moved Amendment No. 109:

My Lords, I shall deal with the point on which the noble Lord has alighted, although we have covered quite a lot of the ground. We take the view that it makes sense for the Bill to allow maximum flexibility on who should carry out reviews. For instance, authorities in an area might choose to nominate a single authority to carry out a review on their behalf. Where an authority was abusing this flexibility by triggering reviews in the way that the noble Lord has considered, it would obviously be open for the Secretary of State to take serious note of that, both in deciding whether to issue a direction for a joint review under Clause 72 and in deciding whether any proposals for change which emerge from a review by a single authority should be implemented.

Given the importance that integrated transport authorities would have as interested parties when a review of transport governance is carried out, it is only right that where reviews take place they ought to involve an element of self-reflection. The Secretary of State’s guidance would be a useful tool in providing shapes, formats and ideas on how authorities should conduct reviews.

I do not think the amendment takes us any further. We believe that the provisions as they are, taken together, will ensure that the interests of all authorities are taken into account before changes are made to existing arrangements. I understand the noble Lord’s concern, but the amendment does not take us any further and I hope that he will not press it.

My Lords, I shall reflect on what my noble friend has said. I am not sure whether he is saying, on behalf of the Government, that it is entirely acceptable that one local authority should be able to trigger a review. I am not entirely clear from his answer whether that is deemed to be acceptable or whether his argument is that that is not what my amendment achieves. I shall obviously reflect on what he has said and read Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 110 to 112 not moved.]

Clause 72 [Secretary of State's power to direct a review of arrangements]:

[Amendments Nos. 113 to 115 not moved.]

Clause 73 [Constitutional arrangements]:

moved Amendment No. 116:

My Lords, I support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, there was general support among several members in Committee on this and, as the Minister will know, I very much support local determination on these things. We do not want people imposed from the centre. It should be up to local people, who know the transport problems and the necessary things, to be on the ITAs. My name should have been on this, but was added to the previous amendment by mistake. I very much support this amendment.

My Lords, we have to be mindful of the fact that we were told at Second Reading that it was not the intention to impose anybody on the ITA. It was up to the ITA itself to determine who they invited to become members. I would not like the Government to accept anything that denied to the ITA any expertise which was not from among the elected members, but was appointed to the ITA with their consent.

My Lords, this group of amendments obviously concerns membership of ITAs. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has the right understanding here. We have made clear that we believe existing legislation covering PTAs is too restrictive. Setting out in primary legislation the majority of the detail of how such authorities are established and how they work does not provide sufficient flexibility for different arrangements to be set up in different areas, or for these to develop as circumstances change. It is vital to incorporate the flexibility for the membership arrangements for an ITA to be determined in secondary legislation. Such legislation would, of course, be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in your Lordships’ House and in another place.

The arrangements for membership of an individual ITA—which will be set out in an order—would emanate from the governance scheme put forward by that area’s local authorities under Clause 71 or Clause 72. That would be subject to widespread consultation. In essence, what can be achieved here is local determination, with a governance structure that comes up from the locality. Of course it is important for an ITA to be democratically accountable to the people in the area it represents. To ensure this, Clause 73(3) requires that a majority of an ITA’s members would need to be elected councillors of those local authorities which fall within the ITA’s area. What is more, if they considered that this was more appropriate, the authorities carrying out a review could choose to propose that the ITA’s membership should remain comprised of local councillors only. There is that extra element built into it.

It would be open to them to propose that representatives from other sectors should be members of the ITA. For instance, this could include representatives of business or the Highways Agency—we have learnt today from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, of the important value of relations between the Highways Agency and local authorities. We have heard from others today of the value of having Network Rail consulted, and it would be open to the ITA to have that sort of membership. Importantly, transport users, too, could be included. Each of those consultees could bring relevant, wider experience and expertise. The capacity for that exists. It is important to ensure that appointments follow proper procedures—I do not think that anybody would demur from that. Therefore, where the secondary legislation relating to a particular ITA area provided that the ITA’s membership should include one or more non-elected persons, it would also need to include provisions establishing how those representatives would be appointed.

In the light of that, I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment. We in good faith want to see the governance schemes directed from within the locality and responsive to local needs for the valuable interaction with a range of other bodies that can take place at that level, if that is what is required locally. The amendment would bring a measure of inflexibility to arrangements that perhaps need to be flexible to ensure wider representation, respecting, as we all do, the value of the majority democratic element.

