Lord Whitty
Main Page: Lord Whitty (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Whitty's debates with the Department for Transport
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
Lord Whitty Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty
“(3) The company designated under this section is called the Strategic Highways Company.
(4) The designated Strategic Highways Company shall not cease to be wholly owned by the Secretary of State unless by Act of Parliament.”
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the Committee that I was not here for the previous bit; I am afraid that I am boxing and coxing with the Chamber at the moment, and have probably already offended the rules of the House by nipping out during the Minister’s reply to move this amendment. Some of this amendment is relevant to what noble Lords have just been discussing on the previous amendment. Indeed, the first part of my amendment is a consequence of trying to clarify that we are talking about only one company and not several. That confuses people, particularly in local Government, who anticipate a degree of regional structures down the line. I know that the Minister will have cleared up some of that.
My second point relates to the issue of privatisation, of which the Minister was speaking when I came into the Room. Clause 1(3) of the Bill as it stands is branded as the way in which privatisation is prevented by the Bill; namely, that the designation would terminate if the company were sold or otherwise disposed of. To me, that seems a funny way of doing it. You will have a company which employs all the people who are at the moment employed by the Highways Agency. If it were somehow to be bought, all its duties would be removed. Surely it is far easier to give some parliamentary control over this process. If we are moving to a hived-off company, structured under the Companies Act but owned wholly by the state, and if it is the intention of the Government to keep it that way, why do we not state baldly in the Bill that it cannot be privatised except by primary legislation? That is what is proposed in the second part of my amendment. It may not be ideal, but it is a good deal better and clearer than what is in the Bill.
There are clearly worries. The first thought of most people when they heard that the Government were going down the road of hiving off the Highways Agency was, “This is the first step to privatisation”. There was alarm at that. There might have been in some quarters—but not ones that I have come across—some joy at the prospect, particularly were it to be related to road pricing, which in principle I do not oppose but is politically rather difficult for any of us to support, particularly a few months off an election. It is easier to assert the will of Parliament and say, “This is not privatisation. If there is any prospect of that changing, you will need a new Act of Parliament”. That is what my amendment proposes. I beg to move.
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.
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 Whitty
Well, my Lords, I am not totally convinced by the Minister and I suspect that casual readers of the Bill would also be a bit puzzled by the way that this is put. I fully accept the assurances on the Government’s intentions but the wording could be clearer—it probably could be clearer than mine. We need to understand that were there ever to be any change of ownership, Parliament would have a say, which is the key point of my amendment. However, I take what the Minister says as being the Government’s position. The substance of the matter is not in dispute. Perhaps her officials could look at the wording again at some point so that Parliament is written into that process somewhere.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I regret that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, owing to other commitments. I associate myself with the noble Lord’s question about costs in relation to the new company.
I also have another question: will this new company be able to raise money in a way that the Highways Agency is not currently able to do? That would of course potentially enable important infrastructure investments to go ahead even in times of stringency. I also associate myself with the comments about the A303, having lived off the A303 all my life and having seen probably 50 years’ worth of proposals for Stonehenge—none of which has so far come to fruition.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I support the proposal that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill, as it queries whether the clause—which is the whole proposition here—is sufficiently coherent and clear as to what it intends to do. As a Roads Minister, I was responsible for at least one of the proposals for the A303 and remember that we talked to everybody in the community, including several different sets of druids, and told them that the Stonehenge tunnel would be built. However, as I said at Second Reading, no sod has yet been turned and all they have done is close one road.
I understand the Government’s intention to create a steadier position through having a slightly more arm’s-length relationship, but this is half-baked. It is neither fish nor fowl. This will be a company that is wholly owned by the Government and which—to address the point that has just been made—cannot raise its own money. The Minister has made that clear to me, both in writing and in person. I thought the main advantage of having the hive-off would be that the body could raise its own funds, even if subject to broader controls from the Treasury, but the Minister makes it clear in her letter that its situation will be no different to the current one of the Highways Agency. That seems to undermine the main advantage of establishing an arm’s-length body. The Government’s proposal incurs all the costs, all the confusion and all this great legislation in the Bill and all the schedules attached to it, but it does not, of itself, provide the funding, the strategic intent or the independence from Government and, crucially, from the Treasury. It will not avoid what has been a stop-go process for the past 30 years.
If the Government were proposing a new corporation that was properly set up and run and which, although still owned by the Government, had its own structural basis and accountability, as well as the ability to finance its activities in various different ways, I could see that there would be a significant advantage. With this halfway house, which is not even a halfway house, I see very few advantages. Therefore, I think that the Government would be more sensible to leave the Highways Agency where it is, give the agency more money and give that over a longer period of time—if that is the Government’s priority—and, if necessary, think up a fuller, clearer, more comprehensive proposition for what kind of highways organisation we need in this land. The answer to that might well be in the territory that my noble friend Lord Davies referred to, because what we perhaps actually need is a transport infrastructure company rather than one that deals with simply 2% of our roads.
If we were to do that, we could start to deliver the investment required for a genuinely integrated transport policy, whereas the Bill, as I am afraid I have said before, seems to be about changing the names on the doors without changing much else.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I would just like to ask the Minister where this figure of a £2.6 billion saving comes from. The two organisations Network Rail and the new strategic highways company will be quite similar, but one difference between them, which we will come on to in later amendments, relates to the role of the Office of Rail Regulation. Over the past 10 years, the Office of Rail Regulation has required Network Rail to make savings of about 60% of its turnover. That is quite a big saving, which has been achieved, while keeping the service going and the quality improving, because the regulator has very strong powers. If the savings are not made, or if the resulting performance of the network is bad, the regulator can fine Network Rail, as I believe it is planning to do next week.
