commitments?
I can see why the Select Committee on Transport has already done
work in this area. I will not dive into every detail of its
report, but I want to highlight its findings. The Committee made
a number of recommendations, including that smart road pricing
must be a national project, not a regional one. It concluded that
we must wait for technology to be ready to implement such a
project. It stressed that there must be no additional costs to
drivers, compared with current fuel and vehicle excise duty. Most
importantly, for my constituents at least, it must be subject to
public consultation. That is serious for my constituents, because
they have experienced so many examples of schemes being
implemented when they have said no in a consultation. If we want
to have faith that the public’s views will be listened to, that
simply must not be allowed to happen.
We are presented with a glaring problem. If we price people out
of their vehicles, without potential alternatives available, we
will not just be hitting people’s pockets by charging them more
to use private vehicles; we could be costing them their
livelihoods. They might no longer be able to afford to use their
private cars, with no alternative available. Rather than looking
into this scheme, I urge the Government and regional authorities
to revisit their public transport offer. I hope the Minister can
tell us how the Government will address the dilemma and
future-proof our road networks in a way that is fair to all road
users.
4.37pm
(Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I
welcome this debate and congratulate the hon. Member for
Carshalton and Wallington () on securing it. He will be
interested to know that the Liberal Democrat leader of Sutton
Borough Council would agree with many of the points he has
raised. She wrote to the Mayor recently about this issue,
highlighting the points raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton
and Wallington about the lack of public transport in Sutton and
how that needs to be addressed before further plans for road
pricing can be progressed.
The hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine face many of the same
issues. My constituency also lies in the suburban outskirts of
London and has relatively high car usage. I certainly sympathise
with some of his remarks and concerns about taxes imposed on car
users. My constituents also have reservations about the ultra low
emission zone, which has been in place since late October and
cuts right through the middle of my constituency. I welcome any
move to improve air quality, but it has created issues by cutting
people off from essential services such as Mortlake crematorium
and Townmead recycling centre.
Despite my reservations about the arbitrary boundary divisions of
the ULEZ, I firmly believe that action needs to be taken to
dissuade car usage. I am strong advocate for the implementation
of a simpler, fairer and more sustainable road pricing solution.
London is extremely congested, our air quality is poor, and
current levels of car usage cannot be maintained if we are to
achieve our net zero goals. A report published by the Greater
London Authority earlier this year found that car traffic must
reduce by at least 27% across the capital, in order to achieve
net zero by 2030.
There is a cross-party consensus that some kind of road pricing
scheme that charges motorists on a per-mile basis would be
beneficial, especially in London. It now seems inevitable that
such a scheme will be implemented in due course. Current taxes on
fuel and vehicle ownership will raise nearly £37 billion this
year, but those revenues will dwindle as fossil fuels are
replaced by zero-emission alternatives. The need for change is
pressing if the Government are to retain current levels of tax
revenue while also reducing toxic air pollution and cutting
congestion.
The majority of road users would be set to benefit financially
from smart road pricing. Those who are not high mileage users
would bear only a small cost if other road charges and vehicle
excise duty were removed.
(Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Member is making some good points about London, but I
urge her to think about the solution recommended by the Transport
Committee that this should be at national level. Certainly, those
people who live in rural communities and counties outside
metropolitan areas could be very adversely affected by per-mile
road pricing. It could, in fact, put people out of work; it could
affect the ability of families to take their children to school
and all sorts of other issues. I urge her to look at that and
consider it in the suggestions and remarks she makes to the
Minister.
The hon. Member raises an important point. What we are trying to
achieve is a certain amount of equity. He is absolutely right
about the contrast between rural and urban car usage and
ownership. Although my remarks focus on what might be best for my
constituents, I accept that it would be an entirely different
matter in his part of the country. Per-mile road usage charging
may not be the most equitable solution across the country.
Certainly, for my constituents, a per-mile scheme would mean less
cost than now in terms of the taxes they pay on petrol and
vehicle excise duty.