My Lords, the amendment would not prove restrictive; it would merely ensure that non-elected members were appointed by the ITA. It would not exclude non-elected members. Either I am misunderstanding my noble friend’s reply, or my noble friend is misunderstanding the point of the amendment. It is clear that this will not be resolved now; my noble friend has wound up and it is up to me to say what I intend now to do. I shall have to read Hansard to see whether it is the amendment that is at fault or whether my noble friend has not fully understood its purpose. I do not intend to press it; I intend to withdraw it.

Since this is the last amendment that I am moving—I have had a whole series—I place on record my thanks, which I did not do as we went through each amendment for a deliberate reason, to all Members of your Lordships’ House who have responded to them, including those whose enthusiasm for them may not have entirely matched mine. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]

Clause 75 [Delegation of local authority functions]:

moved Amendment No. 118:

moved Amendment No. 118A:

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, but I do not think I can agree with the conclusion that he draws from his own amendment. Let us just go through this carefully. Clause 100 amends Section 171(5) of the Transport Act 2000 by adding a further example of how an authority can vary its road-user charges. The clause makes clear that local authorities can offer different charges for different methods or means of recording, administering, collecting or paying the charge. This is not an exhaustive list. Local authorities are of course free to impose different charges for different cases.

The amendment seeks to clarify the clause by adding that any variations should be “reasonable”. On the face of it that does not seem a bad notion, but it is important that local authorities have the opportunity to provide incentives to encourage the use of efficient payment methods. I am still trying to imagine what I would do if I were the county treasurer in Essex County Council. I would probably be encouraging the leader of my local authority to do exactly that. If I did not have the courage to encourage the leader of my local authority to do exactly that, I would probably not be fulfilling my job as the council as a whole envisaged it. It is clearly very important that local authorities use the most efficient and effective means of collecting charges for particular services. Local authority officers have a duty to do that. We are simply trying to enable them to better fulfil their responsibility. It is all about conforming properly with your local fiduciary duty. The Bill as it is assists that process.

We have also set out clearly in our guidance to those authorities bidding for money from the transport innovation fund that we expect schemes to accept debit card and cash payment as a minimum. We are clear that providing users the option of cash payments to accompany declarations is necessary for social inclusion and privacy reasons. We have been clear throughout the various sittings on the Bill that we believe local authorities are best placed to make a judgment about decisions on how best to administer their local scheme. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with that. We therefore have no reason to think that local authorities will not act reasonably in this decision, as in all decisions about their road pricing schemes.

Local authorities already offer different payment methods for their services. They are also obliged to ensure that in developing their proposals they recognise the impact they could have on all groups. If their decision were unreasonable or irrational with regard to any particular group or category of local residents, then—as the noble Lord well knows—they would already be at risk of challenge in the courts without the need for additional clarification in the Bill.

We are trying to help to encourage best practice. The noble Lord will be aware that some methods of collecting charges and fees are more efficient than others. We wish to encourage local authorities in that regard. We give them the local flexibility to determine the best possible payment methods and offer a range of opportunities and options to their customers.

My Lords, I was going to ask the Minister another question but I will make a comment. I am the leader of a large local authority and we have lots of methods of payment. Though there are plenty of options, such as direct debits and credit cards, unfortunately a lot of people do not use—or do not wish to use—those facilities. We have literally thousands of very small debts because people do not have those facilities. I do not envisage road charging going into rural areas, but if it did some rural communities might not want to use the methods of payment that we would like.

In the amendment I was trying to clarify what the Government think. As the Minister says, it is up to the local authority to decide. His comments indicate that they would not expect local authorities always to find the most convenient way of paying. They would have to find the payment method that suited the community that they represented. If it is left to local authorities, I agree with the Minister that they will try and find a way suitable for the community they represent. Perhaps I have clarified more in my answer than I did in my question. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 119:

My Lords, this is a specialist issue for your Lordships’ House; the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, probably knows more about it than most of us. My colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, dealt with this issue earlier. I will run through some of the arguments deployed then, and try to answer the noble Earl’s question.

As was explained, the London low-emission zone is the responsibility of the Mayor. As such, it is being taken forward by Transport for London on his behalf. The aim of the scheme, which the noble Earl agrees is laudable, is to improve air quality for those living in, working in and visiting London. It will help London and the UK to move closer to achieving national and EU air quality targets by deterring the most individually polluting vehicles from driving into the low-emission zone. The Government support that overall objective.