The problem here is that the rail regulator will not have such powers over the highways authority but will simply monitor. You can sit monitoring things all your life, but you cannot incentivise or require an organisation to make the changes that it should. I am sure that there are changes to be made. I am sure that significant percentage savings could be made over quite short periods. On whether those would be the same as in the case of Network Rail, they probably could be, because Network Rail started off as a nationalised industry, which was probably pretty inefficient to some people. Although the Highways Agency has improved over the years, there is probably a long way further to go. However, unless we can get the ORR to have the same powers not just to monitor but to control and enforce cost reductions, I am not quite sure where we are with this.
Listening to other noble Lords, I am beginning to think that the only benefit from this that I have heard is the idea—which the Minister has, of course, denied—that the Bill is about getting the Highways Agency ready for privatisation.
Lord Whitty
“( ) The Strategic Highways Company shall be responsible for the construction, improvement and maintenance of the strategic highways network for which it is the authority; and for the management of safety of that network, the development of traffic management and speed control systems on that network and for meeting objectives for reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases, pollution of water run-off, air quality and other environmental objectives and for engagement with private and commercial road users and with local communities.
( ) The Strategic Highways Company shall have responsibility for research and development in the fields of road construction and maintenance, traffic and safety controls and telemetric information on its network, and in so doing, the strategic highways company may contract to or enter partnership with other organisations.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, Schedule 1 is 26 pages long. It is devoted almost entirely to inserting in the Highways Act the name of the company rather than the Secretary of State, or vice versa, and a lot of other administrative matters relating to assets, contracts and so forth. What it does not do—and I think it should—is to describe the responsibilities of the company and the scope of its activities, to which my next amendment relates.
This amendment is a shot at describing what I think will be the responsibilities of the company. This is Committee stage and, therefore, I hope that the department might accept the principle and draft a better description. However, essentially, somewhere in the Bill—I would prefer it to be in the body of the Bill rather than in a schedule, but the schedule is where the detail on the new company is spelt out at the moment—it should state what the functions and responsibilities of the company are.
The amendment refers to the obvious things: the construction, the maintenance and the improvement of the road system; traffic management for that system; and safety for that network. When I mention safety, on which I have amendments later on, I should inform the Committee that, since Second Reading, I have acquired an interest in this area in that I am now the chair, taking over from my noble friend Lord Dubs, of the Road Safety Foundation. Some noble Lords may recall that safety was a significant element when I was Roads Minister. Certainly, it is underplayed in this Bill and should be an important part of it, as are traffic management, speed controls, and so forth.
There is also the environmental dimension. There are problems about the construction and operation of roads. Somewhere in this Bill we need to say more clearly that the company, and not the Secretary of State any more, is now responsible for the environmental impact of the roads which are run by the Highways Agency. That includes the level of emissions which traffic management creates and whether that is going down and making a contribution to our carbon saving. It includes also the level of air pollution, which is largely proportionate to congestion and which, again, the Highways Agency network should be making a contribution to, as well as other things which are not perhaps so obvious, such as the run-off of water from highways, which has a significant effect on water systems—we have just passed a Water Act in which the quality of water is an important issue, including that of groundwater. Although most new schemes provide some better storage and diversion of water, from a lot of the old roads it still goes back into the ground or into the water system.
The amendment also refers to another responsibility, which is for research and development. I think that I am right in saying that the Highways Agency has its own R&D budget, but the Department for Transport also has a roads research budget. Is the whole of R&D on roads now to be the responsibility of this new company, which would probably be quite sensible? The Bill needs to be clear that the R&D on roads, traffic and the impact of roads is one of its responsibilities. A final dimension of the responsibilities that I am suggesting is the necessity to engage with road users and local communities, and the ability to enter into contracts with other providers. We will come later on to issues of co-operation with local authorities, and so forth. A key responsibility will be relations with road users themselves.
This amendment is my shot at this issue. I suspect that there could be a better one—but it is rather odd that a whole new nationalised infrastructure corporation should be established without the primary legislation saying anywhere what its responsibilities are. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support my noble friend in his Amendment 4, and I shall speak to the other amendments in this group. On Amendment 4, he is absolutely right. The strategic highways company needs to have responsibility for all the things that he has put in the amendment. I remind the Committee that there is very strong evidence that a month or two before the Olympics, when the air pollution on one or two of the trunk roads in London was reaching Chinese levels, the solution by the Mayor was to cover the monitoring points with plastic bags, which of course reduced the level of pollution inside the plastic bags but did not much help anybody else. But this needs to be done by the strategic highways company, and I would suggest that it needs to be supervised by somebody. That may be a role for the Office of Rail Regulation, or whatever it is to be called in future, because these are very important points.
My noble friend is right in his comment about research, but there needs to be some research into non-trunk roads, which are a very large part of the road network. I hope that that can be taken into account as well.
Amendments 6 and 7 relate to the 20 pages of consequential amendments to which my noble friend referred. It relates to something that may have got lost in the search for consequential amendments—the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the question of which body is responsible for collecting litter on different roads. These two amendments are designed to make sure that the strategic highways do not get left out of the wrapping up; otherwise, we will see them covered in litter from head to foot.
I shall not read out all the parts of my amendment, because everybody can read them, and it probably would not make much sense anyway—unless you put a wet towel on your head.
Finally, my noble friend did not mention Amendment 61, which follows on from Amendment 4 and is to do with the transfer of additional functions to the strategic highways company in Clause 13(2). It covers highways and planning, but I agree that it should cover road safety as well, because that is a terribly important part of it. We will talk about safety comparisons later, but it would be good to see road safety in there, or something like it.
Baroness Kramer
There was a Written Ministerial Statement when the documents were published, so I hope that some people have found them through that route.
Let me just provide slightly more detail. We intend to share draft documents such as the framework document later in the autumn, so as the Bill progresses we will be publishing them in draft form. The point that I was making is that you cannot go to final form until you know absolutely everything. It would be presumptuous for us to go to final form before the Bill had been concluded.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, many of us probably share some of the frustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, as there were a whole batch of documents there before Second Reading. Basically, those were the White Papers or quasi-White Papers from the past year or so—they were about an inch thick. I have seen the documents, but the document to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred was not one of those. Although I have seen that document, I am not sure how I got it. More importantly for the Minister’s answer, I have not seen the draft licence. I do not know whether other noble Lords on the Committee have seen the draft licence. If she is relying on that to explain why we do not need my amendment and the amendments of other noble Lords in this group, I am afraid that I am in the dark on that.
