Lord Davies of Oldham
Main Page: Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Davies of Oldham's debates with the Department for Transport
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
Lord Davies of Oldham Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Oldham
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, we start on quite a fundamental point, on which even the Minister on occasions has not been too secure in the position that she has adopted. When I was asked last night to prepare a short summation of this part of the Bill for wider circulation, I wanted to get things as accurate as I conceivably could, but I found myself wrestling with whether I was referring to one company or companies. Every time that I used the word “companies”, it looked singularly ill placed with the surrounding arguments as far as the Bill is concerned. Therefore, Amendment 1 asks the Minister to clarify what is, after all, a pretty fundamental point, and we would not want to continue our deliberations without having cleared it up.
At Second Reading, the Minister certainly said:
“Yes, it is the Government’s intention to set up just one company. It is standard template language in legislation, I understand, to create the option of further entities. It has no sinister meaning at all behind it. The intention is for a single company, but of course the lawyers always think about what-ifs in the most extraordinary way”—
she did not sound too convinced by the argument herself. However, she went on:
“I guess we did not really kick back against that but, yes, it is one company”.—[Official Report, 18/6/14; col. 896.]
I congratulate her on putting up a pretty stout defence of her position, but even in that stout defence there is a certain ambivalence, as there is in the Bill. That is why Amendment 5 in my name would remove a provision from Schedule 1 that makes rules for when two different strategic highways companies interact, which certainly suggests that the Government are planning for more than one strategic highways company.
It looks a fairly limited argument to say, “The lawyers guard against every development and therefore we may need more than one”. The debate about the Bill will be coloured very significantly indeed if we must take on board the fact that there may be two strategic highways companies. To make the most obvious point, we will want to know how they will interact, and we have amendments down that relate to that. If the Minister is able to clarify the issue and state that, as it is the Government’s intention to establish just one company, she will look at the Bill again to ensure that it is framed in that way, I am quite sure that that would set a lot of minds at rest and make for a much more straightforward discussion.
I assure the Minister that whether there is one or more than one strategic highways company has quite a conditional effect upon the legislation. Our concern is not just about one passing fancy of the lawyers but about something that may be of real substance. Some of my more prophetic colleagues say, “Why don’t you come to terms with the fact that this is all about setting up the strategic highways authority for privatisation? Of course, you will want more than one, and this will neatly fit in with privatisation plans in the not-so-distant future”. Well, I am not a cynical person and I accept what the Government put in the Bill at face value.
It is on that basis that I move this amendment, which would delete “one or more companies” and insert “a company”. In addition, as I said, Amendment 5 would delete sub-paragraph (3) in Schedule 1, which suggests that the existence of more than one potential strategic highways company is not a legal oddity caused by standard drafting—lawyers always make life so much more interesting for us all when they turn to drafting—but a scenario actively envisaged by the drafters of the Bill. It clearly makes provision for what should happen in the event that one strategic highways company should wish to build a bridge connecting to another. One and one still make two and therefore this problem could arise only if there is more than one strategic highways company.
There is understandable concern that the Government are considering a model where the SHC might be franchised out in some not-too-distant future. If that is the intention, it reinforces our many concerns about this measure, but I venture to suggest that this concern is as great as any. Therefore, I ask for reassurance from the Minister that, when I next write about the Bill and try to communicate intelligently with a wider audience, I am able to refer to one company in the singular the whole time and make some coherent sense out of this measure. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment because there are already precedents for having a multiple infrastructure. One is the M6 toll road. I believe that the company running it was given a 90-year lease to maintain and operate it and charge whatever it liked as tolls for the next 90 years, or whatever it was. If, in the future, there is a plan for road tolling, as appears more likely with this Bill—I certainly welcome that and will be talking about it in later amendments—whatever tolling the Government of the day propose, the M6 toll road will not be part of it. Whether that will increase or decrease its traffic, I do not have a clue; it depends on what the charges are. It is a particularly bad example because most of the freight goes on the existing road and damages it quite dramatically—the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has an amendment down on road damage—but this is just one example of what can happen if there is no co-ordination over the whole country.
A second example is that, just after the last election, there were various plans and threats from the then Secretary of State that Network Rail would be broken up into other regions or zones because it was not performing properly. The idea presumably was that there would be competition between those zones for quality, capacity and charging, and for anything else that you come across. Luckily, that did not go ahead. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. The idea of having a different charge for whichever way you go between A and B would be just ridiculous; the business would not work.