The exemptions requested by this amendment would potentially erode the benefits that the low-emission zone seeks to achieve. The noble Earl himself admitted that some of these vehicles emit more than others because of their age. It is for that reason that the proposal has these restrictions on it, and that is why there is a limited range of exemptions. When the zone goes live on 4 February this year, heavier diesel-engine lorries will be required to comply with a Euro III emissions standard for particulate matter if they are to drive within the LEZ without charge. Buses and coaches are required to comply with the standard from July 2008. The Government believe that the detailed design of local road-charging schemes is best decided at local level, and London authorities already have the power to exempt from charging schemes those vehicles that they deem appropriate.

TfL carried out two periods of public consultation on the LEZ. The first public and stakeholder consultation was on the principle, and was carried out from 30 January to 24 April 2006. Almost 9,000 representations were received. The second period of public and stakeholder consultation was carried out between 13 November 2006 and 2 February 2007 on the more detailed proposals for the London LEZ, as set out in the scheme order. In total, roughly 8,000 representations were received.

The issue about the vehicles that the noble Earl referred to was raised during that consultation, perhaps even by the noble Earl himself. TfL published a response to the consultation, and detailed answers to these points can be found in theme E and theme K of chapter 6 of that document on TfL’s website. Transport for London tells us that, broadly speaking, exemptions were not considered appropriate because there are no technical reasons why these vehicles cannot be modified to comply with the scheme, and because these vehicles have similar emission characteristics to the HGVs and LGVs from which they are derived. As with all charging schemes, we believe that TfL will keep the scheme under review, as it is obliged to, really, and make any appropriate amendments to scheme design if and when they are required.

The noble Earl taxes me with a precise question and I will give him an answer. He asks whether the Secretary of State can exempt a group of vehicles from the London low-emission zone. The answer, simply, is yes. Schedule 23(11) to the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which is about road-user charging, says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with—

exemptions from charge,

(b) the application of a reduced rate of charge, or

(c) the imposition of limits on the charges payable,

in the case of any prescribed class of motor vehicles or any prescribed description of disabled or other persons”.

Schedule 24(1)(3) states that:

“a class of motor vehicles is a reference to a class defined or described by reference to any characteristics of the motor vehicles or to any other circumstances whatsoever”.

In Section 420 of the same Act the power to make regulations includes a power to make different provision for different cases. That probably provides the noble Earl with an answer. I hope it provides him with an assurance that the Secretary of State has all the relevant powers needed in the Greater London Authority Act to exempt a group of vehicles from any road-pricing charge in London.

Of course it is then open to make a decision about whether to carry through that exemption. Obviously it needs to be carefully borne in mind what any exemption might do to undermine the effect of the LEZ. As the noble Earl said, we all share that common concern to improve air quality, and the LEZ is a very important way of achieving it. The noble Earl makes his particular case for his particular type of vehicle. To a degree it is a bit of special pleading, but it is understandable and it represents a wider interest. I am grateful for his raising the issue in the way that he has.

We cannot support this amendment because we support the overall thrust of the London low-emission zone policy.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he confident that the LEZ will have an immediate and measurable effect? At the end of February will you be able to measure the effect of the LEZ?

My Lords, I am neither a technician nor a scientist. I do not know what the timeframe is for significant changes in air quality. I shall certainly ask officials how quickly it is thought that the LEZ will begin to have an impact, but, as the noble Earl has said, it is something that we all want to see happen. He is gesticulating that he would like a written response. Of course I am more than happy to provide him with one

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's response, particularly the part about the powers of the Secretary of State. It may be a specialist issue, as he put it, but it is of great concern to many outside the House who regularly lobby me on it. No doubt they will be studying our deliberations via the internet. It is quite an easy issue to search. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6 [Amendments of financial provisions relating to schemes]:

moved Amendment No. 119A:

My Lords, there has been general support for the provisions in the Bill that give certainty to local authorities that all the revenue from the charging schemes will be spent on local transport policies. The Government acknowledge that public acceptability of schemes increases when revenue is linked to spending on transport. That has been part of the success of the congestion charge in London.

In allocating specific grants for major schemes, the department takes into consideration the level of local contribution, including, for example, any developer contributions and any revenue likely to be generated by the scheme. That is an important aspect both of an authority’s business case and of the calculation of the scheme’s value for money. As noble Lords will be aware, allocations of block capital funding and revenue support grant for local authorities are currently distributed on the basis of broad formulae intended to reflect need and in the case of revenue support grant the ability to raise council tax revenues. Such formulae do not generally take into account the other various sources of revenue available to local authorities.