There is a point of principle relating to the licence. In other regulated structures, the licence is issued by the regulator. In some cases, what the licence should cover is specified in primary legislation, while in other cases it is not. In this case, the Secretary of State will issue the licence because, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said earlier, the ORR’s role is as monitor not as regulator. We will come back to that. It is a responsibility of the Secretary of State, and therefore it ought to be clear in the legislation what should be covered in that licence. If the licence is the means for achieving the aims, that is fair enough, but we need to know what the scope of the licence will be, at least in broad terms. Preferably, that should be in the Bill.
Indeed, even more basically—without wanting to repeat myself, and although this is probably a criticism of legislation more broadly—we are setting up a new organisation here in legislation which has references to pre-existing powers and pre-existing responsibilities. If, in a year or two’s time, anyone wants to know what the basis is of the strategic highways company, there will be no point in their looking at this Bill, or Act as it will then be. Surely, the function of legislation is to make clear, first to Parliament and then to the cognoscenti afterwards, what the role of any new institution that Parliament sets up really is. In my mind, that means that it should specify at least in broad terms the responsibilities and scope of the new publicly owned organisation set up by Parliament. All my amendment suggests is that we should put something in the Bill.
Lord Whitty
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.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, before I begin, I have now had confirmation that the documents that we have been discussing were deposited in the Library, so we hope that they will be available in that form for those who prefer not to have to wade their way through the websites. I understand how frustrating websites can be, and the Library is always such an excellent source.
Amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12 cover a range of issues. We have always been clear that there can be one company or more than one company, and we discussed that issue extensively earlier, so I will instead focus on the other issues raised in this grouping. The appointment of the SHC will make it clear which roads will transfer to the new company. As we previously stated when we consulted, and in response to that consultation, there will be no change in arrangements for those roads that currently fall under a concession agreement.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, the Secretary of State currently has residual responsibility for some roads on Welsh territory—not all were devolved—but these are in relation only to the Severn crossing. The current policy intention is that these roads should legally remain the Secretary of State’s responsibility, and we do not anticipate including these highways in the first appointment of a strategic highways company. However, the clause allows highways within Wales to be included in a company’s appointment if its area of responsibility is adjacent to Wales. Given that these are current responsibilities of the Secretary of State, it is easy to see that in future it might be considered appropriate to provide that a strategic highways company should be entrusted with all the Secretary of State’s highways authority functions, so we are providing for the flexibility to do that in this Bill. To do otherwise would risk the possibility that the Secretary of State would need to retain a small amount of executive competence to act as a highways authority for a few roads in Wales, which, frankly, would be both disproportionate and inefficient. To be clear, the power to appoint the company as a highway authority can be exercised only in respect of roads for which the Secretary of State is the highways authority immediately beforehand. This power could therefore not be used to give the company a wider role in respect of highways in Wales.
The strategic highways company will be a highways authority and it will be required to co-operate with other traffic authorities under the Traffic Management Act 2004, keeping traffic moving under the provisions of the network management duty. There will also be a duty in the licence—again, I recommend that draft document, which will, I hope, be more easily available—to co-operate and consult with local authorities in the planning and management of their networks. There are important, ongoing obligations on the company that will help ensure that, in the years ahead, co-ordination and co-operation between highways authorities increases the benefit to road users generally.
The Department for Transport has already consulted on these proposals, and local highways authorities gave their views during that process, as did other interested parties. At this point, further consultation would simply delay the implementation of measures on which there has already been extensive consultation. In the light of that, these amendments are unnecessary. Under those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I apologise for missing my cue. The department needs to think a little about how this is presented. The points raised in these amendments need to be addressed somewhere in the Bill. There is currently no core to what this organisation is about, in terms of its range of assets, function and responsibilities. That may be in the document to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred, and of which we may see a draft before we complete proceedings on the Bill, but it needs to be in the Bill. The department needs to rethink this a bit. We are not talking about several pages; we are probably talking about two clauses. Will the Minister at least ask the department to look again at that and the related points raised in the debate on the earlier amendments? I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about cross-modal being an important issue. There is a later amendment on the need for co-operation, on which I am sure we will agree. I have some concerns about the notion of duty in that context, because duties impose rights and that can lead to problems. I am also not sure that rail is necessarily the model for road. I always think that when you are looking at a regulatory framework, judgments need to be made in respect of the sector that you are looking at. You need to be careful that they work for that sector, and circumstances are different.
That leads me to my main point. I am always concerned about perverse effects. The clause that is the subject of Amendment 13 could have some quite perverse effects, particularly if it were introduced in this form. Duties, effectively, are like legislation and will give rights, and rights can then generate judicial review, and you could have arguments about whether particular things are sustainable or not. You could then make this process a lot more complicated and expensive, and it would not produce the better agency that is the purpose of the Bill. Will my noble friend comment on this aspect of the proposed amendment?
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 Whitty
Lord Whitty
We now come on to the strategy and, by implication, the money. The Government have commendably said that they want a steady strategy that is going to last some time, with an allocation of resources against it. That in itself is highly desirable, but it is not so dramatically different from the various road programmes that have existed in the past and have been subject to sudden change, as the Minister said, mainly because of changes to financial arrangements but also because of planning delays and technical problems with the projects when they go beyond the initial feasibility study.
The national infrastructure plan, which has a lot of roads in it, broken down on a regional basis, is presumably going to be built on and represented as the strategic highways plan, and there will be a five-year programme of money attached to it. My Amendment 14 attempts to ensure that that five-year view is reflected in the Bill. The Government have made quite a lot of the five-year thing, but although I have not read every word of Schedule 3, I do not see it in the Bill. There are arguments as to whether five years is enough, given that it takes that long even to get anywhere near starting, but the five-year funding has been an important plank of the Government’s selling of this project, and I think that it should appear somewhere in the Bill.
My wording may not be quite right, but I think that it should be a rolling five-year programme, so that in year 3 you are still looking five years ahead. You would add to it, and you would add the financial commitment related to it at that point. My wording does not exactly say that, but that is what I am after. If the department can find better wording, that is so much the better. However, we should at least write into the Bill the embedding of a minimum five-year view and that it should be on a rolling basis and have money attached. Otherwise, a lot of the rationale for this whole exercise disappears. That is what Amendment 14 is about. The Government have made a start with the designation of projects within the national infrastructure programme and can turn that into a highways strategy, and the Chancellor has made the commitment for these five years.
The Government seem slightly naive in their confidence that the Treasury will never revisit this because it is now an arm’s-length company. The past 50 years have seen cuts to the money that has gone to private companies, to nationalised corporations and to local authorities. The fact that they are arm’s length from government has not stopped the Treasury deciding at particular points to change what it had previously—in effect—promised. So far nobody has managed to sue the Chancellor for that; I doubt whether it will be any different under this new arrangement. That may be a bit cynical. As the Minister said, it would be more embarrassing to do that, but my experience of Treasury Ministers and Treasury officials over the past few decades does not indicate that they are easily embarrassed. Indeed, interfering with other departments’ clear priorities is the way that the Treasury works, rightly or wrongly. Therefore, the benefits of having an allocation for five years can be exaggerated. Nevertheless, it is a desirable aim, and it is desirable that we know for those five years what projects are there and what stage they are at. Since it is a rolling programme, moving from feasibility study to planning, to precise engineering design, to the start of digging and through to actual completion of the road, it is desirable that it should appear in a five-year perspective. Before we finish the Bill, I hope that a form of words can be adopted that makes sure that that is reflected in the Act. If it provides a bit of embarrassment to future Treasury Ministers, so much the better, and so much easier will future Transport Ministers find their relations with the Treasury.
My Amendment 16 raises the broader issue of strategy. We have an infrastructure strategy but not a specific transport strategy. It needs to be made clear how the roads strategy, or highways strategy, fits in with the broader transport strategy—rail, ports and airports in particular. The whole logistical structure and the balance within it in terms of our economy, what pressure is put on the transport system and what the regional balance and stress points are, need to be reflected in all modes and, indeed, different corridors need to be judged on a multimodal basis. If they are not, simply having a sacrosanct—or near-sacrosanct—roads strategy will deal only with part of the problem. My Amendment 16 relates to putting the roads strategy into that broader context. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
My Lords, it is my impression that this road investment strategy, and the commitments made to it by the Government, is perhaps the aspect of this Bill that has been most welcomed by industry, commerce and, indeed, all those who depend on transport for their operation. I have just been rereading what the CBI said about this, and it attaches enormous importance to the stability that the roads investment strategy is intended to bring.
It will be a long time before those of us who lived through it forget what happened in 1997 when the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, decided that roads were much less important than a lot of other things and there was a massive stop to almost the entire road investment at the time. That is the memory that I have and the impression that the noble Lord gave at the time, and that memory will take a long time to disperse. The Bill, particularly this clause and the policy that lies behind it, has been greeted with huge enthusiasm.
The Treasury has ultimate responsibility for managing the economy as a whole. I can speak as perhaps the only former Treasury Minister in the Room, having spent four years as Financial Secretary and then Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the 1970s. One is always aware that at the back of any policy there has to be Treasury approval. In the interests of the economy as a whole the Treasury has to be able to say to a department, “I’m very sorry, we can’t afford that”. Here, though, the combination of the strategic highways company, the roads investment strategy and the commitments that the coalition Government have given on this must to some extent make a Treasury Minister think extremely carefully about how far it would be right to interfere with this—that would be a major decision.
Of course, these things often happen when there is a change of Government. What industry is looking for here, as we heard in the debate in the Chamber today from a number of speakers, is common ground between the major parties so that there are not massive changes of policy on matters of this sort, which have such a devastating effect on manufacturing industry—which is what we were discussing then.
Whether one needs to have what the amendment suggests at least every five years I would regard as questionable; it seems to add an element of uncertainty that the Bill does not have. There is a five-year review but I am not quite sure why this particular condition would need to be put in. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and I have enormous respect for his expertise in this field because he was a Minister in the Department for Transport, or whatever it was called at the time, but the advantage that has been gained by publishing this policy in this clause of the Bill is that it assures the commercial side of this country that there is now going to be far greater stability in the long term. I am delighted that there is such emphasis on the long-term strategy for infrastructure building so that we can get away from these five-year single-Parliament policy decisions, which might put it risk.
I want to see this aspect of the Bill going through as effectively and swiftly as possible because it is what the country, particularly its commercial elements, have been looking for for a long time. I am going to look at not just this amendment but a number of the others that have been tabled—I was going through them earlier today—to see whether they would interfere with that aspect by raising doubts or putting additional bureaucracy or obstacles in the way of getting the strategy fulfilled. That is what one will need to look at very carefully. At the moment, as far as I can see, most of the Bill achieves what is wanted. I express my doubt about whether Amendment 14 from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would improve that; I suspect that it would add an additional obstacle and raise doubts that ought not to be there.
Baroness Kramer
I thank your Lordships. These amendments are fairly well honed around a question to the Government about whether or not they should produce a national strategy to deliver a sustainable transport system and, in doing so, align plans for the rail and strategic road networks. I ask your Lordships to hold back from that, and I will try to explain why. The Government genuinely care about ensuring that different parts of the transport network work together. We think that our overarching transport strategy reflects that. However, we are concerned about trying to get a single document that would articulate all that and yet allow the impact that we want from the kinds of changes that we are introducing today.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, described some of the issues that come from having a fixed term of five years, as rail has. When the road investment strategy comes forward, I expect it to have a term in it. I would not be surprised if that was five years. But it would also be quite reasonable to expect that it might look at funding commitments beyond the end of that period in order to prevent the kind of hiatus problem that we have seen before when projects and programmes come forward.