The problem here is that, as the Bill stands, you could have more than one infrastructure company. Wales might well choose to be different. I do not think Scotland is part of this legislation, so the charges will be different there. Then there will be all the arguments about doing one thing one way and then leaving the rest of it and coming along and doing something else that is slightly different. There would also be the interfaces and the knock-on and consequential effects, which might be quite serious. I think that my noble friend is quite right in tabling this amendment and speaking so eloquently in favour of it. I do not know why we need more than one infrastructure company to run the trunk roads—there are not that many of them, actually—and why we cannot leave it as a singular company.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I cannot pretend that the second version is any better than the first as regards convincing us on this matter. The Minister will know that there is a great deal in the Bill about the relationship between this strategic authority and the national rail network. We will emphasise that later on, because we think that there is great merit in ensuring that plans are put before the travelling public that show some co-ordination of thought between the railway and the major road network. I therefore find it a little difficult to think of the road network being regionalised. We are talking about trunk roads and motorways; at this stage we are not talking about local roads, although we all recognise that they comprise by far the greatest carriers of traffic. We are talking about the strategic network and we will seek to emphasise the virtues, which we hope the Government will see, of close co-ordination between two major bodies of the nation: rail and road.
The noble Baroness dangles before us the prospect of fragmentation of this company, challenging though it is to set up and significant as it is bound to be as regards road development. We are at one with the Government on the necessity of continuity of policy on infrastructure and in the belief that we should therefore create the mechanisms that offer that continuity, so we applaud the part of the Bill that does that. It is not usual for the Opposition to put down congratulatory amendments, but the noble Baroness will be well aware that in Second Reading speeches we all had many positive things to say about the ambition of improving our infrastructure planning. However, the insertion into the Bill of this doubt and this possibility complicates matters significantly. I must say to the noble Baroness that I hear what she says; she has obviously thought about it a great deal and has convinced herself. She has not as yet convinced me, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I support my noble friend’s amendment. I am glad that he is here, because I am not sure that any other of us could have moved it. He did it very well. I want to compare this situation with what is happening to Network Rail, of which I declare an interest as being a member.
I have just come from a meeting with Network Rail where we have been told what is going to happen by 1 September, when it comes under government ownership. That sounds as if it is going to be quite easy, apart from changing all the memoranda and articles and allowing the Secretary of State or the accounting officer in a department to make certain appointments and control things. However, that is being done without much, if any, parliamentary scrutiny, because I do not think that anybody is particularly worried about it. Network Rail has been in the private sector up to now, but it has had £4 billion or so a year from public funds. It has managed to work and not cause trouble; otherwise, this would probably have happened sooner. However, there still have to be changes. I worry about it going in the other direction. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, the consequences need some public debate, because there might be many more people who are worried about it, not least the people who work for the new company while it is government owned. It is reasonable to have some parliamentary scrutiny of a change. Therefore, I support the amendment in his name.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I imagine that the Minister will have little difficulty in responding to this amendment. She is obviously going to continue to deny that privatisation is anywhere on the horizon as far as the Government are concerned—so that is one defence. Secondly, I hope that she recognises that there would need to be significant parliamentary action if privatisation of a significant company such as this were carried out. I am therefore anticipating the Minister quite enjoying responding to this amendment, which I am glad my noble friend has aired.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I will indeed enjoy responding to this amendment. It would seem from the speeches I have heard that our purposes are the same. The question is: whose language does it better? In this case, I go with the language in the Bill, which is rather more efficient in that it does not require an Act of Parliament to, as it were, “gut” the highways authority should it cease to be owned by the Secretary of State; it just does it. Obviously, if such a thing were to happen, we would put in place a transitional process to bring the staff back over; those kinds of things would only be sensible. The language in the Bill achieves what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, intends but does it rather more effectively than the subsections he has designed. Let us go for quick action and ensure that we have the maximum strength, which we have in the Bill. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, at Second Reading the Government failed to provide a convincing case for why the strategic highways company needed to be created to achieve the stated aims. As we indicated to the Minister at Second Reading, there is agreement pretty well across the House on the objective of a more coherent planning structure for the crucial part of the infrastructure represented by trunk roads and motorways. But the Minister indicated that because the Highways Agency would be turned into a government-owned company, it would have,
“the stable, long-term funding needed to plan ahead effectively”,
and that the Government were,
“also introducing in the Bill the framework for a roads investment strategy”,
which, of course, we applaud. The Minister went on to say:
“The strategy will be agreed by the Government and the new company. It will set out the Government’s longer-term strategic vision for the strategic road network, investment plans and performance criteria, along with the necessary funding, just as happens for the railways. The new delivery model will allow the company to better prioritise its spending in terms of both maintenance requirements and capital demands. This is bound to lead to better asset management than we have now”.—[Official Report, 18/6/14; col. 838.]