We have no plans to change this policy. We therefore think it unnecessary to have this amendment. There is no change in policy. It is in order for local authorities to raise funds in the way that we set out in the legislation. It will not have an impact on the revenue support grant in the way in which the noble Lord thinks that it might; nor should it impact on their ability to raise council tax revenues.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. He will know from his time in local government why I asked those questions, because things have a habit of not working out quite how one anticipated. I will read his answer carefully in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 110 [Powers of the National Assembly for Wales]:

moved Amendment No. 119B:

My Lords, in rising to speak against the amendments in this group, I declare an interest as the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd in the National Assembly. I am disappointed in the noble Lord because I tried to offer him a piece of gentle advice in Grand Committee—that he should reflect on this matter and consult with his Conservative colleagues in the National Assembly. Therefore, I have to spell out in more precise terms what I was trying to allude to in a gentler manner during our earlier discussions.

There is exhibited this evening a massive contradiction on the Conservative Front Bench. On the previous amendment, we heard his noble friend argue that charging by local authorities in, I presume, England should be for transport purposes and that this was the attraction of such charges. He mentioned a series of broad transport spending decisions that could make charging acceptable. As an example, he quoted the very successful congestion charge scheme in London. Yet, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is denying to Welsh Ministers what his noble friend is willing to grant to English local authorities. Surely, the Conservative Party needs to develop some consistency on these matters.

The noble Lord is seeking to limit spending on transport to trunk roads and, in Amendment No. 119D, to stop the onward march of devolution. I would ask him to reflect: is this now Conservative policy? I have followed the development of his arguments from his speech on Second Reading on 20 November, where I detected a difference of emphasis between the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, who took a balanced view of devolution, its progress and the implementation of the 2006 Act, and this crusade against framework powers. As a practitioner and student of devolution for some 35 years, it fascinates me to know where this is coming from. Is it now Conservative Party policy in Westminster, Cardiff and anywhere else that no powers are to be granted to the National Assembly for Wales by the framework powers route? If that is the case, it is absolutely contrary to what was set out in June 2005 in the original White Paper of the then Labour Government, Better Governance for Wales, which said that the Government intend to draft,

“parliamentary bills in a way that gives the Assembly wider and more permissive powers to determine the detail of how the provision should be implemented in Wales”.

That was stated in the White Paper and it has been the settled, understood view of Welsh Conservatives, and of any other Conservatives who take an interest in devolution—that it is appropriate for both these routes to be pursued.

In Grand Committee the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, deployed three arguments to demonstrate why this should not be the case. First, he said:

“Broadly speaking, we disapprove of this process for three reasons: first, a provision on Wales in a broader Bill may not be adequately scrutinised”.

Well, what have we been doing? His speech on Second Reading, the discussion in Grand Committee and our debate this evening are fine examples of scrutiny by Parliament and of framework powers. I am sure that the House of Commons can match that when this Bill appears in the other place. He goes on to say that these framework powers involve,

“the transfer of powers that the Assembly has not requested”.

I will not tell the noble Lord that he is misleading the House as that would be out of order, but it is the next best thing to it. These powers have been requested by Welsh Ministers—in fact, by my honourable friend in another place, Ieuan Wyn Jones, the distinguished Deputy First Minister and Minister for Economy and Transport. It has been requested by him, because he is the Deputy First Minister of a Cabinet that has the support of two-thirds of the Assembly. By any democratic calculation that I make, that has been requested by Welsh Ministers with the support of the Assembly.

In his third argument the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, states that,

“we suspect a trend in which departments transfer competence rather than draft legislation applicable to Wales”.—[Official Report, 17/12/07; col. GC 249.]

That is the worst one of the lot. We are giving the National Assembly for Wales the opportunity, in the measure-making powers that will derive from this primary UK legislation, to make a measure. That measure is the equivalent of an Act of Parliament; it is the legislative process that the constitution of Wales 2006 has before it. That process has not been made up by Welsh nationalists, or even by devolutionists in the Labour Party—it is the constitution of the United Kingdom, as devolved to Wales. It is the constitution agreed by this House.

In these amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is being a little disingenuous with the constitutional settlement that we have before us. Further, he is also undermining the capacity of Welsh Ministers to carry out their statutory duty. Under Section 79 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 there is an obligation on Welsh Ministers to develop a “sustainable development scheme”. Clearly, because transport spending is a major part of sustainable development, how can Ministers develop a proper sustainable development scheme if they do not have the powers relating to transport?