Polling undertaken by YouGov for the Institution of Civil
Engineers in 2019 suggested that a pay-as-you-go model of road
pricing has popular support—47% of British adults stated that
they would support a pay-as-you-go model if it replaced both
vehicle excise duty and fuel duty, and just 23% opposed. For
those living in urban areas, the first means of transport should
automatically be public transport but, presently, in
constituencies such as Richmond Park, and Carshalton and
Wallington, public transport is both underfunded and
unreliable.
It is not right that those who use cars simply because they have
no other practical way of getting around should face large
increases in taxes. Any new road pricing scheme must also be
matched with adequate investment in public transport. In London,
that begins with a long-term funding settlement for Transport for
London. Constituencies on the outskirts of London require a
central London-style public transport system that allows my
constituents and others to travel across the borough and between
neighbouring boroughs easily and quickly, in order to decrease
car usage.
In addition to public transport options being made available,
they must also be accessible and affordable. This month, the
Government have increased rail fares by 3.8%, with another
increase set for July. The Liberal Democrats have proposed to
scrap this rail fare increase and to further implement a
five-year freeze on fares to encourage people in urban areas out
of cars and on to trains. If residents in urban areas are
properly supported to reduce car usage through increased
availability of affordable public transport, a smart road pricing
scheme can offer a fair alternative to current vehicle and fuel
duties. Such a scheme will be coming in some form. In principle,
I think we can all agree it is necessary.
The conversation must now focus on how we can best support our
constituents to reduce car usage and to ensure that the design of
any road pricing scheme is given adequate consideration.
Consultation must be undertaken with key stakeholders to avoid
unfairly disadvantaging car users with no other practical means
of transportation.
4.44pm
(Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington
() for securing this
important and increasingly topical debate.
Finding new ways to justify charging motorists to drive their
cars is becoming increasingly fashionable among certain
politicians in this country, especially in London. Just last
week, the Mayor of London, , announced a consultation on
expanding the ultra low emission zone to the Greater London
boundary. He claims, of course, that it is to do with air quality
and congestion, but it is not.
I am holding up a map taken from Transport for London’s website
at the time when it was investigating setting up the ultra low
emission zone. There is a colour code. Yellow is the legal limit
for air pollution in London. The worse the air gets, the redder
or more orange the map gets; the better the air gets, the bluer
or greener it gets. As hon. Members can see, bad air quality is
located in central London, around Heathrow airport and on some of
the trunk roads into and out of those areas. There is not bad air
quality outside the North and South Circulars or in outer
London.
The expansion of the zone is actually about raising revenue—not
surprising, given the financial mess that Transport for London is
in. It is true, of course, that the pandemic hurt Transport for
London grievously, and it would not be sensible to deny that.
However, a catalogue of blunders preceded the pandemic, such as
the unaffordable fares freeze, which, by its own calculation,
cost Transport for London at least £640 million although likely
much more. There was the failure to maximise the commercial
revenue for Transport for London and of course the complete mess
that made on the oversight of
Crossrail. The Mayor’s TfL business plan was predicated and
extremely reliant on the revenue that Crossrail was going to
deliver if it was on time and on budget. But thanks to the
Mayor’s failure to adequately scrutinise Crossrail despite his
role as chairman of Transport for London, which is the overseeing
body, TfL is now short of billions of pounds of fares revenue
that it would otherwise have raised.
Expanding the ultra low emission zone to the Greater London
boundary will have shattering consequences for people living in
outer London. It will cost the owner of an older vehicle who uses
it every day £4,500, even before they have paid for fuel or road
tax. That will hit everybody, of course, but the poorest
Londoners—those less able to replace their vehicles—will be hit
hardest.
I just want to challenge the hon. Gentleman on the point that the
charge will hit everybody. Obviously, I have experience of ULEZ
coming into my constituency. It applies only to diesel vehicles
and petrol vehicles over a certain age. I was worried about the
impact, but I have to say that the number of people actually
affected has been much less than I thought.