Where is the beef in that statement? What is it about the new delivery model that is superior to what we could achieve with the Highways Agency? What in the structure of the Highways Agency makes it impossible for it to deliver longer-term planning? It may be that it has not done so because of the vicissitudes of funding, for which the Government must take responsibility, but the Minister surely recognises that nothing gets done without Treasury approval. What the present structure of the Highways Agency seems to need is more operational independence from the Treasury. The Treasury needs to be on board with the necessity for longer-term thinking about roads. But why we need the creation of a government-owned company to plan spending, I do not know. This is spending that is not in yearly cycles. It does not peak towards one part of the year rather than another. It is not clear that the Bill actually delivers what the Secretary of State has claimed to be among the key benefits. I cannot see why, with serious intent and commitment to long-term planning of infrastructure on the Government’s part, the existing structure cannot be made to work towards those objectives.
Lord Bradshaw
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with which I agree, mentions “speed control systems”. We are considering the Deregulation Bill on Monday, which makes specific provision for a lot of the enforcement of speed and other offences to be undertaken by people who go round with pads rather than the modern method of using cameras. Will the Minister cover that, or at least take it away and get sorted out the apparent contradictions between those two pieces of legislation?
Lord Davies of Oldham
Well, my Lords, that is a bumper that whistled past the Minster’s ears. It is an interesting little challenge. I have no views on what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said, except that I usually consider what he says to have a modicum of very good sense.
I support my noble friends’ amendments. My noble friend Lord Whitty made a persuasive case for the opening amendment. My own amendment would merely establish a consistent theme for us in this legislation: we want to see the Office of Rail Regulation playing a significant role in the road network. It should publish guidance and have powers to require efficient use of the road network. That is what it does for rail. As the noble Baroness will have noted a few moments ago, I was seeking to extol the virtues of a degree of integration between these two critical features of our transport infrastructure. This is one modest step towards that. The Office of Rail Regulation should promote not just efficient spending but efficient management of the road network. It has earned the approval of many of us through its work on the rail system. There is surely merit in it doing so for the road while furthering the prospects of integration between two main features of our transport infrastructure, which will be an abiding theme of the Opposition’s position on the Bill.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, your Lordships have raised a number of important issues around the powers that are transferred to the new company. The purpose of Schedule 1 is to transfer to a strategic highways company appointed under Clause 1 the statutory duties imposed on, and the powers exercised by, the Secretary of State in his capacity as highway authority. The functions and responsibilities are already expressed in legislation, but they are transferred to the new company on its appointment. These are all the functions that it needs to operate. That may help in understanding why I regard Amendment 4 as an unnecessary addition to the Bill.
Amendment 4 takes us to Clause 13, under which the Secretary of State may transfer additional functions other than an excluded function to a strategic highways company. I think the noble Lord’s purpose was to make road safety functions capable of transfer to the company. We absolutely appreciate the importance of road safety, but we do not require the amendment because, in our view, the only road safety functions which would ever be appropriate to transfer to a strategic highways company would be those which relate to highways. For example, the Secretary of State is responsible for issues which relate to drink driving and the standards that are required of vehicles. In other words, many aspects of road safety are not to do with the highway itself. It would not be appropriate to transfer that range of responsibilities over to the SHC, but only those parts which relate to the highway itself. This is already enabled within the legislation before us.
On a wide range of these issues, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the licence, a draft of which was issued on 23 June and which covers in great detail many of the issues which have been raised here. There is always a question of whether you put things in the Bill or in the licence. We are constantly adding to and refining the kinds of actions and responsibilities that we want an entity like the new SHC to carry out. We would lose a lot of our flexibility were we to put this in the Bill rather than use the licence mechanism. With the combination of the transfer of duties already provided and the licence, a wide range of these powers are already covered.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am sorry, but this is something else that I think should be in the Bill. It does sort of follow from the clear statement by the Government that we will have only one strategic highways company, in which case it should surely be made clear that the scope of its activities covers what are currently Highways Agency roads in England. At the moment, that is not clear—and I think that I am right in saying that it is also not necessarily the case. Tolled roads will remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and some of those tolled roads, such as the road that I still call the Birmingham North Relief Road—the tolled M6—come under the general jurisdiction of the Highways Agency, although the company that runs the tolled M6 operates it and, of course, collects the tolls for it. So the exact jurisdiction of the company needs to be made clear. That is not to say that all the roads that are currently under the remit of the Highways Agency should always remain so. One can alter that later.
There may be some local roads that should be transferred into the company and there may be some roads in the margins of the Highways Agency’s slightly odd portfolio that should really be local roads, in the general demarcation between the two. Ministers and the Secretary of State would still have the possibility of changing those roads but it should be clear that this Act is shifting what are currently Highways Agency roads into the new company—full stop. That is what my amendments in this group provide for, with Amendment 9 saying that it is “the whole of England” and Amendment 10 saying that, in the first instance, they will be Highways Agency roads. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments, and shall speak to the two amendments in my name. Amendment 11 is a probing amendment; I want to know where Wales fits in. It is the only reference to Wales that I have seen in the Bill and I would be grateful if the Minister could make it clear where Wales fits into any possible consultation process with regard to the authority.
Amendment 12 is pretty self-explanatory on the necessity of consulting with local highways authorities in the areas that they cover on the structure of the organisation, the appointment of a representative of local highways authorities as a non-executive director of the board, and other matters decided by the Secretary of State. It is clear that for consultation to be remotely effective there has to be some representation of the local highways authorities.
As the Minister is all too well aware—the Committee need not dwell on this point for any length of time—important though the motorways and trunk roads of England are, local authorities still carry most of the traffic and, of course, are responsible for the majority of the roads. It is not conceivable for a scheme for a road of such significance to be developed and work to be done on it without the local highways authorities being involved. We are all well aware that if there is the most minor interruption on some of our motorways and other major roads, cascades of traffic fall upon the local roads. Those local roads bear the brunt not just of the difficulties of that day but of the ongoing costs as a consequence of excessive use of them; they are often not designed for the volume of traffic that is diverted on to them.
I am sure that the Minister will be at pains to emphasise that nothing will be done without consultation with the local highways authorities. My amendments seek to make that explicit in the Bill.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 40 in this group on precisely the subject of the duty to co-operate. This very much builds on the Localism Act, under which local authorities have a duty to co-operate with each other. I understand that part of the department’s argument on this will be that the new company—the present Highways Agency—is already a traffic authority and a highway authority and is therefore covered by the Localism Act’s provisions. I am not sure whether that is entirely clear. If it is, then some of the objections that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, referred to would have to apply to the Localism Act as well. If that is the case, can we somehow cross-refer to it?
The Highways Agency has only 2.4% of the road mileage of the country. All of its roads create traffic for the local network and all of the local network piles out on to the motorway at various points. Sometimes the most congested areas of the motorway are congested largely because it is being used as a local road by people for just two exits. There is an important need for the Highways Agency and the traffic authorities to co-operate and that needs to be reflected in the Bill.
However, in view of the environmental and safety aspects, there is also a need to co-operate with the safety authorities and with the Environment Agency, which is concerned with emissions, air pollution, water run-off and so forth. The HSE’s duties on the roads will relate only to employee drivers, but it does have some, and there must therefore be a cross-over.
We have briefly mentioned the interface with Wales. Obviously, at the far end of the network there is interface with Scotland as well, and there needs to be some co-operation with the devolved Administrations. I also referred to the police and traffic commissioners because, in practice, a lot of the traffic management of the Highways Agency is conducted by the police. Therefore, the police should have at least some mention here, although I am not entirely clear whether the duty to co-operate under the Localism Act actually covers police authorities as well. In one sense, even if it does, we should cross-refer to it.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I want to reinforce the points that have already been made in terms of some definitions of obligations and duties as far as the company is concerned. Amendment 15 would ensure that the road investment strategy outlines its social, economic and environmental objectives. The Government’s draft national policy statement, published recently, sets out the policy against which the Secretary of State will make decisions on applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The application should include guidance on mitigating environmental and social impacts and plans to enhance environmental benefits—objectives to which I am sure we would all subscribe.
However, the Bill references merely the strategic highways company’s “objectives”, without giving the new company a clear direction on how the road investment strategy will aim to ensure that its activities are carried out with the intention to provide benefits to society, the economy and the environment. For example, the strategy should incorporate an estimate of the impact on UK carbon emissions of building more roads infrastructure. It is inconceivable that we would have a perspective on such construction without having some assessment of the issue of emissions. It surrounds all aspects of aviation at present and it cannot be anything but an important issue, as far as the public are concerned, for roads.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) the anticipated impact of the Roads Investment Strategy upon the condition, development and funding of the local roads network and local transport provision,
( ) the anticipated impact of the Roads Investment Strategy on links with other nationally and regionally significant infrastructure projects, including ports and airports, and the impact of projected vehicle emissions on local air quality.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I am in great danger of running into the same brick wall of a government response as my noble friend Lord Whitty. It was an interesting response: “We are creating a new company; we are setting out a new strategy for roads; we have a five-year programme; and we are talking seriously about infrastructure. Please do not come to us with any suggestions of what considerations such infrastructure developments should take into account”.