By moving an amendment which seeks to leave out Clause 110 completely, the noble Lord is undermining the whole notion of framework powers. Is this now Conservative Front-Bench policy in the House of Lords? Is he going to be getting up whenever there are framework powers in this present Session—there are two more and no doubt there will be many more—and depose each one? Or is he picking just one because it suits his party political propaganda somewhere else? I have to warn him that he is in danger of embarrassing his own colleagues in Wales. When he visits the Assembly, where he will be very welcome, I hope that he will discuss frankly with his Conservatives colleagues what his function and role are in this place and that he might seek to reflect on the fine public career of that great closet devolutionist, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.

My Lords, if that was a little bit of gentle advice, I am not sure that I should like to hear a strict ticking-off. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for his contribution and for helping me a great deal. I have a very long speaking note on the Government’s commitment to the Government of Wales Act, the promotion of framework powers, legislative competency orders and the whole philosophy and debate around that. With his eloquent disposition of the success and importance of the devolution settlement, the noble Lord has saved me a very important job.

I shall confine my remarks specifically to the amendments before us. I hope very much that I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that we are not talking about a framework power that contradicts the Government of Wales Act and that this is not in any way about injecting a tax-raising power through the back door or through illegal or ultra vires means. By doing that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I have been given a very clear note from the Box which answers the question whether this provision is about imposing a tax. It states clearly that the application of proceeds does not affect whether something is a tax or a charge. That depends on the link between the payment and the service received by the payer. Whether or not a charge or a tax is hypothecated—that is, whether it is limited to a particular purpose by the receiving authority—is not the issue; it is a question of whether a service is received by the payer. I hope that that addresses the question of whether we are talking about a tax here.

Specifically with regard to Amendment No. 119B, paragraph (b) of the provision inserted by Clause 110 allows the Welsh Assembly to make provision in Assembly measures in relation to how the revenue from a trunk road charging scheme in Wales is spent, so long as it is,

“towards purposes relating to transport”.

The advice that I have is that that is pretty clear. We talked about this matter in Committee and I shall come to it in a moment but, as we have said, these powers do not constitute a tax and this provision does not confer tax-raising powers on the Welsh Assembly. The Government of Wales Act does not allow the transfer of tax-raising powers to the Welsh Assembly. We are clear that these powers refer to a road user charge. There is no field in Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act that would allow for legislative competence for tax-raising powers. Such powers are outside the devolution settlement. I believe that it is wrong for us to continue debating this question because the proposed framework is very clear—we are not talking about changing the settlement.

We think it is right that if the Welsh Assembly has the competence to make a trunk road charging scheme, it should have the competence to decide how the money is spent in relation to transport purposes. As I said in Committee, Welsh Ministers have yet to decide what role, if any, road charging will play in addressing current and future transport challenges. Therefore, with regard to the noble Lord’s concerns about the potential scheme being set up to deal with a particular problem in a particular location, I can reassure him that Welsh Ministers have yet to decide what role they wish this to play. However, they wish to have the powers available to allow them to adopt a coherent approach towards any road pricing proposals that local authorities in Wales may bring forward or towards any future UK scheme.

The Welsh Ministers have also made it clear that if they were to introduce road pricing, it would be targeted on those parts of the trunk road network with the worst congestion problems. It would be important for Welsh Ministers to be able to construct a package of measures around the charging scheme which could include improvements to complementary transport provision, including trains and buses, as well as improvements to the road infrastructure, which I know the noble Lord was concerned about. It is important that the Welsh Assembly is able to spend the revenue from such a scheme in developing any complementary transport measures that are needed for it to work effectively. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance on his concerns about the tightness of that clause.

On Amendment No. 119C, Clause 110, as currently drafted, would allow for the revenue from a trunk road charging scheme in Wales to be put towards the purposes relating to transport. This restriction strikes the right balance, allowing for the revenue to be spent on any necessary complementary transport measures to a pricing scheme, while not being so broad—which I know the noble Lord was concerned about—as to allow for frivolous uses, for example the question of Welsh Ministers’ cars. We talked about that in detail in Committee. Restricting spending to trunk roads, as Amendment No. 119C would do, would not allow for any improvements on local roads feeding into the trunk roads within a pricing scheme or, more broadly, for investment in alternative modes of transport or other important improvements. As I said in relation to the previous amendment, road pricing should be seen as a package of measures tackling congestion problems alongside investment in transport improvements, both roads and otherwise. This amendment would severely limit the effectiveness of such a strategy as it would not facilitate those complementary improvements.