We are looking for some flexibility around how we handle all this. However, it is far too early days to think about aligning road and rail strategies. They are both complex, and incredibly detailed. We are looking at a new company, which will have to work its way into the actual programmes it has. There may be a point later where we want to draw those two closer together. However, frankly, it would not be appropriate to try to make that part of the framework we have today. Therefore, the documents leave this very flexible, so that one could move in that direction if that seemed to make sense as we get practical experience on the ground of how the strategic highways company works and how it is delivering.
One can see certain problems. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, just pointed out to us that sometimes there is a pattern of investment within Network Rail’s five-year period. I would hate to have two aligned periods, one for road and one for rail, which exaggerated that pattern. Therefore, there are a lot of issues about how we would align and bring those programmes together. We need to allow that to arise out of experience rather than to be dictated in these documents at this point in time.
It is absolutely crucial that we achieve certainty of funding, which is the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, had an excellent set of responses to that. Would any Chancellor resist revisiting the issue? Well, it certainly becomes a sight more difficult. The legislation as constructed commits the Secretary of State to comply with the RIS, which includes the financial resources commitments which will be embedded in the RIS. As noble Lords look at the details of the legislation that sets up the RIS, they will see that an attempt to vary it triggers quite a process, including consultation. That is something that forces this to be a transparent and very determined and detailed decision. That is the appropriate way to go about putting on sufficient constraint without undermining what is in the end a democratic process. We cannot completely bind the hands and feet of all future Governments—that would be entirely inappropriate. However, we can drive in this direction where the institutional arrangements underpin and reinforce the idea of consistency and certainty. Frankly, that is what this document achieves rather well.
I therefore ask that we do not at this point try to narrow the scope to specific terms and fixed periods or try to get immediate alignment between road and rail. That is not where we need to be at this point in the process. The experience, as we bring into being the strategic highways company, will help either us or future Governments begin to determine whether there are benefits to be gained by greater alignment in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked whether this covers cyclists and walkers. It is absolutely clear in all this that the responsibility of the strategic highways authority is to road users. Again, I hesitate, and ask that we do not put in lists. When I had this discussion, someone chimed up and said, “You’ve got to say motorcycles, electric bikes need to have a separate category, and what about horses?”. We all recognise that “road users” captures everyone who makes use of the road, and frankly, that is a far safer definition than trying to make a list—someone also asked me, “What about Segways?”. I will say only, can we please stay away from the list on this? However, it is clear in my mind, and in the minds of everybody who has ever been connected with the Bill in any way, that cyclists, walkers and pedestrians are absolutely a significant part of the road-user community. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will feel able to support the relevant clauses of the Bill and to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, and I thank other contributors. It is clear that the wording I have in Amendment 14 is not appropriate even for what I was trying to achieve, so obviously I will not be able to press that particular amendment.
However, I am a bit surprised by what the Minister says because the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is absolutely right that many in industry, plus companies involved in road construction, have hugely welcomed the announcement that there was to be some stability in funding. What they and I think we heard from Ministers was that there would be a strategy with projects listed in it and a near-guaranteed amount of money, probably for five years and possibly for as long as 10. That would obviously be of great comfort to industry as a whole, in using and depending on the roads, and to those who see their profit in having rather more road building which they could rely on, rather than a stop-start system. I do not think that the Bill reflects what they think they heard.
Clause 3 actually says:
“The Secretary of State may at any time … set a Road Investment Strategy … or … vary a Strategy which has already been set”.
That is not exactly a comfort of certainty and consistency. In fact, it gives carte blanche for the Secretary of State to change it every five minutes. Admittedly, that would be subject to the consultation arrangements to which the Minister referred, which come later on. However, it is not the degree of firmness that people in industry were looking for and thought they had on that. I referred to five years because I thought that is what the Government were saying, but I actually think that the rolling programme is better. It could be for seven years, or whatever, as even in the best of years the average time between deciding to build a road and finishing it is seven years. It is probably a little longer.
Baroness Kramer
I do not want this point to go unchallenged. I say to the noble Lord that I think the industry has heard absolutely correctly, but nobody I know in the industry believes that a Parliament can bind every future Parliament from thereon out and totally remove its democratic right. It would be inappropriate to attempt to do that and, frankly, I do not think it could be done, so it is absolutely crucial that we recognise that the Secretary of State can make a variance. It is not the intention of this Government that they will vary the RIS that they put forward, but I do not see that they can completely bind a future Parliament 100%. That is why the mechanism in place is to set a very transparent course—one could say an obstacle course—for any change or variance, so that it in no way would be done lightly. Perhaps no Government would do it lightly but it would be done with consultation and engagement, and with various steps in place. Industry has widely recognised that that provides it with a very substantial degree of certainty—enough to have the kind of positive responses to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
Perhaps I might add to that before the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, resumes. I have in front of me the British Chambers of Commerce brief. I want to read only one sentence from it. It says that,
“the transformation of the Highways Agency into a more flexible body, with five-year investment programmes”,
should offer,
“more certainty to business on key road projects”.
It is not expecting to have complete certainty and for this to be totally fixed over a period because it recognises the reality, as my noble friend has just said, that to some extent it has to reflect what is happening in the rest of the economy. What it welcomes is what it sees as the opportunity of much more certainty than we have had in the past.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, that is very realistic; nevertheless, the way that it has described the situation is more than is actually in the Bill. Some other form of words would give more certainty than the Bill does currently, as past changes show that there is a need for some protection. It may be that the obstacles—if that is how the Minister wants to describe the consultation—are one way of ensuring that it does not get easily changed. The other way is to put the strategy to Parliament and have to report to Parliament if you are going to change it. In some industries or sectors, that is done in certain respects. You have to provide a strategy and, if you change it, there is at least an argument in Parliament. These things change from time to time.
I am sorry to take up the Committee’s time, but I shook my head at the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, earlier and I need to explain. I became the Roads Minister in 1998. In 1997, the Government inherited a roads programme from quite a good 1996 White Paper of the previous Government, which listed projects but did not list money attached to them. Projects got added in as we approached the 1997 election, by both parties, for reasons I will not go into. We therefore had a programme with far too much in it at the tail-end, and which did not have the right amount of money attached to it. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, announced that he thought his aim as Transport Secretary was to reduce the number of cars on the road, and he was therefore not going to build roads which simply increased traffic. I know this well because we announced the roads programme in 1998, about four days after I became the Minister, so I take no responsibility for the decisions but I do take responsibility for the presentation. The majority of things which had been in the previous paper were back in, and then there were one or two more and one or two fewer—but they were all costed. A lot of those costings proved to be utterly inaccurate, most of the timings proved to be most inaccurate and one of the projects was indeed the A303 past Stonehenge, and we know what happened to that. Certainty is not easy in this area. We need a bit more certainty than we have here.
Lord Whitty
“( ) The activities, results and standards in subsection (4) shall include improvement of performance in network safety, reductions in carbon emissions, and improvements in environmental objectives as well as issues of traffic volumes, journey times and new and improved roads.
( ) A reduction in the number of accidents and the number killed or seriously injured on the highways network shall be a central objective of the Road Investment Strategy and shall be embedded at the level of design of the system, at the operational level of network management and in assessment of individual capital projects.”
Lord Whitty
All the amendments in this group are mine. This relates to exactly the sort of thing that my noble friend Lord Davies was just referring to. The Highways Agency consists mainly of engineers—quite rightly, and very good engineers many of them are. In the fringes, there are traffic engineers, as well as highways engineers. When you ask them to build into their projects objectives other than those which relate to providing more, quicker or wider roads, there is a bit of barrier, on occasion. Between them, the amendments are an attempt to ensure that when we take decisions on road improvements or new roads, issues of safety and the environment are built into those decisions on the same basis as any improvement in travel time, the number of miles of road which are tarmacked, or whatever.
The Highways Agency contains within it people who take those things seriously, but the natural tendency, particularly when we put the foot on the accelerator of spending on roads, is to get as many roads built as fast as possible and not worry too much about the complications. One big complication has wider implications for the rest of the project: safety. Earlier, I declared my interest as the new chair of the Road Safety Foundation. Every year it produces a map of European standards and the state of Britain’s roads. I have the map here if anyone wants to look at it. Those are standards which have been worked up by various equivalent bodies across Europe. It is right to say that our motorway system, in particular, is one of the safest in the world and is the safest part of the British— English, in this case—road system. That, of course, is calculated on the basis of vehicle miles and comparing them. It is also true to say that 250 people a year are killed on Highways Agency roads every year, and 2,000-plus are killed or seriously injured on those roads. That is a significant safety issue. Just to put it in perspective, more people are killed on Highways Agency roads, which are only 2% of our network—a third of the casualties because of the density of traffic—than the number of people who are killed at work. There are health and safety issues at work, for which we have a whole organisation, the HSE, to ensure that such accidents do not happen or are minimised.
The Government need to have an answer to the question of who is liable for those accidents. There have been big improvements in road safety in the past 20 years. When I was Road Safety Minister we had a 10-year strategy and, by and large, that reduced deaths and serious injuries by about 30% over that period. That improvement has slowed down a bit since 2010, but we are nevertheless one of the best and safest in Europe and the world. However, there are still a significant number of deaths and injuries.
If you try to establish the causes of those accidents, there is an assumption that it is mainly driver error or driver behaviour—and there is some truth in that. Much of the improvement over the past 20 years has been in improved vehicle safety. The Euro NCAP programme has raised certainly new car safety features from what it regarded as 2-star to roughly 4-star—air bags and other aspects of car design—which has had a major impact.
It is also true to say that at least for most groups there has been some improvement in driver behaviour, but there has not necessarily been the same improvement in safety features in the physical design of roads, nor has the improvement been reflected in the objectives of road-building organisations—principally the Highways Agency, but also the local authorities. The reasons for this are partly because it is thought that if you build a better road, safety automatically improves. It does not necessarily do so, and certainly does not improve proportionately. It is partly because the system for appraising new projects—whether they are intersections, main road widening or whatever—includes safety elements that are but a small proportion of the total cost and benefit. Additional safety factors are therefore discouraged by the way in which the projects are appraised.
This group of amendments, which also relate to environmental issues, attempts to write safety issues into different points in the Bill. I imagine that the Minister will not accept the amendments as they stand but I advise her and her colleagues that road safety is underplayed in the Bill. At various points in the Bill, explicit reference to road safety and reducing accidents needs to be reflected, as well as in the licensing conditions and the standards and objectives that the Secretary of State accepts for the new company.
My worry about the transposition in this context is that if a road design issue causes or contributes to the cause of an accident, who is liable? We do not get many legal cases about the state of the roads, and I do not know why. Thirty years ago we did not get many legal cases about the performance of the National Health Service; now we get lots of them. We get quite a few about tripping over the pavement, which is the equivalent responsibility for the local authority. If you have an independent company, the question of liability to potential litigation needs to be taken into account as one of the risk factors. I am not saying that it is a determinant risk factor, but it is something that the Government will have to have an answer to, and at the moment I do not think they do. One way of ensuring that that happens, in terms of licence conditions and the other oversight that the Secretary of State will have to perform, is to write safety in at several points in the Bill.
With regard to the detail of the individual amendments, Amendment 18 relates to the standards that the Secretary of State can set for the company. One of those standards should be a reduction in the number of accidents and the number of people killed, and that should be,
“a central objective of the Road Investment Strategy”.
Amendment 22 makes the point that I was just referring to, that when you appraise schemes, the appraisal for safety benefits or otherwise needs to be a separate assessment and not be lost in the overall assessment, because the return you can get on safety measures is often much higher than the return you get on time-saving and other economic benefits. Amendment 22 also goes into other issues of reducing traffic and so on, which also have high returns. It is the same in the energy sector: saving energy is actually a far greater return than spending money on new power stations, although you have to do both—as you do here. But if you appraise the environmental element separately, the rate of return is significantly greater. Therefore, that should be done as a matter of course.
Likewise, in relation to the strategy in Clause 2, Amendment 33 says that the objectives should relate not just to road-building but to safety issues, and that in relation to guidance due consideration should be given to road safety and environmental outcomes. I would particularly emphasise the road safety dimension.
These amendments may not be the most appropriate place, but before the Bill leaves this House it would be sensible for the Government and the department to find the appropriate place to put, in lights, “road safety responsibilities of the new company”. If we let it leave this House without that being clear—in several different places, I suggest—there will be a tendency for the company to at least downgrade those and for the accountability of the company to be weaker because they have not been spelt out in the Bill.
These are quite important issues. Sometimes those who are keen on having new roads regard safety issues as a constraint rather than an objective of road design. We need to ensure they are an objective both at the individual project level and in the overall strategy. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support my noble friend. He has raised some very interesting challenges. I do not think that safety gets taken into account nearly enough in the design of roads. In my earlier life, I designed quite a few of them.
It might be interesting to compare how the roads have developed and how the railways have developed. There were some horrendous accidents on the railways in Victorian times, starting off with a Member of Parliament who got crushed by one of the first trains because he was standing too close to it, or something. That led to the introduction of the Railway Inspectorate, whose job it was to ensure that the railways were safe, bringing in things such as brakes, which are quite useful. Things have moved on a bit since then. The Railway Inspectorate was originally staffed by retired Army officers, but more recently it has moved to the Office of Rail Regulation, which is the right place for it. I think that it does a very good job. We will be talking about some of the issues around that when we discuss a later amendment.
It seems to me a good idea to look at whether the ORR in its expanded role could take on some road safety issues. At present, the Highways Agency does that, and, in the absence of any other instructions, the new body will probably hold much the same views as that agency—namely, the desire to increase speeds so that people can get to their destinations faster and to increase capacity by having more roads. The strategy is designed round the concept of “a minute saved”. My noble friend is an expert on this. He may well be right that that body takes safety into account to some extent, but I am not sure that it does. It could certainly do so to a far greater extent.
The Office of Rail Regulation could be given responsibility for many of the safety issues that my noble friend raised, which cover a multitude of sins, and could be given a duty to look at the potential for modal shift. We talk about road to rail very frequently, but there is the issue of road to bicycle. As we have seen in London, road to bicycle is concerned largely with safety issues. A terrible number of cyclists have been killed in London in the past year or two. TfL talks about redesigning roundabouts but one of the key issues, which must be obvious to most people, is that if you give cyclists space, they are less likely to get run over. If the road traffic speed is set at 20 miles an hour, it is a great deal safer than 30 miles an hour, and you will get more people cycling and fewer people trying to drive. It would also reduce emissions and do all the other good things that we have been talking about. This is to do with modal shift. The journey time issue is equally important, whether you travel by bike, train, car or bus. Therefore, my noble friend’s amendments deserve careful consideration. I will discuss with him in more detail whether the Office of Rail Regulation should be involved in some of these issues. I think that body is capable of it as it has very capable people. Unlike the Highways Agency, it can stand back and take a different view and, if it does not like what is going on, it should be able to enforce and encourage change. These are important amendments and I look forward to further discussion on them.
Baroness Kramer
All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on this, is that we have certainly moved on from that, have we not? That is one of the problems that happens when you try to put too much into primary legislation—we become more demanding as the years go by, not less demanding. It is important that we reflect that more demanding approach in the way we manage our network.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am exceptionally disappointed by that reply, because it did not address the issue. I will confine my remarks to safety, but there are other issues as well.
I imagine that any member of the public who wants to know what the objectives of the new company would be would expect to have it written in the Bill that road safety improvements are one of those objectives. It is no good telling us that it is in the licence or that maybe it is in the guidance—the Bill should specify what issues should be covered by the licence, and what areas the guidance is appropriate for. The issue of safety is underrated in the appraisal system. That is not to say that it is not there, but that because a safety measure costs a lot less than building a whole new road or even a rather short one, it gets lost in the total balance of benefits. If you looked at the safety expenditure you would probably get a rate of return considerably higher than the millions of pounds spent on improvement in the speed and travel time, which therefore improves or extends the road itself. I was just trying to say that we should look at those separately before we take the decision.
The other advice I would give to the Minister is that this is quite a potent issue out there. A lot of organisations and people are interested in road safety. If it were known that we were promoting a Bill without any significant reference to road safety as the basis for establishing an entirely new system of delivering our roads, they might well take that amiss. All I am saying is that, during the subsequent stages, there will be significant public interest in this area, even though there might not be that much public interest in most of the minutiae of the Bill.
Clearly, I am not saying that the Highways Agency should be responsible for anything more than the physical safety of the structure of the road and the safety provisions on the management of that road, whether that is signage, markings, telemetrics, or whatever, which contribute to safety. The agency is responsible for that; all the rest of it—vehicle design, driver behaviour, and so on—is the Secretary of State’s responsibility. However, there are areas where the builder and operator of the road must be responsible. As regards our strategies on road safety, that has been underemphasised hitherto. It is an important thing. In certain other countries, including some of the countries to which the Minister made reference as models—Denmark, Holland and Sweden—it is much clearer that they are building safety requirements in the slightly arms-length companies they have.
We will definitely return to this issue. I hope that the Minister and her officials retire and find some way of reflecting this discussion in the Bill before we come to Report. If not, I can promise the Committee that I will return to it. In the mean time, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
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 Berkeley
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 26 is more about who should be consulted. I expect the Minister will say that she does not like lists and therefore we should not have them, but as my two noble friends have said, it is very important that the Secretary of State should consult organisations that are affected, including,
“Network Rail … local transport authorities … combined authorities … statutory environmental bodies”,
and anyone else that the Secretary of State thinks is important. It is very important that this should happen. If it is going to happen, that is fine, but it is very important that it does.
With regard to Amendment 31, on Part 2 of Schedule 2—“Varying a road investment strategy”—it seems more appropriate to make use of the Planning Act 2008 provisions and apply them to the road investment strategy as if it was a national policy statement. My amendment would bring it all together in a national policy statement structure rather than the one in the Bill. I do not think I need to explain it any further. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Kramer
The point that underpins all this is that Ministers, rather than Parliament, have traditionally made decisions on infrastructure funding, and we are not seeking to overturn that. It would be rather unprecedented for the Government to put forward a funding and investment plan for debate. If that were to become the underlying principle, it would have a sweeping impact on many different aspects of government, so we are not proposing that. We also, frankly, recognise that it would slow down what is already not a brief process. We want to get to the point of getting infrastructure out into the ground.
For example, the rail investment strategy can be issued by the Government without being laid before the House and debated. That does not prevent Parliament from holding the Government and the rail sector to account, and that is the model that we are following here. We are behaving consistently with how these issues are already handled in government—we are not overturning that, other than to the extent of putting in a requirement for consultation should there be a variance in the RIS. As I said, that is because it has that sort of exception, or potential downside, of undermining the framework of long-term funding certainty that we are trying to create. I assure noble Lords that there will be extensive stakeholder engagement around the RIS. Indeed, the RIS will typically be built from the route strategies up, and there is extensive consultation at the route-strategy level. There is a place for consultation in all this, and the arrangements as a whole are very satisfactory for that purpose.
One of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, lists a number of stakeholders that would have to be consulted during the preparation of the RIS. He is right about lists tending to be a problem for me. The practical reality is that the stakeholders know who they are and the Government know who the stakeholders are. There is constant engagement, and it is a fairly fluid group, so there would be no great advantage to including a list of them.
I want to make sure that I cover the full range of issues. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, suggested that Parliament should report on this. He said that he was not sure his amendment achieved what he intended, but we read it as requiring that Parliament approve each proposal in Part 1 of the Bill before it could come into force, and that Part 1 must be reviewed every five years. We are debating the Bill now, and I am sure his specific intent was not to require it to be reviewed as soon as it was enacted. We may just have some confusion around that issue. Perhaps he was trying to suggest that the RIS should be reviewed by Parliament—that is my understanding from the comments that he made.
Lord Whitty
Just for clarification, when I wrote the amendment I meant Part 1, but I am afraid that I spoke as if I meant the strategy. I am happy not to pursue the issue at this point.
Baroness Kramer
I appreciate the noble Lord’s comments. We feel that there is a substantial mechanism for engagement in this process. I take on board the concerns that have been expressed today but I think that we have probably got it about right. On that basis, we ask that the noble Lord considers withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Bradshaw
I shall add some comments to those just made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. The Government have a very major problem stalking up on them—namely, the lack of tax revenue that they will get from motoring. People are buying cars that are free of revenue tax and of fuel tax—or rather they pay very much less. Therefore, the flow of revenue that the Government are expecting to receive from fuel duty or vehicle excise duty is going to decline quite rapidly.
We are talking about the future of the highways network and we will have to find some other means of financing it. We are talking about the long term, but people are quick to pick up on ways of avoiding tax legitimately. I therefore believe, despite what the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, that the technology is available to charge people to use roads. How you do it and who sets the toll will be matters for future consideration, and what the noble Viscount said about this is important.
You also have the problem of people diverting away from the tolled road on to secondary or non-Highways Agency roads. Again, the technology exists to prevent most of this, and modern logistics companies cannot afford to send lorries around circuitous routes because drivers’ hours regulations, if properly enforced, mean that most of them programme their drivers to get the maximum out of the 10 and a half hours for which they are allowed to drive. If these people take more circuitous routes to avoid paying tolls, they will therefore bust the drivers’ hours regulations in almost every case.
I am going to speak about this later, but there are a number of strategic issues—one of which is how we pay for the use of roads—which have to be faced, not by the immediate Government who have brought this legislation forward but by successive Governments of whatever colour. They will have to find a method of financing a road network with declining revenues from the present system of taxation.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have slipped an amendment into this group as well. In a sense, it deals with the same problem—the ability of the new company to raise money on the markets—from the other end.
The reality is that the Treasury will never provide quite enough money out of general taxation to build roads. My noble friend Lord Hanworth and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, have focused on road charging as one way of getting that income. Who would be accountable for that? The Government have said that they do not currently intend for there to be any road charging. Strategically, in the long-term, they may have to revisit that. It is therefore quite important that if, down the line, they do so, the Secretary of State would be able to limit or control the charges which could be raised on those roads; I believe that was the primary purpose of my noble friend Lord Hanworth’s amendment. The French example, with which I am familiar, shows the dangers of not doing so.
That could be done by a Government-owned company as much as it could be done by the private sector, although the temptation may be a bit different. Either way, if the company cannot raise money through charging and it cannot raise money by going to the market to borrow, the pressure on allocation for the strategic investment programme and the Treasury will be acute down the line.
As I have said before, when this proposition was made I thought that one of its advantages might be that the company could raise its own money against future income of one sort or another—capital gains and so forth. Apparently, that is not to be the case. That is a severe limitation on the flexibility of the company and the degree to which it is genuinely independent. Clearly, its access may ultimately be controlled by the Secretary of State. The amendment recognises that, in that it is about the Secretary of State setting the terms on which the company could go to the market. That could include going for public loans or literally going to the market—issuing bonds and getting a return on them, which is, of course, how we built the railways. If you do not have that flexibility, the arguments down the line about how much this year and next year is in the Treasury’s gift and the question of what alternatives need to be considered will always be there, however firmly you might have set the strategy and the expenditure attached to that strategy at the beginning. This would give some flexibility, with a bit of control by the Secretary of State.