My noble friend Lord Whitty tried to analyse the road investment strategy and what that might involve in terms of wider consideration. I will deal with the national networks policy statement, with exactly the same objective. I see no point in the Government arguing that they have got improved machinery but reined-in objectives. In circumstances where wider society is clear that what it wants from our infrastructure is greater integration and greater realisation of the relative impact of public expenditure in one area upon another, I do not see how the Minister can maintain that these things are too burdensome. It is not too burdensome to include in the Bill the possibility, some period further on, that there may be more than one company. It is not too burdensome to have a decade-forward look at certain aspects of the legislation.
With these amendments, we suggest the road investment strategy will need to take account of its impact on local road systems and will need to consider the links between other significant parts of the transport infrastructure, such as ports and airports. If we had not had the built-in five-year delay on the decision regarding an additional runway in the south-east, we would currently be discussing infrastructure in relation to aviation as well as roads. The Minister maintains that there cannot be a case for pressing additional obligations on the strategy. I do not accept that. I do not see why we should not ask, as Amendment 29 does, the Secretary of State to provide the strategic highways company with a survey on the condition of the local and strategic road networks. I do not see why we cannot envisage increased co-operation with Network Rail. I know we cannot flick a switch overnight and deal with such complex issues as if they are givens to immediately act on, but unless we have the objectives then the whole concept of the integration and improvement of infrastructure over a period of time disappears.
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply to my noble friend Lord Whitty. I understand what she is driving at, in that we cannot take everything on board at the same time. However, we are not suggesting an enormous increased cost as far as the road investment strategy is concerned; we are suggesting that it should have the perspective to understand what integration and development of the infrastructure is all about. That means that the Government should give serious consideration to this group of amendments, as well as to the previous group, introduced by my noble friend Lord Whitty, which seek to guarantee that our improved investment strategy for infrastructure will take in all the factors that wider society regards as being germane to transport improvement. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
I would like to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, about his amendment. I believe I am right in saying that local authorities already have a very effective system for regularly analysing the state of local roads, the investment that needs to be made to bring them up to standard and what it will cost, called the ALARM system. What is wrong with that? If they have that already, why write something more into the Bill? I merely ask the question. Maybe the noble Lord can answer when he winds up at the end of the debate, and perhaps my noble friend might like to comment on that in the course of her reply.
I understand, of course, that different parts of the road structure will have an impact on each other. I would have thought that would be covered by the duties of consulting that my noble friend referred to in relation to earlier amendments. This will be an integral part of the operation of the strategic highways company. There is already a very good system, as I understand it. One sees headlines in the newspapers every year about the state of local roads and what needs to be spent to bring them up to standard. If there is a headline word that has entered into the public consciousness, it is “potholes”.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, through these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and others seek to ensure that the impact of the road investment strategy on the various local road networks and other transport infrastructure is considered. This is an important argument, and I need to be clear that, through the licence, we are requiring the strategic highways company to have an asset management strategy. Understanding the condition of its assets is absolutely key to this.
The condition and performance of the local road network are, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, clearly outlined, matters for the local highway authority. Frankly, we would not wish to include in the Bill a requirement to survey the condition of local roads, because its focus is the strategic road network. We are not anxious to usurp authorities’ powers. I share the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that the tasks are currently well carried out by local authorities, which, I suspect, would not want to surrender a lot of resources and have the task taken over by a centralised body.
That said, we want this new company to co-operate with its partner road networks. The route strategies, with which I think many of your Lordships will be familiar, are a key source of information in developing the road investment strategy. They provide local authorities and, by extension, local highway authorities with a mechanism to work with the new company and thus ensure that the impact on the local road networks of interventions on the strategic road network is considered. We think that that will be an extremely effective mechanism and it is well provided for in the legislation as it stands.
In addition, as part of the changes elsewhere in the Bill, the company will, as I have said before, become a traffic authority. That is new and means that it will be subject to the network management duty—a legal obligation on all local traffic authorities to ensure, among other things, that traffic flows smoothly from one jurisdiction to another. At present, the Highways Agency is not subject to this requirement, so this will be a new guarantee of co-operation.
I could start to list the kind of support that we are offering for local roads but, setting aside our significant financial contribution, I also want to make it clear that we are supporting efforts by local authorities to share knowledge and best practice under the highways maintenance efficiency programme, as well as encouraging co-operation and common procurement. There is therefore a gathering momentum to achieve much more co-operation and partnership working, which will continue under the new arrangements.
I talked earlier about aligning road and rail investment strategies, so I will not repeat that. Instead, I shall use this occasion to underscore how much we recognise that there is significant value in Network Rail and the new strategic highways company working together on the kinds of issues that your Lordships have listed. However, we do not think that you need a legislative mechanism to try to prescribe how those two companies should work together. We would find it extraordinary if they chose not to, and I doubt that the Secretary of State would permit them to ignore each other in that way.
It is entirely appropriate that the road investment strategy and the new company’s response to it will have due regard to the national network’s national policy statement—that is a mouthful. However, it would not be appropriate to create a formal link between what is a planning document and what is, in effect, a funding and investment plan. The two documents align but there is not a hierarchy between them.
On that basis, looking through the details of the amendments, we think that the underlying issues that are of concern to your Lordships are already addressed. Therefore, we feel that the amendments are not needed and we hope very much that the noble Lord will feel comfortable in withdrawing the one he has moved.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I will back off from my amendment in relation to local authorities out of deference to the representation from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, although I should say that I back off for today, because that is not the perspective that we have of certain aspects of the work of local authorities. However, I shall back off if the Minister will take on board the obvious thrust of these amendments: both those in the group we are considering at the moment and those in the previous group, which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, introduced, are concerned with the fact that the strategy has to take into account broader issues than road provision has done in the past and that it will need to have that written down and enforced. It is all very well for the noble Baroness to say, “Yes, as a matter of course those who are planning the roads will take into account these other factors”. No, they will not. In the past, we have seen that such factors have clearly not been taken into account.
Not the least significant of all those factors, especially for many British people, is the question of increased emissions. We have seen precious little activity, as far as roads are concerned, on emissions. An attempt in the previous group of amendments to introduce that into the categorisation of the work which the new system must take into account was rather brushed aside.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, I can be very brief. I fully endorse the statements made by my noble friend Lord Whitty. I once had the privilege of being president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. That was a year in which I contributed little but learnt a very great deal indeed. I do not think that the consciousness of the need for safety on our roads has increased as much as we might have expected, given the work that has been done by estimable authorities such as RoSPA. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take these amendments very seriously.
Baroness Kramer
This set of amendments seeks to make the road investment strategy cover several specific areas, including carbon reduction, traffic volumes and environmental performance, and to place safety at its heart—the area where we have had most discussion, which has been fascinating. I reassure the Committee that the Government take all these issues very seriously. It seems to me that where we may differ is on whether or not these important values are enhanced in implementation by including them in the Bill rather than in the road investment strategy and in the licence. I am inclined to believe that the RIS and the licence are the most powerful documents to drive forward the behaviours that we are looking for, so I shall explain the role that those documents play.
We are concerned about ending up with a long list sitting in legislation and describing what the road investment strategy should look at, because, as everyone in this Room knows, there is always the problem of what happens with the item left off the list when that is significant. One can try to say that those that are not named are of equal significance and are equally elevated, and that one is not primary over the other, but that is not always an easy argument to make. I am concerned, particularly since we want this to be a long-lasting document, that there will be issues which we consider to be of equal importance to safety and the environment and that we would be in a difficult situation if we insisted on those additional significant priorities. I am therefore hesitant to go to the face of the Bill. It is helpful to have the information that we have on both the RIS and the licence, and the other documents.
Let me focus on safety, because it is a very important issue to the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, our roads are pretty much the safest in the world, but we can never be complacent. The strategic highways company will have a responsibility for the safety of the road network, but, as I pointed out previously, there are key safety responsibilities—including driver licensing, training and education, the regulation of driving such as drink-driving and drug-driving policies, enforcement, dangerous and careless driving and, as the noble Lord underscored, the important issue of vehicle standards—that must stay with the Secretary of State and not transfer to the new company. That is to put the broad construct, which would not work effectively if those responsibilities were not kept with the Secretary of State.
As we go through these complex documents, it is worth noting that safety is already embedded in the strategic roads “system”. For example, the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges sets minimum standards for road safety, and safety is covered within the appraisal. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether the appraisal formulas were exactly as they should be. That is surely not something that we are going to address in primary legislation; it is a working issue that needs to be addressed at a much more practical level. In wide areas of appraisal—I have looked more at financial and cost-benefit appraisal issues—we are constantly trying to update the way in which we look at those issues. I cannot see that it can be driven through primary legislation; it is part of being responsible. The importance of safety is already included in the draft licence and will be a key consideration in the road investment strategy. For example, the RIS will require performance specifications that embed safety issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to legal liabilities. I think that it is clear that the SHC is responsible for the road but not the driver, but I do not think it would be right for me to try to speculate on legal liability.
Embedded in the amendments are important issues of environmental protection such as climate change and biodiversity. Again, they are well covered within the licence by broader existing legislation. Again, if we are looking at who is responsible for what, a lot of those issues refer to the vehicle fleet, and that must be with government rather than with the new company.
Therefore the view we take is that the issues that are raised are very important, but that they are carefully covered and encompassed by the language we have in both the primary legislation and supporting documents. Therefore once again, amendment is not necessary to achieve the goals which those sponsoring these amendments have in mind.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“( ) The Secretary of State must, within one month of publishing a Draft Road Investment Strategy, begin a consultation on its contents.
( ) The Secretary of State must publish a response to the consultation no later than a month after the conclusion of the consultation.”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, Amendments 20 and 21 in my name are designed to encourage proper scrutiny of the road investment strategy that will be set by the Government. The impact assessment makes clear the potential effect of the operation of the new organisation on the public:
“Corporatising the HA will provide it with a greater commercial focus, but there is a risk that it might take decisions that have negative consequences for the public. We would not expect a company at arm’s length to make identical decisions to a minister, who is expected to take into account a wider range of impacts and views and is then held democratically accountable for them”.
Exactly. That is why it is enormously important that this body, which is to be established with increased powers, is made fully accountable.
The road investment strategy is likely to last five years and will involve the spending of a huge amount of public money. As the Minister said at Second Reading, the Government committed more than £24 billion to upgrade Britain’s strategic road network between 2011 and 2021. The strategic road network, as the Committee knows, carries a third of all car and van traffic and 65% of heavy goods traffic. It is therefore vital that business, trade bodies and campaigning organisations can make their views known during the consultation process. It is also vital that the public can make their views known, both directly through the consultation and indirectly through their elected representatives. If it is a vital part of the Government’s plans to secure stability and enable long-term planning, then it is also essential that this process is transparent, open and accountable. Otherwise, it will never gain the public confidence that it needs to operate successfully. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Davies on how we get to the investment strategy. My amendment is at the end of this group, and it is about Parliament’s oversight of the process. We always ought to consider how Parliament both approves and monitors bodies and documents which are referred to in legislation.
I am proposing that, before the first strategy is implemented, it should be subject to a report of a Joint Committee of both Houses. I suspect that our colleagues in the House of Commons will say that it should be a DfT Select Committee. Nevertheless, some form of parliamentary accountability is necessary. It is nowhere in the Bill, and it should be. It should be a regular process; I am saying every five years because that is the period to which the money and strategy initially relate. Certainly, a regular review of the roads investment strategy ought to be built in at parliamentary level. That will complement the consultations that are required at the beginning of the process in my noble friend Lord Davies’s amendments.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it is my duty to withdraw my amendment. However, the Minister seems to suggest that the Government should not consult when they are launching a body which they favour and expect to be successful, but should consult like fury the moment it has gone badly wrong. In my experience, Governments do things the other way around, but perhaps the Minister is setting up a new model on how consultation will be carried out. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham
“(ba) the circumstances in which the Road Investment Strategy will allow the strategic highways company to undertake commercial services or charge for services”
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, there currently appears to be a gap in the Government’s draft licence for the strategic highways company. It says:
“Provisions relating to commercial activity and charging for services are still under consideration. We expect that the Licence holder will, where legislation allows, be able to continue to undertake commercial services or charge for services, on a non-discriminatory and cost-recovery basis, where this represents the continuation of current practice by the Secretary of State, in his role as highway authority for the network”.
My amendment is intended to probe this position and to ascertain in what precise circumstances the Government envisage the strategic highways company charging for services. There is some concern in many quarters that the model that is being constructed allows for the strategic highways company or companies to charge for road use. Although the company will have to be wholly owned, Clause 8 includes extensive powers for the strategic highways company to delegate functions, which could mean that many roads are contracted out in the future.
Our history on charging schemes for roads is not a particularly happy one. The toll road on the M6 was supposed to take 75,000 cars a day; in fact, it averages just over 40,000. As the embattled public who travel on it will testify, the equivalent stretch of the old M6 takes up to 180,000 vehicles a day. Therefore, road pricing and toll roads raise very real issues. There are also concerns that if the Government significantly increase the number of roads for which people have to pay, there will be increased congestion on other roads and more accidents as a result. The M6 toll road stands as a bleak beacon of warning. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, in lending my support to my noble friend Lord Davies, I speak to my Amendment 39. It proposes that:
“The power to set a toll or a tariff on a strategic highway may not be delegated to any company or person but must remain the sole prerogative of the Secretary of State”.
We have heard from the Minister that there are no immediate plans for privatising the highways company, which is set to replace the Highways Agency. However, this does not allay our anxieties about the privatisation of our strategic highways network. Nothing that the Government have said will preclude them from asking private contractors to administer parts of the network under concessions. The contractors would derive their income from tolls.