I will speak briefly to Clause 110 as a whole. As explained in Committee, the clause inserts new matter into Schedule 5 to the 2006 Act to allow the Assembly to make its own legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, explained why it is so important that we allow this measure-making to go ahead. Trunk roads comprise the network of strategic roads managed by Welsh Ministers which account for around 5 per cent of roads in Wales by length. It would be for the Assembly to consider whether it would be appropriate to exercise those powers and if so, how. I hope noble Lords have had a chance to read the Explanatory Memorandum that was published alongside the Bill. Copies are in the Library. A great deal of thought has been put into how to make these new legislative processes accessible to Peers so they can fully understand the thinking behind the framework powers and legislative competence orders.

The arguments I raised previously in relation to specific taxation and revenue issues are also important to remember when discussing the provision as a whole. The provision states that the Welsh Assembly Government must require any revenue raised by a trunk road charging scheme to be spent, as we have heard, on transport. The revenue would be used for the provision of transport infrastructure services in Wales to help develop the transport network in line with the Welsh Assembly Government’s transport policies and programmes, which are at a very advanced level of development. We look forward to a very important publication of the transport strategy soon.

Trunk road charges are already within the legislative competence of the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are not creating a new precedent; we are simply following the path set out by the devolution settlement in the Government of Wales Act. I hope that I have been able to give the noble Lord some reassurances. He mentioned that he had undertaken some research which I not aware of, and I would be happy to discuss any new information that he has or to meet him further to discuss the practicalities of how the clause is intended to work. If there is any further information that I can offer, I am happy to do so, but the Government are committed to making the Government of Wales Act, the framework powers and the LCOs a success. We believe that the devolution settlement is a great success in Wales, and I hope that, with those remarks, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

My Lords, I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, had to say. I think he missed one or two points but he probably knew what he was doing; in fact, I assume that he did. He had a strong point to make, and I listened. Our role, and that of Assembly Members, is to represent the Welsh people and to ensure that no taxes will be put on them that are onerous and that will spoil their economy. They are our constituents and they come first. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that.

The Minister’s explanation was very thorough, and I thank her for going into such depth. I am still extremely uncomfortable about the situation. I will certainly need to read Hansard, because her explanation was long and detailed, and I will need to consult. She has come clean on the Government’s determination to pass tax-raising powers to the Assembly one way or another.

My Lords, the noble Lord persists with the spurious argument that these are tax-raising powers. Are they therefore tax-raising powers when they are applied to local authorities in England? Are they tax-raising powers when they are applied in Scotland? Are they tax-raising powers when they are applied in Northern Ireland, or are they just tax-raising powers for the convenience of some section of the Conservative Party that still wants to deploy an anti-devolution argument and therefore needs to frighten the natives of Monmouthshire?

My Lords, I really cannot let the noble Lord have that stand on the record without me coming back. We simply do not see these powers as tax-raising. It is very important that we recognise that the Government of Wales Act does not give the Welsh Assembly tax-raising powers. It is an agreed part of the devolution settlement, and it would be a great shame for us to be seen to be unpicking that now. What the Assembly is asking for is quite reasonable, and if there is any misunderstanding that I can clear up or further work that I can do to help to clarify the situation, I would be pleased to do it. I have tried hard to give a definition of what we see as a tax and make it clear that we are not talking about tax-raising powers under this legislation.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I simply wonder whether the funds raised by whatever we call this—I will not use the three-letter word again—will enhance the block grant. I am used to Northern Ireland affairs. We have a big block grant and we must live inside it. Apart from local authority rates and so on, there is no other way that I know of in which we can raise funds to enhance the block grant. It seems to me that these charges will enhance the block grant. I am not particularly content with this, but I will read Hansard carefully and give notice that I may come back to it at Third Reading. I do not like coming back at Third Reading, which is a tidying-up, but we have not tidied up this little item. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 119C and 119D not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 119E:

My Lords, I hope that I can answer the noble Lord’s concerns, and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to do so by tabling this amendment. As the noble Lord indicated, Clause 111(2) allows information that the Welsh Ministers receive in connection with their charging scheme to be passed on,

“to any person with whom the Welsh Ministers have entered into charging scheme arrangements”.

Under Clause 111(3), that information can be disclosed to any other person, as the noble Lord pointed out, but in both cases the information can only be disclosed for, or in connection with the,

“Welsh trunk road charging scheme”.

