Speech to Social Market Foundation
Thank you.
I'm pleased to be here at the Social Market Foundation today to mark the launch of another important contribution to the road pricing debate.
It is forty-three years since the idea of a UK road pricing system was first proposed by the Smeed Committee.
Chairman, during my introduction you said that I was sitting on your far right, though not politically. That's right - forty-three years ago I was standing, aged twelve, in my first school election as the Communist candidate! The Beatles were conquering America. Harold Wilson was moving into 10 Downing Street for the first time. And that year - 1964 - the total distance driven by road vehicles in the UK was 152 billion kilometres.
Although Professor Smeed's work failed to change transport policy at the time, he clearly recognised that the growing problem of congestion required us to consider new approaches.
Today, road traffic in Britain covers around 500 billion kilometres a year - well over three times the 1964 figure.
And the need to tackle congestion is more urgent than it has ever been.
The challenges were clearly laid out in the Eddington Study - an independent review of Britain's transport network - published shortly before Christmas.
It showed how transport planners are increasingly being challenged by the consequences of economic success.
Ten years of strong economic growth and rising prosperity in Britain has resulted in a dramatic increase in demand for transport - across all modes.
But out of all the major modes of transport, economic prosperity is having the greatest impact on our roads.
Over the past decade, the number of vehicles in Britain has risen by six million to 33 million.
For the first time, there are more two-car households in Britain than households with no car.
And even with our planned investment of over £140 billion in the 10 years to 2015, congestion is predicted to increase by another 25% by then.
To me, that suggests we need a step-change in the way we tackle rising traffic. That's why we have to act now to prevent unprecedented levels of congestion in the future ……
…… for the sake of the economy, certainly, but also for the sake of Britain's motorists.
It's ironic that many drivers say they first bought a car because it offered them greater freedom and independence.
And yet soaring demand for vehicles and road space is gradually eroding the very freedom and independence they initially sought.
There's nothing independent about sitting in a traffic jam.
Of course, there are many things we're already doing to fight congestion.
We've more than doubled investment in transport since 1997, spending over £6.5 billion this year on buses and trains. We plan - as I've already said - to spend £140 billion on transport in the ten years to 2015.
We've overhauled local transport provision, significantly increasing investment through local authorities, and made tremendous strides on improving traffic management - for example with over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers helping to keep roads flowing across the country.
And we are pushing ahead with a vital road building and improvement programme - increasing capacity where it can be justified economically and environmentally, and where it can best help relieve congestion hot-spots.
But, together, all these measures are not enough.
They're not enough to offset the pressure traffic growth is putting on our network ……
…… and which is threatening to inflict £22 billion worth of economic damage from wasted time by 2025, if it's left to grow unchecked - according to the Eddington Study.
This has led to a form of demand management on our roads - it's called queuing. And it's frustrating and annoying for all road users.
So, what this argument is about is not whether we manage road space, but how we manage it.
If we do nothing then we manage road space in the very worst way possible. By congestion and by gridlock.
It's management done in the most blinkered, inefficient way - and one that guarantees the very worst outcome for Britain's motorists.
This is why we called for a national debate on road pricing in 2005.
Research suggests that a well-designed road pricing scheme, alongside a package of public transport improvements, can significantly reduce congestion through only a small shift in travel patterns.
A properly-managed, fairly-implemented scheme offers the potential to address the growing problem of congestion in a measured and intelligent way.
The 'do nothing' option offers us precisely the opposite.
And while we recognise and have acknowledged that the public are sceptical - indeed unconvinced - of the case for road pricing, we cannot, and will not, do nothing.
But that said, national road pricing is far from a 'done deal'.
What we're saying at the moment is: 'Let's have a debate. Let's look at the options, and come up with an answer that's acceptable to road users, to business, to local communities, and to Government.'
The problem with the events of the past few weeks is that some people have painted a false picture of what we're proposing.
The discussion centred on fear, and myth-making.
So let's deal with some of those myths.
Myth 1. National road pricing would be an additional tax on top of current motoring taxes.
No. As the 2005 Labour Party Manifesto stated: “we will seek political consensus in tackling congestion, including examining the potential of moving away from the current system of motoring taxation towards a national system of road-pricing.”
Road pricing is about changing the way we pay for road use. If we decide to go ahead with a national scheme, we would clearly have to review the way fuel and cars are taxed.
Myth 2. Road pricing is just a revenue-raiser for the Government.
No it's not. It's about tackling congestion - by addressing the concentration of vehicles on particular roads at specific times of the day. Any money raised by local pilot schemes would be used to improve transport in those communities.
Myth 3. The Government just wants to stop people travelling.
Absolutely not. The surest way to stop drivers travelling is to allow congestion to build until the roads are at a standstill.
Myth 4. The Government's going ahead with its plans, whether the public wants them or not.
Untrue. No decisions have been made to introduce a national road pricing scheme. We have called for a national debate on road pricing.
The Government is not rushing into this. That's why we have always said we'd need to see how road pricing could work in practice first - which is why we will take forward some local pilot schemes in the coming years.
It is only on the evidence of these established schemes that any decision on national road pricing would be made.
As the Social Market Foundation report suggests, local pilots are the best way to test road pricing as a concept, to test the potential technologies, to test the effects on congestion, to gauge the reaction of motorists and business.
Myth 5. Everyone will have to pay £1.34 for each mile travelled.
This is one of those ridiculous myths that's been quoted on a regular basis. £1.34 was one of many charges in one of many hypothetical scenarios presented in a research document 3 years ago.
It related only to journeys on the most congested roads at the very busiest times of day - just one half of one percent of road travel. A bottom limit of 2p a mile was also proposed, but that's seldom mentioned - any anyway these figures were only modelling assumptions. We're a long way from any decisions on what would be charged in a real national scheme.
Myth 6. Road pricing will be about spying on people.
Wrong. Again, road pricing's about tackling congestion. Protecting people's privacy will be a central consideration in any scheme design.
For example, any data on vehicle location could be held by a trusted third party. After all, your mobile phone company can work out where you are, and nobody seems to worry that they'll abuse this information.
Myth 7. We'll all have to spend £600 on black boxes.
No. We're still looking at different types of technology - and if a scheme does eventually get the green light, it would have to be affordable and straightforward to implement. If there needs to be extra equipment in your car, it may well be provided by the charge collector, not by the user. We have to look at the options over the next few years.
We can't afford to let these misrepresentations, and others, stop us having a serious debate about one of the most important transport challenges this country has ever faced.
So let's get some semblance of balance into the discussion.
Let's listen to the concerns raised over the last month - but not forget that a substantial number of organisations agree that we should be looking at road pricing.
A British Chamber of Commerce poll of members, for example, found 87% backed our strategy.
But - quite sensibly - those businesses would also want to see any road pricing scheme as one part of a package to address congestion. The Government wholeheartedly agrees. This is why we have said that any local pilot scheme must be partnered with improvements in public transport. And this is why we have said that if we decided in the years ahead to introduce national road pricing, we would have to review the way fuel and cars are taxed.
I believe motorists will want to see road pricing working on the ground to see how critics have misrepresented our proposals in recent weeks.
In fact, opposition to the London Congestion Charge dropped radically and support increased significantly in the months after it was launched.
We've learned a lot from London, as have authorities from scores of other cities around the world, where congestion is also growing.
Because this is a global problem - not just a British one - as the SMF report makes clear.
A recent poll for the BBC suggested that although 75% of people questioned opposed road pricing, most of those opponents thought it would be acceptable if any money raised was used to improve public transport or cut other road taxes. Which is exactly what we are exploring.
I'd like to thank everyone at the SMF who worked on this document.
It helps inform the discussion on how road pricing could make most impact; how revenues could be best used; how pilots could best work; how local government should be involved; and it's another positive contribution to the debate.
We will learn from it - just as we will learn from the road pricing petition.
But we will remain committed to what we believe in - that congestion needs tackling, and we need a new approach to counteract growing road use in the future.
And what we believe in is the same today as it was before the petition became front page news.
In December, for example, Secretary of State for Transport Douglas Alexander gave a speech, in which he said:
"Despite the benefits that road pricing can bring, the public remain to be convinced.
"They quite rightly want to know what road pricing will mean for them, and how it would work in practice.
"That is understandable given that a road pricing scheme would mean a change to the way people pay for road use.
"For many people, road pricing remains a still abstract concept. We are still in the early stages of the national debate on road pricing that my predecessor, Alistair Darling called for in June 2005.
"We are building on the momentum of the first year, but we must do so in a way that resonates with the British public.
"They do not want us to jump to a national scheme. They want to - and they want the Government to - learn from experience. I look forward to seeing the debate continue over the coming months."
Well, the debate has certainly continued. But much of it has been a debate based on untruths, and misrepresentation.
We could - of course - just sit back and forget about road pricing. That would be the easiest thing to do. Just leave it to a future Government, and to future motorists, to suffer the consequences.
But that, in my view, would be unacceptable, irresponsible, and hugely damaging to the country.
Moving the debate forward will require all voices to be heard. All political parties have a role to play. And the Government will continue to grow this debate, explain our proposals, assess the pilot schemes, and give people the chance to make their own minds up.
If there's broad support, then - and only then - would we be in a position to move towards a national scheme.
Thank you.
Delivered: 27 February 2007
(This speech represented existing departmental policy but the words may not have been the same as those used by the Minister.)