The hon. Lady is correct. The charge will hit petrol vehicles
registered in 2006 or before; as I just said, poorer Londoners
will own those. It will hit diesel vehicles registered in 2014 or
before. A car registered in 2014 is not particularly old. I had a
diesel vehicle that was registered in 2012, which I got rid of
the minute was elected Mayor of London. I
knew that the charge was coming, that it would be unaffordable
and that there would soon be no second-hand market for the
vehicle. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford a newer car,
but many people in London will not be able to, and the charge
will hit them. The point that I have made using the map in my
hand is that the charge will be hitting them completely
unnecessarily.
There will be a devastating hit on an economy struggling to
recover from the pandemic—for no reason. This is the thin end of
the wedge. We know that Sadiq Khan’s ultimate ambition is to
introduce road pricing in London. He has not hidden that. The
letter to every London MP accompanying the announcement of the
ultra low emission zone actually said that his ultimate objective
was to replace all forms of charge in London with a road pricing
scheme. The Mayor’s transport strategy of 2018 says that he will
give consideration to the development of
“the next generation of road user charging systems. These could
replace schemes such as the Congestion Charge, Low Emission Zone
and Ultra Low Emission Zone. More sophisticated road user
charging…could be used to contribute to the achievement of the
policies and proposals in this strategy…to help reduce congestion
on the road network and support efficient traffic movement. In
doing so, the Mayor will consider the appropriate technology for
any future schemes, and the potential for a future scheme that
reflects distance, time, emissions, road danger and other factors
in an integrated way.”
In the same document, which is revealing of the Mayor’s thinking,
he says that people need to address
“the fundamentally inadequate and unfair way in which road use is
paid for in London, with motorists paying too little, and in
effect being subsidised by public transport fare payers. Measures
such as road user charging (where appropriate), land value
capture and the devolution of financial powers to local level are
essential to delivering an efficient and fair funding
system.”
I want to concentrate on the claim that motorists are subsidised
by public transport users. That claim simply does not stack up.
Setting aside the fact that most Londoners use a mixture of
travel modes and cannot easily be categorised as motorist,
pedestrian or cyclist, it is notable that at the time at which
the strategy was launched, the Transport for London annual bus
subsidy amounted to £722 million and, in addition, Transport for
London provided in excess of £318 million for concessionary
travel across its network, taking the level of publicly funded
subsidy to well over £1 billion per annum. By contrast, London’s
2.6 million drivers were collectively paying £1.9 billion in
motoring taxes, so I do not see how the Mayor can make the claim
that motorists are being subsidised by public transport users. It
is actually very much the reverse.
For many people, driving represents freedom. We should not be
sanguine about the state seeking to undermine people’s ability to
get into their own car and drive directly to wherever they want
to go. Owning or having access to a car can significantly
increase an individual’s travel opportunities, but road pricing
is a policy that seeks to curb, undermine or remove that.
I would like to make a further point regarding freedom and it
touches on a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton
and Wallington made in his introductory remarks. The technology
required to make this form of road pricing work would almost
inevitably have to include some form of global navigation
satellite system technology. In other words, there would have to
be in every vehicle a black box that would be capable of
identifying exactly where each car had been located at any given
time. That creates both practical and civil liberties
considerations.
In practical terms, there is the question of how the technology
would be imposed on those driving in London—if indeed we are
talking about road pricing solely in London. Currently, some
British motorists choose to install a black box in order to get
cheaper car insurance, but a situation in which the technology
was mandatory would be very different. How would the Mayor ensure
that anyone who wished to drive in London had a black box in
their car? Londoners drive around London, but people from outside
London also drive across the Greater London boundary, so how
would that work? Trying to introduce road pricing in Greater
London alone, rather than in the whole of the UK, would be, as
has been touched on by colleagues, fraught with difficulties for
that very reason. In terms of civil liberties, many people would
be very uncomfortable with the idea that the state might be able
to track their every move via their car. As yet, that issue has
not been addressed by anyone advocating any form of road
pricing.
Therefore there are significant economic, practical and civil
liberties problems with this idea, but it is the impact on
people’s everyday lives that merits the highest consideration. If
tries to force Londoners out of
their cars by increasing the cost of driving, he will inevitably
catch those who have little choice but to drive. Even if there
are exemptions for specific individuals —for example, blue badge
holders—there will still be ordinary Londoners who need to drive
but can no longer afford to do so. For a great many of my
constituents, in common with those of the hon. Member for
Richmond Park () and of my hon. Friend the
Member for Carshalton and Wallington, a car is an essential
feature of their everyday lives, not least because there are few
genuine alternatives for many journeys. In much of outer London
and particularly in south London, the choice for those using
public transport is the train or the bus. Trains are mostly a
radial option; they are very useful for travelling into central
London, but they are of little use if people want to make an
orbital journey. Buses are much more useful for orbital journeys,
but by their very nature, they are both relatively slow and often
indirect. Many Londoners feel that their car is their best option
for journeying outside London. That is particularly the case when
the public transport alternative would involve travelling into
central London and then out again. Road pricing, even if applied
only to the London-based section of a journey, would increase the
cost of those journeys without doing anything to improve
them.
In conclusion, it is not a surprise that the current Mayor of
London would prefer to squeeze more money out of Londoners and,
ideally, outer Londoners, who are less likely to vote for him.
Nor is it a surprise that he should seek to dress this cash grab
up with high-minded justifications about air quality and
emissions. Such a policy is fraught with difficulties and has so
many downsides that it should be a non-starter, but if the Mayor
of London decides to proceed with expanding the ultra low
emission zone or, worse, introduce per-mile road charging, the
Government should step in and stop him.
4.54pm
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Sir Charles.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
() on securing the debate. He
started by making a strong point—I am not sure whether it was
about his constituency or whether it was about Sutton being the
only London borough without a tube station. I have sympathy with
that, growing up and living for most of my life in Renfrew, which
is the largest town in Scotland without a train station. I
thought that he made a powerful contribution at the start of the
debate.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park () said that the case for change
was pressing, if we are to maintain taxation levels and reduce
road transport’s carbon footprint; Members will hear from my
speech that that is something I wholeheartedly agree with. She
also referenced the report by the Institution of Civil Engineers,
which means I do not have to; for the purposes of time, I am
grateful for that.
The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr
Poulter), who is no longer in his place, made an important point
about the difference between rural and urban. Any scheme that
came in would have to take that difference into account, and
there would have to be variations or exceptions for those in
rural areas for that very reason.
The hon. Member for Orpington () clearly had issues with TfL
and the Mayor of London, but he made a very stark point about the
£4,500 cost before running costs of any other expansions of ULEZ.
I should declare that I am a member of the Transport Committee,
which the hon. Member referenced in terms of road pricing. It is
true: we said recently that there is no viable alternative to
road pricing moving forward—certainly that we can see at the
moment. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich
also reiterated the point that the scheme must be national.
Unless he meant Scotland having a national scheme, that is
something I have a slight disagreement with, but I will come on
to that later.
If road pricing is to be workable, it needs to be part of a
wholesale review and replacement of our complex taxation system.
The current arrangements are increasingly not fit for purpose in
the 21st century, with a system that—apart from some tweaks and
amendments over the decades—is, at its core, the same system that
has been in place for nearly a century.
Net zero and reducing carbon emissions are obviously policies
that go far beyond transport. They straddle all aspects of our
society. Reducing car usage, improving public transport and
developing active travel as a real alternative to private
transport will have a huge impact on us all and on how we live
our lives. Getting people out of cars is intrinsically linked to
improvements in public transport, which, in turn, helps to
support our town and city centres; again, in turn, that helps to
develop local economies and provide better employment in our
communities.
With private cars accounting for around 40% of transport-related
emissions, bringing down levels of car usage is a key strand in
the Scottish Government’s drive towards a net zero society. Their
target—which, I admit, is hugely ambitious—is to reduce overall
car kilometres by 20% by the end of this decade. There is no
doubt that it is a tough target, but it will result in huge gains
in carbon reduction if it can be met.
To salami slice road pricing as something that can be leveraged
to promote those reductions while leaving other policy levers in
the hands of the DFT and Treasury —as we have seen with buses,
aviation and, notably, trains, for the last 20 years or so—is a
recipe for delay and the danger that our large-scale ambitions
will not be met. To have a situation where portions of charging
and taxation policy are devolved while some remain at Westminster
is a recipe for confusion and, above all, being unable to fully
realise the potential that could be unleashed with the full
devolution of powers over motoring taxes to the Scottish
Parliament—the Minister probably did not expect me to say
anything less.
Sales of electric vehicles are at record levels, despite—I would
say—the UK Government’s policy at times. While we have some way
to go to match the astonishing progress in countries such as
Norway, the trend is clear: EVs are replacing internal combustion
engines and, by 2032, every car sold will have to be
zero-emission. As that switch happens, the revenues from fuel
duties will drop at an ever-increasing pace; as overall emissions
from private vehicles drop, so too will revenue from vehicle
excise duty based on CO2 emissions without further reform. The
Transport Committee heard evidence that, without action, taxation
revenues from motoring will drop to zero by 2040 if UK targets
for net zero are met. Clearly, that is neither sustainable nor
healthy for road users or our wider economy.
I do not pretend that the transition to a modern taxation regime
will not involve a real and sometimes difficult national debate
and conversation about vehicle taxation and its impact on
motorists and other road users; one has only to look at the
debate around a workplace parking levy in Scotland at the moment.
However, the alternative is a long-term disaster on our roads,
for our environment and for our wider economy. The transition
must include: as I said, the full devolution of power over
motoring taxation—all taxation, if in the Minister’s power, but
certainly motoring taxation—to the Scottish Parliament.
The enhanced incentivisation of the extra grants for home
chargers, a scheme whose scope the UK is inexplicably slashing in
April, and interest-free loans, along with significant investment
in much more comprehensive electric vehicle charging
infrastructure in Scotland, compared with most of England, serve
to highlight the differences in policy and, more importantly, the
urgency with which it is delivered. Without the taxation powers
to tie together the changes in duty revenue, however, along with
the wider policy objectives of the move to net zero, the Scottish
Government are fighting with one hand tied behind their back. Yet
still, over the past 10 or 20 years, they have outperformed the
UK Government on all those metrics.
Transferring full control over vehicle and motoring taxation to
the devolved Administrations will allow policy to reflect the
different pace at which things are moving. On nearly all indices,
Scotland is outstripping the rest of the UK in the transition to
net zero, and yet the fiscal and financial framework in which the
Scottish Government have to operate is stuck in the last century.
It takes little to no account of the different priorities of the
respective Governments.
To conclude, the Chancellor has made a commitment in writing to
the Scottish Government to engage with Scottish and other
devolved Governments on motoring taxation. I hope that the
Minister will get the ball rolling for colleagues as quickly as
possible, to ensure that serious discussions can take place with
the devolved Administrations on how and when those powers can be
transferred to Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont as timeously as
possible. What might work for Greater London—Greater London has
been mentioned a lot in this debate—cannot be copied and pasted
into Scotland or Wales. To sum up, I hope that the Minister will
provide us with an update on that proposed engagement.
Today alone, we have seen action by the Irish Government,
temporarily cutting fuel duty by 15 cents and 20 cents for petrol
and diesel, respectively—to help the haulage industry and to keep
the cost of living down. Whether that should happen here is a
debate for another day, but it shows how a Government with the
will and the power to act quickly in the face of changing
circumstances can take real action on motoring and haulage costs.
Road pricing and the renewal of modern motoring taxation will
give Governments here in Westminster and in Edinburgh the
opportunity to respond and react far more nimbly and responsively
to such challenges and to provide the kind of support needed by
road users and industry alike. I urge the Minister to speed her
colleagues along in delivering the road taxation system of the
future.
5.02pm
(Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir
Charles.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington
() on securing this important
debate. It comes at an extremely important time, following the
COP26 conference and a renewal of global efforts to reduce our
reliance on the use of fossil fuels. I also take this opportunity
to thank the much respected Transport Committee for its work
exploring the issue and its recommendations. Some hon. Members
have concentrated their remarks on London—rightly so, as they are
fighting on behalf of their constituents. However, the problem is
a much wider national one, and the solution required must also be
national.
The Labour party welcomed the Government commitment to ban the
sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030, for which we had
been calling for some time. As electric vehicles become more
accessible to consumers and charging infrastructure improves, the
prevalence of electric cars and vans on our roads will increase
sharply, in particular as we approach 2030, thereby impacting on
tax revenue. We need to look carefully at funding shortfalls
because of the increase in electric vehicles, but we must ensure
that grants and support schemes are available for those making
the change.
Grants for electric vehicles were cut twice last year, falling by
half. The upper price limit for eligible models also fell twice,
first to £35,000 and then to £32,000. That is down from £50,000
in March. Similar grants for small vans also fell. As someone who
made the transition to an electric car a couple of years ago, I
personally attest to the benefit, both environmentally and
financially. Serious concerns, however, remain on the lack of
charging points, with only a fifth of what will be needed by 2025
currently installed. Manufacturers, planners and council
officials have all been critical about the slow progress in
providing charging points. Last year, a survey conducted by the
Local Government Association of 84 local authorities found a lack
of coherent strategic direction at the national level and no
vision of clarity on the role that local authorities play in
delivering charging points.
The Competition and Markets Authority has determined that a third
of households will rely on public infrastructure—those without
access to a drive or a garage, where installation of a charging
point is more difficult. It has criticised the roll-out as too
slow and said that it has resulted in a postcode lottery. The
analysis shows that of the 5,700 charging points, only 1,000 are
outside London. For example, the total number of charging points
per head in Yorkshire and the Humber is a quarter of those in
London.
I want to draw attention to several aspects of the report, which
the Labour party welcomes. We welcome the recommendations,
mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North
Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who is no longer in his place, to consider
the impact on vulnerable groups and those in rural areas who are
more reliant on their own personal vehicles. We also welcome the
report’s inclusion of the need to encourage people to use active
travel or public transport options.
There are some aspects of smart road pricing that I ask the
Minister to address in her remarks. Smart road pricing would rely
on the installation of a telematics device in vehicles. As the
hon. Member for Orpington () mentioned, people may not
actually wish for one to be installed as they are fearful of a
Big Brother society. How will the Government address this balance
of privacy and data collection? In implementing a new scheme, it
is important that motorists are part of a conversation and do not
feel that a new scheme costs them more. The Government must
ensure that any proposals do not add to the already desperate
cost of living crisis faced by people across our country. Will
the Minister commit to ensuring that any proposals brought
forward are part of a wider conversation?
Finally, another consideration is that some schemes around the
world have higher rates for driving during peak times or when
using arterial routes. No conversation on the future of clean
transport and road pricing can be had without considering public
transport, as hon. Members have rightly mentioned. Just a year
ago, the Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary launched the
“Bus Back Better” strategy. They pledged a great bus service for
everyone, everywhere. They promised it would be one of the great
acts of levelling up. That was the ambition. The £3 billion of
transformation funding was supposed to
“level up buses across England towards London standards”
with
“main road services in cities and towns to run so often that you
don’t need a timetable”.
There would be
“better services in the evenings and weekends”
and
“simple, cheap flat fares that you can pay with a contactless
card, with daily and weekly price capping across operators, rail
and tram too.”
In reality, across the length and breadth of our country and
particularly in the north-west, many are counting the cost of
broken promises. A letter sent to local transport authority
directors by the Department for Transport on 11 January made
clear that the budget for the transformation of buses—a pot from
which local regions can bid for funds—has now shrunk from £3
billion to just £1.2 billion for the next three years. Towns and
cities across the country have put forward an ambitious blueprint
to use buses and rail to connect people to jobs, families and
opportunity, and to tackle the climate crisis in the process.
They have plans, despite the challenges, to completely overhaul
and reregulate the bus network as part of the bus service
improvement plan.
Labour leaders in power in towns and cities nationwide have real
ambition to reverse the decline we have seen under the Tories.
They want to build a London-style system and make buses quicker,
cheaper, greener and more reliable, but they need a Government
that matches their ambition. Now it is becoming clear that, far
from matching the ambition of our communities, the Government
have pulled the rug from under them. Will the Minister own up and
admit what the Transport Secretary will not—that many areas will
now not see a single penny of this transformation funding?
Will she detail exactly how much local transport authorities are
set to see in transformation funding and will she come clean that
there will be areas that will miss out altogether? Will she also
commit to building a public transport system that helps our
transition to a cleaner, greener economy?
5.10pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles.
Despite having the title “Smart Road Pricing”, the debate has
been wide-ranging. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for
Carshalton and Wallington (). I know that he has now
mentioned his constituency in Parliament well over 100 times; he
is an excellent champion for the area, which was clear in the way
that he described the challenges it has faced.
I turn to some of the measures that were raised, almost in
reverse order. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Slough
(Mr Dhesi), veered on to the subject of electric vehicle
charging. That is not strictly the subject of the debate, but
with your permission, Sir Charles, I will briefly explain that we
have 27,000 public chargers in the UK, of which 5,200 are rapid
chargers. Project Rapid would see a minimum of six rapid chargers
of 150 kW or more at all 170 motorway service areas in
England.
We know that we need 10 times the charging infrastructure that we
have at the moment. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed
the Government’s decision to phase out the sale of new petrol and
diesel cars. I would like to clarify that that is not a ban on
the sale of petrol and diesel cars; it is a phasing out of their
sale from 2030. I accept that the sale of second-hand petrol and
diesel cars will continue for many years.
On the subject of road pricing and how we rely on our roads, my
hon. Friend the Member for Orpington () expressed the challenges
faced by people who cannot afford to upgrade their car but who
desperately need to use it, whether because of their job, their
shifts, the route they need to take or where they live in the
country. I represent a rural area in the Lake district and my
four daughters would not be able to do the jobs they do if they
depended on public transport alone, so I have incredible sympathy
for people’s need to continue to use cars, whether privately, via
car clubs or through other ways that enable people to travel when
they need to.
We rely on the roads for journeys not just in cars but on buses.
The shadow Minister said that our spending has reduced from £3
billion to £1.2 billion. If he had listened to the debate that I
responded to earlier, he would have heard me set out quite
clearly how that £3 billion is being used. That was another
debate, so I will let him look at that this evening.
Mr Dhesi
On that point, will the Minister give way?
I will not, because time does not allow.
There is significant public interest in road pricing and its
potential to either enhance or interfere with the way we live our
lives. Any proposal must not just be smart about how people
really live; it will be about technology too, but the priority is
how people get to the places they need to get to.
London already has several road-user charging schemes in
operation, introduced by Mayors past and present. These schemes
deliver against policy objectives to reduce congestion and tackle
air pollution in the capital. Before speaking to the current
Mayor’s plans to extend those charges, I will say something about
road pricing in local areas more generally.
I thank the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member
for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (), for the work that he has
done on the Transport Committee, which I look forward to speaking
to next week. Once again, the Committee has provided a
comprehensive report. We certainly appreciated the work that the
Committee did on smart motorways, and we really value the time,
effort and dedication of its members.
Road pricing is a broad term. It can be applied to any charge
levied directly for the use of roads, as opposed to more indirect
duties based on vehicle ownership or fuel. Examples of road
pricing include tolls for using a specific road, bridge or
tunnel; charges designed to reduce congestion or to discourage
the use of the most polluting vehicles in a defined area; and
methods of charging vehicles according to how far they are
driven, at what time and on which road. That includes the smart
road pricing we are discussing. To come back to the comments made
by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, road pricing must be
done in a way that is fair and does not discriminate against
people because they have to travel further due to where they live
or the job they do, or because of their ability to upgrade to a
cleaner vehicle.
In England, the Department for Transport has policy
responsibility for tolls and charging zones, although in most
cases such charges are applied and managed by others, such as
local highways authorities or private companies. Transport in
London is of course devolved to the Mayor of London and Transport
for London. That includes decisions on road user charging in the
capital. General motoring taxation across the United Kingdom is
the responsibility of Her Majesty’s Treasury. As with other
taxes, any changes are considered and announced by my right hon.
Friend the Chancellor. Consequently, I will discuss the position
on road pricing only at local level in England, including in
London, rather than any potential to apply road pricing
nationally.
Road pricing in the UK has taken the form of tolls, congestion
charging and low-emission zones. All the tolling operations
continue to use toll booths and barriers, which force vehicles to
slow or stop to pay with money or an electronic tag in the
windscreen. In contrast, charging zones introduced over the last
20 years have relied on cameras and automatic numberplate
recognition to record when vehicles enter the zone. Motorists are
required to pay online, through an app, by phone or in person at
a participating outlet.
A local smart road pricing scheme would involve going a step
further, making use of the latest technology to set, administer
and enforce a more targeted charging structure. That does not
necessarily mean the use of black boxes. As the mother of four
daughters who taught them all to drive, I understand some of the
challenges of black boxes, or telematics more generally. However,
one option—it is not the only option—would be to use in-vehicle
technology to record aspects of a vehicle’s use. For example, the
time, distance or place of the journeys made could be recorded
and used to calculate the cost of each specific journey. However,
that would not be straightforward to implement locally, and not
only from the technical and administrative perspective, which
alone would be significant.
It would also be important to ensure proper balance between
simplicity of use and understanding by motorists, and effective
detailed design to unlock the greatest potential traffic
management benefits. Any design would need to reflect people’s
interests in ensuring fairness, freedom and privacy, and account
for issues around the cost of living, supporting small
businesses, and helping people.
Last Friday, the Mayor of London confirmed that he has asked TfL
to consult on expanding the existing ultra low emission zone
London-wide, aiming to move London towards a greener future and
net zero carbon emissions by 2030. TfL and the Mayor will need to
progress that through public consultation, and I heard what my
hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said about
his disappointment in those consultations seemingly not taking
notice of his constituents. I very much hope that they will be
listened to.
Back in January, the Mayor of London also said that he is looking
at a new kind of road-user charging scheme to implement in London
by the end of the decade at the latest. The scheme would look to
charge drivers per mile, with different rates depending on how
polluting vehicles are, the level of congestion in the area, and
access to public transport. The Mayor has said that such a scheme
could replace all existing road-user charges, such as the
congestion charge and the ULEZ. The technology required for such
a scheme means that the earliest date that it could be
implemented would be 2025 to 2026. As I have said, transport in
London is devolved to the Mayor of London and TfL. That includes
decisions on road-user charging.
I conclude by thanking hon. Friends present, and in particular my
hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington for bringing
forward the debate. This is a complex matter, and we do not have
answers to the questions at the moment, but I appreciate the
willingness of Members present to think about the future of
taxation and how the transition from a fossil fuel transport
system to a decarbonised economy will work in practice. We are
all interested in understanding what new technology can offer to
improve traffic management and reduce the impact of road use on
the places in which people live and the environment that they
love; however, technological capability is certainly not the
whole picture, and any proposal for road pricing needs to help
people to live their lives and run their businesses well.
5.20pm
I thank all Members for taking part in today’s discussion, which
has centred on London. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member
for Orpington () and the hon. Member for
Richmond Park () would agree that we do not
get to talk about London very often in this place, so it makes a
nice change.
There has been a lot of talk throughout the debate about the
environmental benefits of a potential smart road pricing scheme,
but to come back to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member
for Orpington, the discussion in London is centred very heavily,
if not prominently, on TfL’s finances and not on air quality or
the environmental impact. The Lib Dem Assembly member who has
been pushing for this measure in City Hall did so on a question
around TfL’s finances, but I welcome the fact that the shadow
Minister, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), said that he
agreed with the Transport Committee that it should be national. I
therefore look forward to him telling the Mayor of London that
the Labour party does not support his efforts to try to introduce
the measure in London alone.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered smart road pricing.
|