It is important that the person who enters into arrangements with the Welsh Ministers can disclose that information to their sub-contractors—the exact point picked up by the noble Lord. Large projects often involve a large number of organisations that are not necessarily directly employed by the scheme owner; they should have access to the information necessary to run the scheme effectively. I also reiterate the important safeguard that this information can only be disclosed to people for or in connection with the road charging scheme. All disclosure of information would have to be in accordance with existing legislation; as the noble Lord highlighted, that includes the Data Protection Act 1998.

On Amendment No. 119F, Clause 111(4) allows the Secretary of State to charge a reasonable fee for supplying information to the Welsh Ministers. The noble Lord raised an important question there; the provision has been included because of the particular role of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The information that it holds on driver and vehicle registration is needed to properly cost and model road pricing schemes before they are implemented and to ensure that the enforcement process can work effectively. If such a scheme were to come into existence, it would actually be an ongoing service that the DVLA would need to provide. As such, I am sure that noble Lords can understand that the DVLA would need to be in a position to make a charge for that.

If the DVLA supplies that information to the Welsh Ministers, it is reasonable to expect those Ministers to contribute to the administrative costs of providing such information. The DVLA will incur costs both in connection with the initial set-up and the subsequent operation of the scheme, which the Welsh Ministers could take into account when developing the business case for any trunk road pricing scheme.

The noble Lord asked about local authorities. It is certainly the policy intention behind the drafting of this Bill that, where local authorities and the Welsh Assembly work in partnership, such information-sharing as was going on would be mutual. There would be mutual costs either way, so the intention to create a power in the Bill is not a duty. The Secretary of State does not have to provide this information, but the Bill makes it possible so that the DVLA would not be put in an impossible position by a potential scheme in providing a service whose costs it could not cover.

The Government have a clear strategy on road charging, and respecting privacy is a central consideration of that; I turn, therefore, to Amendment No. 119G. The Government have published guidance to local authorities bidding for transport innovation fund money that sets out our approach to data protection. Within that guidance, we state that local authorities must ensure that information is gathered and managed respecting the Data Protection Act—that is absolutely vital. The Welsh Assembly Government must also comply with the Data Protection Act, and we see no reason why a scheme of theirs would be outside the confines of that Act. Therefore, the Data Protection Act’s principles as set out in Schedule 1 will apply to the processing of personal data in accordance with Clause 111.

While I believe that the noble Lord’s amendment is unnecessary, he has raised an issue that we did not talk about in Committee. I appreciate his concerns and his giving me the opportunity to put these important issues on the record. I hope that, with that, he can withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that expansive response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 119F and 119G not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 120:

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low. The Minister might say that I should be supporting, as I always do, local discretion on this. I think local authorities will possibly do better than national government for disabled people, but it could be important to have it in the Bill so that everyone recognises disability when doing congestion-charging schemes. I support this amendment.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Low, makes his usual persuasive case on issues that he draws to your Lordships’ attention. In the end, I cannot agree to accept the amendment but I am going to come to his offer of having a look at the potential impact of exemptions in different localities. First, I will make some points that bear thinking about. The noble Lord in good measure anticipated some of my lines of reply, and I congratulate him on that. He obviously studied carefully what was said when we debated the issue in Committee.

As the noble Lord said, the Transport Act 2000 contains powers for the appropriate national authority to make regulations specifying national exemptions and discounts from local schemes and the maximum charge payable. At this time, we do not think it appropriate to change the legislation to compel the appropriate national authority to make the regulations. The key words in that sentence are “at this time”.

In respect of limiting the charges that local authorities are able to introduce, it is right for the local authority to propose its own charge levels as part of the detailed design of local schemes, which should be left to the local level. It is on the detailed design of local schemes that we need to focus, because congestion charging will vary in the way in which it is operated in each locality that develops a scheme. The local authority will be able best to determine the impact of that scheme on particular transport user groups; for example, car users. An authority would therefore be best placed to set the charge level that is most appropriate for tackling the problems in its local area after a careful economic modelling exercise. We do not want to set an arbitrary price for all schemes across the country when there is a need for difference depending on location, scheme design and scheme objectives.

Exemptions and discounts for road users are integral to the detailed design of local road charging schemes and should be left to local determination. That is consistent, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, anticipated, with our desire for local authorities to come up with tailor-made schemes.