We need only look across the Channel to see an example of a strategic highways network that is largely under the control of private profit-making agencies. The example is provided by France, where 45% of the motorway network is now operated under commercial concessions, including all the main arteries. This circumstance has been the result of a major sale to private investors of the state’s holdings in autoroute companies, which began in 2005, under the Villepin Government, during the presidency of Jacques Chirac. Initially, the tolls on the roads were set by the French Government, but the private companies have been permitted to make year-on-year increases in the tolls. There is now widespread discontent at their exorbitance and at the excessive profits of the companies, which acquired their assets at knock-down prices. Clearly, the French Government ought to have retained the sole prerogative to set the levels of the tolls.
The only example of a tolled motor road in the UK is the M6 toll road of a mere 27 miles in length, which bypasses the Birmingham conurbation. This is controlled by the Australian company Macquarie, which holds the concession until 2054. In contrast to the French toll roads, this under-used road appears to be a commercial failure. In 2012, the operator, Midland Expressway, claimed to have made a loss of £41 million. I have no way of confirming this figure, which seems to have been exaggerated; there would have been a tax advantage in exaggerating the loss. The recourse of the company was to increase the tolls. This may have increased the company’s revenue, but it would certainly have diminished the traffic on the road, thereby reducing its social utility and increasing the costs of congestion and physical depreciation that are borne by the adjacent M6 freeway.
These circumstances should serve to emphasise a fundamental principle. Road charges need to be set by a central authority with an overarching concern to maximise the utility of the roads. High tariffs should be levied to deter vehicles from travelling on congested roads. High tariffs that deter traffic from using empty roads should be lowered or abolished. It might seem to be redundant to declare such principles at a time when there appear to be no immediate plans to impose additional tolls and tariffs on our roads. However, I believe that such charges are certain to be imposed sooner rather than later.
There are two factors here. The first is the likelihood that this Government, or a future Government, will desire to raise revenue to finance additional construction and maintenance. The second is the availability of new and effective technology that will greatly facilitate road-charging. My concern is that, unless the Government think ahead and resolve to take a strategic oversight of the matter, a piecemeal and dysfunctional system of road-charging will arise that will reproduce the problems that can be clearly discerned in other countries that have already applied tolls and tariffs to their roads.
Finally, whenever private enterprise is charged with undertaking motorway projects, it has been expected to raise the finance for those purposes from the open market. That has certainly been the case for the French toll roads, and it has been the case with our only toll road company, which administers the M6 toll. By going in their own right to the market, the companies have been denied the advantage of the superior creditworthiness of the Government. In consequence, they have had to bear much higher interest rate charges. There should surely be a way of conferring the benefits of the Government’s creditworthiness on all borrowings in favour of investment in social infrastructure, whoever undertakes them.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I have to be quite quick to be sure that I finish before rising time, so these will be somewhat abbreviated responses. A strange hare may have been started running by some of the language used here. The commercial activities that the SHC engages with, such as selling salt supplies to the local authorities, is all piddly ante stuff, to be taken care of in the governance documents rather than the RIS, which I think is the relevant place for it.
As for funding road infrastructure, the power to retain decision-making over tolls or tariffs for the Secretary of State, under the amendment to Clause 6, is just not necessary, because all the powers to make decisions over tolls or road usage remain with the Secretary of State, who is not minded to enter into road pricing—although that may distress some noble Lords who have spoken here tonight.
It would be possible for the Secretary of State to permit this body to raise its own financing, but he would have to give that permission. Given the way in which the Government work, there would have to be Treasury support for that. This Government certainly are not minded to do it because, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, borrowings would go into the public sector borrowing requirement. Therefore, to pay higher pricing for financing that could be obtained by the Government themselves borrowing directly is not something that this Government are minded to do for their road infrastructure. This project commits long-term funding, which will come overwhelmingly from the Government. An exception might be possible if there were a discrete road project, which might be PFIed, although nothing in that range is being contemplated at the moment.
Looking at all those issues, while it may disappoint Members that we are not engaging in plans for road pricing or extensive borrowing by the HCA in the public markets, I still ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments and understand that this is really a policy issue and that the Government have made appropriate decisions in determining these issues.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, this was a probing amendment and it certainly hit its target. Let us be conscious, certainly on my side of the Committee, that this Bill is known as a Lords starter. We therefore have no guidelines from the democratic House as to whether road pricing would ever appear on the agenda; it certainly does not appear on the agenda of my party. I take at full value the points that the Minister has made today on behalf of the Government and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.