Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2003.

Standing Committee D

Clause 103 - Road traffic: fixed penalty

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Mr. Hurst, I welcome you back to the Chair. It is a pleasure to be in Committee under your chairmanship. I am sad that this is the last day that we are in Committee, but I am sure that my disappointment will be short lived and that I shall fill my days with something else.

It gives me great pleasure to ask a brief question about the clause. It will ensure that section 76(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 makes sense. The subsection states:

''No proceedings shall be brought against any person for the offence to which the conditional offer relates until the procurator fiscal receives notification in accordance with subsection (5)''.

It is orderly that the Bill is repairing an error, but it begs the question why it has been allowed to be in place for 15 years, which is a considerable time, given that other amendments have been made to the Act. It relates to fixed penalties. I wonder what damage has been done to those who have been caught under that subsection. Why has it taken the Government so long to rectify the error?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr. Hurst. We will approach the home straight of the Bill with sadness this afternoon. However, I am sure that that position will be assuaged by listening to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and possibly some of her hon. Friends for the next few hours.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has joined the Committee.

Will the Minister accept that the record must be held by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who spoke for two and a half hours without imparting anything of any substance on Friday morning?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am sure that there was something of substance in that speech.

The Road Traffic Offenders Act includes provisions that allow police forces in England, Scotland and Wales to issue fixed penalty notices and conditional offers for certain road traffic offences, such as failure to obey traffic signs and not wearing a seat belt. Fixed penalty notices and conditional offers allow the offender to discharge his liability for the offence provided that he pays the financial penalty stated.

The Police Reform Act 2002 amended the provisions to allow the British Transport police to

issue fixed penalty notices and conditional offers. The British Transport police particularly require the ability to issue conditional offers for traffic offences committed at level crossings, a matter that we dealt with earlier. In 2001–02, the police dealt with 3,792 offences under the Road Traffic Acts. In the previous year, they dealt with 2,760 offences. As we discussed under clause 66, offences at level crossings can be serious, and it is important that the British Transport police have all the powers of a local police force to detect and deter those offences.

A further amendment is needed to clarify section 76(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 so that it is clear when proceedings in England and Wales can be commenced after a conditional offer has been issued to an offender. Clause 103 therefore deletes the words ''of police'' from that section.

The hon. Lady was under the impression that that error had been in place for 15 years, but I assure her that it has been there for only one year, since the Police Reform Act 2002; that is why I emphasised 2002. Clearly, this is a good time to put it right.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We would not wish to prevent the Government from amending one of its errors.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 - Shipping legislation: application to structures, craft, &c. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Committee will recall that, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State tantalisingly told us:

''There is a difference between what is needed in relation to a large passenger-carrying ship with a professional crew and in relation to a man rowing a boat in a harbour. We will consult carefully on how best to deal with non-professional mariners.

The Bill contains a power to exempt vessels with reference to the power of their motor, size or location. We want to consult on the repercussions, as we need to get the matter right. None the less, we are minded, for example, to exempt rowing boats, sailing dinghies and narrowboats. However, larger, high-powered recreational vessels such as jet-skis would probably be included. We want to strike the right balance to ensure that we get the legislation right.''—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 774.]

The Government have the opportunity, under both this clause and clause 77, to tell the Committee and the public which ships and boats were to be included, and we regret that they have not taken it. Current case law is unclear as to whether personal watercraft such as jet-skis or chain ferries are ships. I do not know what chain ferries are, although I know what a chain letter is, so it would be helpful if the Minister could satisfy me on that point.

In so far as ships need to be defined so that the alcohol provisions can apply, there is some basis for the clause. However, what would be the implications of the clause in the case of a collision between a jet-ski or chain ferry and another vessel? I understand that there could be implications even if those craft were not used at sea—they could be used in inland waterways.

That is set out in the explanatory notes to clause 104, although I have not had time to study them. What is the purpose of clause 104, and how will the Bill interrelate with other Acts relating to public health and the regulation of activities near the sea shore?

I am sure that you, Mr. Hurst, as a Member of Parliament for a constituency on the Essex coast, will agree that there will be many opportunities for people to enjoy jet-skiing off the Essex coast, although not necessarily out at sea. Clause 104 could have far-ranging repercussions. We wait to hear from the Minister about the implications.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The change would allow the Secretary of State to extend shipping provisions to other structures and craft that currently may not fall in the category of ships for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Acts. As the hon. Lady said, that change could apply to jet-skis, which are small but can cause substantial danger and damage if they are mishandled. Jet-skis are already a popular craft and they are becoming more popular. Like you, Mr. Hurst, I represent a coastal area and I am aware that, with the growing prosperity under this Government, more people can enjoy such wonderful recreational activities.

We want the provisions on alcohol testing for mariners to extend to jet-skis, in particular, in recognition of the potential danger that drunken users of such craft may cause to other water users. The clause provides a kind of future proofing for any other kind of vessel that may come along. Jet-skis, for example, have become popular in the past 10 to 20 years. The clause would allow the orders made by the Secretary of State to be flexible and specific where they are needed. It would also allow such orders to avoid conflicts with other enactments, which the hon. Lady mentioned. There is a patchy set of byelaws throughout the country that apply to ports and harbours and those would generally take precedence in such circumstances. The clause would cover the circumstances in which no law was in place.

The hon. Lady asked about chain ferries. I invite her to visit my constituency. A chain ferry travels from Torpoint on the Cornish side to the delightful constituency of Plymouth, Devonport on the other. Thus Devonport is connected to Cornwall, although some people, for example, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), say that Cornwall is thereby connected to mainland England.

The ferry is a large vessel that is pulled along by chains—that may come as a complete surprise to the Committee. The vessel pulls itself along on two submerged chains, by means of a gearing mechanism. I regularly dine with the captain when I travel on the ferry. It takes eight minutes to get from one side to the other and we have a bag of crisps together and mull over times past. I would be pleased to invite the hon. Lady to come to enjoy the delights of crossing the Tamar from Devon to Cornwall—I offer my endless hospitality.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am in grave danger of setting a precedent, but I formally welcome the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I look forward to my first excursion to his constituency and, indeed, to my first ride on a chain ferry. I am grateful for that generous offer. It goes to show that Committee members already know each other much better after such a relatively short time. Against that background, it is helpful.

The only other point on which I hope we could have some clarification before my summer outing—

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

She is a fair-weather friend.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The comment by the Minister of State is not fair. I have traversed the Dogger Bank on a passenger ferry in the most adverse weather conditions, arriving on the back end of a hurricane. I think that I am a tried and tested seafarer. The journey on a chain ferry would be quiet in comparison with crossing the North sea in the circumstances that I mentioned.

The only point that the Minister inadvertently omitted to share with the Committee is what other exemptions might flow from the clause. A pilot of a sailing dinghy who has had one drink too many could be an obstacle and therefore a potential disaster to other shipping. Will the clause apply to ferries? For the purposes of applying the provisions relating to blood alcohol levels, where will the Government draw the line as to which craft—

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Witchcraft?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Which ship, boat or recreational craft will be deemed to be a danger to other shipping under the clause?

The clause refers to the creation of an offence and power is given to the Secretary of State to legislate by order. I notice that some 23 statutory instruments are mentioned on today's Order Paper. We are passing far too many laws by secondary legislation that is not subject to the same scrutiny by the House—even less so under the new hours. We would prefer to see more regulations included in the Bill and far fewer of the statutory instruments that the Government have a tendency to use.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

It may help the Committee if I clarify some of the points made by the hon. Lady. We dealt with the exemptions in part 4 when we debated clause 77, so the limitations have already been defined. The clause allows the Secretary of State to define the craft to which part 4 applies—jet-skis, for example. Our ambition is to listen and consult on the issue. From time to time in the Department we receive correspondence from hon. Members and the public about certain vessels on the sea and jet-skis have been a problem in recent years. Such views are listened to and taken into consideration.

The hon. Lady asked what other craft might be involved. I am informed that the provision could apply to an oil rig and that the Russians have developed a craft that is a cross between a plane and a boat. As I said, future proofing ensures that, when appropriate,

the Government can respond with provisions that take account of new vessels.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful. I had not realised that an oil rig could be considered a vessel, but one can see why the provisions would be required when it is being towed out to sea by another vessel.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105 - Railways in London: transfers

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I beg to move amendment No. 93, in

clause 105, page 46, line 19, at end insert—

'( ) This section shall only take effect after consultation with organisations with responsibility for, or an interest in, London's transport and in particular the London Transport Users Committee which shall be renamed London's Transport Users Committee.'.

This is a probing amendment to draw the Minister's attention to a matter of concern. The clause is significant. It ensures that the Government are not left in the embarrassing situation of tube assets being lost to the taxpayer if one of the public-private partnership consortiums becomes insolvent. We shall return to that matter during the clause stand part debate.

It is important that a range of organisations are consulted on clause 105. One assumes that organisations such as Transport for London have been consulted on the clause, but others such as the London Transport Users Committee may not have been.

Amendment No. 93 serves a dual purpose. Its second purpose is to flag up to the Minister concerns that the London Transport Users Committee has about its remit and role. LTUC's remit is to represent all transport users in London, which includes pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers, train passengers and so on. However, its remit also includes car drivers; there is a dilemma as to whether on an issue such as congestion charges the organisation can represent the interests of both car drivers and pedestrians. For that reason, the organisation would like a small change to its name, which is reflected by our amendment. The simple insertion of a comma into the name of the organisation—

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I would not like the hon. Gentleman to make a mistake: the amendment would insert an apostrophe and an ''s''.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. The amendment would indeed insert an apostrophe. The move from the position of Whip to the Back Benches has clearly sharpened the hon. Gentleman's mind. The Committee welcomes that.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is a drafting error.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

The hon. Lady will see that the amendment would insert an apostrophe, and that it is only my notes that are in error.

London Transport Users Committee believes that the simple insertion of an apostrophe would clarify its

role. It would also make it clear to those who wanted to approach the organisation that it was interested in the generality of transport issues, and not just London transport. Making it clear that it is London's transport users committee would also put the focus principally on transport, and it would be hard to argue that cars are a form of transport according to the way in which the organisation represents transport users. I would like to hear the Minister's views on the amendment. Will he consider meeting the organisation to discuss its remit to see whether it could be more focused on public transport and the needs of pedestrians, cyclist, bus passengers and so on in London, and to discuss whether it could make the extent of its remit clear to those seeking its support?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This is an opportunity for the Minister to tell us the role he envisages for the London Transport Users Committee. I shall raise some serious issues later during the clause stand part debate, but I would like the Minister to confirm that the Government expect LTUC to be consulted.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

two issues are contained in amendment No. 93: one is whether the London Transport Users Committee should be consulted on clause 105; the other is the role and remit of that committee.

Nothing in clause 105 changes the role or remit of the committee. Should the organisation want to approach us later to change its role and remit, it would be sensible for the Government to examine that. However, we are aware—particularly at present—that there is a significant cross-over between the role of road transport with regard to both buses and cars in London. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) wishes to differentiate to such an extent between various users of road space: they have common interests and we should not try to set up a conflict of interests between them.

The clause is designed to deal with a situation that was not envisaged when the Greater London Authority Act 1999 was passed. At that time, it was anticipated that there would be a seamless transition with regard to the London underground. Unfortunately, that has been slightly frustrated by a series of legal actions by the Mayor and Transport for London, which have had no positive outcomes. They have led to considerable delay and cost to Londoners. I hope that we can now move towards a sensible transition from London Transport to Transport for London for the London Underground and that these schemes can be implemented and can start to deliver benefits for London.

The clause is designed to facilitate that change—and I must say that one consults about policy and not about detailed changes of the implementation of policy.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister talked about a seamless transfer of the London underground to Transport for London and the importance of consultation. I wish him to say whether the Government had discussions with Transport for London, particularly about arrangements in relation to British Transport police.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We had a number of discussions with Transport for London: it was able to contain its enthusiasm for some of our measures. We have also been engaged in regular discussions with Transport for London about British Transport police. The Home Office has been conducting discussions and consultations regarding both relations with and operations of British Transport police and the Metropolitan police within London's transport network, and I have no doubt that there will be further discussions on that.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am sure that the Minister will not have this information at his fingertips, but I would be grateful if he would write to me to inform me of the dates when meetings took place between his Department and Transport for London in respect of the aspects of the Bill that relate to the British Transport police.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I thank the Minister for his response, and in particular for his commitment to meet the London Transport Users Committee if it would like to discuss its remit. I am sure that it would welcome the opportunity to do that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I beg to move amendment No. 83, in

clause 105, page 46, line 37, leave out 'or class of right,' and insert

', class of right, provision or class of provision,'.

Clause 105 will ensure that the operation of London Underground's contracts is not affected when they are transferred from one body to another. An unforeseen consequence of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is that certain provisions given in respect of London Underground's contracts might fall away when contracts are transferred either to Transport for London or subsequently, and it was not the intention that they should do so. An example of that would be guarantees given by London Regional Transport in respect of London Underground's obligations under public-private partnership contracts.

The clause remedies that unforeseen problem by allowing London Transport and Transport for London to exempt contracts that they wish to transfer from those parts of the 1999 Act that cause the problems. It benefits all parties if guarantees and protections already agreed in the contracts can be relied on.

However, as currently drafted, the clause would only allow the relevant 1999 Act provisions to be disapplied in respect of a contract as a whole, or in relation to a specified contractual right. Some of the contracts contain complex arrangements for which it will be necessary to disapply only some of the relevant provisions, and there was doubt about whether the existing drafting could be construed as allowing that. The amendment simply refines the clause to ensure that that can take place.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I do not have the benefit of the Minister's background. The amendment would address a situation that was pointed out to the

Government by my hon. Friends and I in the former Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The Minister will be aware that one of the PPP or PFI contracts that is being negotiated concerns Metronet. I wonder whether the Minister recalls the words used at that time of the Select Committee hearing—I should like to draw them to the Committee's attention anyway. They were quoted in the minority report, which was drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and I in the most extraordinary of circumstances. Committee members know that in most cases a Select Committee tries to reach cross-party agreement, but the words of the rail regulator were particularly powerful in drawing the Government's attention to their error, which is leading not only to a delay in transferring responsibility from the Mayor to London Underground, as the Minister suggested, but which could have other far-reaching consequences.

As was pointed out by Opposition in the Select Committee—the rail regulator found himself in some sympathy with this—what happened to Railtrack with regard to being taken into administration or going bankrupt could happen to one of the companies party to Metronet. The rail regulator was concerned about that, and on page 51 of the minority report of proceedings on Wednesday 7 November 2001 the rail regulator said:

''The Secretary of State said to me that if there were an application for an interim review he had the necessary authority to introduce immediate legislation to prevent the review taking place.''

The rail regulator went on say:

''I pointed out the very severe adverse effects it could and probably would have on the financial markets and investor confidence generally if the Government were to be seen to be taking away the independence of an economic regulator. I said that the effect on transport stocks would be severe, but it would go much wider than that. It would have very serious adverse implications for the constitutional position of independent regulators in other industries, including but not limited to gas, water, electricity and telecommunications, the independent position of the PPP arbiter in the London Underground. (How can an arbitrator in a dispute have to decide the case in favour of one party to the dispute at the direction of that party?) I said it would have severe adverse implications for the market perception of the stability of the regulated privatised industries, investor confidence in those companies and the effect on other companies in the transport and utilities sectors.''

The rail regulator was supporting our point in the most powerful way possible. How far would the Minister's amendment, taken with clause 105, resolve a situation in which a PPP proceeded under the present company? I gather that one favoured bidder is Metronet, but there are several other smaller companies. Meanwhile, there is the backdrop of a war being declared in Iraq—perhaps imminently—the wide-ranging ramifications of that, the effect that that is having on the stock market, and the volatile state of the construction industry. Does the Minister believe that amendment No. 83 and clause 105 will deal with failure of the PPP and the reversion of a contract to the public sector? What would be the implications for the public purse?

My understanding is that, as of today, the cost to taxpayers of Network Rail is currently off balance sheet—it is scheduled on a year-on, year-off basis—and is deemed to be £21 billion, although it could increase. In the worst-case scenario, would the implications for the public purse also be deemed to be off balance sheet, or have the Government made provisions?

The Committee will recall that I have been a Railtrack shareholder since its inception. Many constituents have written to me on finding that they are in the small investor category. I have been reading the City pages—I am interested and concerned for my constituents—and precisely what the rail regulator said would happen regarding the demise of Railtrack, following its going into administration, is happening. That is coming home to haunt the Government. There is not the flood of investors from the financial institutions into the PPP contract that they expected and they are faced with a real-case scenario. I am deeply concerned and I wish the Minister to put my mind at rest by saying that clause 105 and amendment No. 83 will deal with the situation. I understand that subsections (1) to (3), as amended by amendment No. 83, would allow contract operators who intended to transfer from London Regional Transport to Transport for London to do so. I am concerned that it is not just a matter of Railtrack's situation; investors' confidence has also been hit by the Government's handling of British Energy.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

I am rather confused about whether the hon. Lady is talking about the public purse or the interests of shareholders. In my simple world, public borrowing is much cheaper, because the Government take the risks. Long-term interest rates have rarely been lower than they are now, so if there were any reversion to the public sector, there would be a saving to the public purse. That view is shared by some of my colleagues. However, the hon. Lady seems to be talking about the interests of shareholders and confusing that with the public interest—they are not the same thing.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am talking about both things, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify matters. In the first instance, shareholders take the risk and make the investment. There may be insufficient shareholders, especially from financial institutions of the magnitude required to make such investments, and the PPP may not happen. There is no power in the clause as it stands—without amendment No. 83—regarding reversion to the public purse. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of that. The Select Committee took evidence from Bob Kiley and from those in charge of Transport for London; they made that point and confirmed it.

The Library research paper notes:

''As the GLA Act did not contemplate the possibility of a significant delay between completion of a PPP agreement and transfer of the London Underground to TfL, there was no provision for ensuring the return of the assets of London Underground to the public sector in the event of a PPP company defaulting on a contract before London Underground transfers to TfL Nor was there provision for the insolvency provisions to come into effect if a

PPP company became insolvent before the transfer of London Underground to TfL.''

I am not sure that the present law, even as it will be amended by clause 105 and amendment No. 83, answers the point satisfactorily. We met such matters head on with Railtrack, and we may have to do so again in the event of a PPP going into default.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

The hon. Lady referred to legislation as it stands. Does she agree however that some components of society and the economy are so vital that the Government must always take such a risk? If there were a default or a financial collapse, they would have to step in. Measures would be introduced at that time to accommodate such matters.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

To make a brutal point, the Government cannot afford to take such action at the moment. They are committed to meeting the Maastricht criteria.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The debate is becoming too wide.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Government are trying to control public expenditure. If clause 105, along with amendment No. 83, came into effect, I am not convinced that the problem would be dealt with. I seek confirmation from the Minister about that. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) said that money would be set aside for such matters. If that were the case, where would that money come from and would it be on or off the balance sheet?

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

The hon. Lady is confusing capital and revenue. We must know whether borrowing would be within the terms of the Maastricht agreement, which her party supported. I personally dissented from that, although I was not in the House at the time. We must bear in mind the level of public borrowing and the revenue costs of financing it. That will be lower in the public sector because the Government can borrow at much lower interest rates than can be done in the private sector.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Let us deal with the current position. The Government have to prove that they can raise the money on the market against the backdrop of a total lack of consumer confidence. Because of Railtrack, the financial institutions lost a fortune. The impact on the pensions and insurance markets has been massive.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Will the hon. Lady specify the way in which companies lost a fortune?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister conveniently forgets that the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) put Railtrack into administration and people lost a substantial amount of money. I do not believe that the compensation was anything like the value of the shares. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Government are inviting the same financial institutions to invest in the company to form the part of the PPP that will fall directly under clause 105.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Can the hon. Lady tell us the share price when Railtrack was put into administration because of its grievous failures? Will she say how much the market in general has fallen since then and the level of payment that has been made to shareholders? Can

she justify her statement about the fortune lost by the companies?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am sure that I can drop the Minister a line about that. He must be aware that there was a total loss of confidence in the financial institutions, given how the Government handled the administration of Railtrack. The rail regulator did not wish to put Railtrack into administration at that time. In fact, he recommended that there should be an interim review. I shall not go into that now because it is not appropriate.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Surely it is not the role of the regulator to recommend that there be an interim review; it would have been for Railtrack to approach the regulator and request an interim review.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is precisely the scenario that the rail regulator put to the Minister. The regulator's independence was taken away, and the Minister said that if such a scenario happened, he had the legislation ready to go. The right hon. Member for Tyneside, North would not even tell the Select Committee when that legislation would be in place. We are where we are, and the Government have now gone to the market and are asking for money to be raised for a PPP.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The Government have not gone to the market; the consortia and infracos will approach the market. For someone who claims to have great knowledge, the hon. Lady is getting into an awful lot of difficulties with the details.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance. As the hon. Member for Luton, North pointed out, the Government may well have to pick up the pieces further down the line. We are humbly asking the Minister how the clause and amendment No. 83 allow for that. It is not just that the legal framework has to be put in place; Bob Kiley, who is not unconnected with what will happen, is deeply concerned that insolvency provisions will not come into effect if a PPP company becomes insolvent before the transfer of London Underground to TFL.

Will the Minister say how we will prevent, both before and after the transfer of London Underground to TFL, the situation that the Government found themselves in at the demise of Railtrack? That is not such a difficult question. I hope that the Minister will answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Luton, North, too. I would like to know which budget the Government have in mind if something happens, and how far the clause and amendment No. 83 will meet the situation and prevent what happened with Railtrack from recurring.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The Tories certainly cannot let go of Railtrack, but I suppose that we should not be too unhappy about that, because we will make sure that they do not forget all its lamentable failings and the mechanism that they set up that so badly failed the rail industry and the country.

We are making heavy weather of the clause. The insolvency of the consortia is extremely unlikely, but the Greater London Authority Act 1999 provides

protection. Unfortunately, that protection does not come into effect until the transfer of London Underground to Transport for London. The purpose of the clause is to provide interim cover that brings those provisions into force before the transfer. We hope that London Underground can be transferred in good time.

The hon. Lady mentioned the views of Bob Kiley. I get on pretty well with him, but the views that he, Ken Livingstone and Transport for London have advanced a number of times have been comprehensively overturned in the courts on several occasions at considerable cost to London taxpayers and to no great benefit to London Underground, PPPs or the travelling public.

The hon. Lady was in some confusion about the operations of the financial market side, and was in great confusion about the difference between shareholders and bondholders in the schemes. A number of companies are involved in the consortia. As the hon. Lady will be aware, there was a question with one of the consortia about the viability of one of the partners, and the other partners said that they would assume those responsibilities.

The hon. Lady's comments on sentiment in the City seem to reflect the views of the Tory party and its supporters in the City rather than those of the bankers who are getting on with their jobs. She talked as though negotiations with regard to the Tube Lines consortium were still going on but they were completed on 31 December 2002: it has already gone to the markets and raised finance, and it has done so without difficulty.

It may be in the Conservative party's interests to try to whip up a scare about this matter, but in the hard-headed business world what people are interested in is whether the projects work and offer a return. This clause, along with the Government amendment, provides a copper-bottomed security against an extremely unlikely eventuality. It enables the companies to go to the market satisfactorily, so that they can obtain finance and put much-needed investment into refurbishing the London underground.

We have made a considerable excursion around various areas of the Tory psyche and the problems that the Conservatives created for public transport. However, the measures are sensible.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is gratifying to think that my party still has so many supporters in the City; that was not the impression that I had.

The Minister did not satisfactorily respond to the concerns that were expressed about the outstanding contract for Metronet. I appreciate why he is sensitive about that; many of his right hon. and hon. Friends think that the PPP was botched. It is obvious that that is why he has tabled the amendment. We can argue about such matters in the clause stand part debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

This clause might represent the final chapter of the sad and costly saga of PPP, but it is probably the final chapter of the first book, as I am sure that many volumes will be written about PPP over the coming 30 years.

The Secretary of State announced in an offhand way during a Select Committee sitting that PPP had cost £500 million so far. That money has not bought a single escalator, let alone a new train. We are six years into the PPP process and millions of words have been written into contracts that are several feet high, but we still do not know how PPP will work in practice. The Minister rightly said that the Tube Lines deal was signed at the end of last year but we do not know how that will work and whether we will get value for money from it. We know that there are complicated formulae with algorithms to work out whether litter will be within acceptable limits, but we do not know whether there will be new tube trains, if there are to be new trains, when they will be introduced, or when passengers will see significant improvements and feel that PPP has delivered value for money.

While justifying the inclusion of this clause in what is, after all, a Bill that deals with rail and transport safety, the Minister said that it could never have been envisaged that we would reach this point in relation to PPP. However, he must have realised that any negotiations involving his friend the Mayor would be fraught with difficulties.

It was clear early on that contingency plans were not in place for PPP with regard to a failing contractor. The Minister said that insolvency was very unlikely—

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Liberal Democrats have supported the Mayor in his campaign against the PPP and the Labour Government?

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I hardly think that the Minister needs me to answer that question. Clearly, he knows that we have supported the PPP. Perhaps the Minister would have been happier if I had said, ''our friend the Mayor''.

The Minister is seeking to divert attention from the fact that he could have foreseen this problem. He said that insolvency was very unlikely. However, would he admit to losing sleep in recent weeks over the apparent viability of a key player in one of the consortiums? The particular firm has featured regularly in the business pages of most newspapers, and there is a question mark over how long that firm will survive. If the Minister were truthful, he would accept that it has been touch and go.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to cast the aspersion that the Minister might not be truthful?

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Members of the Committee will follow proper parliamentary procedures, which predominantly involve courtesy to other hon. Members and not stretching words.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I am happy to withdraw the comment; it was inappropriate. I suspect that the Minister is a little touchy on the subject of PPP and one can

understand why. The enormous gap that is left in the Government's contingency plans must be plugged, so, clearly, we will support the clause. However, there should never have been a gap. It was such a glaring hole in the Government's legislation that it is astonishing that we have managed to get so far down the line. Despite the discussions and bitter arguments, only now, six years into the process, are we plugging a loophole that many hon. Members saw in the early stages.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

It is a great pleasure to speak about the clause. As I have often told the Committee, I am a simple person. I am fascinated to see in the explanatory notes that

''This Part extends to England, Wales and Scotland.''

Are there plans to expand the Metropolitan line along the line of the A40 to Wales, or the Northern line to Scotland? Perhaps the Minister will tell me that Wales and Scotland are included in case one of the companies is based there. In that case, if one of them is based in Northern Ireland, it will be outside the remit of the clause. That is the first point on which I would like clarification.

I remember well the consideration of the Greater London Authority Bill. It was the first Standing Committee on which I served—the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) was also on the Committee. It was fascinating and went on for weeks. I seem to remember that, despite having many hours on that delightful Committee—before fancy guillotining and falling knives came into play—we did not have sufficient time to discuss everything and the Government introduced many of the provisions relating to the London underground at a later stage. Those of us who served on that Committee can be excused for not examining those matters in detail because they were not included in our consideration.

Although I will not go too far down the line of happy reminiscences, I remember that Mr. Ken Livingstone often sat outside the Room on the Committee Corridor and did not always take part in the Committee. I can remember him sitting outside into the small hours of the morning, offering Committee members a choice of whisky or brandy. Perhaps the fact that he was not taking a full part in some our proceedings showed that his thoughts were elsewhere.

I speak on behalf of a constituency that has the underground at its heart. We have three stations, which are on the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines. I hope one day finally to persuade the authority, whoever it may be, to extend the Central line from Ruislip Gardens to Uxbridge. There is already a siding at Ruislip Gardens, and it need only be extended a couple of metres. That would be a marvellous opportunity for lots of people, not least those in the commercial centre of Uxbridge, in which I have a personal interest.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

A financial interest.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Yes, a financial interest, although as anyone in retailing knows, it is often a very marginal interest.

Londoners are, by and large, fed up with all the arguments about the London underground. The Government went down the wrong line and—to use a furniture term—made a cock-up of the matter. [Interruption.] I see that there is disbelief that the expression relates to furniture. I shall explain it to hon. Members after Committee, if they are interested in the derivation of the expression.

The time has come for us to get on with sorting out the London underground. I have already said how not to deal with the issue. Londoners would not thank anyone for holding up the processes any further. Although I have strong reservations about the matter—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York will go into much greater detail—it is time to sort it out, for the sake of my constituents, other Londoners, including those who use the Central line, and those going to Essex and places such as Theydon Bois, which I always thought was the name of a candidate for the Referendum party. We have a duty to sort that out.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Obviously, it is in all our interests that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) enjoys the best parts of the underground. I hope that the Minister heard his special plea. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out—this will be of special interest to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) and other hon. Members—there might soon be a tram north of the border. That, as can be seen on the Order Paper, is the subject of an early-day motion. Also, under clause 105, we might shortly be able to enjoy the benefits of the London underground on our holidays in Scotland.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am not sure whether it was the intention of the draftsmen, but has not the Minister been far too generous to the Mayor of London? Not only has the Mayor squandered London taxpayers' money, but by holding up much-needed investment in the tube that is central to the economic operation of London and therefore the whole of the UK, he has squandered taxpayers' money in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am sure that the Minister of State heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks and will comment on them. I look forward to the introduction of trams and the London underground to Scotland, and to chain ferries in Plymouth; I will have a very busy summer. I understood it to be a personal invitation, but I am sure that the Minister would wish the whole Committee to enjoy the benefits of chain ferries in his constituency.

Interestingly, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde said that the Government had been squandering money—

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The Mayor.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Oh, the Mayor. A previous Labour Member has been squandering money, and we are all friends together.

The explanatory notes were no doubt written by the same person who wishes to extend clause 105 to cover Scotland and Wales. Paragraph 159 of the explanatory notes states:

''The railways in London measures will not require any additional public expenditure over and above that envisaged in LRT's/LUL's contracts, or entail any additional public sector manpower burden.''

I admit to being confused because if the Government have to put the contract back into the public sector, that will create cost to the taxpayer. Are the explanatory notes misleading?

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

By parallel, Network Rail is taking back in-house contracting in the Paddington to Reading area. It will save money, not lose it. We cannot assume that, when a service goes back into the public sector, it will create cost. It may be beneficial to the public purse.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I do not know how far down that path you will allow me to go, Mr. Hurst. However, at present, money is being raised through bonds on the market. If it were no longer raised on the open market, it would have to be raised by the taxpayer. A charge would be made on the public purse. It is interesting that paragraph 160 of the explanatory notes states:

''The amendments to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 do not appear to involve any human rights implications, so the provisions of the Bill concerning the Greater London Authority Act 1999 are compatible with the Convention.''

Presumably, a bondholder who is deprived of his holding for any reason could plead that he has lost enjoyment of his property and the right to hold the bond. It will be interesting to know whether that is the case.

Subsections (1) to (3), along with amendment No. 83, will amend the Greater London Authority Act to allow contracts to operate as intended on the transfer from London Regional Transport to Transport for London and any subsequent transfers between Transport for London subsidiaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said that, when he had the honour to sit on the Standing Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Bill, pre-knives were not in operation. Despite discussing that legislation for a considerable time, the Committee did not get it right, which is why such matters have to be rectified under the Bill.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

It may be of interest to note that at least two of the members of the Committee who were on the Government Front Bench have now returned to the Back Benches. There may have been more. Perhaps the present Ministers were not on the Front Bench when that Bill was being considered.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was referring to the calibre of those members of the Committee. I am sure that he would not wish to do that.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I would not dream of it.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Subsection (5) relates to the insolvency of a PPP, how it would be wound up and the assets returned to the public sector. Will the

Minister explain what would happen? From which budget does he propose that the Government fund the reimbursement of that investment if such a regrettable situation arose?

Given the background of Railtrack passing into the hands of the administrators and re-emerging as Network Rail, the only beneficiary seems to be the accountants who charged millions of pounds in fees for the privilege. Clearly, such an aspect is exercising many minds and it is one about which we wish to receive further clarification.

The Minister said that the Tube Lines deal was completed on 31 December 2002. My understanding is that Metronet has not yet concluded, and is facing the difficulty of further collapse and erosion of confidence in the equities market. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the issuing of bonds is part of that process and is fraught with difficulties. Perhaps if the scheme had been launched three months previously, or were launched in three months' time, we would not face such difficulties.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Can the hon. Lady explain why a lowering of the value of equities automatically means that investors are less likely to invest in bonds? In many cases, quite the reverse happens: if equities become less attractive, more money is often available to invest in Government or other bonds.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is not incumbent on me to explain why the Government are having difficulties issuing bonds.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

We are not.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Indeed, they are. I am sure that we can return to the matter during the later parts of the Bill.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I have already explained that Tube Lines went to the market and was financed, and that Metronet has already made its announcement. I am surprised that the hon. Lady is making such heavy weather of this.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is the City pages of the newspapers that are making heavy weather of it.

The provisions for interoperability standards will relate to England, Wales and Scotland. In relation to the question of the hon. Member for Bath, I wonder whether it will help to know who sets the technical standards that will presumably apply to the London underground under clause 105. I recall saying on another question that if I knew the answer, I would not be sitting on the Opposition side of the Committee; I have no immediate plans to move, but that could change in two years. However, homework over the weekend revealed who will set the TSIs—technical specifications for interoperability. I thought that it would be appropriate to share the information with the Committee, including the hon. Member for Bath and the Minister, who can read it at their leisure. The European Association for Railway Interoperability, which goes under the French acronym AEIF, was designated as the joint representative body in the directive's framework. I am sure that the Government are negotiating as we

speak the technical standards for the London underground.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for supplying that information to the Committee. However, I was not particularly interested to hear that answer, as I already knew it. The question that I asked, which the Minister and the hon. Lady have clearly been unable to answer, is what happens in the event of conflict between the industry standards set in this country and the TSIs set through the bodies that she has mentioned?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I imagine that the technical standards will be resolved in the usual way. In the past, some British participants have been reluctant to engage in the use of standards. We have had the discussion about the three-pin plug. My hon. Friend who used to sit for Southend, East but whose constituency now has a slightly different name took a great interest in that.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The lesson of the three-pin plug is that we managed to maintain that standard, which is not, as far as I am aware, under threat.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The point that the Minister has missed is that we are not selling many three-pin plugs elsewhere in Europe. With regard to technical standards for interoperability on the trains, it would be to our advantage to have not only the Orient Express but as many other trains as the Government might wish. They have not denied that they want London Underground to operate in England, Wales and Scotland—although I am hard-pressed to understand how the Minister expects that to happen—but the London Underground might also have a future in Brussels, Frankfurt and Lille.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

It is surprising that the hon. Lady complained about knives on the guillotine and then filibustered.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

The Minister is gathering his notes. In view of the hon. Lady's interest in whether London Underground will operate in Brussels and elsewhere, he might be interested to learn that I recently visited Sweden—as Committee members know—and that Connex, which is, by a roundabout route, part of one of the consortiums that is bidding for the London Underground, is currently operating the underground in Stockholm.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

On the other hand, it is remarkably difficult for other countries' companies to operate in France. Several European countries are taking a keen interest in that.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I must disabuse the Minister. I am sure that he will be delighted to know that when the Secretary of State for Defence recently made a statement about the new aircraft carriers he repeatedly pointed out that one of the companies, British Maritime Industries from Bath—

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. It is clear that the Minister will not respond to that.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I was not aware that that was a transport company or that it operated in the railways sector.

It is right that the provisions of the clause extend to Scotland because the Greater London Authority Act 1999 extended to England, Wales and Scotland. It is my understanding that that was the practice for all London legislation before devolution. However, the Mayor has assured me that he has no further territorial ambitions.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge referred to the Mayor dispensing whisky and brandy in the Corridor during the passage of the 1999 Act. We hope that he did not go on to a party afterwards because that might have subsequently appeared in the London Evening Standard.

We have had a series of expeditions around the clause, and I now wish to get back to what it is intended to do, which is to ensure that the insolvency regime that will be in place post-transfer, and which is envisaged in the PPP contracts, will also operate pre-transfer. The explanatory notes state that the clause will not require any additional public expenditure than that which is envisaged in London Regional Transport's and London Underground's contracts.

This is a straightforward business-like way to deal with an immediate problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Repeals

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I seek an assurance that the Government will not delete any further provisions from the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

I did not see the words ''of police'' when I read section 76(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, but I assume that the Minister will confirm that that is the only change to that Act.

We have already debated whether, if oral swabs were to be added to the specimens taken for the tests under the alcohol provisions for both rail and sea, there would need to be a further amendment. From my understanding of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, that could be done by statutory instrument. I am confused about why we have had to wait since 1988 for primary legislation; the Minister, however, might argue that it was 2002. Is the Minister saying that if road traffic provisions have to be amended to include the taking of specimens by other means than are currently used, that would be done by statutory instrument? Would we have to wait for primary legislation? I wish for oral swabs to be considered acceptable in certain circumstances.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The schedule does no more or less than repeal those provisions of the existing legislation that are no longer required in light of the Bill. The

regulations under parts 4 and 5 would allow the maritime and aviation testing regimes to match any changes made to the road drink-driving test regime. The hon. Lady has raised the matter of different testing arrangements many times and we have handled it throughout the Bill. The legislation would be brought in through statutory instrument, if it were appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 107 - Money

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful for this opportunity to seek clarification from the Minister. Paragraph 159 of the explanatory notes tells us:

''The railways in London measures will not require any additional public expenditure''.

However, part 7 is presumably general and refers to the whole of the Bill. When does the Minister expect the money resolution to come forward? I notice that there is a money resolution on the Marine Safety Bill on the Order Paper for Thursday this week. What will the timing be? Is the Minister able to give us an estimate of what the total cost will be for all parts of the Bill? Surely, at this stage he must be in a position to share that information with the Committee.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause confirms that any new expenditure incurred by the Government as a result of the Bill would be paid for out of money provided to the Department by Parliament. As we have seen on many occasions during our deliberations, the explanatory notes outline the relatively small costs that the Government expect will result from the Bill. The hon. Lady has consistently asked about extra expenditure. As we have said, it is difficult to assess the precise figures at this stage, but it is anticipated that the extra expenditure will be small.

During our deliberations last Thursday we said that it would be unlikely that large numbers of pilots would be suspected of being under the influence on aeroplanes. It is, therefore, unlikely that a large number of tests would take place; I anticipate that there would be very few. That also applies to many other parts of the Bill. To assess the costs at this stage is difficult, but we know that they will be small.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I do not want to detain the Minister, but will he explain the Government's current thinking in relation to issues that we debated earlier in our proceedings? For example, we know that the Health and Safety Executive does not completely meet its costs from the current charging regime—there is a deficit. Do the Government anticipate that, under the new levy, all the costs will be covered and that there will no longer be a deficit to be made up by the Department? Is it anticipated that the total income from the police services agreement will meet the police budget in full? There are currently gaps in some areas and I wondered what was anticipated in relation to the overall costs of the Bill.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The anticipation is that the costs in both cases will nearly be matched by any levies, but we do not necessarily expect full cost recovery in the case of the HSE.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 108 - Commencement

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Clearly, for reasons that the Minister will probably soon share with the Committee, the Government wish to expedite the enforcement of clause 105. We had hoped that the Government would be able to tell the Committee when the other clauses would come into effect, especially whether the Government were minded to expedite provisions relating to aviation offences. If the provisions relating to blood alcohol levels are acceptable at the conclusion of the Bill's proceedings and are enacted, when will the Government introduce a Bill relating to offences committed by disruptive aviation passengers who are the worse for wear, rather than pilots, crew and other personnel? When will those provisions reach the statute book to join this Bill?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I should like to take this opportunity to clarify the amendment, which has a pair of brackets at the beginning with nothing inside them. Is that a normal procedure, or should there be an ''8'' inside?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Some of the points that were made by the hon. Member for Vale of York were more relevant to the clause stand part debate than to the amendment. However, a Bill dealing with air passenger offences is already being considered by the House and I believe that it has Government support—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is nodding.

To answer the question about the empty brackets, I understand that that is normal drafting procedure, which I hope reassures the hon. Member for Uxbridge.

The amendment follows on from clause 105. I have explained on several occasions why we believe that it is necessary to enforce those provisions as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the Minister for informing us about the Aviation (Offences) Bill. I recall participating in the early stages of the proceedings with the Under-Secretary. That was an enjoyable experience. I learned much from those preparations.

There is much agreement in Committee about the provisions of the Bill that cover alcohol testing for

pilots, and we support them. The Under-Secretary said that the Government do not imagine that many pilots will fall into the categories referred to in the provisions. However, he said that some devices would need to be adapted for the tests, so presumably there will be a short period of preparation for that. The Bill sets out to give precedence to alcohol testing, and creates new aviation and maritime offences for air and sea pilots and other personnel in safety-critical positions.

It is regrettable that the Government did not see fit to include provisions relating to aviation offences, air rage, and disruptive passengers intoxicated with drink or drugs in the Bill. We are in danger of creating two categories of offences. Perhaps the Minister was told that his Department could not have as big a Bill as it wished, but that is not the best reason for excluding offences that relate to passengers. Such offences could also apply in a maritime sense; there might be disruptive passengers on a disco riverboat or chain ferry. However, one feels most vulnerable as an air passenger. We are disappointed that the Government did not make one package and include disruptive passengers on planes and ships in the Bill. It would have been a much neater way of proceeding. Now, there will be a category of offence relating to those working in safety-critical functions, even though passengers could feel equally jeopardised by disruptive passengers.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. There is always a temptation to talk about what is not in a Bill, but I think that we should restrain ourselves to talking about what is in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was just trying to elicit from the Minister whether he was told that the Bill had to be a particular size, and why certain categories were not included.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Legislation could always be expanded infinitely; there will always be other measures that people will wish to add. That leads to prioritisation by Departments. I believe that the measures before us reflect those priorities. In addition, as I said, a number of measures are, helpfully, being taken forward in private Member's legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110 - Short title

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 28, in

clause 110, page 48, line 27, leave out 'and' and insert 'Road, Aviation and Maritime,'.

I did not realise when I drafted the amendment that the title is always considered last. Most people would, when writing a press release, for example, do the same.

It is highly regrettable that the Bill deals only with the rail, air and sea matters that we have considered. I refer to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for

Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), shadow Secretary of State for Transport, on Second Reading:

''our starting point should be the fact that a life is a life is a life. Saving a life on the roads or in the air is at least as valuable to society as saving one in any other context.''

He continued:

''One aspect that Conservative Members will want to explore in Committee and on Report is whether we should be thinking about moving towards a system whereby the Government seek to save life and to commit resources that are likely to save life on the same basis across all modes of transport without differentiating, as sometimes happens now, between expenditure that would save our lives on the railway as opposed to that which would save lives in other contexts.—[Official Report, 28 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 778.]

It is deeply regrettable that, given the number of deaths and offences, road safety is not covered by the Bill. The figures speak for themselves and show that, each year, about 1,000 people are killed or seriously injured on icy or snow-covered roads. Snow and ice deterrent is essential to prevent the toll from rising and we want that covered by the Bill. We want the Committee's approval of the amendment. Hon. Members may not be aware that there is currently no legal responsibility for local authorities in England and Wales to take reasonable steps to clear ice and snow from roads, whereas, under Scottish law, it is abundantly clear that local authorities must take such action. Public and highways authorities need the protection that extending such provisions to England and Wales would bring.

When preparing for the debate, I sought from the Library the most recent drink-driving figures to show why the Bill should cover road safety and why the lack of that is a serious omission. The figures—adjusted for under-reporting—show the number of fatal accidents involving illegal alcohol levels and consequent casualties between 1979 and 2001. There has been a steep decline since 1979 from 1,380 fatalities, but accidents still account for 420 fatalities each year. The number of serious injuries was 1,820. The number of slight injuries was 9,780, leading to a total of more than 12,000. The figures, based on the details held by coroners and procurators fiscal, show that the percentage of all riders and drivers who are killed and who are over the limit—

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. The hon. Lady will need to convince me that her argument relates directly to the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am justifying our wish to amend the title of the Bill. Our proposal covers other provisions that we wish to insert into it. The Bill's present title relates specifically to proposals that we have discussed at some length in Committee, such as setting up a rail accident branch and the creation of new aviation and maritime offences. I was presenting arguments to persuade the Minister that, were we to amend the title, it would create the legal basis to enable us to consider other new clauses.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Perhaps the hon. Lady, like me, is optimistic that new clauses relating to the establishment of a road accident investigation branch

will be successful. Therefore, it is appropriate at this stage to change the name of the Bill to encompass what we know will happen later.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am only partly with the hon. Gentleman. We would stop short of creating a separate body with a whole new bureaucracy. I referred earlier to STATS 19, the road accident survey, which is the least bureaucratic method and very effective. Forms are filled in by the police at the scene of a road traffic accident. The police send the completed forms to the Transport Research Laboratory where the information is collated and conclusions are drawn that are then shared with the Government. It is less clear whether the conclusions are shared with all hon. Members. I wished to explain why it is necessary to consider road safety and the tightening-up of road safety provisions. We will return to the matter when we consider the new clauses.

The Minister said only this morning that the Government do not envisage that there will be a great deal of testing of aviation pilots, and I am sure that he would say the same of sea pilots of commercial vessels or recreational craft. I do not expect that massive numbers would be involved. There has been only one notable but devastating disaster to date in this respect—that of the Marchioness. However, the evidence speaks for itself: the scale of the casualties was enormous.

I believe that the hon. Member for Bath supports me—he is also curious why the Minister did not see fit to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover road safety and tighten up provisions for road safety offences. I part company with the hon. Gentleman, however, because we do not see the value of creating a separate bureaucracy. We all agree with Lord Cullen's recommendations about why we need a rail accident investigation branch. There are compelling reasons for including road safety in the Bill to give a legal basis to the new clauses that we wish to discuss.

We have talked about omissions from the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It may not seem quite as obvious to an hon. Member who represents a Plymouth constituency as it is to me that there should be a legal responsibility to clear the roads of ice and snow. However, we all saw the devastation that was caused recently and the acceptance by the Highways Authority—

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

What does that have to do with the Bill?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We wish roads to be included in the provisions of this Bill. We were told that the Bill had to be a particular size, so will the Minister say that there was no room and that the Government will return to the issue at a later, albeit not-too-distant date?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am sure that the Committee will be delighted to know that it is my birthday on 31 March.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

Is it the bus pass?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I should be protected from such scandalous assertions, Mr. Hurst.

Importantly, 31 March will also be the third anniversary of the Government's road safety strategy

announcement. Although I join others in congratulating the present and previous Governments on several measures that they have taken on road safety, which have led to a continuing reduction in the number deaths and serious injuries on our roads, it is clear to me, and I suspect to everyone in Committee, that more needs to be done. Many people expected, during the three years since the launch of the Government's strategy, to see road safety legislation introduced. The Bill provides the opportunity for that to be done; if it does not happen, I hope that we will hear from the Minister, perhaps in response to subsequent amendments, further details of the Government's thinking on future activities to improve the situation on our roads.

This country deserves some congratulation for having the best overall road safety figures in Europe, although there are worrying aspects, particularly in respect of young people. I am prepared to pay tribute where it is due, but more action is needed.

We need remember only two statistics when we talk about why it is important to draw attention to the need for additional road safety measures: since the Government came to power, approximately 151 people have died on our railways; in the same period, 17,000 have died on our roads. The difference between those figures is enormous. We have spent a great deal of time debating measures to improve safety on our railways—rightly so—but given that huge discrepancy, it strikes me that the hon. Member for Vale of York is absolutely right, as was the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on Second Reading, to raise road safety. The Liberal Democrats therefore join them in saying that we need an opportunity to discuss that subject.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Until your timely intervention, Mr. Hurst, there was a danger that the debate would begin to cover matters that appear in later parts of the Bill. The reason why railways are referred to in the Bill's title is because the Bill includes rail measures that do not affect safety. For example, clause 14 establishes the Office of Rail Regulation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Vale of York accepts that to agree to her amendment to change the title, bearing in mind that the Bill includes no provisions for roads, would not be proper. She must accept that even if we were to accept some later amendments, the term ''transport safety'' adequately covers roads, maritime and aviation.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I am not trying to be difficult, but the Under-Secretary has just told the Committee that there are no matters related to road safety in the Bill. He may be optimistic that amendments from our Benches will be unsuccessful—I hope that he is not—but I draw his attention to his new clause 25, which relates to the wearing of seat belts in vehicles on roads.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The term ''transport safety'' is the catch-all. We are talking about the short title, not a title that is rather less short than it was before. The Government are committed to road safety. The fact that it does not greatly feature in the Bill—notwithstanding votes that we may have on later deliberations—does not undermine that commitment.

The hon. Member for Vale of York mentioned icy roads. Serious consideration is being given to such issues, but we did not think that it was appropriate to raise them in the context of the Bill. It is my belief that the current short title is more than adequate to cover issues that we have already deliberated on and issues that we will deliberate on, whether or not the Committee accepts them.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I heard what the Under-Secretary said. I am grateful for, indeed I am almost embarrassed by, the support from the hon. Member for Bath. The Under-Secretary has had opportunities to consider such issues in the past, most recently during consideration of the Road Transport Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), which received its Second Reading on 9 February 2001. These provisions were considered some two years ago.

The Under-Secretary went on to say that there are no road safety provisions in this Bill and that the Government felt that it was more appropriate to introduce them in a separate Bill on a separate occasion. He refrained from giving us a date for when that would be. I point out that the Road Traffic Acts underlie so many provisions of this Bill. Many considerations relating to the Road Transport Bill and subsequent case law underlie many major parts of this Bill, especially relating to the testing of aviation and shipping personnel for alcohol and drugs.

I referred to the figures. The statistic given by the hon. Member for Bath reinforced the statistics that I gave. I mentioned one provision of the private Member's Bill that had its Second Reading on 9 February 2001. Regrettably, there is still no legal obligation on highway authorities in England and Wales to clear the highways of snow and ice. Further clauses of that Bill could equally be dealt with in the context of this Bill. One example is a review of speed limits and the areas where speed limits apply, as drivers currently tend to ignore inappropriate speed limits. We have tabled a new clause to deal with that. In order to be consequential on the new clauses that we hope the Committee will be minded to accept, we need the legal basis in the title. My understanding is that if the title does not embrace those issues they cannot subsequently be raised. This is the appropriate time to amend that legal base.

There is a more controversial issue on which the Government have recently consulted. In the normal sequence of events, after a Government consultation, a draft Bill is brought forward. As we have seen, the Government are minded to create new offences, as with the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, where a new road traffic offence of driving while operating a hand-held mobile telephone was created. That is deeply controversial in itself.

That Bill also sought to amend the law concerning the wearing of seat belts. That feature could presumably be considered within the context of this Bill, if we were to agree our little amendment to the title. It is only a teensy-weensy innocent amendment. I

am sure that the Under-Secretary would, in the spirit of friendship and companionship and before our little holiday outing in the summer, be minded to accept it.

The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire sought to amend the Transport Act 2000 in relation to mandatory travel concessions for the elderly and disabled.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, Westbury)

On the subject of North Wiltshire, does my hon. Friend not agree that speed is always somebody else's problem and that it does not help when a Cabinet Minister is clocked doing 99 miles an hour in Wiltshire?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Indeed. I hesitate to say,

''there but for the grace of God''.

I do not think that my vehicle is capable of reaching such a speed. I sympathise with the point that my hon. Friend made, but I also sympathise with the Solicitor-General.

On the point about mandatory travel concessions for the elderly and disabled, within this Bill we have amended certain parts of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. I hope that we can seek to amend other provisions.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Lady is making a raft of points about different issues that could be raised on road safety. Notwithstanding that, had she tabled amendments on ice on roads or some of the other issues that she mentioned, does she agree that they would still have been within the scope of the Bill? The Bill's title mentions ''Transport Safety''. The long title sets out the scope of the Bill. Had she chosen to table any of those amendments, they would have been within the scope of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

There is yet time. When the Bill leaves the Committee, we will obviously have the remaining stages. We would seek to consider other aspects. Perhaps I am being a little pedantic and legalistic, but my understanding is that, in order to be orderly, the legal basis of the Bill must be amended through the title. I would have thought, and I think that the hon. Member for Bath agrees with me, that that particular aspect needed to be amended. The case is well made.

Several Bill Committees have considered that in order for certain aspects to be admitted to the Bill, the short title must be amended. I would have sought to amend the short title, but I do not think that it would have been in order. I would have had the debate at the beginning of our deliberations. We deem the issue to be of great importance. If the Under-Secretary is not minded to support us, it is something to which we wish to return, painful as it is not to enjoy his support on this occasion. At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the

Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 69, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 110 order to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 3 - Schedules 1 and 4: sequestration, &c. in Scotland 'Where a person becomes, under paragraph 2(cc) of Schedule 1, liable to dismissal or, under paragraph 7(3A) of Schedule 4, ineligible for appointment—

New clause 19 - Maritime security services

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 20—Railway security services.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The new clauses amend the Aviation Maritime Security Act 1990 and the Railways Act 1993 and would give the Secretary of State powers to maintain a list of approved providers of specific counter-terrorism security services to the maritime and domestic railway industries. Companies could only provide such services if they were on the appropriate list, and the Secretary of State would be able to remove companies from the list. Similar powers already exist under the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to cover the channel tunnel, and were introduced through the amendment of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to cover the aviation industry. The amendments would create parity across all those regulated areas of transport activity.

The new clauses provide for enabling powers only. Relevant regulations will be needed in order to bring the requirements into effect. If considered necessary in the future, however, such regulations would provide a valuable extra layer of control in respect of security services provided to the industry. As on the aviation side, regulations will be brought in using the negative resolution procedure. Accordingly, I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Briefly, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the need for the new clauses. Perhaps I could, for once, take on the mantle of the hon. Member for Uxbridge: the role of the simple man—

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

Does the hon. Gentleman have an identity crisis?

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Indeed. Will the Minister explain why he constantly referred to a list of companies when the new clause uses the word ''person''? It refers to a single person, on some occasions. Will he explain why that is included and whether it means that the Secretary of State will keep a list of each and every individual working for every company?

Subsequent regulations will, no doubt, provide us with the full details, but will the Minister provide us now with some indication of the arrangement regarding fees that would have to be paid under the two new clauses? Will he give an indication of the nature of the appeals mechanism and, perhaps more importantly, will he place on the record an indication of the kind of security activities that are included?

New clause 19 refers to ''Marine security services'' and new clause 20 refers to ''Railway security services''. If a parallel is being drawn, as the Minister did in his introductory remarks, between those services and aviation security services, some interesting questions must be addressed. For example, in relation to aviation security services, security passes are awarded to enable the people carrying out relevant activities to enter secure areas of airports. The Minister will be aware that I have many continuing concerns about the mechanism whereby such security passes are awarded. I would be interested to know whether similar problems might arise in relation to the new clauses.

Subsection (3)(j) would

''confer jurisdiction on a court.''

Perhaps the Minister would put on the record what court is being referred to. To bring maritime and railway security into line with aviation, as other parts of the Bill do, makes sense and we will have no difficulty supporting the Government.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have a number of questions about this matter. Indeed, I have tabled many questions in the past, especially on airline security. The Minister has said that the Government are using that model. There seems to be two levels of security. Security is strict and difficult for passengers who are accessing airline and central security checks. I put it on the record that the official Opposition welcome the additional security measures that have already been put in place at sea ports since 11 September—those will be prime targets. They provide not just a commercial, but a strategic contribution to an island such as the UK.

My questions regarding airline security related to particular provisions and I realise that there may be good reasons why the Government have not been able to share information about them. However, what checks are made on those with security passes who access airside and who do not necessarily always go through the central security checks? There has also been much concern when, on many occasions, investigative journalists posing as airline workers have accessed airlines and caused security alerts—that shows how difficult it is.

In the context of all airline, maritime and railway security, we are talking about regulations that might create a criminal offence. Given the current climate,

what criminal record checks are made and will be made on applicants to the security services? We know that anyone wishing to join our offices in the House of Commons has to disclose any criminal record, but would it be an offence if an applicant to an airline, maritime or railway security service failed to disclose a criminal record, and what subsequent checks would be carried out? Does the service simply take the applicant's word for it that they have no criminal record?

The Minister said that new clauses 19 and 20 allow the Secretary of State to enable companies to provide the security services only if they are on an officially recognised list. What criteria would enable a company and its personnel to apply to go on that list? I have been approached by a constituent who applied to go on an official list of security officers that would bid for Government tenders. I am sure that I am not the only one to have been approached in this way. I regret that the Department concerned—not the Department of Transport—gave my constituent the run-around.

Clearly, such contracts are lucrative, and the staff perform a vital role against the backdrop of the heightened security and terror alert that this country faces at present. If I were approached by a constituent company that wished to bid for an airline, maritime or railways security service, I would like to be able to tell it what criteria it has to meet. As I have said, there are 23 statutory instruments this week alone. Against that fact, it does not impress me that the clause empowers the Government to pass further orders—and by negative resolution, too. Those are two good reasons for opposing the provisions.

The new clauses are wide ranging and create new offences. If similar provisions apply to Eurotunnel, how many offences have been committed under them? That would give us an idea of the impact that the provisions will have. The provisions, in so far as they are self-explanatory, raise a number of questions about the criteria used to get on the list. We would like to satisfy our real concerns about how the provisions apply in the airline sector, and about the cases in which they have led to concern. In particular, it would be a concern if people could move about airside without having had all the security and criminal record checks that we would like them to have had.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Member for Bath asked about the use of the term ''persons''. I understand that in legal terms, which have a tangential relationship to the English language, a company is a person. That is fairly standard legal usage.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I suspected that that would be the Minister's answer. Now that that is on record, can the Minister confirm that, in relation to maritime or railway security service provision, although a company may be on the list and may have met the criteria, it would still be possible for an individual working for that company who has not necessarily had the type of security checks referred to by the hon. Member for

Vale of York to be engaged in those activities—as, sadly, currently occurs in the aviation industry?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

That is likely to be a question of resources, particularly in any initial stages—as we are seeing with regard to London mini cab drivers, for example. We must temper practicality with the desirability of ensuring that the vetting regime is as thorough as possible.

The hon. Member for Vale of York raised the criteria for companies to be listed. Once they are listed, checks on directors will be undertaken and counter-terrorist checks will need to be conducted on their staff. Subsequently, performance will be monitored.

A question was raised about fees. They are not proposed for aviation but it is important to state that these are enabling measures, and that there would be appropriate consultation on the bringing in of measures enabled by the Bill.

There has not been a decision on the mechanism and procedures for an appeals process. Passenger searches, site searching and security training are the sort of roles that would probably be included under this definition of security services.

On the appeals procedure, a provision about appeals is probably necessary in view of the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The following are examples of the roles that might be included under railway security services: checking luggage at left luggage offices, carrying out searches of stations and checking vehicles at railway car parks.

I was asked about the vetting of aviation security staff and pass holders for the channel tunnel. They are subject to counter-terrorist checks through our Department. All other non-security staff will probably have to provide criminal records under new regulations that are being brought forward.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

If someone has a criminal record, they may not wish to disclose it. Therefore, the Government are relying on the good will of the applicant. What precautions did the Minister's Department take? Was a search done to discover whether a particular applicant had a criminal record, because someone who has malice aforethought may not wish to disclose that?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

That would make that person's application for the job invalid. Consideration would need to be given to making a further check with the Criminal Records Bureau about whether they had an unexpired criminal record. If that were the case, it would be a matter of concern. The police would be responsible for checking that, as it is not currently within the remit of counter-terrorism, which is looking for threats to security. This matter is of concern to the airports and other transport sites and users.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We are greatly concerned about this. Are the Minister and his Home Office colleagues minded to amend the counter-terrorism provisions of the Act? If that is not the case, we will be in a bizarre situation: teachers' records are being investigated, and the entire system has collapsed because of the number of checks that had to be done. It is even more greatly

in the country's interests that thorough and rigorous checks should be done to avoid an incident happening.

I regret that investigative journalists have shown how easy it is to breach security. We do not want to pay too much attention to that because we want to prevent copycat incidents. That shows that it is incumbent on the police to ensure that checks are happening. Would the Government amend the legislation to ensure that the police are obliged, and given the resources, to request that the Criminal Records Bureau conduct checks?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The situation with teachers, which relates to the protection of children, is obviously different. I take the hon. Lady's point about checks on criminal records. It is not necessary to change the legislation, but, as I indicated, we will introduce regulations to implement the Bill and will take account of her views on criminal records. We are considering proposals that would ensure that pass holders for restricted zones are required to have criminal records checks.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Before we leave this important issue, I want to place it on the record that I know that the Minister is an eminently practical man who appreciates that there are sometime difficulties between getting a job done and legislative requirements for security vetting. It is important that the Minister makes it clear that in respect of aviation, maritime and railway security activities, the contingencies of time and the need to take action do not prevent everyone engaged in those activities from being subject to full security checks of the type that the hon. Lady has referred to. That applies to the two new clauses and the comparable ones on aviation. It is important not to pretend to the public using the aviation, railway or maritime services that it is possible to have 100 per cent. security support through the check-in regime.

The Minister will know from his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I have during the past few months sought greater clarification on implementation of the port marine safety codes. The Government required that implementation nearly two years ago, but several ports still have not complied. Action is not being taken against those ports—perhaps, again, for reasons of time. We can therefore never have the full security that we would like, and the Minister has given us a good reason why that is so.

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Gentleman is being slightly negative. Continuing improvement is happening, and there is a continuing refinement of the procedures to ensure that more and more people are checked in the shortest possible time. Levels of scrutiny are therefore steadily increasing.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

If the Minister interpreted me as being too negative, I apologise because that was not my intention. I was trying to explain that I understood that we need, on occasion, to get on with the job rather than spending our time ensuring that those doing the job have every certificate. It is a difficult balance to strike.

The Minister will be aware of a number of breaches of airside security, which happen at the most

vulnerable part of the airport. I continue to be concerned that it is possible for people without security clearance to be allowed airside without full supervision. We are all aware that full supervision is almost impossible. I suspect that we will discuss that at another time and place.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for the Minister's clarification. I want to know whether he has given an assurance to the Committee that there would not need to be a change in the law. I understood him to say that there would need to be a change in the law to extend the counter-terrorism provisions so that positive instructions would be given to the police to ensure that there would be a check on criminal records by the Criminal Records Bureau prior to an applicant taking up his appointment. I accept that that would lead to difficulties for new teachers, but it is extraordinary that we could face a fairly major disaster because of the current loophole.

The Minister said that criminal checks will be made, particularly on new applicants who apply initially for aviation and maritime services and, we hope, for railway services in future. Only taking the word of the applicant is, I regret, insufficient. Have I understood correctly that the right hon. Gentleman has assured us that a full check will be made by the Criminal Records Bureau without the need for the law to be changed?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

for full possession of a pass to enter a restricted zone, we have powers to require police record checks. We will bring in regulations. That is a different issue from the listing of companies, which we are now discussing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 20 - Railway security services

New clause 23 - Railways in London: information

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause is fairly straightforward. It will allow the London Underground public-private partnership arbiter to receive information from bodies, such as statutory regulators, to help him meet his statutory duties. At present, section 235 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 allows the arbiter to share information that he has gathered with bodies such as the statutory regulators, and to assist them to meet their statutory duties, but interestingly enough it does not give him reciprocal rights to any information that they have gathered. Both the arbiter and the Government believe that that oversight is likely to weaken the effectiveness of the arbiter's office.

The officer of the arbiter is vital to the integrity of London Underground PPP arrangements, which we discussed at some length earlier this morning. For that office to be effective, the arbiter must have access to good-quality, specific information about relevant businesses. It is usual legislative practice that a new statutory authority, such as the regulator, may both release specific information to other authorities and receive relevant information from them. The new clause will put the PPP arbiter on a par with other regulators in that respect.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful for that information. The fact that the new clause has been drafted is an admission by the Government that there may be circumstances in which the arbiter and official regulator will be called on to act. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the circumstances in which the arbiter has a role to play?

I am not familiar with all the regulations and Acts listed in the new clause, so perhaps he would be good enough to share with the Committee what information it is envisaged would be passed to the arbiter, as set out in the enactments. I imagine that most of the information would relate to companies and that it would be of a commercial and sensitive nature. Presumably, the confidentiality and sensitivity of that information would be guaranteed. It would be helpful if we understood precisely the circumstances under which the arbiter would act. What would be the consequences if the Committee were not minded to approve new clause 23? What is the role of the arbiter vis-à-vis the Office of the Rail Regulator? How would they work together?

John Spellar (Labour, Warley)

The hon. Lady invites me to speculate on the possibility of the Committee's not voting in favour of the clause. I am reminded of Damon Runyon's dictum that in life the race may not always go to the swiftest, nor victory to the strongest—but that is the way to bet.

The hon. Lady asked about different kinds of information. The Greater London Authority Act 1999 allows the arbiter to release information about specific individuals and their businesses to regulators of other industries to help them fulfil their statutory functions. Unfortunately, it does not allow him to receive such information from them. That relates to costs. For the arbiter to make comparisons with costs in other industries is a crucial part of his role in seeking to

deal with disputes between the parties to the agreement.

The PPP contracts allow for seven-and-a-half-year periodic reviews, under which the arbiter would judge the appropriate price for any adjustments to the contract. The clause would enable him to make the appropriate judgment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 25 - Seat belts: delivery drivers

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 24—Requirement for adults to wear adult seat belts—

'.—A person driving or riding in the front or rear seat of a vehicle constructed or adapted for the delivery of goods or mail to consumer addressees, as the case may be, while engaged in making local rounds or deliveries or collections shall wear an adult seat belt.'.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I understand the intention behind the proposal to remove the exemption for drivers and passengers in vehicles undertaking deliveries. However, new clause 24 would completely remove their existing exemption. We do not believe that that is

right. An exemption for travel over very short distances is justified. The current exemption in section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, is intended for the users of goods vehicles undertaking local rounds of collections and deliveries—for example, making frequent stops on household rubbish collections or doorstep milk deliveries. It would be unreasonable to require seat belts to be used every time such a vehicle moved a few yards to its next stop. That part of the existing legislation is not well understood and there are some van and goods vehicle drivers who are unclear about the intention behind the exemption.

That is why we have put forward new clause 25, which proposes a suitable change in the wording of the 1988 Act. If it becomes law, a new regulation will follow setting a maximum distance that may be travelled in goods vehicles before users are required to use their seat belt. The distance will be established after consultation with interested parties, and we envisage that it will be quite short. Apart from providing clarity for users, that would also provide clarity for the police, making it easier for them to enforce exemptions. I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge will not press new clause 24.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Perhaps I should declare an interest. The company of which I am a director has delivery vehicles—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee D

New clause 25 - Seat belts: delivery drivers

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Just before we adjourned, I was declaring an interest. I do not know whether it is necessary, but it is always wise to err on the side of caution. The family business in which I am still a shareholder uses delivery vehicles to supply the fine merchandise that we purvey. It is a free delivery service.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Does the firm stretch to an internet service?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

We are an old, established company. We are just getting the hang of decimal coinage.

I have worked for the company from an early age and spent a lot of time on delivery vans. I understand the culture of delivery vehicles and the problem that many people have with taking seat belts on and off. I am especially interested to hear, therefore, about the time scale and distances involved.

I have a dilemma with the two new clauses. Initially, I was taken by the Liberal Democrats' idea that seat belts should be worn on all occasions. Hon. Members will know that, when the wearing of seat belts was first made compulsory and, latterly, when a good friend and former colleague passed a private Member's Bill making the wearing of seat belts in the rear of vehicles compulsory, many people found it difficult to adapt. Lorry and van drivers large and small do not always put on their seat belts and would probably welcome an excuse not to comply. For obvious reasons, it can be a major cause of fatal injury not to wear one.

Having been teased by the Liberal Democrats' new clause, however, I now believe that the Government's new clause might be nearer the mark, but only as I

heard exactly what the Government understand by the time and distances involved. For example, the Minister mentioned dust-carts. The person having to go in and out of the passenger side could be excused for not wearing a seat belt, but the driver should wear one because he is not continually going in and out of the cab, although the driver may be a ''she'' for all that I know.

My particular interest may become relevant in the case of a driver who was not wearing a seat belt sustaining serious injury in an accident. Would the company be held liable for not putting a large notice on the van's dashboard saying, ''You must wear your seat belt at all times''? Is it a matter of law that the company would not be responsible? If there is a grey area, what will the employer's liability be?

With the freedom that I now enjoy to pick and choose between Government and Liberal Democrat new clauses, I wait with bated breath the answers to my questions and will then decide which option to choose.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

Clearly, the Liberal Democrats can claim a partial victory. The press release has now been written and the presses will be printing the ''Focus'' leaflets so that they can be sent across the country to proclaim the partial victory that has been achieved.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that the Liberal Democrats will have a single position on the same issue throughout the entire country? History should record whether that is the case.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I do not know why that should surprise the hon. Gentleman so much. We have a clear and consistent position on all issues throughout the country, as does the Labour party if one looks at Scotland and Westminster.

We will be claiming a partial victory. However, we have some reservations about new clause 25. The advantage of our new clause is that it is much easier to enforce and administer. How will the police monitor the prescribed distance and how will the measuring be carried out to ensure that it is not exceeded?

If a more stringent requirement had been introduced for the use of safety belts in vans, manufacturers would have swiftly found technological fixes to ensure that quick release mechanisms were available so that van drivers and their passengers would be inconvenienced as little as possible by having to use them. Unfortunately, the Government's proposal will not create the impetus to come up with technological developments.

We need to take action with regard to van drivers. The Under-Secretary of State answered a parliamentary question that I posed a few months ago on seat belt-wearing rates for cars and vans. In April 2002, 91 per cent. of car drivers and 93 per cent. of their front-seat passengers wore safety belts. For van drivers, the figures were 64 per cent. and 51 per cent. respectively. Only about half of the front-seat passengers in vans were wearing their safety belts, and for both van drivers and front-seat passengers, there

has been a reduction in the use of seat belts over the past few years.

In addition to the measures proposed by us and the Government, there is a need for more publicity campaigns to encourage van drivers and passengers to use their seat belts. By how much does the Minister expect that the statistics will improve if the new clause is adopted? For drivers who travel further than the prescribed distance, the aim should be to match the current figures for car drivers and their front-seat passengers.

If the Government launch a campaign to encourage van drivers and their passengers to use safety belts, it should encompass adult rear-seat passengers in cars because they are also irregular users of safety belts. A campaign is needed to encourage them to use them.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any restrictions that apply to young people in the front of vans? I have often seen youngsters in vans with their father, perhaps during half-term, and I am not sure that they should be doing it. I wonder whether allowances would be made for young people. That could be quite serious.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

I do not have the answer but perhaps the Minister—or his officials, if he does not know—can assist and clarify the matter. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many van drivers think, for whatever reason, that it is appropriate to have their children sitting on the dashboard without any restraint. It would be useful to have confirmation on the current legal position, and to know whether the Minister believes that new clause 25 would assist in relation to children.

Clearly, we welcome the Government's conversion to our cause. We would have preferred for new clause 24 to be adopted, but if that is not the Government's wish, we will support their proposal.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have some sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), and I think that the Committee shares his surprise. For the first time in recorded history the Liberal Democrats are claiming to be saying the same thing across the country.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

The hon. Lady may be interested to know that, on Luton borough council, the Liberals Democrats have abstained on all budget decisions just before they are to fight the local elections. They are at least consistent.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. I call Miss McIntosh.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

What the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) says is not surprising.

We are slightly disappointed that the Under-Secretary has not seen fit to support any of our amendments, including the change to the title, but there is still time. Perhaps we can discuss that on the chain ferry in Plymouth in the summer. I hope that the Minister will agree that we have raised some issues that he would wish to endorse.

On the fitting of seat belts, a momentous anniversary was reached just this month. That is worthy of note. When the Minister spoke to new clause 25, he referred to the prescribed distance. It would be helpful to know how short that distance would be. There are other issues relating to delivery vehicles. I am mindful of the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). Delivery vans are never far from the minds of those on the Conservative Benches for obvious reasons.

I gather that one does not have to wear a seat belt if the engine is running but the car is stationary or technically deemed to be parked. I wonder why the Government—or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats—have not covered that scenario. Clearly, it could cause some embarrassment if a person did not have to wear a seat belt because they had stopped or were travelling a short distance—we will learn later what those distances might be—but were prosecuted for other things, such as illegally keeping the engine running. It would be helpful to have some guidance from the Minister on that.

My concern, to which the Minister alluded, relates to the additional responsibility and duties on the police should either new clauses 25 or 24 be accepted by the Committee. Can he tell us how the police force will monitor all aspects, including the distance that is being travelled? The point about young persons travelling in delivery vans has already been raised.

I record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge for all the help and assistance that he has given me. He has moved to the Back Benches, but I hope that that is only temporary. I am sure that that does not reflect on the companionship that we have enjoyed on the Front Bench, or on the lengths to which I have gone to move some of the amendments and new clauses. He has supported me not just during the Bill, but on many other occasions. I am sure that his sojourn on the Back Bench will be short lived and that he will return to the Front Bench soon.

On how police will enforce the new legislation, my hon. Friend suggested that the issue of delivery vans in London and other towns would be problematic. It would be helpful to know how much time and additional resources the police will be given. I am mindful of the fact that the Minister has seen fit to move the new clause, but how will the police perform their duties under it?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

An exemption was made in the Transport Act 1981 to satisfy industry concerns that those making frequent stops in delivery vehicles would be inconvenienced without any particular casualty reduction. The difficulty is that many delivery drivers believe that they are totally exempt from wearing a seat belt. The amendment, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Liberal Democrats, would address that.

I am interested to hear from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about the

new concept of Liberal Democrats saying the same thing in all parts of the country. I look forward to that spreading to the west country—I would be pleased if it happened between wards in my constituency. I heard him say that he has had a partial victory, and, as we reach the final knockings of the Bill, we shall allow a Liberal Democrat to say that.

The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about monitoring and measuring. New clause 25 clarifies the law. We monitor the rates of seat belt wearing and look for any increases and decreases in vans. The police will continue to enforce the law, but they will have a clearer law to enforce. I have been asked to say what the distance will be, but it would not right for me to say that because it is a matter for consultation. It would not be right to pre-empt consultation, and if I did the hon. Lady would be the first on her feet to accuse me of doing so.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Can the Minister, in the spirit of good will that accompanies this stage of proceedings, give us an inkling—a soup¢on of an answer—with regard to the distance that will be suggested in the consultation document?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I would say that 100 miles was inappropriate but that 1 yd would be rather short. Somewhere in between those distances might be appropriate.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about better publicity. There is a good to case to be made for better publicity, and my Department has tried to achieve that through the trade journals and magazines, often quite successfully.

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

It transpires that my hon. Friend and I have some statistical knowledge. The thought occurs to me that deaths from accidents rise more than proportionately to speed. Speed is critical. If a speed limit were built into the provision, so that seat belts had to be worn if the vehicle were travelling at more than 30 mph, the problem would be overcome. In such circumstances, long distances would, of course, be outside built-up areas and relevant speed limits. A speed limit of 30 mph would be appropriate for deliveries in built-up areas; indeed, the limit might even be lower. That might be a useful addition to the Bill.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Delivery drivers who stop and start during very short distances may not get any speed up at all. In fact, they may be travelling at 10 mph to 15 mph and would probably have a low risk of creating a casualty, or injuring themselves. The idea is useful for consultation, but it would depend on the speed on particular roads. If the speed limit were 30 mph, drivers would be committing an offence if they went above it.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about young people and adults. The position would be the same for adults as for young people; they must wear a restraint if one is available and is applicable for the vehicle.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge—

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Will the Under-Secretary give way?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I was just coming to the hon. Gentleman's points.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

On that last point?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am glad to give way.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

On restraints, would the new clauses apply to children even if they were technically passengers and not working?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

To be clear about that, and about the issue of engines running raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York, it is probably best if I drop a note to Committee members, rather than try to deal with it on the hoof. It is a good point, but it is often easy to be wrong on such fine details because different seat belt laws apply to different categories of vehicle.

I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I heard that he had moved from his present position. One wishes that the hon. Lady had only seen his face; I thought that he had given up the will to live on a couple of occasions, especially during her contributions. She needs a rear-view mirror to see what is going on around her in Committee.

I think that I have answered most of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I thought that his insights into the purveying of furniture were very interesting. Sometimes, I look at the hon. Gentleman and think, ''Would I buy a second hand wardrobe from this man?'' And the answer is that, indeed, I would—he is a decent, honest man.

Employer liability comes under general company law; perhaps I could include that matter in the note that I will write to Committee members. Some tricky issues are involved, and I want to be correct in what I say. Of course, companies have to provide a safe system for their employees to work in. There is, however, a difference between the driver's responsibility on the road—being responsible for his or her own safety—and the employer's responsibility to ensure that that person is safe. There is a narrow line between the two things and I would not want to say anything that might cross that line.

The debate has been useful, but I hope on balance that I have persuaded the Committee that my right hon. Friend's amendment will prevail.

Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)

No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I could muster many superior arguments to support our amendment. However, the numbers are not on our side. If the new clause is not successful in the months to come and if it does not reduce the number who do not wear safety belts, will the Minister reconsider our proposal?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 7 - The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Establishment

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 8—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: General aims—

'In exercising their functions the Road Accident Investigation Branch shall have regard to the desirability of—

(a) improving the safety of users of roads, and

(b) preventing road accidents and road incidents.'.

New clause 9—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Assistance to others—

'The Chief Inspector of Road Accidents may arrange, with the written consent of the Secretary of State, for the Road Accident Investigation Branch to assist any person; in particular, assistance—

(a) may be provided with or without charge;

(b) may be provided inside or outside the United Kingdom.'.

New clause 10—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations—

'(1) The Road Accident Investigation Branch shall investigate any road accident in which there is a fatality

(2) In investigating an accident or incident the Branch shall try to determine what caused it.

(3) On completion of an investigation the Branch shall report to the Secretary of State.

(4) In performing a function in relation to an accident or incident the Branch—

(a) shall not consider or determine blame or liability, but

(b) may determine and report on a cause of an accident or incident whether or not blame or liability is likely to be inferred from the determination or report.

(5) The Branch may conduct an investigation and report whether or not civil or criminal proceedings are in progress or may be instituted (but this subsection is without prejudice to the operation of the law of contempt of court).

(6) The Chief Inspector of Road Accidents may apply to the High Court or the Crown Court for a declaration that the making of a report in connection with a specified accident or incident will not amount to a contempt of court in relation to civil or criminal proceedings which have been or may be instituted in connection with the accident or incident.

(7) The Chief Inspector of Road Accidents may reopen an investigation if he believes that significant new evidence may be available.'.

New clause 11—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigator's powers—

'(1) For the purpose of conducting an investigation by virtue of section 4 an inspector of road accidents may, provided that he produces evidence of his identity if asked to do so—

(a) enter land (which may include a dwellinghouse) which adjoins or abuts a public right of way;

(b) with consent from a Chief Police Inspector, enter a vehicle which is on a public right of way;

(c) enter land, premises or vehicles which do not fall within paragraph (a) or (b) if the inspector reasonably believes that it may contain evidence relating to an accident or incident;

(d) in entering anything under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), be accompanied by one or more persons authorised by the Chief Inspector of Road Accidents for that purpose (whether generally or specifically);

(e) in entering anything under paragraph (a), (b) or (c), make arrangements to have with him equipment or materials.

(2) For the purpose of conducting an investigation by virtue of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations] an inspector of road accidents may—

(a) make a written, electronic, photographic or other record;

(b) remove and retain samples;

(c) arrange for anything to be removed and retained for the purpose of analysis or other examination or for the purpose of preserving evidence;

(d) require access to a record or to recording equipment;

(e) require a person to answer a question;

(f) require a person to provide information;

(g) require a person to disclose a record;

(h) require a person to provide a copy of a record;

(i) require disclosure of the result of an examination of a person, body or thing;

(j) require a person to certify the truth, accuracy or authenticity of a statement made, of information or a document provided or of a record disclosed.

(3) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he—

(a) fails to comply with a requirement imposed by an inspector of road accidents for the purpose of an investigation by virtue of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations];

(b) makes a statement for the purpose of an investigation by virtue of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations] knowing or suspecting that the statement is inaccurate or misleading;

(c) provides information or a record for the purpose of an investigation by virtue of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations] knowing or suspecting that the information or record is inaccurate or misleading;

(d) obstructs an inspector of road accidents in the course of his conduct of an investigation by virtue of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigations];

(e) obstructs a person accompanying an inspector of road accidents; or

(f) obstructs a person exercising a power of an inspector by virtue of regulations under section 5(1).

(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks;

(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or

(c) both.

(5) Subsection (6) applies where—

(a) the Road Accident Investigation Branch is conducting an investigation by virtue of section 4 in respect of an accident or incident; and

(b) a question arises as to the desirability of action which any other person proposes to take for the purpose of investigating the accident or incident.

(6) The question may be determined by—

(a) the Chief Inspector of Road Accidents; or

(b) an inspector of road accidents acting on behalf of the Chief Inspector.'.

New clause 12—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Regulations—

'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the conduct of investigations by the Road Accident Investigation Branch; in particular, the regulations may—

(a) confer a function on the Chief Inspector of Road Accidents or on the Branch;

(b) make provision about the way in which a function of the Chief Inspector or the Branch is to be performed;

(c) permit or require the Chief Inspector to appoint a person to conduct or participate in an investigation;

(d) provide for a power of an inspector to be exercisable by a person conducting or participating in an investigation by virtue of paragraph (c);

(e) permit or require the Chief Inspector to request assistance from another person;

(f) permit or require another person to assist the Chief Inspector.

(2) The regulations may make provision about the preparation, form, content and publication of a report made by the Branch under section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigator's Powers]; in particular, the regulations may—

(a) require a report to address the question of what caused an accident or incident;

(b) require or permit a report to make, or not to make, a recommendation;

(c) require or permit the preparation and publication by the Branch of an interim report;

(d) require the Branch to give an opportunity to a person interested in an investigation to comment on a draft report or draft interim report;

(e) require the Branch to notify a person of the content of a report or interim report before publication;

(f) require the Branch to give a copy of a report or interim report to a person;

(g) make provision about the timing of publication.

(3) A reference to a report by the Branch in section 4 includes a reference to an interim report permitted or required by virtue of subsection (2) above.

(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the use, disclosure and destruction of information acquired by the Branch; in particular, the regulations may—

(a) prohibit the disclosure of information in specified circumstances;

(b) permit the disclosure of information in specified circumstances;

(c) require the disclosure of information in specified circumstances;

(d) make provision by reference to whether or not a person consents to a disclosure which relates to him;

(5) Regulations under this section may—

(a) create an offence (but not an offence punishable by imprisonment);

(b) confer a discretionary function;

(c) confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal.'.

New clause 13—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Requirement to investigate—

'(1) The Chief Inspector of Road Accidents may direct that any road accident or road incident of a specified kind or which occurs in specified circumstances shall be investigated by each person who manages or controls, or participates in managing or controlling, all or any part of public rights of right—

(a) on which the accident or incident takes place, or

(b) which is involved in the accident or incident.

(2) A direction—

(a) shall specify the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted, and

(b) may make provision for a case where more than one person would be required to conduct an investigation, whether by

requiring a joint investigation or by requiring or enabling one or more persons to conduct an investigation on behalf of others.

(3) A person to whom a direction under subsection (1) applies commits an offence if he fails to comply with it.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(5) The Chief Inspector shall publish a direction issued by him under subsection (1) in a manner which he considers will bring it to the attention of each person who is likely to be required to comply with it.

(6) But in proceedings against a person for an offence under subsection (3) of failing to comply with a direction it shall not be necessary to prove that he was aware of the direction.

(7) A direction under subsection (1)—

(a) may make provision which applies generally or only in specified circumstances,

(b) may make different provision for different cases or circumstances, and

(c) may be varied or revoked by a further direction.'.

New clause 14—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: accident regulations—

'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations in connection with the investigation of road accidents.

(2) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) require a person to notify the Road Accident Investigation Branch of a road accident and,

(b) make provision about the timing, form and content of notice given by virtue of paragraph (a).

(3) The regulations may, in particular, require a person to take or not to take specified action following an accident or incident—

(a) pending the commencement of an investigation, or

(b) during the process of an investigation.

(4) The regulations may—

(a) create an offence (but not an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding the maximum term which may be imposed by a magistrates' court in accordance with section 78 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6));

(b) confer a discretionary function;

(c) confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal.'.

New clause 15—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Crown application—

'This Part applies in relation to property irrespective of whether it belongs to or is used for the purposes of the Crown or a Duchy.'.

New clause 16—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Regulations and orders—

'(1) Regulations and orders under this Part—

(a) may make provision which applies generally or only in specified cases or circumstances,

(b) may make different provision for different cases or circumstances, and

(c) may include transitional, consequential or incidental provision.

(2) Regulations and orders under this Part shall be made by statutory instrument.

(3) Regulations under this Part shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

New clause 17—The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Extent—

'(2) This Part extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.

(a) In the application of this Part in relation to Northern Ireland the maximum term for the purposes of section [The Road Accident Investigation Branch: Investigator's Powers] (4)(a) shall be 12 months.'.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I return to the debate that was begun in a sense by the amendment moved this morning by the hon. Member for Vale of York. During those deliberations, all members of the Committee were conscious of the crucial importance of road safety and the need for further measures to improve our roads. This morning, I paid tribute to the work done over several years to reduce deaths and serious casualties on our roads.

However, notwithstanding the fact that we have the best record in Europe, additional measures could be taken. One way to develop new measures would be to do so from the results of investigations into road accidents. For a long time, we have accepted that such benefits apply to air and marine accidents, and have established the respective air and marine accident investigation branches. Because of our concern about accidents and incidents on the railways, we have seen fit in the Bill to support measures to introduce the rail accident investigation branch. Since the election of a Labour Government in 1997, about 150 people have died on the railways, yet about 17,000 people have died on our roads. I am not belittling the work done on our railways, but a crucial task remains to be undertaken in respect of road safety.

David Cairns (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has twice referred to the election of the Government, when referring to fatalities. Is he using that just as an example of a measure of time or is he imputing responsibility to the current Government for such statistics? He should make his argument more clear.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

As the hon. Gentleman will have noted from earlier deliberations in Committee and on the Floor of the House, many different statistics have been used to illustrate my point. He will be aware that I always coupled my comments about statistics with praise for the contribution that has been made by both the present and previous Governments. Statistics have improved and that is a tribute not only to those Governments, but to those who work on the ground such as the police, members of local authorities and others. There is no imputation in what I have said.

I could have put matters differently, taken the statistics for 2001 and reminded the Committee that, during that time, 3,450 people died and a staggering 37,110 people were seriously injured on roads in Great Britain. That is why I am anxious that we take action. Clearly, much more needs to be done. The Government have their road safety strategy, which is important. However, as part of the package of measures, it would be a good idea to set up a similar body to those that have been introduced in respect of rail, marine and aviation accidents, and establish a road accident investigation branch.

I am well aware that we already have in place measures to ensure that accidents are investigated.

When there is death or injury, responsibility for investigation falls predominantly to the police. They conduct detailed investigations and gather information from investigations into the STATS 19 forms, which provide useful information that can be collated and used to help in the design and modification of roads and so forth. I am also conscious that the Road Traffic Act 1988 gave local authorities the responsibility for investigating road accidents and for taking action to prevent their repetition.

The problem with the current arrangements, however, is that only a limited number of police are involved in work on our roads. Despite several parliamentary questions from hon. Members of all parties, it has become difficult to ascertain whether numbers have declined or remained static, but there is no indication that the number of police involved in such work has increased. Clearly, the police, even those who do highly skilled work on our roads, are not fully trained in the same way as accident investigators.

Similarly, there is a shortage of people trained in the business of accident investigation working in local authorities. Such investigations help us to find ways of reducing the number of accidents. The establishment of a body of the type proposed by the new clause would create the opportunity to bring together a cadre of people with specific skills and expertise to enable them to examine accidents and develop strategies to help to reduce the number of accidents.

I am well aware that the hon. Member for Vale of York said that, although she supports measures to reduce the number of road accidents and improve road safety, she is concerned that the establishment of a new body would create an additional tier of bureaucracy—I believe that that was the phrase that she used. I am also conscious of the down sides to such proposals. On the other hand, a newspaper headline stating, ''3,500 people have died'' would result in a major scandal. The large number of people dying on our roads does not lead to the level of publicity that it might have led to, had those deaths occurred by other means. Even if additional costs are incurred and the establishment of additional bodies is required, it will be of great benefit in reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

The Committee is probably bored of being reminded that I visited Sweden to see the work being done there. The sole purpose of my visit was to examine how the Swedes carry out accident investigation. The Committee will be interested to know that, as part of the roads division in the Swedish Ministry of Transport and Communications, on 1 January this year, the Swedes established a body along the lines of the one described in the new clause. It has been in place for only a few months, so it is too early to draw conclusions about any benefits, but I will be watching developments with considerable interest in the months and years to come.

Certainly, in Sweden, where several methods of collating data from road accidents have been tried and improvements resulting from that information have been sought, people conclude that to have a group of

people focused on road accidents is a sensible way forward. Notwithstanding the Minister's comment that transport includes roads, with its focus mainly on other areas of transport, the Bill has a significant hole in it, unless we are prepared to find ways of introducing measures such as the new clause to boost road safety.

I am conscious that the Government have introduced their three-year road safety, and we all want regular reports on progress. I am sure that the Under-Secretary agrees that there is still a long way to go in respect of the detail of reports in progress. I hope that he will consider, even if he is not prepared to accept, whether it might be important to strengthen aspects of the legislation relating to road safety before the Bill leaves both Houses.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Committee will recall that it was our amendment No. 16 to clause 10 that contained the embryo or, in the words of the hon. Member for Bath, the philosophy that all modes of transport should operate to the same high standards of safety, and that the sanctity of life should be reflected equally in road, rail, air and sea travel. The amendment stated:

''Accident reports such as those conducted in the event of a road accident should be completed by the relevant investigators acting under the provision of this Bill, ensuring greater transparency and security across all modes of travel.''

The Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions recorded that my county of North Yorkshire had the worst record of casualties and fatalities for transit traffic. North Yorkshire seems to suffer more transit traffic than any other county. As a result, I am concerned about the general drift of road accident casualties in North Yorkshire in 1997 to 2001. The following figures have been provided by the Library. In 1997, there were 87 fatalities, and the total number of severe casualties was 5,088. Regrettably, the number of fatalities rose in 2000, but subsequently decreased to 82 in 2001. All severities, including fatalities, serious injuries and slight injuries, amounted to some 4,632, which is an unacceptably high figure.

It would have been courteous of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington to note that the provenance of his new clause was the private Member's Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). The Bill had a good hearing but was sadly not supported by the Government and was lost. The Bill contained a clause similar to new clause 7.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I want to tease the hon. Lady for a second. Can she remind the Committee of the order in which her amendment No. 28 and our new clauses were tabled?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Perhaps I could write to the hon. Gentleman, because I will have to look into the matter, and I would hate to give the hon. Gentleman a false reply.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady again. If she discovered that our new clauses had been tabled before her amendment, I hope that she would accept that the provenance of her amendment was us. All the measures contained in the Bill introduced by

the hon. Member for North Wiltshire have been the subject of debate in the House for many years. She listed a large number of those measures. If she wants me to, I should be happy to send her an analysis of the contributions from various hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that is notwithstanding my huge congratulations to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire on compiling them as he did.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire will be delighted to hear that, and I look forward to exchanging letters with the hon. Member for Bath. I referred to the gestation of our amendment. The hon. Gentleman will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) used that wording. Regrettably, that amendment was not selected for debate, but it was on the Amendment Paper some time before the hon. Member for Bath had put pen to paper to write his new clauses. We can explore that outside the confines of the Committee in a lengthy exchange of letters, to which I look forward.

I enjoy writing letters. One of the privileges of being a Member of Parliament is that one writes many letters in the course of a day, although not so often to parliamentary colleagues such as the hon. Member for Bath. However, it will be a joy to add him to my list of correspondents. He was lucky that his new clause was deemed to be suitable and I was unlucky that our amendment was not.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

Order. That is quite enough about letter writing and the timing of the tabling of amendments and new clauses. Shall we return to this new clause?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

If I may refresh the Committee's memory, this issue was first aired on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. The new clauses are beautifully drafted, but I hate to think how many trees were felled—whether in Russia, Scandinavia or this country—to print them. Judging by the volumes of print-off, I do not think that the hon. Member for Bath can have spoken to each new clause. It would seem that he has not done himself justice.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

Lest the hon. Lady feel concern about the number of trees, I assure her that I simply cut and pasted from other clauses. We merely deleted the word ''rail'' and inserted ''road''. It was a fairly simple exercise.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am disappointed. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have liked to make out that he had done a little more research. I am hugely relieved that he did not ask me to accompany him on his now well-known visit to Sweden. We have heard much about it that we will not forget in a hurry. I am glad that he did not ask me to act as his interpreter on that occasion. Perhaps he did not entirely understand some of the evidence that he heard and so did not quite get the gist of what was happening. Again, we can explore that in the confines of our private correspondence, which I am sure will not be of such interest to members of the Committee.

We cannot support new clauses 7 to 17, because establishing a road accident investigation branch to

find out how many accidents there are per year, as the hon. Member for Bath suggests, would give rise to the need for considerable powers of investigation. I may have missed it—perhaps I cannot see the wood for the trees—but I cannot find the provision that tells us what criteria would be used. That is what we sought to do at the beginning of the Committee. It will be a memory exercise for members of the Committee to hark back to clause 1, under which we sought to define which accidents and incidents should be investigated. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would assist me and say where he has specified which accidents and incidents would be investigated by such a road accident investigation branch. Presumably, with many thousands of accidents each year, there will be a vast new bureaucracy.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

If the hon. Lady had bothered to do her homework she would find what she is looking for in new clause 10(a).

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It would have been of assistance to the Committee if the hon. Gentleman had talked us through all the hard work that he has done. I am grateful for his guidance about clause 10(a). Is that correct?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I think that the hon. Member for Bath meant to refer to new clause 10(1). However, we should not quibble.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Perhaps the hon. Member for Bath should have his eyes tested. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge is correct, as always. We are referring not to clause 10(a) because that would not make any sense, but to new clause 10(1), which states:

''The Road Accident Investigation Branch shall investigate any road accident in which there is a fatality.''

As has been mentioned, in the last five and a half or six years there have been thousands of such accidents. Therefore, there would be a plethora of investigations.

Unfortunately, an earlier amendment of ours was deemed not to be in good order. The hon. Member for Bath moved his amendments swiftly, so it is possible to refer to STATS 19. As we mentioned, it is interesting to note the types of information that might be available to the rail accident investigation branch. I assume that the hon. Gentleman would wish for them to be available—or, at least, to be considered—but I fear that he will not be successful in that regard, although I hate to disappoint him after all the hard work that he has done. In the normal course of events, it will take the police and the Transport Research Laboratory a considerable amount of time to investigate such matters, and where a reparation case follows as a result of such investigations, the courts will be involved and they will rely heavily on their work.

In an earlier debate, the Minister confirmed that where an insurance company defends such an accident under present road traffic provisions, it would, if it requested a witness statement, normally have to pay the police for furnishing it. That is interesting. I once

insisted on giving a witness statement before I left the scene of an accident in which a youngster almost lost his life. I hope that the Minister will confirm what the present law is.

It is highly regrettable that to avoid paying the police for a witness statement, the insurance company might go to that witness after a long delay: a considerable period might have passed before the witness made an initial statement. I know only too well from having seen witness statements and from having tried to get a witness in court to stand by a statement that details become blurred as time elapses from when the initial witness statement was given. It is a regrettable fact of life that there is potential for conflict between witness statements from the same witness when the insurance company has refused to pay the police for that statement. It would be helpful to know from the Minister if the Government are considering looking into that.

If the hon. Member for Bath is minded to withdraw his new clause, I hope that he will feel that at least most of the causes of a fatality or a serious accident are well recorded in an exemplary fashion in STATS 19. The casualty records address the class of casualty—is it the driver of the vehicle, a motorcycle, a pillion passenger or a pedestrian? They consider the sex of the casualty, the age of the casualty, the severity of injury to the casualty, where the pedestrian was located, whether he was moving, and in what direction he was facing. Factors such as whether the casualty was a school pupil or a car passenger are taken into account. Useful, detailed information is given in STATS 19. Is the hon. Member for Bath suggesting that such information should no longer be passed from the police to the transport research laboratory but should be given to the road accident investigation branch? If so, what would be the status of STATS 19?

Should court action result from such information? Could it be used as evidence in court? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could point to where such level of detail appears in his new clause. STATS 19 is a remarkable document, and the level of statistics is detailed and helpful. It goes into the state of the road and the nature of the carriageway.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I share the hon. Lady's delight in the degree of detail and information contained in STATS 19. A few weeks ago, she helpfully read out the list of what it contains. Does she agree that its statistical base depends on the quality of the people who carry out the investigation? Successive Home Secretaries have increasingly focused their attention on street crime and drugs, and there is already increasing concern about the shortage of police carrying out traffic duties. Because of their mixed range of responsibilities, they are far less likely than others to have the detailed expertise and skills to carry out road accident investigations and to ensure high-quality data are displayed in the statistics. Does she agree that it would be better to have people trained especially to do the job?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I disagree. I wish to place on the record my highest regard for the police. They are better qualified than others for the simple reason that they have undertaken such work for several years.

Their reports are used as evidence and, on several occasions, they are asked to refer to those reports in court. It would be inappropriate to alter arrangements after such a long time in which operations have been successful and satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will agree to keep the tried-and-tested system.

The shortage of police is a problem. We are familiar with that in North Yorkshire. I live probably less than eight miles from Sutton Bank, a well-known dangerous spot. Caravans have been banned, but drivers of inappropriate vehicles still want to drive up and down the steep bank. Its gradient is not only steep but has bends at its start and finish. I know for a fact that several police officers are often taken off their usual duties at Thirsk police station and sent on traffic duty. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues at the Home Office will plead for more police resources. He will gain support for that from both sides of the Committee.

I do not share the conviction of the hon. Member for Bath that there is a need to leave a system that has worked well. If anything, STATS 19 should be the document used by the rail accident investigation branch. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has done himself justice by suggesting that members of the rail accident investigation branch would be better placed than police officers to perform the duty that those officers have performed so adequately for a considerable time. Such a change would result in an inferior service to the courts in the event that a court action followed.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady so often. I am listening with great care to what she is saying, but I fail to understand the logic of her argument. Am I correct in assuming that she and her colleagues—not least the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—supported the establishment of the rail accident investigation branch with great acclamation for the same reasons that I am proposing for roads? Yet she seems now to suggest that her arguments about rail would not work for roads.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

At the moment, the railways as identified by Lord Cullen have no specific investigation branch. They are modelled on aviation and maritime rules and, had we remained in Government, we would have introduced such measures. We pledged in 1996 and 1997 to do that. We are saying that the system works well. We are not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's new clause. We do not wish to set up a bureaucracy for which there has been no call. I wait to hear the Minister's response.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

It is a bit of a disappointment that I cannot support the Liberal Democrat Members. I accept that they mean well, but such a bureaucratic establishment would not help to reduce accidents. I am unable to support the new clause.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The debate has been a useful one. Road safety is of considerable importance to my Department. We take it very seriously, and my officials work constantly to find ways to reduce casualties on the roads. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Bath rightly said that the number of casualties on our

roads has been falling consistently for a long time. In fact, over the past 30 years, there has been a gradual reduction in the number of those killed or seriously injured. Moreover, the number of vehicles on the road has gradually increased. The rate at which casualties occur is reducing substantially year on year, and that must be a good thing.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that 17,000 people have died in six years on our roads, which is appalling carnage and a statistic that causes us great worry. Another statistic that I sometimes use is that, each year, the number of children who die on our roads—just under 300—is equivalent to a medium-sized primary school. That is a disturbing figure. We have only to imagine the worry and heartache caused by those child casualties, let alone that caused by the adults who are killed.

Moreover, for every person who dies on the road, 10 people on average are seriously injured. Some of those, particularly older people, never recover properly from their injuries and remain disfigured or maimed for the rest of their lives. It is a serious problem, and there is wide agreement among all parties that action is needed taken.

The hon. Member for Bath referred to Sweden. When I am not in Committee, I occasionally leave the shores of this country. Sometimes, it is useful to look back to see whether we are taking the right action. I visited an accession state—I shall not say which one—to the European Union and considered issues concerned with road safety. That country had a high casualty rate. The number of vehicles on the road is 10 times higher than ours. However, there is no consensus in that society about the need to reduce road casualties. No culture is widely shared in that country between the various parts of Government and local government; no culture shares the ambition to create greater safety on the roads.

In Sweden, things are different. There is a strong culture of safety and wide consensus on the need for safety. That is why Sweden has a good record—as we do—which compares well with the record of the rest of the world. We look closely at countries that have good records, and Sweden is one of them. We consider what it does, as it considers what we do, to see whether we might learn from each other and to see which practices are appropriate. The hon. Member for Bath did not actually tell us whether Sweden had a body similar to the road accident investigation branch; perhaps he could tell us about that another time. He said that there was a group that pooled ideas, but I am unsure about whether he was formally saying that there was the equivalent of a road accident investigation branch.

I have considered the new clauses carefully. If we could take a measure that would reduce casualties on our roads, we would want to do it and it would find favour with us. However, having considered the amendments carefully, I am not sure that the proposals would take us any further forward than we are now. I wonder whether it would divert resources and human energy away from the areas on which we should focus to areas such as investigation

and whether it might duplicate work that is already carried out well.

The new clauses, which make proposals for road accidents, appear to ignore the number and nature of the type of casualties on our roads, and they also ignore the fact that sound arrangements exist for investigating them. There are some significant differences between road accident investigations and those for other modes of transport.

In 2001 there were 3,176 road accidents involving a fatality. In most cases, road accidents result from human failings and are not a consequence of technical or system failure, or any other negligence on the part of a regulated corporate body, such as a train operating company or an aircraft operator. I am therefore unconvinced that the suggested investigatory body would do anything to improve road safety or prevent further road accidents. A well-established process is in place for road accidents, and it was improved last year with the introduction of the police national Road Death Investigation Manual, of which I have a copy for the Committee. That comprehensive document sets out the guidelines that the police need to use to investigate serious road incidents.

The police investigate individual accidents thoroughly, not least because the causes of those could lead to the prosecution of some of, if not all, the drivers concerned. Such investigation may take several hours to complete at the side of the road and several weeks to conduct elsewhere. Police forces and their respective local authorities share information that could help them to improve the roads and to reduce the risk of accidents. Often, when I visit what are generally known as black spots, I am impressed to see local councillors, the Highways Agency and the police working together to consider how to reduce casualties.

My Department maintains a national database of road accident statistics, and it uses the data to inform research studies and, through those, to inform policy development. The data also enable us to check that we are delivering on our targets for reducing road safety by reducing deaths and injuries. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have set ourselves tough and demanding targets to reduce the number of people who are killed and seriously injured on our roads by 40 per cent. over a 10-year period, and, because our record is not so good in terms of children, by 50 per cent. for them. All our records show that we will meet that target, but there is no room for complacency. We must continue looking at measures that will help us to meet that target in an appropriate time.

Several research studies are under way on contributory factors to accidents. The studies include making detailed on-the-spot investigations of a sample of accidents as soon as they have occurred, and an in-depth analysis of detailed police files. Analysing data from a large number of accidents and looking for common threads is much more likely to lead to improved safety measures than a centralised investigation of individual accidents. Whereas I am confident that vehicle inspection and the efforts of the police and the highway authority teams combine to

provide the most effective way of investigating accidents and learning lessons, in extreme cases the Secretary of State has the power under section 179 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to hold inquiries for the purposes of the Act.

I am aware of what happens at local authority level. In the local transport plan for the area around the hon. Lady's constituency, my Department has provided a substantial sum; I stand to be corrected, but I think that in real terms it is two or three times as much as it was a few years ago. Those local transport plans include an undertaking to improve road safety. Because local conditions can sometimes cause accidents, it is important that local people should help in finding the solutions.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Obviously I shall investigate the figures to discover whether they are as the Under-Secretary said they are. Is he aware that although the Government have given with one hand, they are taking away with the other? Regrettably, North Yorkshire police have been given a stand-still budget. The very people who should be investigating road accidents will be £8.2 million worse off in real terms. North Yorkshire police have been encouraged by the Government to take on extra officers, but the force will have great difficulty in paying them.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I was referring to the local transport plan, for which my Department is responsible. From 2000–01 to now, there has been a substantial increase. It struck me when I visited an area adjoining the hon. Lady's constituency that it had enjoyed a particularly large factoring up of the funding available for that purpose. An important factor—it is a challenge for the Government—is to ensure that local authorities spend that money on road safety.

The hon. Member for Bath should take the issue up with his colleagues on the local councils. I know that there is enormous pressure on budgets, but road safety is important. Short-term matters can sometimes take over, but a long-term reduction in casualties and the misery that goes with them is more important. It is incumbent on us all to talk to our colleagues in local government and to make sure that that is happening.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I agree. I am sure that councils of all political persuasions will need urging on. However, the Minister will have seen the recent reports showing that a number of local authorities are rather reluctant to introduce some of the measures in the initial local transport plans, even though the Government have made the money available. Will the Minister assure the Committee that he will press those councils, regardless of party political affiliation, to get on with the job for which they have been given the money?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That issue concerns us. We are looking closely at the report, and if authorities are not spending the money allocated by my Department for a range of transport matters, road safety being one of them, perhaps in future we should place the money with those authorities that make best use of it. My putting it that way may give the hon. Gentleman some indication of our strength of feeling on the subject. We have made a big investment in local transport plans. We want local authorities to make decisions at a local

level, but when we provide money for the purpose of transport and road safety, we want to ensure that it is spent on that. The local aspect is that it will be local people making decisions on how best to use the funding locally, as long as it is used for transport.

The hon. Member for Vale of York spoke about the high casualty rates in her constituency. There is also a high casualty rate south of her part of the world, in Lincolnshire. It has been suggested that the type of roads—single carriageways and long, straight roads with occasional chicanes or bends in them, for example—and the presence of a lot of agricultural traffic can increase the rates. There is a high incidence of collisions when people become impatient behind an agricultural vehicle and overtake unsafely. There are several other reasons, including people not being familiar with the area—holidaymakers for example—and travelling too fast for the roads. It is difficult to put one's finger on what has caused the higher rate in certain areas. Other authorities also have a high rate, and there are no obvious reasons for that, but we examine such matters carefully. I am not sure that investigating each casualty will necessarily take us forward, and examining trends in authorities can be a better option.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Under-Secretary has been astute in identifying the type of road that could cause problems. The Government have delayed the de-trunking programme for one year because of the introduction of a new spending formula, and that is welcome, but my concern is that considering that the roads that he identified may be causing accidents or be a contributory factor in them, is this the right time to proceed with the de-trunking programme? Would it not be better for road safety to identify the contribution that those roads make before the programme passes on the responsibility?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The de-trunking programme will be done with close discussion and liaison with the Highways Agency. Several issues other than road safety are involved, including controlling traffic flow, which we feel that it is better for the local authority to handle. Most authorities agree with us and are happy to take the responsibility. Road safety is an important issue, but there are others, too.

The hon. Lady asked about paying for witness statements. It is a matter in which there is no difference between traffic and non-traffic liability. However, if she wants more detail—it is a little beyond the scope of the Committee, and I know that you do not want us to talk too much about letters, Mr. Hurst—I could add that to the list of queries to respond to later.

The hon. Lady also asked about STATS 19 and the quality of information. The form provides high-quality information, but one difficulty is that the form is not compiled in a consistent way throughout the country. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the way in which the information is fed in is also important. We are closely examining the form and the information technology that backs it up to try to get better consistency and quality of information and help the police officer at the side of the road save a considerable amount of time in gathering accurate information.

We are deeply sympathetic to the idea of reducing road casualties, and improving safety is at the core of our road policies. We have provided substantial amounts of money for local authorities to improve road safety in their own areas, and the Department is doing an enormous amount to reduce casualties on our roads. Notwithstanding that, I am not convinced that, worthy as they are, the proposals would provide a cost-effective route forward. We share the ambition to create safer roads, so it is with reluctance that I urge my hon. Friends to resist the new clause.

Don Foster (Liberal Democrat, Bath)

I thank the Under-Secretary for his lengthy and detailed response, in which he rightly touched on a wider range of issues than those directly related to the proposals. As I have said on many occasions, no one will doubt the commitment or desire of the present or previous Governments, of any political party, to improve safety on our roads. We may disagree from time to time as to the exact way forward on, for example, speed limits, the use of mobile phones in cars or what the drink-drive limits should be, but no one listening to the Under-Secretary would doubt his sincerity and commitment to take action.

The new clauses have been debated in an interesting manner. When we were debating the establishment of the rail accident investigation branch, we were conscious that we were mirroring work that had already taken place in marine and aviation services. At that time, the hon. Member for Vale of York was an enthusiastic supporter of the initiative, although perhaps not of all the details. The Under-Secretary was certainly a supporter because he was one of those who proposed the idea.

We are conscious, in relation to railways, that when accidents take place, a large number of organisations and individuals are inevitably involved: the police, the train-operating companies, Network Rail, the Health and Safety Executive and so on. They all have a part to play, but I particularly stress the role of the police. Hon. Members on both sides of the House thought it appropriate and sensible to establish, in addition, the rail accident investigation branch.

When the hon. Lady responded to the new clauses that referred to roads, she told us that everybody who was involved in roads was doing a fantastic job and that everything was wonderful, so there was no need to make any change. One could interpret that unkindly as being critical of those involved in accident investigation on the railways. She appears to have a high regard for the traffic police and their investigative work, and sees no need for the establishment of a road accident body of the type that I am proposing, yet in relation to the railways, she sees the need for such a body, which implies less confidence in the work of the British Transport police. I cannot believe that that is in the hon. Lady's mind, so perhaps we should put her opposition down to the fact that she was responding to a Liberal Democrat new clause.

The Under-Secretary and the hon. Lady have both drawn attention to the large number of investigations and people, alongside the police, that will be necessary

given the large number of fatalities on our roads. Both of them are right that a large number of investigators would be required for the work, but that expenditure would be well worth it: benefits would accrue from their work. I should like to place on record my gratitude to all those people who currently conduct investigations, but, as the Under-Secretary said, there remains a need to improve the quality of the information that is used to underpin STATS 19. The only way that we will improve the quality of information is by having people with appropriate skills, experience, and expertise to conduct investigations. That was the reason why I thought it appropriate to table the new clauses. However, at present the new clauses do not have the support of many Committee members. In order that there may be an opportunity to debate the issues later—perhaps in a slightly different form—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 21 - Development of rural road hierarchy

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I shall say why we believe that there is a need for the development of a rural road hierarchy, and why the Government might be minded to follow up the research that has been done on that subject. It would be appropriate to give some statistics on the impact of speed, as opposed to alcohol in the blood, on driver behaviour. The Library figures, which are the most recent that are available, I imagine, show that the number of fatalities caused by speed justify the Government wishing to take action in that regard.

I am not sure what the reporting period is but accidents on built-up roads result in some 20,000 serious injuries a year. We touched on the matter earlier but, regrettably, I do not know whether the Minister can say that we are any further forward in judging how many road accidents involve drugs. However, in response to a parliamentary question, one of the Minister's predecessors, who is now Deputy Chief Whip, touched on the fact that a fifth of drivers killed had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, and went on to say that

''The Department has undertaken specific research into the incidence of drugs in road accident fatalities. This found that there was a presence of illegal drugs in some 18 per cent. of driver fatalities of which cannabis accounted for about two thirds. However, traces of cannabis remain in the body for some time after any impairing effect, and in general the presence of drugs is not evidence of impairment or accident causation.''—[Official Report, 22 January 2001; Vol. 398, c. 461W.]

I do not know whether the Minister can show how much further on we are with those figures.

The Committee may recall that between 1865 and 1896 locomotives on the highway had to be preceded by a pedestrian carrying a flag and were subject to a speed limit of some 2 mph in populated areas and 4 mph elsewhere. That maximum speed limit was increased to 14 mph, and in 1903 to 20 mph. In 1930, speed limits for cars and motor cycles were abolished. In 1934, roads in built-up areas, which are defined as those with street lighting placed not more than 200 yd apart, had a general limit of 30 mph. Other roads had no speed limit at all until 1965, when a general national upper limit of 70 mph was introduced for all roads including motorways. Since 1977, the speed limit for cars has been 70 mph on dual carriageways and 60 mph on single carriageways. The speed limit on an unclassified road, assuming that it is a single carriageway, is 60 mph.

The speed limits on rural roads have been the subject of discussions and research, not least in the Department for Transport's strategy document, which was published in 2000. Paragraph 34 states:

''The relationship between speed and safety is a complex one. But from the national and international literature there is overwhelming evidence that lower speeds result in fewer collisions of lesser severity.''

Some interesting conclusions can be drawn, which are listed. It also refers to new research that is being examined, particularly the scope for reducing collisions through speed management. The study concluded that

''each 1 mph reduction in average speed is expected to cut accident frequency by 5 per cent.''

Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North)

May I seek clarification? Is that a 1 mph reduction from a particular speed? Clearly a reduction of 1 mph from 100 mph would be different proportionately from 1 mph from 30 mph.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I shall come to the speed limits that the Government research has in mind. The report states:

''Broadly each 1 mph reduction in average speed is expected to cut accident frequency by 5 per cent. This is a robust general rule, but now we have a much fuller picture which indicates that the reduction varies according to road type as follows: about 6 per cent. for urban main roads and residential roads with low average speeds; about 4 per cent. for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads; and about 3 per cent. for the higher speed urban roads and rural single carriageway main roads.''

The research concluded:

''About 40 per cent. of pedestrians who are struck at speeds below 20 mph sustain non-minor injuries. This rises to 90 per cent. at speeds up to 30 mph . . . The change from mainly survivable injuries to mainly fatal injuries takes place at speeds of between about 30 and 40 mph . . . Elderly pedestrians are more likely to sustain non-minor injuries than younger people in the same impact conditions . . . It is the combination of speed and lack of protection that makes motorcyclists vulnerable.''

The Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, of which I had the privilege to be a member, concluded in a report published in June 2002 that the Government had been slow in carrying forward their road safety strategy with few of their key proposals being implemented and many others being dropped altogether. Perhaps the Minister can explain precisely why that was. The Select Committee affirmed that the Government's principal task should be to ensure that all local and police authorities give reducing road traffic speeds the same priority. It also said that the Government should provide the funds to enable that to be done. It concluded:

''Specifically, the Government should:

—improve the National Safety Camera Scheme by allowing local and police authorities to decide where to site cameras; and ensure that the whole country is covered by 2004

—issue the promised revised Guidance to local authorities about speed limits; this should include a number of changes, in particular, that 30 mph should be the speed in villages

—re-engineer the roads to ensure that speed limits are obeyed and to make roads safer and more pleasant for pedestrians

—ensure that the funding of Local Transport Plans is dependent on measures to reduce speeds; and

—make road safety a priority for the Ten Year Plan and provide specific funds for a national programme to re-engineer and re-design our roads.''

The rural road hierarchy has become a cause celebre for some organisations, not least the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I pay tribute to the work done by the CPRE in my constituency and throughout the length and breadth of the country.

At the last election, the Conservative party pledged to reduce speed limits on roads outside schools. We were minded to make a commitment in our manifesto to reduce speed limits on rural roads, especially in the vicinity of schools, to 20 mph. We encapsulated that in the concept of a rural road hierarchy, which we submit to the Committee in the form of new clause 21. There would be a

''new classification of speed limits for rural roads to be known as a Rural Road Hierarchy''

and a limit of

''20 mph for rural roads in the vicinity of schools and roads designated as Quiet Lanes under the Transport Act 2000''.

Linda Perham (Labour, Ilford North)

Subsection (7) of the new clause refers to guidance. One of my constituents has written to me about her concern that a rural roads agency might be set up. Will the hon. Lady confirm that guidance from the Secretary of State is proposed rather than a separate agency?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The hon. Lady will be happy to hear that, having pledged our opposition to the creation of a plethora of agencies, the Conservatives would not create any willy-nilly. That will disappoint the hon. Member for Bath, on whose support, I am delighted to record, we are relying for the purposes of new clause 21. This is an historic occasion. I do not think that it is the start of something big, but the Minister is looking uncomfortable.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Before the hon. Lady moves on from talking about the Council for the Protection of Rural England, is she aware that, in one of its statements, it said that the environmental damage caused by motoring should be reflected in the cost of motoring. Does she agree?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.