In our online transport analysis guidance, we have given guidance to local authorities that scheme design will need to identify at-risk groups and consider how any negative impacts on those groups could be minimised or mitigated. There may be ways of doing that other than by offering exemptions or discounts. We expect local authorities to consult relevant interested parties on a full range of issues, including any proposals for exemptions and discounts, which will ensure that the needs of any specific group are adequately taken into account.

We have today underlined this issue in relation to disabled people by amending Clause 10 so that local transport authorities will have a duty to have regard to the needs of all disabled persons when developing their transport policies and local transport plans. The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Low, has encouraged us to adopt, which would disability-proof the legislation, will assist in ensuring that disabled people are not unfairly discriminated against at a local level. Local authorities making road charging schemes will have to facilitate local transport policies developed in accordance with that duty. Local authorities have a general duty to observe under the disability discrimination legislation. The amendment should be a further reminder to them.

The best approach is for local determination, so that it can reflect different designs of schemes. There is a big difference between, for example, the London scheme, which applies all day, and the proposed Manchester scheme, which would apply only at peak times. As such, it is inappropriate to be overprescriptive in coming up with a solution to the issue that the noble Lord raised.

I also appreciate that there are concerns about individuals having to engage with a number of specific schemes. It is worth reminding ourselves that at this stage there are only a small number of areas with serious proposals for road pricing. To date, the department has received only two bids for transport innovation fund money with proposals for the development of road pricing. We only have two congestion charge schemes—one in London and one in Durham. If we were to go along the route suggested by the noble Lord, we would be trying to cover all bases and design a set of regulations nationally for a maximum of four schemes, one of which is rather large in scale and one, in Durham, very small.

Exemptions and discounts for certain users are a matter for local authorities in the first instance. We acknowledge that under the Transport Act 2000, the Secretary of State may make regulations for national exemptions and discounts. As proposals for local schemes are developed, we will of course be happy to listen to views on exemptions and discounts for users. We will want to ensure that we strike the correct balance between local discretion and national consistency, which is the point at issue for the noble Lord, Lord Low. We think that it is unnecessary, therefore, to specify in the Bill that the appropriate national authority must make regulations. We do not think that we need to go that far.

The noble Lord offered to help us investigate the potential impact of schemes on people with disabilities who have, for good and sensible reasons, incurred congestion charges. That is a very helpful suggestion, which I will take away with me. In consulting, we ought to carry out some research, and if we can do that jointly with groups representing different disabilities, that would be very helpful. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that.

For the very good reasons of local design, the need for local flexibility, the fact that we do not have a vast array of schemes yet within our view, and because we can deal with this issue more than adequately in guidance, it would be inappropriate to incorporate the amendment in the Bill as it stands. However, I certainly recognise the importance of ensuring that local authorities work in concert and with knowledge of each other’s schemes. That will be reflected in the way in which guidance is drafted and in the form of consultation that is undertaken.

I hope that, having heard the reassurances that I have given, the noble Lord, Lord Low, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he will be content with my commitment to ensure that we continue to have further discussion with him on the way in which this issue works and the way in which people with disabilities will want to ensure that they are fairly treated regarding exemptions.

My Lords, I am rather heartened by the Minister’s reply. He has the most seductive way of saying no and not accepting one’s amendment. He said that the Government did not want to accept the amendment “at this time” and I took considerable comfort from that emphasis. He referred, quite rightly, to the duty in the legislation on local transport authorities to have regard to the needs of all disabled persons, as well as to elderly people and those with mobility difficulties. I took the point that asking the Government to lay down regulations for charging schemes for the whole country in the abstract when there are only two schemes in prospect was probably asking a lot. The noble Lord also drew attention to the power in the Transport Act 2000 to make regulations. He indicated that the Government would be open to representations at some future time, when it might be appropriate to make regulations.

In particular I was heartened by the Minister’s positive reception to my suggestion that there should be some investigation of the impact on disabled people of charging schemes as they came along, and of course I have every confidence that disabled people and their organisations would be happy to co-operate in conducting such investigations. For all those reasons and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 121:

My Lords, these amendments are desirable because they reduce the burden on industry. However, I did not quite catch what the Minister was saying. Is it possible to do all these transactions electronically, which is why we can do them for free? Also, have the Government achieved full functionality of the TAN 21 system?

My Lords, somewhere hidden away in my brief is the answer to the noble Earl’s question. If he wants me to spend some time flicking through it I am more than prepared to do so, but I warn him that that might take some time. This is a complex issue. I shall write to the noble Earl, if that is satisfactory.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Repeals]:

moved Amendments Nos. 122 and 123:

moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125: