Traffic Management Bill

Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2004.

Standing Committee A

Traffic Management Bill

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Traffic Management Bill the Standing Committee shall meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9.25 am and 2.30 pm;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 39, Schedule 1, Clause 40, Schedules 2 and 3, Clauses 41 to 50, Schedule 4, Clauses 51 to 60, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 61 to 69, Schedule 7, Clause 70, Schedule 8, Clauses 71 to 73, Schedule 9, Clauses 74 to 80, Schedule 10, Clauses 81 to 86, Schedules 11 and 12, Clauses 87 to 93, new Clauses, new Schedules;

(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.30 pm on Thursday 12th February.

It is a pleasure, Miss Begg, to serve under your chairmanship. I have done so on a number of very happy occasions, and I hope that the next few weeks will be just the same. It is also a pleasure to be here on such a quiet day in Parliament. Very little is going on, and I suspect that there will be enormous press and other interest in what is happening in this Committee, as opposed to elsewhere in the House.

There was general agreement between the usual channels that about eight sittings would be sufficient to deal with the Bill. Obviously, we want to get on with considering it, but we want to do so in a way that is commensurate with proper scrutiny. At last night's meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee—chaired by this Committee's co-Chairman, Mr. Beard, under whose chairmanship we also look forward to serving—I asked whether the Opposition needed more time, and there was no indication that they did. None the less, the Government will be quite happy to reconsider the matter as the Bill proceeds, because we want it to receive proper scrutiny. All being well, we should make good progress. I hope that we can complete part 1 by the end of today, parts 2 and 3 by the end of Thursday, parts 4 and 5 by next Tuesday and the remainder of the Bill, including part 6, by Thursday 5 February.

The principles behind the Bill are clear, and I hope that most of its aims are uncontroversial. It will empower the Highways Agency and local authorities to get to grips with some of the causes of congestion and disruption on our roads, including the motorway and trunk road network and local roads. It complements the other efforts that we are making towards the same end. We are creating additional capacity at key pinch points in the strategic road network and investing billions of pounds in local transport capital, including the £1.9 billion that we announced as recently as December.

We want to get to grips with some of the unnecessary disruption that we all face on our roads and to keep traffic moving on the motorways and

trunk roads. The new traffic officers at the Highways Agency, whom I hope we will have time to discuss today, will be given the job of clearing up after minor incidents and accidents, of ensuring that people are held up no longer than they need be, and of making our roads less congested and much safer.

I also hope that we can get on with discussing how we get the traffic flowing on local roads. The Bill places a new duty on authorities to keep traffic flowing, and there are new powers to enable them to overcome some of the greatest barriers to free-flowing traffic, including powers to control utility street works so that roads are not dug up at the convenience of whoever wants to dig the hole. The Bill will put authorities outside London on a par with those in London, so that people in all parts of the country will follow the accepted rules of the road. With those words, let me say that I am looking forward to our debates.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Welcome to the chair, Miss Begg. This is the first time that I have had the privilege of serving under your chairmanship, and I very much look forward to the experience. I am delighted to say that Conservative Members are taking the Bill seriously, which is obvious from the fact that we have an extremely high-powered team, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) and a powerful, speaking Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).

In introducing the programme motion, the Minister almost made a Second Reading speech. We have no argument with the principle that we should try to reduce congestion on our highways, but we have concerns about much of the detail of the Bill. The Minister referred to events and discussions taking place elsewhere in the House today concerning funding for higher education. That is an argument involving about £1 billion of funding for universities. In part of this Bill, there is a proposal for the extension of lane rental, which would impose a burden of £1.2 billion on ordinary consumers of our utility services. That is a large figure in a significant part of the Bill that has not hitherto attracted sufficient public scrutiny or interest.

We do not accept the principle that a Bill such as this should be programmed from the outset. Therefore, we shall not support the motion. However, I always listen to what Ministers say and I have no reason to doubt the Minister's sincerity. If he is more interested in ensuring that the Bill is properly scrutinised than in forcing it through in a particular period, I am sure that we can make progress in a reasonable way without the pressure of a programme motion. That, indeed, is why I believe that it is regrettable to start with one. Years ago, we trusted people on the basis that if it turned out after a long time that a Bill was not being properly scrutinised and there were unnecessarily long speeches early in its scrutiny, the Government could take appropriate action. I hope that we can establish mutual trust from the start, but that is made difficult by the fact that there is a programme motion before us. Having

said that, I hope that the Bill will be properly scrutinised.

The Minister indicated that he hopes to be able to complete part 1 of the Bill today. I do not know whether that is a realistic aspiration. The Government do not seem to be fully prepared for the Bill, which is one reason why it took some time to come to Committee after Second Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for having made available a schedule of the secondary legislation that will flow from it, and I note that there will be five separate pieces from part 1 alone. Going by the priority accorded to them, many will be introduced by statutory instrument by early summer 2005. It would have been better if many of those provisions had been written on to the face of the Bill so that we could discuss them in Committee. Then, as part of the Bill, they would reach the statute book when it does without the need for subsidiary legislation. The Minister thinks that it should be easy to forecast how long a Bill will take in Committee, but forecasting is difficult when a Bill contains as many provisions as this one does for secondary legislation, the full details of which we are honour bound, as a conscientious Opposition, to tease out of the Government.

Sometimes, the Government are prepared; they know exactly what will be involved, they have drafts of the secondary legislation for the Committee to see, and regulations based on those drafts can be introduced as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. That does not seem to be the situation with this Bill. From the schedule produced by the Minister, it seems that quite a lot of the regulations and guidance will involve work that has not yet started or has only just started. That shows that the Government are being rather unreasonable in saying that time is of the essence and in forcing the Bill through in a specified time when we know that they, who have all the resources available, have not yet got down to the detailed work involved in much of the secondary legislation that the Bill will give them the power to introduce.

That is probably enough of an opening salvo. I hope that we will be able to discuss and consider the legislation in a constructive and good-humoured way in the great tradition of Parliament.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

It is a great pleasure, Miss Begg, to be under your chairmanship again, albeit for the first time outside the Scottish Grand Committee? I was grateful to the Minister for making it possible to meet his officials to receive an explanation of much of the detail of the Bill. That was extremely useful as it allows proper scrutiny.

As I said on Second Reading, we agree with the principles of the Bill. However, considerable concern was raised by various aspects of detail that we hope to tease out in Committee, particularly about safety, the environment and those aspects of devolution that relate to the Greater London authority. It would have been helpful if draft guidance had been available to show the Government's intentions. It would be extremely helpful if those guidance notes were to be made available, as they will be critical to future management of the Bill.

The Liberal Democrats are broadly content with the programme motion, particularly as the Government have made room for further sittings, should eight prove insufficient. We are grateful for that. Accordingly, we are content with the motion.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

May I add mine to the felicitations that you have already received this morning, Miss Begg?

I was very disappointed when the Minister moved the programme motion, as I have always regarded him as a fair and reasonable chap. I wonder why he is not prepared to wait and see, particularly with paragraph (2). The motion is part of a new procedure adopted since 1997 when the Government were first elected with a huge majority, and it smacks rather of Government impatience with those who belong to other parties and how proceedings are dealt with in this place.

A few years ago, when I had responsibility for whipping matters in the Conservative Government, a junior Whip told me that he was concerned about the lack of progress in a Standing Committee and warned me that we would need to consider a guillotine. The Opposition were making a meal of the early parts of the Bill, and no progress was being made. I asked whether he had spoken to the Opposition to ascertain whether they could agree an out date. As a Government Whip, I was not at all concerned about how long the Opposition took on each part of the Bill; my only concern was the out date. If the Opposition wanted to spend more time on the early parts of the Bill, that was surely a matter for them, since they were the ones scrutinising it. The Junior Whip left, and our Minister spoke to the member of the Committee leading for the Opposition, who was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who now happens to be Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman was fair and reasonable. He said that the early parts of the Bill were those that he wanted to spend time on and that the fact that he was doing so should not be taken as filibustering. He guaranteed that the Government would have the Bill by a certain date. On that basis, we did not consider guillotining any part of the proceedings, and the right hon. Gentleman was as good as his word.

Why does the Minister not trust the present Opposition in the same way that we trusted his party when it was on this side of the Committee Room? I hope that if we need extra time properly to scrutinise this matter, he will remember, and adhere to, his opening words that he would be prepared to reconsider the programming motion, if he felt that there was a need to do so.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I add my good wishes to you, Miss Begg, and I look forward to working with you.

To save my making a point of order later, Miss Begg, I should raise a question that I always raise, having been told off by one of your co-Chairmen long ago for taking off my jacket without asking permission. Will you rule at some point whether I, at least, may take my jacket off, should the weather improve?

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

I can make that ruling now. If any hon. Member really feels that it is warm enough to want to take a jacket off, I have no objection. Having left Aberdeen in the middle of a snowstorm last night, however, I think that it is highly unlikely to happen.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Those of us from the south-east do not understand your problems, Miss Begg.

During the introductions, someone speculated that it might be better to be downstairs today rather than up here on the Committee Corridor. I assure Government Members that, if they leave the Room in a hurry, we will render first aid on their return from their Whips Office, should it be necessary. We look forward to seeing what happens today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said that we object to the programming motion in principle, and we most certainly do. The Minister suggested that there is general agreement on it, but there were two votes last night in the Programming Sub-Committee, in both of which we voted against the motion. There is no general agreement, but that is not to say that there will not be co-operation and good will.

We object to the motion in principle. Last night, it was suggested that a hopeful way to proceed would be to agree to reach a certain place tonight and a certain place tomorrow. That was suggested, however, under an imposed deadline—we must finish by 12 February. That is not good will. That is saying to us, ''This is what you will do. However long we take on anything, you will finish by such and such a date.'' We object to that in principle. If we can keep to such a timetable, of course, we will. The Minister would like to get to the end of part 1 today, and we would not stand in the way of that for the sake of it. We will keep to that time limit if it makes sense to do so given the debate and the issues raised, but we will not agree to that in advance, because we do not know what will transpire between now and whatever time the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) wants us to stop at. We object to the imposition of a deadline, which must be kept to irrespective of any issues raised or suggestions made during debate. That is not the way to scrutinise legislation.

I return to the suggestion that there is general agreement on the motion, and I choose my words with care. There has been, at the very least, a misunderstanding. I am conscious of the convention of this House that Government Whips do not speak, so I will not take advantage of the hon. Member for Lincoln, who cannot answer. I leave the matter by saying that the hon. Lady and I, in all sincerity, take different views on whether eight is an acceptable number of sittings. That is a matter for the past. The Minister said that eight was a sensible number of sittings and that nobody had made representations. It is extraordinary that he has not worked out that I do not need to make representations, because the motion allows for 12 sittings. The only guillotine in the motion is that imposed in the Chamber, which is that we finish by midnight on 12 February.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Half-past five.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Well that just shows that Whips do not always get everything right. I must add, in passing, that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch very nicely said that he had a high-powered team. In reality, we have a high-powered three plus a Whip, as will become blindingly obvious.

Whether the Committee sits until 5.30 pm or midnight is neither here nor there. We can continue beyond the eight sittings that the Government say are necessary, so we do not have to worry about that for the moment. We can continue into a third week. I said in the past, and say again, that there was at least a misunderstanding on both sides. It would be churlish of me not to say that I agreed to the suggestion that we meet at half-past nine. I suspect that all members of the Committee and both Chairmen support the idea of not being dragged in here earlier than that.

We do object in principle to the motion, and there are very good reasons for doing so. I do not want the Minister to say ever again that the programming was generally agreed to. There is no general agreement. The Opposition oppose it, and we wish to press the matter to a Division.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I rise with great reluctance, because the Government have created a very silly problem. There was no need to guillotine the Bill. Opposition Front Benchers have stated that they are in favour of what it is intended to achieve.

I have a strong interest in the Bill. Its aim is admirable and, as the Committee will have seen, I have tabled several new clauses. They will be taken at the end of our sittings, so I have a strong interest in getting to them in reasonable time so that everyone on the Committee has enough time to appreciate how wonderful they are and how much they could contribute to achieving the Bill's objectives. The Bill is well intentioned, but it does not yet have enough substance to achieve what it sets out to do. We will probably debate that point when we reach the new clauses, so I do hope that we get to them in sensible time. My hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench may share that hope. They believe, as I do, that the Bill, well intentioned as it is, needs beefing up.

The idea that the Minister expressed this morning is therefore far from helpful. Under your excellent chairmanship, Miss Begg, everything may run smoothly and the Committee may not need to spend a whole day on part 1, yet the Minister said that that was all that he wanted to cover today. If we discover that his hon. Friends do not want to talk about part 1, I hope that we can make sensible progress so that we have more time to discuss the things that Members do want to discuss. As soon as Ministers start to introduce timetables, disciplines, threats and hints about where they want to be, there is a tendency for the debate to expand to fill the time available on the less important things, and for the Committee and, in due course the House, to be frustrated that there was not enough time to debate the things of real interest. I ask the Minister to bear that point in mind before he becomes too prescriptive about where one should be at

any given time. I, for one, assure him that I want the Committee to make reasonable progress and to reach the new clauses in good time. I do not want still to be serving on the Committee in two months' time. That would be unnecessary and long-winded. Too many sideshows, such as a debate on guillotines, absorb time that could be more profitably used.

With those thoughts, I urge the Minister to be sympathetic to the direction in which the Committee wants to go and not to set too many milestones that may be unrealistic in either direction. Some milestones may be too far forward, others may be too close.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That was a short and useful debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch said that he had a high-powered team. When I was in opposition, I served on a Committee for which we said that we had a high-powered team. The then Minister rather unkindly referred to our team as extinguished volcanoes. I will not make that comparison today.

I hope that we can find enough time to consider all the matters that we should. There seems to be a slight difference between the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Spelthorne. The right hon. Gentleman, who has held quite high office in Government, said that what was important was the out date, whereas the hon. Gentleman said that that was a restriction. An out date was decided downstairs. Before that date, of course, we have time that we can use to scrutinise and discuss the Bill. I hope that we can achieve that scrutiny within the time.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

What the Minister overlooks, of course, is that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire was a Government Whip. Government Whips, as the Minister has shown, are very important. I am but a humble Opposition Whip, and my requirements are slightly different, on occasion.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I shall not interfere in what is clearly a difference of opinion on the Opposition Benches.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) made the point that the Opposition had the opportunity to meet the officials working on the Bill. I hope that that provided a helpful opportunity for the officials to answer questions. If the Opposition have questions that they need answered to gain clarity about aspects of the Bill, I again offer that facility to both Opposition Members and my hon. Friends.

I note that the right hon. Member for Wokingham wants us to make good progress. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch has also taken note of that. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's new clauses appear relatively early, as they are relevant to particular provisions, but I think that the Chairman has selected some to be dealt with near the end of our deliberations. We look forward to a sting in the tail, so to speak, as we near the end of the Bill.

I hope that we shall have sufficient time before 12 February to consider all the matters in the Bill and to scrutinise it properly. If more time proves to be available, I hope that that can be discussed through the usual channels, in the way that the Opposition want, and as I suggested in my earlier remarks.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 4.

Clause 1 - Traffic officers: introduction

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

I remind the Committee of the money resolution and the Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available on the Table in the middle of the Room. I remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule my fellow Chairman and I do not intend to call starred amendments, including any that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

Having heard no trilling of mobile phones, I assume that all hon. Members have turned them off. If not, I suggest that they do so now. I hope that members of the Committee will live up to their fine words this morning about intending to move speedily through the Bill while also giving it the detailed scrutiny that it requires. I am sure that my fellow Chairman would agree with that.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I beg to move amendment No. 86, in

page 1, line 9, after first 'the', insert 'safe'.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 1, in

page 1, line 9, leave out from 'network;' to end of line 11.

No. 26, in

page 1, line 9, leave out '; or'.

No. 27, in

page 1, line 11, at end insert

'; or

(c) the detection and enforcement of traffic law and regulation on the relevant road network'.

No. 87, in

page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(ba) liaison with local traffic authorities to assist the management of traffic moving over relevant and local roads'.

No. 2, in

page 1, line 15, leave out from 'State);' to end of line 2 on page 2.

No. 145, in

clause 5, page 3, line 17, after 'the', insert 'safe'.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

This is the first time I have ever sat on a Standing Committee on a Bill, Miss, Begg, and I did not expect to speak to the first amendment. If, therefore, I proceed incorrectly, I beg your indulgence and the Committee's, and hope that you will speedily put me right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) and I tabled amendments Nos. 86 and 87, which affect subsection (2) but fulfil separate purposes. Amendment No. 86 would make it clear that the role of traffic officers is connected with the safe movement of traffic as part of their overall duties. It might be argued that that would put too much emphasis on safety, but nothing in part 1 as it stands refers to safety. Having no mention of safety could mean that the sole duty of the traffic officers was centred on moving traffic along. There are times and places where there could be a conflict between best practice for safety and what might be best for congestion. In those situations, officers will need to have due regard to safety. I am not at all certain that the amendment is the perfect way of achieving that aim, so if the Minister would like to suggest a better way, I should be delighted to listen.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Does not ''management'' suggest an ordered routine and, by implication, that it should be ''safe''?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

That is an interesting question, about which we could have a long debate. When I used to lecture on the difference between management and leadership at Cranfield and other places, we spent a great deal of time arguing about what management was. Many companies refer to health and safety management as something separate. The responsibilities of company directors for health and safety are clearly set out apart from their fiduciary and other duties. That is because successive Governments have rightly insisted that health and safety in the workplace is so important that it needs to be singled out from overall management. I should like to draw a parallel between that and the provisions in the clause. I do not seek to force the amendment, but wish to find a way of ensuring that a proper regard for safety is part of the overall duties of a traffic officer. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety for having suggested the amendment, but I am aware that others may be possible.

Amendment No. 87 would add a new duty on traffic officers, after subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b), to liaise with local traffic authorities. The reason for that is that we are entering uncharted territory. We are going to have a new force of officers to deal with traffic, new traffic managers and, possibly, new traffic directors. Many in local government are worried that

if those in such posts are allowed to go their own sweet way without due regard to what local authorities try to do, we might end up with a dialogue of the deaf. Amendment No. 87 would therefore impose a duty to discuss what is going on with local traffic authorities. There is a feeling that the Bill does not anticipate the concerns of equivalent staff employed by local authorities. Amendment No. 87 makes it clear that there should be a relationship with the authority, because officers might not be aware of its traffic management pressures, including issues that arise from duties set out elsewhere in the Bill. The duty to liaise will therefore ensure that the two parties talk to each other.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. One cannot go far wrong, one might think, in concentrating on safety and liaison, particularly when discussing road traffic. I have no quarrel with what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I hope that the Minister will say why the amendments should not be incorporated in the Bill.

Turning to the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, amendment No. 1 is a probing amendment to discover why we need clause 1(2)(b), which states:

''the performance of any other functions of the appropriate national authority (in its capacity as a traffic authority or highway authority).''

What exactly does that mean and can the Minister expand on it?

Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 would make it clear that

''the detection and enforcement of traffic law and regulation on the relevant road network''

is a material part of the duties of a traffic officer. Does the Minister regard the role of a traffic officer as akin to that of the community support officer who supports the police in their role nationally? Will the traffic officers have a similar role vis-à-vis the road traffic law, or will they be restricted to clearing away incidents and removing obstructions from the highway?

The Minister may think that the detection and enforcement of traffic law is important. For instance, he may think that if a traffic officer is first on a scene at an accident, he should be responsible for making notes and asking questions, as appropriate, centred around evidence that there has been a breach of traffic law and regulation on the road network.

We know that the incidence of breaches of traffic law is great. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that most people would regard the drivers of vehicles that crash into the back of others on the highway because they are not driving at a safe distance as having a greater degree of culpability than those caught speeding at 85 mph or 95 mph on the motorway in clear conditions, especially when no lives are put at risk by their driving behaviour. However, relatively few people involved in the concertina accidents that bedevil the motorway network, which take a long time to clear up, are prosecuted for driving without due care and attention or of driving without

reasonable consideration for other road users. If the knowledge that their being involved in such an accident results in drivers being proceeded against, we may see an improvement in the quality of motorway driving. The same should apply to those who hog the outside lane or overtake on the inside.

I am interested to hear what the Minister thinks the relationship should be between the role of the traffic officer and that of the ordinary police, and whether, as a result, there will be more traffic officers and fewer police on the motorways. If traffic officers are first on the scene of an accident, should they not have some responsibility along the lines suggested by the amendments?

Amendment No. 2 deals with Wales. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is an expert on that and will address the Committee on it. The other amendments deal with safety, and they have been discussed. I hope that the Minister will, as a result of this short debate, expand on what he sees as the traffic officer's role.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

Amendment No. 145 is similar to amendment No. 86 and has, in a sense, been amalgamated with it. When I tabled it, however, I did not realise that the Liberal Democrats would table something similar. I can assure the Minister that it is not normally my habit to agree with the Liberal Democrats. Having said that, it was the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—now the Conservative health spokesperson—who tended to end up agreeing with me in the previous Committee on which I served, which considered the Communications Bill. The Minister may or may not think that the present circumstances are an improvement.

Amendments Nos. 86 and 145 are about the safe management of traffic. The issue of safety is implicit in the Bill, but, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross rightly said, there is an opportunity to make it explicit. Given the number of deaths on the roads, there are clearly issues around road safety, but as several hon. Members said, there is the possibility of confusion.

As the new officers are introduced, however, we will have an opportunity to raise road safety awareness. Much of this part of the Bill is about how the new structure will operate in practice, but the Minister could use this opening to make it clear that traffic officers will play a key role in promoting safety and will have a great opportunity to reduce deaths and improve road safety. It would be a major improvement if the Minister, in considering the practicality of operating the system, took on board the fact that safety should be an explicit and key part of traffic officers' duties.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch rightly predicted that I would address the Committee on the amendments. He also applied the word ''expert'' to me, but it will become clear over the next couple of weeks that I am no expert in anything.

I find myself in the same difficulty as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). As he demonstrated, it comes hard to say

that the Liberal Democrats are being sensible, although the hon. Member for half of Scotland—if I understand my geography correctly—has come up with something reasonable, albeit that he had help from others, as he admitted. I say that because I represent the busiest bit of the M25, between junctions 12 and 15, and anyone who wants to assert that attempts to manage the M25 are, by definition, sensible and safe should come to my constituency. In the light of my experience, I am not persuaded that attempts to sort out even one bit of road will be successful if we simply tell someone to go and manage it in the belief that they will do so sensibly and safely. I therefore have a degree of sympathy for amendment No. 86, tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Of course, it would be quite awkward if he were to put me in a real fix by asking me to vote with the Liberal Democrats, but we shall see.

On amendments Nos. 1 and 2, I do not need to be an expert on Wales to say that amendment No. 2 mops up the point that amendment No. 1 tries to make. Amendment No. 1 deals with places that are not in Wales, while amendment No. 2 applies the same argument to those that are. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to introduce a Bill, saying, ''We are going create traffic officers and to specify what they will do.'' We can debate whether traffic officers are a good idea; that is part and parcel of why we are here. Our judgment as to whether they are a good idea will be based on what they are intended to do. Clause 1(2)(a) makes it clear that they are there for the safe management of traffic on the relevant road network. We can debate that idea, which is reasonable if it will make our roads safer and we can help people to move around more quickly.

What I object to, and have done on every Committee on which I have sat—I shall be interested to see whether the Minister can persuade me otherwise—is that, having defined in subsection (2)(a) the purpose of traffic officers, subsection (2)(b) says that they perform other functions. Why bother with a subsection that says what they can do if there is another that says that they can do anything? Alternatively, why have a subsection saying that they can do anything when the purpose of the legislation is to say that they can do something specific? The purpose of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 is to clear that up. We need either subsection (2)(a) or subsection (2)(b); we do not need both. To give blanket permission to officials to do whatever they like is a bad way of going about things, so my preference is for subsections (2)(a) and (3)(a), rather than (2)(b) and (3)(b). Which is it to be? If the Minister says that we need to give general powers, I look forward to hearing his explanation. He will have a mighty task to persuade me that he is right.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

My connection with RoadPeace, as a patron of that charity, is in the public domain. I also chair the all-party group on road traffic victims, which works in the interests of victims and their families.

On behalf of victims' organisations, I seek assurances on a number of points. The Minister

knows, as does every member of the Committee, that the investigation at the scene of a road traffic crash is a highly specialised task. However, there are enormous contradictory pressures. For example, road users want the road cleared quickly, but in the interests of justice, victims and their families want a thorough investigation. In many instances, the circumstances that an officer faces are similar to those in a house where there has been a burglary; it is sensible to seal off the place so that the scene is investigated as a scene of crime, but the pressures of the situation can result in potential evidence being cleared up quickly in the interests of other road users. It can cause enormous distress to victims' families if the consequence of that is that prosecution cannot take place.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Is there not a difference in the way in which the police treat different sorts of victims? If the victim merely has a damaged car, the police may, as a matter of policy, decide before attending that if there is no personal injury they will not prosecute, even if it is clear that somebody has been driving carelessly. Then they will make no attempt to preserve the evidence, and that can make it difficult for the person with the damaged car to present proof in a civil action. However, so far as I am aware, in every case in which there is serious injury, the police ensure that the evidence at the scene is preserved.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I agree with the line that he is developing. I am obviously putting my remarks in the context of the new position of traffic officer.

My argument is that the traffic officer should not interfere with potential evidence without the authority of a properly appointed investigating officer. That may mean that, from time to time, motorists will be inconvenienced, but I think that Committee members will agree that where justice needs to be done, such inconvenience may be necessary.

There are circumstances in which only one car might be involved. It seems obvious that in such a case there would be no potential for prosecuting another person, and that the car should therefore be removed from the scene as quickly as possible. However, even in those circumstances there are exceptions; the crash might have been caused by design failure. That is increasingly rare with sophisticated modern car design, as I know from the excellent cars built in my constituency. I hope that the Minister has driven in one of them.

Will the Minister make it clear that normally, where more than one vehicle is involved and a death or serious injury has occurred, the traffic officer will not attempt to remove evidence before a proper investigation?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I rise primarily to speak to amendment No. 27, which is a probing amendment. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about this aspect of the matter. Surely, while carrying out their primary duty under clause 1(2)(a), traffic officers should have a

responsibility to keep their eyes and ears open for traffic law infringements.

It would not be an onerous duty if traffic officers directing traffic were expected, while there were stationary or near-stationary queues, to have a look at tax discs and make a note of cars with no disc or an out-of-date disc. The information could be relayed to the police. Alternatively, there might be clear evidence from a driver's demeanour that he was under the influence of drink or drugs. Will traffic officers exercising duties under paragraph (a) also be encouraged to look out for other traffic infringements?

I appreciate that that might create problems. Traffic officers will not, presumably, be versed in the laws of evidence in the same way as police officers, or trained to deal with troublesome characters. Their engagement should not therefore be at the same level as a police officer's. However, they should surely keep an eye out to see that the traffic that they encounter obeys the law in the relevant respects. It is no part of our argument that traffic officers should be made into cowboy constables, but they should be given direction about their role in the wider duty of preventing motorists from breaking the law in various respects.

The benefits would be assistance to the police in detection of traffic offences and to the DVLA in keeping track of vehicles not properly taxed; the Treasury would thereby also be helped to recover some of the money that those motorists avoid paying. I should welcome the Minister's comments on the amendment.

On the wider duty in paragraph (a), will the Minister explain the relationship between traffic officer and the vehicles inspectorate? Will the traffic officer assist members of the vehicles inspectorate when they decide to carry out a traffic check? If so, who will have the command position? To whom will the vehicles inspectorate be accountable? We can all understand why the vehicles inspectorate is necessary. The scrupulous owner of a heavy goods vehicle has it plated regularly, which means that it undergoes a test to see that it is roadworthy. An unscrupulous employer, however, may deliberately overload a heavy goods vehicle that he owns so that it carries a larger payload, which makes it dangerous. The vehicles inspectorate therefore performs a valuable role when it checks heavy goods vehicles.

I am less certain of the need for the vehicles inspectorate to stop and check private motorists, because a private car that is properly taxed will have had to have had an MOT test within the previous 12 months at the most. I know from personal experience how many times the vehicles inspectorate has decided that it wants to check private cars on a main tourist route at the height of summer, thereby increasing traffic delays considerably. The traffic officer has a duty, which I hope is his prime duty, to keep traffic moving. If the vehicles inspectorate suddenly decides that it wants to stop cars on a road that is a busy holiday route to one of our seaside towns, I hope that the traffic officer can tell the vehicles inspectorate to think again and point out that that is not the right time or place for it to start checking private vehicles.

As I said, I well understand why the vehicles inspectorate checks heavy goods vehicles. There is, however, a case for it to have a lighter touch when stopping private vehicles. I hope that the Minister will explain whether the traffic officer will be able to direct the vehicles inspectorate in that regard.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That was a helpful and good-natured opening to the debate.

Safety on our roads is enormously important to us, and has been to Governments for a long time—since the 1950s. I am pleased to say that Governments of all parties have seen a reduction in the number of casualties on our roads, to the extent that, for the miles travelled and the number of people who move around our country, we now have the safest roads in the world. In our 10-year plan, we set ourselves a target of reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured by 40 per cent., and by 50 per cent. for children. I am pleased to report that after only three years, we have seen an overall reduction of 17 per cent. Spectacularly, we have seen a 35 per cent. reduction in the numbers of children killed and seriously injured on our roads. That must be good news. It is down to the work of a large number of people.

Safety is at the core of everything that we do and is the core of this part of the Bill. The amendments tabled respectively by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East are unnecessary, because part of the duties and functions of the Highways Agency has always been the safe operation of the roads. As hon. Members know, it is central to highway and traffic design, maintenance, construction and operation. The agency is, of course, subject to health and safety legislation, which provides an overarching framework for the way in which it operates. There is a difficulty in dealing with safety alone in the Bill a way that would unbalance some of the competing risks and priorities that need to be managed when dealing with incidents on the motorways. We need a flexible approach because, as we all know, every incident is different. No one wants the motorway closed for hours because traffic officers have been driven to take an unduly cautious approach. On the other hand, we want them to ensure that the roads are safe. Earmarking safety could rule out some of the other priorities that traffic officers have, such as keeping the traffic moving. That is an issue partly of convenience, but it is also an important economic issue. The hours lost in congestion through major hold ups and incidents may not create any further risk to people, but they certainly cause massive inconvenience and sometimes enormous economic loss as people try to get to work and lorry journeys are delayed.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Does the Minister accept that it is also an environmental issue? To go back to my point about the M25 near Heathrow, one of the biggest problems confronting the Minister and his colleagues is that stationary traffic generates more air pollution than aircraft do. The issue needs to be addressed. If this measure helps, local people in my constituency will be grateful.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; there is an environmental issue. A vehicle standing still on tick-over is at the most polluting part of its cycle; it is when it is travelling at perhaps 50 or 60 mph on a motorway or trunk road that it is at the least polluting part of its cycle. Those who live close to major trunk roads and motorways find it a problem when the traffic is congested. I lived for a long time next to the A38, which takes people from all over the country into Devon and Cornwall. My house was no further than 70 yds from the road, and at some times of the year it was extremely polluting. Mercifully, most vehicles are now endlessly cleaner than they were 20 years ago, but it is still a problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne raised a good point about what would happen if a traffic officer were first at an incident on the road. Of course, that may well be the case. If traffic officers are going about their everyday duty, patrolling the roads, they may see an incident and be the first there. Sometimes as ordinary citizens, we find ourselves the first person at an incident.

Clear protocols of operation will be in place between traffic officers and the police. There will be a clear understanding of what can and cannot be done by a traffic officer when her or she first arrives. In the first instance, their job will be to ensure that no consequential collisions take place following the incident. They might direct traffic away from it. They might phone the control centre and make sure that variable message signs, where available, indicate to other motorists that there is a problem and reduce the speed limit. Such measures could stop consequential accidents. Often, when one incident happens, another occurs, sometimes in the lane going in the other direction thanks to the famous action of rubber-necking as people slow down to see what is going on.

The traffic officers would be involved in such preventative actions, and if people were injured, they would offer the sort of aid that any person would give before an ambulance arrived. They would obviously not attempt to move equipment or people in a way that endangered the people or any evidence that was to be collected by police officers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will find that clause 4 says:

''A traffic officer shall, when carrying out his duties, comply with any direction of a constable.''

Once the police have arrived on the scene, which will generally be within a few minutes on a trunk road or motorway, it is the constable, and therefore the police, who takes over. The traffic officer will lend support—very important support—making sure that people are warned of what is happening, slowing down other vehicles and making sure that once the evidence has been collected, the road is clear in good time. That sometimes does not happen at present. We have come across incidents on occasion that have taken many hours to clear, with all the inconvenience and frustration that goes with that. I can cite an example where there was no evidence of a traffic offence, but where it took 11 or 12 hours after a lorry had

overturned to clear up. Twelve hours of inconvenience can mean millions of pounds of economic loss for people who cannot get through. We must balance the issues carefully. I think and hope that we have got the balance right.

Paul Marsden (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

I appreciate that every circumstance is different, but say, for example, there is a prang on a single carriageway that has solid double white lines down the middle, and a queue backs up down the road as the drivers exchange insurance details, documents and so on. A traffic officer arrives, sees that there is no serious injury, realises that the incident can be cleared fairly quickly, and so directs the queuing traffic to cross the double white lines in order to drive past. One could interpret that as an infringement of the highway code, so where does the responsibility lie?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Traffic officers will initially work mainly on the motorway system, where such considerations would not apply, and on trunk roads. A traffic officer might even tell traffic passing an obstruction on a motorway to move on to the hard shoulder. The hon. Gentleman's example is probably not a very good one. I can think of other examples where a traffic officer might remove part of the central reservation, completely stopping the traffic in the other carriageway while traffic was moved from one carriageway to another. Police officers sometimes do that now if there is a serious blockage. In the normal course of events that would be an offence, but the police have the ability to override that in the interests of safety and convenience.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne talked about slow moving traffic in hold-ups. Recalling the anniversary of the M11 blockage, I am concerned not only by what happens at serious incidents, but by the possibility of people being left in cars for long periods without food or heat. That poses a further risk to life, particularly to children or diabetics, for example. That is one reason why we must get traffic moving in such incidents and reduce the risks.

In August, we faced the opposite situation on the M42. People were trapped on the motorway after it was completely blocked in temperatures above 40º C. In that incident, some of the Highways Agency staff and police co-operated with local welfare organisations and took water and other refreshments to the people trapped in cars in the queue, whose health was at risk. We must consider those issues more widely than within the narrow confines of what has happened at an incident.

In connection with amendments Nos. 1 and 26, the hon. Member for Christchurch asked why subsection (2)(b) is necessary. If we remove that provision and restrict the duties that a traffic officer may be asked to perform, the opportunity for officers to undertake activities relating to other traffic or highway functions of the appropriate national authority—the Highways Agency or the Welsh Assembly—will be lost. Such a restriction would be unnecessary and would

undermine the service that traffic officers are intended to provide, which is to feed back a unique driver's-eye view of the road network and provide valuable information to the Highways Agency. That will help to ensure that the roads are in good condition and fit for use. Such activity is more closely associated with traditional highways authority functions than with traffic management, but it should not be ignored. There are other important issues that traffic officers could deal with.

In practice, traffic officers could report on and sometimes deal with matters relating to highway assets. For example, they could report on the state of the roads, and ensure that signs are appropriately placed, they could report on visible defects in the road or its structure, and they could even identify blocked drains, which was the cause of recent flooding on motorways. Traffic officers could help with other incidental but nevertheless important tasks, such as the potentially powerful role of contributing to education and information exercises with the general public. I hope that my clarification has been helpful.

I was staggered to see amendment No. 27, which suggests transferring or extending some police powers to traffic officers. We have no intention whatever of doing that. Traffic officers will obviously have a role to play in reducing congestion and helping traffic to move more safely, but it would be wholly inappropriate for them to enforce the law. That would result in overlapping and conflicting responsibilities between traffic officers and the police, which would be most unfortunate. I seem to remember that a matter of weeks ago—over the Christmas period, perhaps—the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made some strong comments about people who are not part of the police force having a duty to enforce the law. We would not want that duty to be extended, although I accept that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said that the amendment was a probing one.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Can the Minister clarify one point? I understand that community support officers have a specific responsibility to escort abnormal loads on the motorways. I understand that traffic officers, too, will have the same duty. Community support officers are given specific powers of arrest in particular circumstances, and they are given quasi-legal responsibilities more akin to those of the police officer. Are we saying that, in the hierarchy of things, a community support officer will be a superior being to the traffic officer, even when they are carrying out the same function, and even if the traffic officer has higher qualifications?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

They will generally be carrying out different functions. The community support officer works in close association with the police. In certain circumstances, traffic officers could escort large vehicles or abnormal loads, but so can totally civilian bodies. A variety of groups could do that job. However, when traffic officers carry out such functions, they will take on some of the work that the police now have to do, thereby releasing and liberating them to do other things.

Amendment No. 87, a Liberal Democrat amendment, deals with working in liaison with local authorities. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that we were moving into uncharted territory. That is not entirely so. The Highways Agency and local authorities have been co-operating closely for a long time. We cannot talk about improvements to the strategic network entirely in isolation from the local road network, and we never have. Current planning is underpinned not only at the strategic planning level but at the day-to-day working level.

We have created a land use and transport planning system that provides a genuine shift to regional and local accountability and decision making. Regional transport strategies are now an integral part of regional planning guidance, intended to ensure that major investment is properly co-ordinated across transport modes and that it reflects regional and local transport priorities. The Highways Agency works closely with its planning partners, including the local highway authorities, to influence the development of regional transport strategies and achieves an integrated approach to transport investment. Many devices already exist to provide the type of co-operation that the hon. Gentleman wants. We want that to continue, and, when appropriate, traffic officers could work closely with them.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed and comprehensive answers. With respect, the weakest part of his reply so far has been on amendment No. 27, which, as I made quite clear when I spoke to it, is a probing amendment. Will he tell the Committee what a traffic officer's duty would be if a crime stared him in the face? What guidance will traffic officers get towards assisting the police in prosecuting motorists who commit crimes within their sight? That is what we were trying to tease out of him.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If, in pursuit of their duty, traffic officers saw someone driving erratically, for example, they would be in a good position to report it to the police. What they could not do, as some parts of the police force cannot, is hotly pursue such a driver. Such matters are, quite properly, carefully controlled.

If a traffic officer noticed that a driver was clearly under the influence of drink, he could draw that to the attention of the constable at the scene, who would be properly trained and would have powers to carry out a breath test and to arrest the driver. Traffic officers will not have powers of arrest. If we invested them with such powers, there would be considerable confusion between the roles of traffic officers and the police. That would not be helpful.

Another major role that traffic officers could play would be to act as experienced people on the road. In time, they will be a respected uniformed force. They could assist the police by being expert witnesses—for instance, if they were to see an example of dangerous driving and the driver was subsequently arrested. There are other aspects. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, they may be able to assist the police in securing the scene of a crime. They will also have powers to direct people.

When there is a collision, they will be able to direct drivers to go one way or another to avoid a particular incident, or to stop.

Traffic officers will have certain powers, but giving them powers to enforce traffic laws and, thereby, giving them powers of arrest would be going too far and further than the Bill intends.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Does the Minister envisage that traffic officers will help to obtain witness statements in cases in which the need to obtain statements from a large number of witnesses is causing delays? That may often be the cause of major delay, because there may be a large number of witnesses to an accident, all of whom must be interviewed before the scene can be cleared. Could traffic officers do that?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

In such circumstances, traffic officers could properly be engaged in identifying people who may be able to give statements to the police. Again, the actual taking of the statements must be a matter for the police. Traffic officers could give considerable help to people who may have something to say, or could help to manage the scene generally, but they would always be under the constable's authority and direction, and they should give any assistance possible. Traffic officers assisting at the site of a collision is one thing, but going a step further and allowing them to take statements would go further than we want the Bill to go.

I move on to amendment No. 2. I am not sure what the hon. Member for Spelthorne has against Wales. He has an expert on Wales sitting behind him in the right hon. Member for Wokingham. The amendment would remove the ability of the National Assembly for Wales to establish and operate a traffic officer service on the Welsh network.

I am not clear why the hon. Gentleman has proposed that. The Bill refers later to Wales and the National Assembly. During its drafting, the Assembly was consulted on the establishment and operation of a Welsh traffic officer service. Indeed, it was at the Assembly's request that the Bill was drafted to enable it, if it wishes, to establish a traffic officer service for Wales. The Assembly is becoming more proactive in traffic management, resulting in some shift of responsibilities from the police to the Assembly, both of which are enthusiastic about further realigning traffic management responsibilities by establishing a Welsh traffic officer service. Therefore, the Government see no reason why the Assembly should not be able to benefit from the legislation.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Will the Minister give way?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

There is one more matter, and it might be what the right hon. Gentleman is going to ask about. That is the vehicle inspectorate. Traffic officers will not directly assist the vehicle inspectorate, but they might on occasion work with it. The vehicle inspectorate has powers under the Police Reform Act 2002 to stop heavy goods vehicles in areas in which it is accredited by chief constables. In certain circumstances, there might have to be close liaison, as there is now, between the vehicle inspectorate and

the police—for instance, in my part of the country, where it is sometimes necessary to check holiday coaches in case they are unsafe, the inspectorate and the police work closely. In future, on trunk roads and other major roads—vehicles are not stopped on motorways—traffic officers could be involved and consulted, particularly if it was expected that traffic would be heavy or incidents might occur. I hope that that helps to staunch the right hon. Gentleman's intervention.

This has been a useful debate, and I hope that my answers have been sufficient to encourage hon. Members not to press their amendments.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I support some of what the Minister has said. He is right to reject the Liberal Democrat idea that the word ''safe'' needs to be inserted. It is obvious that all this has to be done safely. That is inherent in the word ''management'', and it is governed by other legislation, so it would be an unnecessary addition. He is also right to reject amendment No. 27. There must be clarity about the functions of the traffic manager, who needs to be the person to get things back to normal and to allow traffic to flow. There are others with duties to deal with the investigation of offences, and they will be called to the scene of an accident should its severity warrant it. It is important that we do not lose sight of the main point: at the moment, nobody is on the side of other road users, who wish to make maximum use of the road in the easiest way possible, and to minimise inconvenience while guaranteeing the best possible treatment of those who might be injured and sensible investigation in the minority of cases that warrant consideration of whether prosecution is necessary.

I was not quite so convinced by the Minister's wishing to cling to clause 1(2)(b). He was making good progress with me when he said that he had it in mind that traffic officers might want to report on the state of the highway or of the drains. I can understand that. However, when he said that they might become involved in public education and campaigns, I became a little worried about where the budget for that might come from, and whether the clarity of the function that the Government were rightly designing for the traffic officer would be lost. He did not have sympathy for the amendment designed to make it simpler to understand that the traffic officer is the person charged with the duty of trying to speed the traffic, while others will tackle serious issues when the need arises. Everybody wishes to see safer highways; none of us regards the current slaughter on our roads as acceptable. The way to tackle safety is to create better roads with more segregation between vulnerable users and motor vehicles. We need better junctions, since that is where conflicts are often at their most intense. We also need the right amount of policing of those who drive without licence or insurance and who often ally to that other reckless behaviour. That is probably the most obvious group to target in order to create safer highways free from so-called joyriders who bring so much misery and death in their wake by mistreating their vehicles and threatening other road

users. I do not believe that introducing a safety clause in relation to the traffic officer would tackle that problem or make any difference to safety. It is inherent in the panoply of legislation that management must be reasonable and safe. I therefore support the Minister in opposing the amendments. He should, however, think again about the clarity of the traffic officer's task, which might become diluted over the years if we allow clause 1(2)(b) to stand.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about the lack of clarity surrounding the traffic officer's task. We must be clear, however, that the purpose of amendment No. 27 is to try to tease from the Government where they stand. Their response to the amendment makes it clear that nothing in the Bill will introduce a corps of second-grade traffic police by the back door. That was a major concern, and the debate has been useful in making it clear that that will not happen. Later in our deliberations, we will no doubt succeed in obtaining from the Government an assurance that traffic law and regulation will be enforced on the highways just as vigorously as it was when the police were in charge of it, despite the apparent reduction of 550 police officers on the highway network.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

For the sake of clarity, we are not talking about the reduction of 550 officers on the motorway network, but about the liberation of the time of 550 officers to perform other duties. They may well be on the highways and the major trunk roads actually enforcing the law.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister, but if he is assuring us that those police officers will spend all the released time on the highway and motorway network, that is at odds with what the Association of Chief Police Officers has been saying. I am delighted by his remarks, however, because many of us believe that it is vital for the law on the highway network to be rigorously enforced, and the paper has been very useful in that respect.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

This small debate has been important and extremely useful, particularly in flushing out the intention behind the legislation with regard to safety. The Minister's response was reasonably full. I fully accept that my amendment is probably defective in that it places too much emphasis on safety. I shall re-read it to see whether the Minister's remarks are satisfactory or whether tabling a different amendment later might be useful. I am very grateful for the support given by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, as I was for that given by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, which was guarded but charitable and in a spirit that I would not want to put to the test. I will save him the bother by seeking to withdraw my amendment, and I will consider the Minister's comments carefully.

In addition, I shall not press amendment No. 87 to a Division. I largely anticipated the Minister's answer from the helpful advice given by his officials, but I wanted his response placed on the record. If the amendments in the names of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Members for Christchurch and for Spelthorne are pressed to a Division, we shall be quite interested in the argument

about whether to include paragraph (b). As a general principle, powers should be defined rather than given broadly. We would oppose amendment No. 27 for much the same reason, and we would not want to see the emergence of creeping highway authority powers. With those words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in

page 2, line 2, at end insert—

'(3A) The Secretary of State may issue or approve for the purposes of this Part, codes of practice giving practical guidance as to the exercise of any powers conferred by this Part and in exercising these powers a traffic officer shall have regard to any such codes of practice.'.

I must have been suffering a touch of masochism when I tabled my amendments. This amendment probes traffic officers' duties and could act as a mechanism by which to address concerns from the previous debate.

The amendment is driven mainly by an attempt to have a consistent and proper understanding of the role of traffic officers across England and Wales. In the previous debate, concerns were expressed from several angles about the role that traffic officers should play as regards safety, crime prevention, law enforcement and so forth. Although a code of practice would not be written into statute, it would enable all authorities to have a broad understanding of that role. By referring to relevant safety issues, the environment and other matters, it might also provide a useful way of dealing with some of the problems that we have discussed. Although I am generally, in principle, against vast amounts of guidance and secondary legislation, they might be useful on this occasion.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The amendment would place on the Secretary of State the responsibility to issue a code of practice. However, under the amendment as phrased, the code would not need to set out traffic officers' tasks. The amendment is also unnecessary and would mean that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as the relevant national authority, had to provide themselves with codes of practice.

The Highways Agency is already in the process of introducing a system of governance to guide traffic officers in exercising their duties and powers. The agency is, of course, working closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers to establish an operational framework for the agency and the police. The intention behind the amendment is therefore already being carried out.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

There are circumstances in which, for example, emergency street works are required. Will the discussions to which the Minister refers cover circumstances in which utilities and traffic officers might clash over the timing of works?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I am not sure about street works, because officers will operate mainly on motorways and major trunk roads. The next parts of the Bill relate more to local authority roads. However, there will be clear guidance on how officers should operate in

connection with those who carry out work on the roads for the Highways Agency or the utilities.

If I may, Miss Begg, I shall add something to our previous debate, when the hon. Member for Spelthorne led me down the garden path. He talked about the vehicle inspectorate—

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

That was me.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I do apologise; it was the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. There is a certain antiquity to all this since the vehicle inspectorate is now the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. However, it of course still carries out the same valuable role.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I thank the Minister for updating me on the description of the agency, but my points remain valid, as he admitted, I think.

Perhaps for the first and last time in this Committee, the Opposition agree with all that the Minister has said on the amendment.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am delighted to have been the catalyst for such wonderful accord. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. One difficulty with the Bill is that the guidance and secondary legislation by which a great deal of it will take effect have not been available so far. When they are available, amendments such as mine may be clearly seen to be otiose. We may wish to return to the matter later, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Designation of Traffic Officers

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I beg to move amendment No. 89, in

page 2, line 10, leave out 'individuals as'.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 3, in

page 2, line 10, leave out from 'officers;' to end of line 11.

Amendment No. 28, in

page 2, line 11, leave out 'another person' and insert 'the Highways Agency'.

Amendment No. 4, in

page 2, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Amendment No. 91, in

page 2, line 20, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

Amendment No. 29, in

page 2, line 28, at end insert—

'(8) No traffic officer shall be designated unless he is the holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau.'.

New clause 17—Duty to consult—

'In monitoring and evaluating the work and effectiveness of traffic officers, the appropriate national authority shall establish and consult with an advisory group comprising such members as may be considered appropriate.'.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 89, 3 and 91, which are all designed to do the same thing. As I was not certain quite how to go about achieving the end I had in mind, I browned a covey and had a shot at anything in sight. All three amendments are concerned with powers in relation to traffic officers under the clause. It is my understanding that the things that I want to change are provisions that enable the role of traffic officer to be undertaken by contractors at a later date.

If I have understood correctly, the Government intend at present that traffic officers should come not from private companies but from the Highways Authority. I have no problem with that, in that they would be Government employees, like community support officers. I have no doubt that under that arrangement they will receive proper training, management and guidance and that much of what we have been discussing will happen in the proper way.

If, however, the Government, or any future Government, intended to privatise the relevant powers and move the officers from local or national government employment to being private contractors, that would be to cross an important rubicon. It is important that appropriate legislation should be passed at the time in question, rather than the powers being slipped in now through the Bill.

The amendments are designed to get the Government to speak on that point, and to find out their intentions as to the privatisation of traffic officers. If they do not intend it, as I have been led to believe they do not, why are they taking the powers?

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The explanatory notes on clauses 1 and 2 state:

''In the longer term there is the option to employ contractors to provide the traffic officers.''

There is no explanation of why that might be necessary or why it is included in the Bill. I hope that the Minister can explain what he has in mind. My understanding is that, in England at least, traffic officers are to be employed by the Highways Agency. That is why amendment No. 28 specifies that the authority from the Secretary of State to designate individuals as traffic officers should be limited to the Highways Agency. I see no problem with that, but I do see a problem with giving a broad power for any Tom, Dick and Harry to become a potential employer of traffic officers, particularly given the importance of their responsibilities. It is appropriate that the national uniform, and national standards and codes of practice should also be under the auspices of the Highways Agency.

Amendment No. 29 deals with the qualifications of traffic officers and says:

''No traffic officer shall be designated unless he is the holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau.''

I hope that the Minister accepts that, because it insists on no more or less than what I understand the position will be. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister said:

''As well as undertaking a check against security service records, the Highways Agency is also in the process of registering with the

Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). Registration with the CRB will enable the Agency to pick up all criminal convictions, and carry out checks against relevant departmental and police records.''

That is important information, but the amendment would put that requirement into the Bill. The Minister also said:

''The level of security and criminal record checks that the Highways Agency is expected to apply are equivalent to those that exist for staff currently employed by the Police service, such as Traffic Police and Community Support Officers.''—[Official Report, 13 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 677W.]

The Minister has supplied me with the Highways Agency job description and person specification for a traffic officer, which says that the eligibility criteria include three years' demonstrable driving experience and two years' experience in an operational role, or one year's experience in an operational role, a minimum of five O-levels or GCSEs and a clean driving licence. The essential criteria include

''Previous police (patrol or dispatch) or roadside assistance experience . . . Proactive driving skills . . . Basic radio operation and dictation''

and basic first aid skills. On the basis of what is set out in the Highways Agency's job description and person specification, I do not see how anybody could have a quarrel with the suggestion that traffic officers will be highly responsible people, well qualified to perform the function that they are to be given under the Bill.

That contrasts considerably with many others who are employed by local authorities under the civil enforcement regime. Such people seem to be incapable of exercising discretion and appear to have a minimal understanding of traffic law, or even the English language. That has caused much conflict between the motoring public and those enforcement officers, so I am delighted that traffic officers will not fall in that category. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 29, so that that safeguard is included in the Bill.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

I wish to speak to new clause 17. Second Reading and today's debates have highlighted some of the tensions and balances that Ministers say will be needed. A number of organisations have expressed concerns about that. Being a terrible cynic, and having gained knowledge of some organisations over a number of years, I know that although it would be in their interests to consult, many do not do so. There is a great deal of expertise out there, and it should be utilised. Making consultation explicit in the Bill will go a long way to reassuring those who have fears and concerns. The new clause therefore suggests a duty to consult.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I rise to amplify the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, particularly with regard to amendment No. 29. Although it is a probing amendment, it is motivated by genuine concern. If the Minister cannot allay our fears, Miss Begg, we would ask your permission to allow a Division on that amendment. I hope that it will not be necessary.

I wonder how many Committee members have a driving licence. Those who do will know that the experienced motorist has a totally different perception to those who are ignorant and untrained in the use of a

motor vehicle. Surely, all those who hold a licence have had as a passenger someone who has never driven a car, who says as you pass a particular turning, ''Turn here'', despite its being clear that it would be impossible to turn the vehicle without rolling it over. On the other hand, we may have had as a passenger a nervous elderly relative who does not drive, who asks us to slow down a mile before you reach the turning that he knows we wish to take. That lack of judgment is born of ignorance, and in some non-motorists it is appalling.

We say that a traffic officer should have first-hand experience of driving and of being in motoring situations, so that he can apply that judgment to the situations that arise.

The second part of the amendment seeks to ensure that the person exercising the role of the traffic officer is not of a dubious character, and is not someone who might be tempted to use the position for profit or for some form of criminal activity.

I hope that the Minister will be able to address those serious concerns, unless, of course, he is going to say that he gladly accepts the amendment.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

The devil of these clauses always lies in the detail. I hope that the Minister can give detailed assurances on the points raised by Opposition Members. The track record of the Department for Transport is not good in that respect; the Road Traffic Act 1984, as amended in 1991, includes a series of ambiguities that have a precise impact on the Bill. The question arises also in part 6 of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to give detailed and categorical assurances.

The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned Tom, Dick and Harry. It is Dick that concerns me—the Dick Turpin clause. Thanks to the ambiguities of the 1984 Act, local authority car parks that are managed by private operators operate in a different way from everything else, so there is no opportunity to go to the parking adjudicator. Yet, because of the failure to tighten the wording of that legislation, private operators can operate as they like and can use both civil and magistrates courts, or can attempt to do so. I have raised that ambiguity many times with the Department and with the Minister—I have won in court over it on behalf of a constituent, but it remains in the legislation. I call it the Dick Turpin clause because, for a private operator who has no interest other than profit margins, it is a licence to print. That is the scenario of local authority car parks operated by private operators. The contracts that are drawn up by some of the major operators allow them to print tickets, harass people, and threaten them with criminal legislation to get them to pay fines.

It would be dangerous to appoint people in uniform who felt that they could do the same thing. When we discuss civil enforcement, we shall be able to investigate in precise detail whether the proposals will address that ambiguity in the law that gives to latter-day Dick Turpins a licence to print money. I hope to hear the Minister's assurance, in relation to the new traffic officers, that it will not be possible for a private operator, given authority and a uniform and

operating solely for the money, to profit by staying only just within the law in pursuing and haranguing motorists, as has happened in the civil enforcement of local authority car parks by private operators.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have just a few points. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham have explained the importance of amendment No. 29. I agree entirely with them.

I should like to say something about amendment No. 3, but I have to start from the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 89. I have no difficulty in disagreeing with it, because it does not achieve what it sets out to achieve. Taking out ''individuals as'' still leaves the power to get somebody else to designate. I am concerned—I think that amendment No. 3 is a better way of achieving what we seek—about taking out completely the power to authorise other people, irrespective of whether individuals are being authorised. I agree with the spirit of amendment No. 3, but do not like the way in which it is drafted. On the other hand, I am perfectly happy with amendment No. 28 as another way in which to achieve the same thing.

It ill becomes me to say that I am worried about the possibility of the Government's being able to privatise something. I have always believed that privatisation is a good thing. On this occasion, I congratulate the Government on saying that they will, in due course, privatise and bring in contractors. What concerns me is that even though I am an enthusiast—the Government are now so converted to my enthusiasm that they have privatised part of my local hospital, but I shall not go down that path now—I do not believe that privatisation of a public service of this sort should be tagged on as something that might happen in the future. They can count on my support in principle if, having set the system up, they introduce a Bill to privatise it. Then we can properly debate all the issues that will arise and all the safeguards that are necessary, but it should not be tagged on to the current Bill.

My support for the spirit of amendment No. 89 and the wording of amendment No. 3 or amendment No. 28 arises not because I am trying to stop the Government from privatising something; I am just trying to ensure that they do it properly. I shall be happy to help them.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

You are very kind.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I knew that the Government would find that kind. They are increasingly converted to the proper, sensible, Conservative way of running the country. Perhaps they will get there one day.

The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendment No. 91, the intention of which, I have little doubt, is consequential on amendment No. 89. I say only that if amendment No. 89 falls, and the power remains to privatise the relevant authority, we will need subsections (5) and (6) as a safeguard. I am not criticising amendment No. 91, but I would not support it on its own, because it is a consequential amendment.

Amendment No. 4 has not yet been discussed. There are cynics in Parliament who believe that anyone who favours changing ''may'' to ''must'' or ''must'' to ''may'' is up to no good. That might sometimes be the case, but there is a genuine point to be made on this occasion. Subsection (4) states:

''A designation may provide that it is to remain in force . . . for a specified period.''

I believe that all the appointments should be, rather than may be, for a specified period. Over the years, experience has taught me that it is difficult sensibly to end an open-ended arrangement in which someone is doing something badly. Before long, the lawyers get involved in unfair dismissal proceedings and all sorts of other things. If someone is appointed for a specified period, however, they understand from the beginning that it will end on a stated date. If one wants to reappoint them after that, there can be a fresh discussion. I have, therefore, always started from the principle that we should have limits on such things.

The amendment is not a spurious may-for-must or must-for-may issue—there is a real point to it. If the Government accept that it might be appropriate to have time-limited appointments, why do they not make that an obligation? I do not see why they are afraid of saying ''must'' on this occasion.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I was swayed by his argument and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire on amendment No. 29. It is important that designated officers should be professional drivers, with a driving licence, so that they understand the problems facing those of us who use the roads in our vehicles.

I also support my right hon. and hon. Friends on amendment No. 4. It is right that appointments should be for a specified time. Of course, the Bill may include clauses about the circumstances in which such appointments will normally be renewed. However, these are important posts, which bring with them considerable powers to influence our daily lives, so it is

a good idea for them not to be awarded automatically or made lifelong. People rightly see that Members of Parliament can play a useful role for up to five years, but they must then check to see how we have done our job. We do not need to go as far as electing our traffic officers, but it would be a good idea for them to have a contract for a reasonable period and for it to be subject to review by the relevant authority.

There must have been an error as regards amendment No. 3, because my name is listed among its supporters. Having heard the debate, I can assure the Committee that I was not in favour of it, that I did not write in to have my name put to it and that I am absolutely persuaded that it should be voted down. It is a very poor amendment, which is not up to the usual standards of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government therefore have an unexpected friend, should the Minister be minded to—

Mr. Wilshire rose—

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

It is not that at all. I simply wanted to remind my right hon. Friend that when we started out, it was explained that there were three very good, seasoned Opposition Members and a Whip. I should, therefore, take all the responsibility for the problems in which my right hon. Friend finds himself and not allow him to criticise my team.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I was not expecting that at all. I assumed that there was a slip-up following my discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends about how to improve the Bill. However, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The Committee will now know that I have, as always, been doing my best to tell the truth. The Government can be reassured that in mine they have yet another vote, should they need it, to vote down amendment No. 3.

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 A

Clause 2 - Designation of traffic officers

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 3, in

page 2, line 10, leave out from 'officers;' to end of line 11.

Amendment No. 28, in

page 2, line 11, leave out 'another person' and insert 'the Highways Agency'.

Amendment No. 4, in

page 2, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Amendment No. 91, in

page 2, line 20, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

Amendment No. 29, in

page 2, line 28, at end insert—

'(8) No traffic officer shall be designated unless he is the holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau.'.

New clause 17—Duty to consult—

'In monitoring and evaluating the work and effectiveness of traffic officers, the appropriate national authority shall establish and consult with an advisory group comprising such members as may be considered appropriate.'.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Beard. Before I move to my point of order, welcome to the Chair.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Very chummy.

Mr. Knight: That may be the Minister's job, but I am sure that he can associate himself with my remarks.

After this morning's sitting, I left the parliamentary estate. On returning, with a large pile of luggage, I was alarmed to discover that Bridge street was closed, Parliament square appeared to be closed and the Carriage Gates were closed. The police appear to have lost control of what is a minor demonstration outside. Clearly there has been a breach of our Sessional Orders. I wish that you had the power to order the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to attend on us to give an explanation, Mr. Beard. He clearly needs the help of some traffic officers. In the absence of that power, Mr. Beard, I should be grateful if you would pass on Opposition Members' concerns to the Speaker in the hope that he will speak to the commissioner to prevent that from happening again.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I will pass the message on to the Speaker.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Beard. Either I owe you an apology for taking my jacket off, or you will give me retrospective permission to do so. I am very nervous about that. You have been in the Chair before when I have raised this point, having been told off once by one of your colleagues, I want to be sure that I am in order.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Yes, certainly, hon. Members may take their jackets off.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Beard. I have had the pleasure of being under your chairmanship in the past, and I fully associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight).

This morning's proceedings were exceedingly amicable. The only differences seemed to be between Conservative Members, often involving the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has disappeared; I do not know what they have done to him over lunchtime, but there was clearly some difference of view this morning.

On the point of order made by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, I am afraid that even if traffic officers were in place, they would not bring a lot of solace in such a scenario because they will operate not on local roads, but on motorways and national roads. Of course, they will not deal with crowd control either.

Amendment No. 89 would remove the reference to powers being granted by designation to individuals.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I understand the Minister's point about traffic officers and local roads, but my understanding of the arguments used on Second Reading is that one objective of introducing traffic officers is to remove obstructions and thus help the freer flow of traffic. A student sitting down in a demonstration is undoubtedly an obstruction. Would traffic officers not be able to move that sort of obstruction?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That is an interesting point. I think that we had debris in mind, not human obstructions. I suspect that any human obstructions on the motorway would, I am sad to say, be taken away by ambulance. The Bill is not intended to deal with demonstrations on motorways; I am not aware of such a demonstration in the past 20 years.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

A rhinoceros certainly once caused an obstruction on the M25, in my constituency. I appreciate that that was not a student, but a point could still be made on that.

The Minister has indicated that there is a flaw in the legislation: he has not considered human beings. Will the Minister revisit the relevant parts of the Bill and table an amendment, or should we table it for him, either now or on Report? By coincidence, a serious point may have arisen.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The word ''obstruction'' would eventually have to be defined, probably by a court. Traffic officers will be able to move an obstruction. I am not sure whether they would be able to cope with a rhinoceros; that remains to be seen.

On amendment No. 89, we believe that it is essential for designation to be specific to an individual, not to an office holder or an organisation. That will promote transparency and direct accountability in the exercise of special powers by a traffic officer. The next three amendments seek to achieve similar things, or are coterminous with each other. Amendment No. 3—the one from which the right hon. Member for Wokingham dissociated himself this morning in what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), called a vicious attack on his own Front Bench; I would not call it quite that—seeks to remove the power for an appropriate national authority to authorise another person to designate individuals as traffic officers. That would impede the national authority in contracting out the traffic officer service.

There was some discussion this morning about privatisation. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that he was very much in favour of it. He should not get too excited; while I believe that private services can be run in certain circumstances, I am sad to disappoint him and glad to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that this is not a matter of privatisation. There could be circumstances in which the traffic officer service could be contracted out but that is not expected to happen in the first instance. We want the service to be run by the Highways Agency. However, in certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to contract out certain specific duties.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am interested because the Minister is suggesting that there is a distinction between privatisation and contracting out. Could he clarify that, because in my dictionary privatising means handing a public service over to be run by the private sector, and contracting out means handing a public service over to be run by the private sector. Is there a point that I have missed?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Yes, there is. The Highways Agency currently contracts certain work to contractors. They work for it, but they are not running the service or in charge of the piece of road; they are performing certain services on the Agency's behalf. It is not intended that those services be run other than by the Highways Agency, but there might be circumstances in which we would want flexibility.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Are there any circumstances in which, owing to this clause, a private contractor would be able to pursue debts owed by any citizen through any courts, and, if so, through which courts?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

No. I was coming to that. This is the Dick Turpin clause that was referred to this morning. My hon. Friend asked whether contractors could harass people with fines. They could not, because, as we found out earlier, no fines would be imposed by the traffic officers, and they would not therefore be enforcing them. The only circumstances in which that might happen would be if the traffic officers had agreed a charge for a service with another party; then they would have some way of enforcing the charge if it

was not paid, a point to which we shall come later in the Bill. They would not have such powers in relation to the public.

It might be appropriate for people to be specifically trained to carry out a function on a certain part of a motorway or major trunk road network, such as a particular crossing or bridge. A separate group would operate there. At the moment, we expect that function to be operated by the Highways Agency, not by a contractor.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The Minister said that the duties must be specific to a person. I certainly accept that. Then he said that certain circumstances and duties—he has just touched on one—might be contracted out. Are there any other circumstances in which the traffic officer posts would need to be contracted out?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

This is a case of leaving a small amount of flexibility. We are creating a new service, and it is no secret that we will be learning as we go along. Expertise is being built up. We will learn a lot from the police service when the service is rolled out in the midlands this year, so that we can carry out the process of rolling it out through the rest of the country. Should the Welsh Assembly want to roll out the service in Wales, it will possibly consider the English experience.

Once we have some experience, we may wish to attend to some small issues, but I think that they will be on the margins. Many years from now, we may decide that it is more appropriate to contract out some parts of the service. I certainly do not have anything specific in mind at the moment, and my general feeling is that we would not contract out any services at all for the first few years, while we are settling down. If we did, they would be very specific, and there would have to be good reasons to do so. We would have to guarantee that we were getting the best service, that it was thoroughly checked and that the people operating it were doing so to the high standard we will expect from all the officers, and the Bill allows for that.

Paul Marsden (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

That point was highlighted by the Select Committee on Transport on page 4 of its report on the Bill, its first report of Session 2003–04. It stated:

''We would like to know why the Government thinks it is appropriate that traffic officers should be employed by contractors.''

I hear what the Minister is saying, but it is vague and woolly, and he does not seem to be being specific about why contractors would be required. He says that that could be the case in several years time. I understand the need for flexibility, but would the Minister at least be willing to write to Committee members following the initial studies to explain the circumstances he envisages following initial trials of the new system and to explain further the circumstances under which contractors could be used.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I do not think that I was woolly; I thought that I was quite clear. I said that we saw the Highways Agency employing the traffic officers directly. However, we have left a little flexibility in case there are circumstances in which we find that a contractor could operate a part of the service. That

leaves some leeway for the Welsh Assembly, which may have a different view from us and the Highways Agency. It is free to hold such a view, of course. The Welsh Assembly may decide that it is more appropriate to contract out partial services in parts of Wales. That is a matter for it, but we are leaving a little bit of flexibility in case it should wish to do so.

I will be quite unambiguous; I want traffic officers to be employed directly by the Highways Agency, certainly in the early years of their operation. I cannot envisage any circumstances at the moment under which they would be contracted out. However, it makes good sense to leave flexibility in primary legislation because, as I said to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), we are on a learning curve and we do not want to have closed the door if circumstances change.

Paul Marsden (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

My point was that when we have gone up that learning curve, will the Minister be prepared to write back to Members and raise the issue again in Parliament to state precisely the circumstances in which contractors would be used? Would he be prepared to come back to Parliament and write to Members to explain?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If that should occur during the course of the Bill and while it progresses towards Royal Assent, should it reach that stage, we would of course write to Members. At this stage, however, I see no circumstances under which I would do so.

I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the policing of the Dartford tunnel, for example, is carried out by a contracted-out organisation, and it is done effectively with no particular problems. The people who operate the Dartford tunnel have a specific duty on a specific piece of road, and they are trained in the specifics of that job. [Interruption.] I mention tunnels, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) twitches. I do not know why; perhaps we have discussed tunnels before.

Amendment No. 91 appears to be consequential on the previous amendment, No. 3. Amendment No. 28 in effect replaces a reference to third party service providers with a reference to the Highways Agency, and it has the same effect as amendment No. 3. Since the Highways Agency does not exist in law as such, that would enable the Secretary of State to designate himself. The Highways Agency traffic management remit is to be expanded under its new role as a network operator. Traffic officers in England will be designated by the Secretary of State and will be employees of the Highways Agency. I repeat: there are no plans to do otherwise.

There are good reasons for that. The Government are keen to influence the development of the new role and believe that best practice is for delivery, responsibility, accountability and risk to sit with the Highways Agency. Both the agency and the police agree. However, we wish to retain the flexibility of considering the option of employing contractors, but only where that is thought to offer clear value and benefits to road users without undermining the integrity of the service.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Does the Minister agree that Parliament should be told if the Government have a change of heart? Although there are no current plans to employ people in the way he described, will he give the Committee an undertaking that if he changes his view, he will at the very least issue a written statement, so that the change is recorded in Hansard?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I know that when politicians say that there are no current plans, they mean that they going to do something tomorrow rather than today. However, that is not the case for contractors. If as the Bill progresses through Parliament we foresee any circumstance in which contracting out might be an option, we will inform hon. Members, either through proceedings in Parliament or through a statement. However, that is probably well down the line. Parliament would be informed in any appropriate way if any change was made, and that would happen within the law as it would then stand. If the Bill receives Royal Assent in its current form, Parliament would be informed.

We are back to Tom, Harry and Dick Turpin. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked whether anyone could set up such a service, and the answer is no. Anybody offering a service must, like those in the Dartford tunnel, be properly trained before they do the work.

Amendment No. 4 would ensure that traffic officer designation would be for a fixed rather than an indefinite period that could be terminated at any time. The hon. Member for Spelthorne spoke on that amendment, which is unnecessary, because it would limit the options for designating traffic officers. The Bill allows for fixed term designations, but does not require them. A fixed term designation would increase the administration involved, because, unless a traffic officer proved unsuitable for the task, he would have to be redesignated when the existing fixed term expired. That would involve more unnecessary bureaucracy.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I understand the Minister's point, but not his logic. If the fixed term designation of officers is bureaucratic and unnecessary, why is he leaving open the possibility that it could happen? If the idea is bad, we should remove the whole provision, but if the idea is sensible, we should adopt it. The Minister is dismissing my argument but retaining the option.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We are saying that a person would be designated until they were found to be unsuitable. It is important to have that flexibility. There may be reasons to designate someone for a particular period, but we do not want any unnecessary or unreasonable bureaucracy.

I was almost entirely in accord with what the hon. Member for Christchurch said about amendment No. 29, which is about security checks and how traffic officers are recruited. We want people who are fit and proper persons to carry out the job, and that will be ascertained during the recruitment process.

The Highways Agency is in the process of registering with the Criminal Records Bureau. The

Agency wants to ensure that information about current and spent convictions, and cautions, reprimands and warnings held on the police national computer can be obtained on a candidate traffic officer. The legislation need not expressly state that a check must be carried out with the Bureau, nor is it considered necessary to state in legislation that designation cannot be given unless a valid current driving licence is held. A driving licence check would form part of the process of recruitment and appointment. The hon. Gentleman read out part of the advertisement for the post, which says that a driving licence is required. A clean driving licence is required for those on the road, and they will be checked for criminal records. These jobs will be quite sensitive. Officers could be dealing with people late at night, who are vulnerable at the side of the road. We want to check very carefully that the people we recruit are of the very highest quality and meet the highest standards. A few of those employed may have to be security checked as well, but I will not go into too much detail on that, for obvious reasons.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The Minister is probably as aware as I am of the recent confusion with regard to the Soham murder case, when the police did not pass on certain information, which many think they should have done. The reason given was the Data Protection Act 1998. Given the confusion that clearly exists because of other statutory duties, it would make sense to make provision in the Bill, so that no one could say that it was silent on the issue and that there might be a conflict with another statute. Would the best way forward not be for the Minister were to accept amendment No. 29, or to redraft something along similar lines?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We are very much aware of the Soham situation. The whole system is under review. We are absolutely determined that the information that we find out about traffic officers is as full as possible, and that it contains previous convictions and warnings that people may have had. Officers will be in a very special position. They could be dealing with people in vehicles who are vulnerable, perhaps on a one-to-one basis, and possibly late at night. We want to make sure that checks are carried out. I am not sure that putting that into the Bill takes us any further forward, but I can absolutely assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will seek checks at the very highest levels possible on traffic officers.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

Given the controversy over the Data Protection Act 1998, much of which is ill informed, can my hon. Friend assure me that we will not throw the baby out with the bath water, and go back to the problems that we had with people's access to their own personal details, as used to happen? The Act is a very good safeguard for individuals whose details are in official records.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I take my hon. Friend's point, although the matter is beyond the scope of my powers. I know that these things are being closely looked at, and that we all—the police, the Home

Office and us—are concerned that what we do find out is the proper and appropriate information on the people who will perform the job of traffic officer. I take great personal interest in this point, because it is an issue of great importance. Apart from training, we have to have people who are of the highest quality. They must be capable not just of doing the job, but of being trusted.

New clause 17, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), would impose a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to set up an advisory group to monitor traffic officers' work. The introduction of a traffic officer service is a profound change in the way in which the road network will be operated. I am sure that hon. Members recognise the need for various stakeholders to be involved, in addition to the Highways Agency, and the valuable contribution that they can make to the development and operation of the service.

It will probably be helpful for my hon. Friend to know that in developing the traffic officer service, the Highways Agency has consulted, and will continue to consult, a range of stakeholders and will seek to make full use of the operational experience of many organisations. In addition, the agency liaises regularly with a number of representative bodies, such as the Motorists Forum, which does a good job, and is viewed by the agency as a useful and knowledgeable contact group.

The Highways Agency also has a range of performance indicators to enable it to monitor the service, which is essential in ensuring its effectiveness. However, I fail to see the need for the addition of an independent advisory group to monitor that performance. All the bodies that might take part in such a group are already fully engaged with the agency at all levels in talks and consultations.

I hope that my comments have covered the matters raised by the amendments, and that the Committee will resist them.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I associate myself, Mr. Beard, with the remarks made about your chairmanship.

I fully accept that amendments Nos. 89 and 91 are not the most elegant way to achieve the ends that we seek. However, we sought to leave in as much of the Bill as possible, while achieving those ends. Amendment No. 3 is more elegant and, having listened to the arguments, I would be more prepared to support that than my own amendment.

Two points of principle are involved in the amendments. The first is whether one feels that contracting out or privatisation should take place at all. My hon. Friends and I believe that any major shift of government employees from the public to the private sector should be considered by Parliament in some way. Secondly, even if one is in favour of privatisation or contracting out, it should occur as a result of a positive decision by Parliament or Ministers. In the clause, that power is reserved to the Minister; he will decide whether to make a statement. The Minister graciously said that, in that eventuality, he would make such a statement, but secondary

legislation, or possibly a sunset clause, might be ways of dealing with the matter.

We are creating a force of people who, to some extent, are quasi-police and who will undertake certain duties currently performed by the police. Having listened carefully to what the Minister said—I shall certainly study it again in Hansard—we will probably wish to return to the matter if the Committee does not take a positive decision on some of the other amendments. If the hon. Member for Christchurch were to push amendments Nos. 28 and 29 to a vote, we would be happy to support him.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Beard. I thank the Minister for his thorough response to an excellent debate on this group of amendments.

The Minister concedes that amendment No. 29 contains nothing that the Government find objectionable, but says that he does not think that including it in the Bill would take matters any further. However, he is not prepared to say including it would make the Bill any worse. The Government say that they do not want to do anything too quickly, but that they have an open-ended commitment to possible contractorisation of the Highways Agency in the future. In that context, we should put the safeguard provided by amendment No. 29 in the Bill.

The points made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw in the earlier debate about problems with civil enforcement officers suggest that when we discuss that part of the Bill it may be appropriate to include other safeguards. I hope that what the Minister said today will be an important precedent when we consider that.

With regard to amendment No. 28, I was interested that the Minister fell back on the statement that the Highways Agency has no separate, corporate personality and is ultimately none other than the Secretary of State himself. That leads me to say that the Bill presents an opportunity to change that. The Highways Agency is effectively a public corporation with many assets that it manages and for which it is responsible. If people want to sue it, they should be able to sue it as a corporate entity rather than having to sue the Secretary of State.

Similarly, if people want to make a bequest to the Highways Agency—perhaps because of some fine work carried out by traffic officers—they should be able to make it to the Highways Agency specifically, rather than that money going into the Department for Transport's coffers. I do not believe that the Minister's arguments about the Highways Agency negate the value of limiting clause 2 to the Highways Agency at present. If, in due course, there is a proposal to extend the role of traffic officers beyond the Highways Agency, Parliament should have a chance to consider it.

The Minister is saying that he thinks that change should be made by ministerial fiat without even a regulation being passed. There might be a statement by way of a written answer, but that is not an adequate

safeguard. There is so much sensitivity about the issue that if there is to be an extension beyond the Highways Agency into the contractorised sector, Parliament should be able to have greater scrutiny; that is what amendment No. 28 seeks to achieve.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 28, in

page 2, line 11, leave out 'another person' and insert 'the Highways Agency'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

I beg to move amendment No. 144, in

page 2, line 27, at end add—

'(7A) The appropriate national authority will draw up, in consultation, such training programmes as may be considered appropriate.'.

The original draft of the amendment mentioned the appropriate nautical authority. I am glad to see that that has been corrected, but that lets me make the point that those who look after our shipping lanes would not consider anything other than ensuring that all agencies involved are properly trained and that the interaction between them works. There are constant exercises to ensure that training involving those agencies reaches the highest level.

The aim of the amendment is to respond to concerns about the training of the proposed traffic officers, the extent to which they will be trained in network management and crash investigation and the extent to which they will be able to interact with other agencies; the sort of points that were made this morning. Training is implicit in the Bill, and I note the Minister's comments in reply to a couple of debates this morning about training. There is, however, no guarantee about the sorts of consultations that there will be or what they will include. Nor is there a guarantee that they will not be silo-based and relate only to traffic officers, but will extend to other agencies.

I am particularly concerned about that overlapping of training, perhaps because of my background as a systems analyst when I advised companies on how to set up structures. I have seen so many projects founder either because training was seen as an add-on or because it was the first thing to be cut from the budget when the budget overran. It is not seen as central to the implementation of a project, which is why I am concerned.

My other query is about how concerns about safety issues and the way in which traffic officers are operating are fed back into the training process. The Minister will be happy to hear that I am not going to press my amendment to a vote, but will he respond to the fears to which it relates? There are several concerns in the outside world, which the Minister should address.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I notice that my hon. Friend said ''nautical''. I have other responsibilities for sea matters, and I wondered if there was something that I had not noticed when carrying them out. He makes a good point, and he is right to say that traffic officers need a substantial amount of quality training. We are aware of that. We know that traffic officers will not be instantaneously fully trained and able to carry out their full role as soon as they are appointed, but they will need quite a long lead-in period to familiarise themselves with the job, to be trained appropriately and to get some experience on the road. Even after the Bill has received Royal Assent, I suspect that it will be some time before we have people with a modicum of training who are formally carrying out their duties.

I assure my hon. Friend that the traffic officers will go through the most thorough and carefully devised comprehensive training programme. The Police Skills and Standards Organisation will set up the occupational standards to ensure the full accreditation of the training. The programme will be regularly reviewed and carefully evaluated to ensure that it is effective and efficient and, most importantly, that it will produce the right calibre of officer. Training is as vital as checking criminal records and the backgrounds of people taking on the job. Again, the traffic officers will be dealing with the public, sometimes in sensitive situations and in situations that could be extremely dangerous. They will sometimes be expected to act in circumstances in which they will be putting their lives at risk. Sadly, there is quite a casualty rate among contractors who already work on our motorways. The fact that they are on the road is of sufficient concern. I assure my hon. Friend that these issues are at the forefront of our mind.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The Opposition largely agree with the Minister about this matter. He referred to traffic officers having to deal with the public. Clearly, they will need training to do so. Once the traffic officer is trained, does the Minister envisage that the officer, like a police constable, will be expected to carry and maintain a notebook?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That will be in the protocols that will be arranged for the traffic officers, who will work closely with the police. I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point. I certainly expect them to keep a log of their daily activities, and I am informed that part of their record will involve keeping a regular log. It may be different from the log kept by a police constable. Nevertheless, they will have to record their activities during the day. Just to wrap up the point, as they get more practice on the road, they will improve their skills in liaison with the police and there will be a gradual movement of responsibilities from the police to traffic officers. There will be joint exercises and training with the police. We shall also work with the maintaining agents In some cases, local authorities carry out some of the work on the national road network. All those people will be involved in the training process. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 29, in

page 2, line 28, at end insert—

'(8) No traffic officer shall be designated unless he is the holder of a current valid driving licence and has been the subject of a check with the Criminal Records Bureau.'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 7.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

The Question is that clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, Mr. Beard. Did I hear the words ''as amended''? If I did, I am delighted.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

I beg the Committee's pardon. The Question is that clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Jurisdiction of traffic officers

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in

page 2, line 30, leave out from 'has' to 'jurisdiction' in line 36.

Normally, Whips are delighted when all their troops appear. However, as the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham is attached to the amendment and I might once again have to plead guilty, perhaps it would have been better if he had arrived after I moved it. We do not want a rerun of the little difficulty that I ran into this morning, but I thought that I would get the apology in before it was necessary, just in case.

This morning, under amendment No. 1 to clause 1, we debated whether we should leave out subsection (2)(b). I am tempted to say that this is another ''To be or not to be'' debate, because it involves the same sort of principle. Amendment No. 5 addresses clause 3. Subsection (1) states:

''A traffic officer has jurisdiction''

and specifies where the traffic officer has jurisdiction. However, the bottom of the subsection states

''unless his designation provides that this subsection does not apply to him.''

Subsection (2) states:

''If subsection (1) does not apply . . . he has jurisdiction only over such relevant roads, or relevant roads of such descriptions, as may be specified in his designation.''

The Minister argued earlier for clarity, lack of bureaucracy, brevity and all the other things for which Ministers of all political persuasions argue. He now has an opportunity to show whether he means it. The clause contains two provisions, one of which is

necessary; the other, by definition, is not. The traffic officer has jurisdiction over what is referred to in either subsection 3(1) or 3(2), but not both. If the Minister wants the traffic officer to have general powers, why does he not say that? I am offering him an opportunity to clarify the situation. Does he mean that traffic officers have jurisdiction

''only over such relevant roads . . . as may be specified'',

or general jurisdiction?

The Minister is looking puzzled, and although I do not like to repeat myself, I will try again. Subsection (1) provides that the traffic officer has jurisdiction over only any relevant road, while subsection (2) refers to any road ''as may be specified''. I do not see the need for both provisions, as one or the other will do. I took potluck and proposed to delete subsection (1), but I am not wedded to that. If the Minister agreed to delete subsection (2), I would be happy, but I do not see why we need both.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I was not puzzled; I was concentrating carefully on what the hon. Gentleman was saying. He said that his amendment would abbreviate the clause, and I would be happy if we could find some way of abbreviating the Bill without changing its effect. Brevity can be a virtue.

However, the original wording is safer because the policy behind the clause is that traffic officers should generally have jurisdiction over the entire national network, with flexibility reserved to limit that in certain cases, some of which we discussed earlier. The amendment would mean that the wording would not unambiguously correspond to that policy or make it clear that there is contemplated a designation applying across the entire national network. It would also carry the additional administrative implication that all designations would have to identify geographic extent expressly and that service managers would have to check officers' designations before deployment around the network more often than would otherwise be the case.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is fascinating, but I do not buy into the Minister's argument. He suggests that there should be flexibility but does not offer a shred of evidence for why he needs it or to what it might amount. If I heard him correctly, he argued that there should be two sorts of traffic officers, some having a designation on specified roads and others having a designation on any road. Should we take it that there will be two sorts of traffic officer in the name of flexibility? If that is what the Minister wants us to accept, he owes us a justification.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

As I said, the intention is that a traffic officer would be designated over the whole of the national network, whether that is England or Wales. However, there may be certain circumstances in which someone could be designated to a specific part of the network, which is why we believe that the flexibility is necessary. I gave the example of the Dartford tunnel, and the same might apply to a part of the road or network if we believe that it is appropriate. We believe that such flexibility is required.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That does not really persuade me, but I understand the Minister's point. The good news for him is that I accept his second argument, even though I do not accept his first. His point about having to check Fred's designation on every occasion rings true. My constituency almost contains a bit of the M4, but it includes the end of the M3 and the M25, and I can see the difficulty with an officer being designated to the M25 but not the M3. I accept that having to check which motorway an officer is supposed to work on every time he is sent out would be too much. It is a valid argument against the amendment.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I want to add a little more. The provision offers flexibility in the phasing in of traffic officers. I said earlier that we were trialling this in the west midlands. It is an extensive area, but traffic officers will initially be restricted to those roads only and may not go outside the area. That gives us that little flexibility as we roll out the introduction of traffic officers throughout the country.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I still do not buy the flexibility argument, but I do buy the argument about not always having to look up exactly where. I accept the second but not the first. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I hope that this is an appropriate moment to raise a matter that arises from the note that the Minister kindly distributed about secondary legislation flowing from the Bill. He said in that note that one proposal to amend the Motorways Traffic (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 1982 was to

''allow traffic officers the same exemptions as the police currently hold in relation to the use of the hard shoulder, the discretionary power to direct others to the use of the hard shoulder and the stopping on a carriageway.''

The note also states that

''consultation will start after Royal Assent with expected introduction of Statutory Instrument by early summer 2005''.

Will the Minister explain what will happen between now and then? Will he say why, contrary to indications given in previous Government statements, there are no proposals to extend the exemptions beyond traffic officers to the rescue and recovery services? If my memory serves me right, the Government stated in a White Paper on freeing up the highway that it was important that the rescue and recovery services should be able to use the hard shoulder to get to incidents. If the Minister is not equipped to answer the point now, I shall understand; we can discuss it later. It is an important question. It is not only about the use of the hard shoulder; it is also a practical question of how the new power for traffic officers can work effectively if they have to wait until the early summer of 2005 before being allowed access to the hard shoulder without the specific authority of a police officer.

The other question is less significant, but I would be grateful for the Minister's help.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Order. The points that the hon. Gentleman is making are covered in new clause 22. I suggest that we either debate the subject now or wait until we reach the new clause. Whichever is chosen, the debate will not be repeated.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I understand that we cannot have the same debate twice, but if the Minister can answer the point now, we can conclude the debate. If he cannot, we can come back to the point on new clause 22. That may give the Minister a good let out.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I have never been let out of anything. The use of the hard shoulder is something that we allow reluctantly, because it clearly has to be done only by certain bodies and only in controlled circumstances. We will bring secondary legislation before the House of Commons by the early summer of 2005, but we certainly want to consult first. The use of the hard shoulder is generally allowed on a case-by-case basis. I do not have at my fingertips the regulations that apply to the other emergency services, although I can undertake to bring them to the Committee. I shall be happy to do that either at the next sitting or when we come to new clause 22. Rather than give a partial answer now, it may be best to provide a fuller answer later.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I would like to probe further on the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. The case outlined in clause 3(2), in which the traffic officer has limited jurisdiction, is the difficult one. We must consider how a traffic officer's jurisdiction might be limited, and that people who must obey him might know that it is limited. It would be difficult if a traffic officer went to the scene of a problem and discovered that his designation did not go round the corner, where he might need to direct traffic. There would often be such border, or edge-of-area incidents.

I am unhappy about limited jurisdictions. If a traffic officer is a liveried, trained, qualified person, he or she should have the power to operate wherever the need arises. If traffic officers have limited jurisdiction, would a driver be entitled to ask to see their papers before accepting direction? That could be an obstacle to the smooth progress of traffic. How easy would it be for them to prove that they have the necessary designation? Would they carry designation papers, a card, or a photo identity pass with their designated roads on a map on the back? If a motorist were unhappy at how a power was used, it would be reasonable for him or her to seek assurance that a traffic officer had that power. It would be better if traffic officers could act anywhere. Where they act could be limited by the day-to-day requirements placed on them by managers or directors, but they should be given general powers.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is our intention that traffic officers have powers over the whole network in a particular national authority, whether it is England or Wales. However, the right hon. Gentleman might have missed the earlier debate in which we discussed specific cases involving, for example, a tunnel, a bridge or a particular piece of road. In such cases, a traffic officer might be designated to work entirely on that

piece of road. It is wise to maintain flexibility for such circumstances. I identified cases in which separate police forces operate. The Mersey tunnel is not on the national network but is policed by a separate police body, because it has specific difficulties and problems for which people are trained. There may be similar circumstances to that, but the general thrust of what the right hon. Member for Wokingham is saying is right.

We would not want traffic officers to have to show people their papers to show where they were designated. That would be ridiculous and would undermine the operation of the service. In general, officers patrolling motorways and trunk roads would have the widespread job of covering the entire network. Specific officers working in an area would generally stay in their designated area, rather than being out on the open road.

Question put: That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 6.

Clause 4 - Powers to direct traffic officers

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am intrigued to know how the Minister views clause 4 in relation to clause 3 because there is a conflict between them. For example, suppose that a traffic officer, with limited jurisdiction, is carrying out his duties and is approached by a chief constable who says, ''Stop what you are doing over here and go to the other lane of the motorway'', and then gives him directions. Is the Minister saying that clause 4, which gives a police constable powers to direct a traffic officer, overrides that traffic officer's limited authority, or does clause 3 override clause 4 so that no matter what a traffic officer is directed to do by a constable, the traffic officer will act unlawfully if that direction is outwith his authority? I should be interested to know how the Minister envisages the two clauses working together. The common-sense view on how the two clauses ought to operate, which most of us would accept, is that if an experienced police constable feels that the traffic officer should be doing something slightly different, even if his authority does not extend to it, the police officer should be able to direct the traffic officer to do whatever he thinks is right in the circumstances. I hope

that the Minister can assure us that clause 4 will widen the authority under clause 3.

Does the Minister intend the clause to be as wide as it appears to be? We are all aware of the scenario in which we expect it to operate; that is, a uniformed officer assigned to traffic duties arrives on the scene of an accident or an area of congested traffic and instructs the traffic officer what to do. As worded, the clause refers only to the ''direction of a constable'': it does not have to be a constable in uniform. It could be a detective constable off duty on his way home. Does the Minister intend the clause to apply to any constable, even a constable not in uniform?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I have been waiting ever since Second Reading to reach clause 4 because I was deeply wounded and mortified on that occasion. I intervened on the Secretary of State, who generously gave way. I said:

''The documents issued by the right hon. Gentleman say that the police will be in charge of the new officers. However, can he assure the House that if those traffic officers get to the scene first they will have to wait for the police to arrive, rather than act in their absence?''

Had the Secretary of State known the totality of what was going on my mind at that moment, he would not have replied:

''The police are not in charge of those officers, who are employed by the Highways Agency.''—[Official Report, 5 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 36.]

That may or may not strike other members of this Committee as correct or incorrect, but I think that what I asked the Secretary of State was correct and justified, and his answer was, not to put too fine a point on it, in its totality, not all it should have been. I know that I cannot describe the point any more correctly than that, but I think that the Committee will get my drift. Clause 4 reads:

''A traffic officer shall, when carrying out his duties, comply with any direction of a constable.''

Perhaps I am a bit on the thick side, but I rather think that being told that one must comply with the directions of a constable means that one does what the constable says. That suggests that the constable is in charge of the traffic officer. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether he supports the Secretary of State, who said that I was wrong, or his own Bill. He cannot support both.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire asked whether a constable would need to be in uniform to give a direction to a traffic officer. It is my understanding that a constable is someone who is always on duty and who therefore could, in the appropriate circumstances, give that instruction at the site of an incident whether in uniform or not. If I am wrong on that, I am sure that somebody will correct me.

Traffic officers will be employed by the Highways Agency and will work with all the training, protocols and job description set out by the agency. However, there must be clear protocols to govern how Highways Agency contractors assist the police at incidents on the road, as happens now. Two sets of people cannot be in charge at an incident. The clause ensures that a police constable is in charge at the incident and will instruct

the traffic officer, as appropriate. Traffic officers would not be under the control of the police in their general work, but where there is an interface between the two, the police constable has supremacy.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I want to be clear that I caught the words of the Minister correctly. Did I hear him say that the constable will be ''in charge''? I think those are the words that Hansard will report. If he said that, why did the Secretary of State say that the police are not in charge of the officers?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I know that the hon. Gentleman feels rather bruised about the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put him right on Second Reading. I said that the constable will be in charge of the incident and would therefore, as appropriate, give any direction to the traffic officer at the site. As we discussed when the hon. Gentleman raised the issue earlier, if traffic officers arrived first, there would be clear lines of action for them to take, but when the police arrive, they take charge of the incident and will, in those circumstances, direct the traffic officers. Once the incident is closed, the traffic officers move off and continue in their own way, with their own chain of command, as is appropriate.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Perhaps the Minister has a different clause 4 from mine. He is trying to wriggle by saying that the police will be in charge of the incident, but my version of subsection (1) says:

''A traffic officer shall, when carrying out his duties, comply with any direction of a constable.''

The police are in charge of the traffic officer. The provisions say nothing about being in charge of the incident.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The clause is intended for cases in which the police are working with traffic officers. In those circumstances the police officer could give directions to the traffic officer. For most of a traffic officer's general, day-to-day duties, the police would not be involved and there would be very little interface between the two.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - The special powers of a traffic officer

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I beg to move amendment No. 60, in

page 3, line 10, leave out '6' and insert

'(Powers to stop or direct traffic)'.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 30, in

page 3, leave out line 11.

Amendment No. 6, in

page 3, line 24, leave out 'or near'.

Amendment No. 7, in

page 3, leave out line 25.

Amendment No. 8, in

page 3, line 28, leave out from '3;' to end of line 34.

Amendment No. 9, in

page 3, line 35, at end insert 'full'.

Clause stand part.

Amendment No. 92, in

clause 6, page 3, line 38, leave out from 'officer' to end of line.

Amendment No. 10, in

clause 6, page 3, line 42, after first 'vehicle', insert 'or cycle'.

Amendment No. 11, in

clause 6, page 4, line 5, after 'vehicle', insert 'or cycle'.

Amendment No. 32, in

clause 6, page 4, line 8, leave out '163(1) and (2)' and insert 'section 163'.

Clause 6 stand part.

Amendment No. 20, in

clause 10, page 5, line 28, after 'in', insert 'full'.

Government new clause 10—Powers to stop or direct traffic.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

This is a big group of amendments. We have become aware that the reference to section 163 in clause 6(3) is inconsistent with the reference in clause 6(4)(a). That error would inadvertently give traffic officers powers of arrest, as one of the earlier Conservative amendments would also have done. However, new clause 10 will address that issue by replacing clause 6, providing powers for traffic officers to stop or direct traffic. The new clause expressly sets out the powers and thus makes them more transparent. It sets out the appropriate textual amendments to the relevant statutory provisions, making it easier to see how those statutory provisions are affected and to understand their relationship to other provisions in road traffic statutes.

New clause 10 also removes from traffic officers the power of arrest in section 163(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which provides that any reference to a constable in section 163 of that Act includes a reference to a traffic officer in clause 6(4)(a). That inadvertently gave traffic officers the power of arrest granted to constables in subsection section 163(4). Amendment No. 60 is consequential.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clear exposition of why the Government have had to withdraw clause 6 and replace it with a new clause, and of amendment No. 60. Before I tabled a parliamentary question inquiring what powers of arrest traffic officers would have, the Government had not realised that they would have had powers of arrest that they did not wish them to have under the original draft of the Bill.

I have already indicated to you, Mr. Beard, and informally to the Minister that I will not be able to be present in Committee throughout this debate because an Adjournment debate that I called in Westminster Hall has been allocated the time between 4 o'clock and 4.30 pm, and if I am not there, I will not be able to argue about the problems of audiology services, particularly in my constituency. I hope that when I come back soon after 4.30 pm, the Minister will have been able to satisfy my hon. Friends in my absence

that the Government have thought through the contrast between the way that community support officers are being supported with a residual power of arrest that is not being given to traffic officers, even for a limited period in limited circumstances.

The Minister will know that community support officers have been given a power of arrest so that they can hold someone for up to half an hour pending the arrival of a police officer. A traffic officer might be the first on the scene of an incident on a motorway or trunk road and it might be obvious to him that somebody who has been driving a vehicle will not give his identity. Perhaps the officer suspects that he has stolen the vehicle or that he is an illegal immigrant; everyday occurrences, unfortunately, under the present Government. Is he really to stand idly by while the person concerned hops it over the motorway perimeter fence, pending the arrival of a police officer, or should he have the power, as a community support officer might do, to arrest somebody who does not give his name and address in circumstances in which the officer believes the person has committed an offence?

I put the question to the Minister because, unlike a town, city or village, a motorway is pretty inaccessible and police officers have to get access to the point at which the incident has taken place, which can take time. If the traffic officer were there already, would it not be sensible for him to have actual powers of arrest, albeit circumscribed? That is the main point that I wanted to get across in this group of amendments. The other amendments will be covered by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sure that when I return from having debated audiology services, an answer will be forthcoming from the Minister.

Paul Marsden (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

Amendment No. 92 was intended, like some of the Tory amendments, to clarify what was turning out to be a bit of a dog's breakfast of a clause. I am more than happy to lend support to new clause 10, although I should like clarification from the Minister about this point; the original wording makes reference to the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 35(1) and (2). That has changed to subsection (3). Was that what the Minister was referring to in his opening remarks about powers of arrest, or was it a different subsection? If so, could he clarify why the reference has changed from (1) and (2) to (3)?

The other issue is that of powers. If we look at the layout of the Bill, there are special powers on top of powers such as those to stop and direct traffic. Later, we shall be talking about powers for temporary traffic signs and further special powers. It is mind-boggling to try to understand why the layout is so complicated.

Following earlier remarks about background checks during the recruitment process, what identification will the traffic officers have and in what circumstances will they be required to show that identification to the public or to a constable? Members of the public—particularly those involved in road traffic accidents or women alone at night awaiting recovery vehicles—will want to know who they are and whether they are using powers to which they are entitled.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

One thing that any Minister should hope for when he discovers that I am on a Standing Committee dealing with a Bill is that there are good programmes on the television. If there are not, I am prone to pick up a Bill and say to myself of an evening, ''I wonder what is wrong this time?'' It is the result of having bad television programmes recently that amendments Nos. 6 to 11 appear on the Order Paper, after one of those evenings when I thought that it would be useful to try to improve yet another piece of shoddy legislation. Let me try and explain what concerns me. Amendment 6 focuses attention on clause 5 (3) (d):

''preventing damage to, or to anything on or near, such a road''.

That is sloppy. Could the Minister tell us what near means? How far away from the highway they are authorised to look into are these traffic officers going to roam? Why do the Government believe that the power of looking after the road should extend to looking after things that are near it? What does ''anything'' cover, and why has it been deemed necessary to include off-road issues? If he can tell us how far near is, lawyers in the future will not have so much fun deciding whether, because it was not near enough to be near, it was an excessive use of power.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The mystery deepens when one looks at clause 5 (6), because:

''A traffic officer may not exercise his special powers when on a road unless he is in uniform.''

It does not mention when he is exercising his powers near a road.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The prospect of an officer undressing before he leaps over the boundary of the road to deal with something else puzzles me, but the television cannot have been that bad, because I failed to spot that one. My right hon. Friend puts me to shame, because I missed it, and he is absolutely right.

Amendment No. 7 would delete, at the end of clause 5 (3):

''or for a purpose incidental to any of those purposes.''

What does the Minister see as incidental to any of those purposes? There has to be a reason for this broadening of the powers. I am always suspicious of giving officials power. First we say that they can do this; then, in case that is not enough, they can see if it is incidental.

We have ''near''; what does that mean? We have ''incidental'', which could mean anything. The lawyers could have a field day arguing whether or not something was ''incidental''. Perhaps we could get into Hansard the Minister's definition of the word incidental on that occasion.

Amendment 8 would delete clause 5 (4) (b) and (5):

''if the condition specified in subsection (5) is met, on or in relation to any other road in England and Wales.

(5) The condition is that the traffic officer is acting

(a) at the direction of the chief officer of police''.

At the time, that said to me that we were, yet again, extending powers. We were legislating where the officer can operate and who designates everything else; then, all of a sudden, we come across a bit of the

Bill that says it does not matter what was said just now. If a chief police officer says to do it anyway, it can be done. Why are we wasting our time if it can be done anyway? That is what I was driving at.

This amendment has become more relevant. When we check Hansard, we will find that the Minister responded to the very important point of order that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire made about students sitting down in Parliament square by saying that it was not relevant, because traffic officers would not have jurisdiction over a local road like Parliament square.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That is right.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The Minister is nodding; that is what he said. If we accept the subsection, the Minister is wrong. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis might have had these powers available to him and asked traffic officers who just happened to be near for help in clearing the students sitting in the road. Under the measure that I want to delete, if the commissioner had asked them, irrespective of their designation, they could have acted in Parliament square or ''any other road''

''at the direction of the chief officer of police''.

Will the Minister clarify whether his earlier comments were correct or whether I misunderstood?

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I am getting a little worried that this clause, seeking to stretch the powers to matters incidental, may be further indication that the Minister—who, sensibly, wants to get traffic on the move—still harbours the typical wish of the Government for these people to go into the glossy brochure industry and the business of motorists' information systems. Perhaps they will gang up with their friends in the quangos. The Government believe in giving us far more glossy brochures than we need or can afford. I am beginning to wonder whether these traffic officers are going to become glossy brochure merchants as well.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I had not thought of that, but I will reflect on it. If that is correct, I will wholeheartedly support my right hon. Friend.

What had occurred to me was the thought the Government are sneaking through yet another arrangement under which people can chivvy, hassle, annoy and direct us, and generally make our lives a misery anywhere in the country. I, for one, am heartily sick of a Government who keep making my life more unpleasant with petty officialdom at every turn.

The use of language such as, ''near'' a road, ''incidental'', and any road

''at the direction of the chief officer of police''

paints a picture of the nanny state of which the Minister is so proud; at least, I hope he is proud of it as he keeps voting for it. I think that it is appalling. If the glossy brochure state goes alongside the nanny state, I will certainly bracket the two together.

The items that would be deleted by amendment No. 8 are not necessary. If the Minister wants to oppose that amendment, I hope that he will tell us why. Do we need to give chief officers of police a

blanket power to get these people to do virtually anything anywhere?

Amendment No. 9 would insert the word ''full'' before the word ''uniform'' at the beginning of line 36, in clause 5(6) on page 3. Currently, it reads:

''A traffic officer may not exercise his special powers on a road''—

although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire said, he could do it near a road—

''unless he is in uniform.''

We should clarify what is meant by uniform. If I remember rightly, many moons ago there was a loophole in some legislation, which meant that if a police officer did not have his hat on when he stopped people to breathalyse them, he was deemed not to be in uniform. There is a genuine purpose behind the amendment. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that where it says ''uniform'', it means full uniform, so that—before people try to exploit such a loophole in future—we have on record exactly what is meant by the wearing of uniform?

Uncharitable souls might think that amendment Nos. 10 and 11, with which I seek to add ''or cycle'' after the word ''vehicle'', are petty and pedantic. The only reason that I seek to do that is to put the Minister out of his misery. Clause 6(3) states:

''A traffic officer has powers of a constable under 163(1) and (2) of the 1988 Act (powers to stop vehicles and cycles on a road).''

So, in that clause, at the top of page 4, the wording is ''vehicles and cycles'', but at the bottom of page 3, it states that a traffic officer has powers to direct

''a person driving or propelling a vehicle to stop''.

As the Bill specifically says ''cycles'' later on, I imagine that it is will be a defence to say, ''I am riding a bicycle and under section 6(1)(a), you do not have the power to issue directions to somebody riding a cycle, because if you had intended it to apply to a cycle, you would not have specifically mentioned cycles at the top of page 4.'' I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, who is a lawyer, but I am always anxious to minimise the amount that lawyers can earn out of the stupidities of the Government when they cannot get their Bills right.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I rise to support all of the amendments that were so ably spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. He will be reassured to learn that I am always in favour of making legislation simpler and shorter, if we must have any legislation at all. I am pleased that all of those amendments move in that direction, with the exception of those inserting ''or cycle'', which are important to clarify traffic officers' powers.

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no reason to extend traffic officers' powers to things ''near'' to ''such a road''. Their task should be to get traffic flowing on the road and to deal with vehicles using the road. They should not have powers to come and inspect my car in my garage well off the road, or my neighbour's in a similar position.

It is also sensible to delete the phrase at the end of 5(3):

''or for a purpose incidental to any of those purposes.''

Although the Minister's intentions may be honourable, sensible and narrow in pursuit of the objective of less congestion, others who come afterwards could take advantage of such a rather wide-ranging portmanteau phrase and add all sorts of duties for the traffic officers that we did not intend.

For the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend, I welcome the idea that we should delete subsection (4)(b) and subsection (5). The Bill would be slightly improved by withdrawing that added complexity. My hon. Friend has done the Committee a service by pointing out that cyclists sometimes appear and sometimes do not. The traffic officer clearly must be able to control cycles as well as other road vehicles, as they are often at the heart of a problem. Trying to mix cycles with larger and faster vehicles is often the cause of problems, particularly at junctions. I think that traffic officers would need that power to handle the problem. It is curious that the drafting sometimes gives express power over cycles, and other times not.

I agree with my hon. Friend that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Bill should always have both in if it means both. Otherwise some lawyer will earn an unreasonable crust for making an unreasonable point, and charge some poor victim for the privilege.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I thank the Minister for giving us advance warning of new clause 10, which is to replace clause 6. We make no criticism of him for that, and we are grateful for the early notice. One of the benefits of the move towards pre-legislative scrutiny is that Ministers feel less bound to defend a Bill, as if it were their baby, and are more willing to accept amendments. Ministers should be big enough to say that a Bill can be improved as suggested by other right hon. or hon. Members; and he should be willing to accept amendments. Similarly, it is incumbent on the Opposition not to criticise Ministers when they do not do so. We are in the business of making law—we are not a debating society—and any attempt to improve a Bill to which the Minister agrees should grasped by Members of all parties.

In that spirit, I highlight a few of the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. We would like to hear the Minister's view on whether amendment No. 9 should be added to the Bill. What is a uniform? If a traffic officer is wearing part of a uniform, is it still a uniform? That is where lawyers will start to make money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, the breathalyser law—the Road Safety Act 1967, introduced by Barbara Castle—more than any other piece of legislation, gave rise to many court cases, a large number of which went to appeal. That certainly lined the pockets of many lawyers. Unlike my hon. Friend, I do not criticise the lawyers; I criticise those hon. Members who at the time, in my view, failed properly to scrutinise and tighten the loose wording of that legislation. For the avoidance of all doubt, I would like to see the word ''full'' in the Bill,

and amendment No. 9 accepted. I hope that the Minister is will to do that.

Why is that those drafting the Bill thought it necessary in subsection (6) to use the words ''on a road''? Are those words not superfluous? If a traffic officer is exercising his special powers, do we need those words? Subsection (3)(d) refers to him having the power to prevent damage

''to, or to anything on or near, such a road''.

A minefield of prospective challenges is being made more likely by that apparent discrepancy in the wording. If a traffic officer will be given the power to consider things on and near a road, why is there a reference to him having to be in uniform ''on a road'' in subsection (6)? It would be far better to leave out those three words. Why are they there? I hope that the Minister can answer that question.

My other question relates to subsection (5)(a), which refers to a traffic officer acting

''at the direction of the chief officer of police''.

Am I right to assume that if a traffic officer is told to do something by a constable and does it, that will be deemed to be acting in accordance with, or at the direction of, a chief officer of police?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

This has been quite a wide-ranging debate. The amendments cover a wide range of issues, and I shall try to do them justice.

The hon. Member for Christchurch opened the debate and apologised to the Committee. He told me beforehand that he was unable to be here now, just as the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, is also involved in an Adjournment debate. However, I shall place on the record my response to the hon. Gentleman's point. He was trying to extend the role of traffic officers so that they were more in line with community support officers, but CSOs are accredited by the police and directly accountable to the police service. That is a very different role from that of traffic officers. To be able to arrest people and, one assumes, detain them, traffic officers would need special training and would need to be suitably equipped. I think that that would be an inappropriate role for the Highways Agency to undertake.

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) asked about identification of the officers. Highways Agency traffic officers will have a number on their shoulder, and an identification card with a photograph. Their name will be clearly visible. That is the type of uniform that they will wear, as will be apparent to anyone who sees them.

Amendment No. 30 would delete clause 8 and remove the power for the appropriate national authority to confer further special powers on traffic officers by statutory instrument. That would mean that any special powers required at a later date would have to be sought through primary legislation.

The introduction of traffic officers is a radical new approach to traffic management on our trunk roads and, as such, represents a significant change in the Highways Agency's culture and remit. As our operational experience develops, further powers may

be identified that could make the traffic officer service more effective and efficient. The Highways Agency is likely to learn important lessons during the early years of operation, and clause 8 provides the ability to turn those lessons into service improvements over a relatively short time by speeding up the legislative process. It does not give carte blanche for the national authority to do as it pleases.

An inability to confer additional powers would hamper the effectiveness and confidence of officers in operating on the road system, as inevitably there may be activities on the margins of the specifics set out in the clause that are nevertheless needed. Additional powers would be conferred only if they were relevant to traffic officers' duties. In England, the necessary instrument would be subject to a resolution in Parliament.

Amendment No. 8 would prevent traffic officers from operating on any roads other than those for which the appropriate national authority was the traffic authority. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, I point out that in certain circumstances traffic officers could be called in by a police officer, but that would be on or near the national network. The remit of traffic officers is to operate on the national network, so if they were instructed to operate on local roads, that would be somewhere in close proximity. We have in mind a situation in which there has been a serious incident—on a motorway, say—and there are consequential jams on local roads that are nearby or leading off it. It would be appropriate for the traffic officer to be directed to go to those roads. Protocols would have to be worked up with local authorities and those protocols with the police would be clearly in place, so that everybody knew what they were doing.

I was for a moment attracted to amendment No. 6. It would remove the ability of traffic officers to exercise their special powers to prevent damage to anything near a road and within their jurisdiction—the point that the hon. Member for Spelthorne made—and we thought carefully about the matter. However, it could reduce the effectiveness of traffic officers in an emergency situation in which positive action is needed in circumstances that threaten to spill beyond the highway boundary. A good example was the incident at Selby—it might have been appropriate there for a traffic officer to operate beyond the bounds of the trunk road. Another might be an instance in which a vehicle that is in a dangerous condition careers through the barrier at the side of the road, perhaps into somebody's garden or on to a farmer's piece of land, where it presents a risk either to the environment or to human life. It would be absurd if the traffic officer were not allowed to step just beyond the narrow confines of the highway, because he could not operate ''near''. As in all such matters, if it were put to the test, the meaning of ''near'' would be decided by the courts, but reasonableness would have to be taken into consideration.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I see the argument that the Minister is developing; common sense would suggest that in a Selby-type situation—God forbid that it should happen, but if it were to do so—there could well be

reasons for the traffic officer to help. However, I question whether a traffic officer needs to have powers in what amounts to a full-blown crisis. Police officers will have attended long since and both ambulance crew and fire officers, without any of those powers, will have done sensible things to minimise the risk of a further accident and to help to protect the public. Just because traffic officers do not have official powers to order people about, it does not mean that they cannot help. Why do they need all this statutory paraphernalia in order to do what anybody would do if they were there to lend the police a hand?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The simple answer is that we can imagine a circumstance in which it might be appropriate for traffic officers, working with the emergency services, to bring in a heavy vehicle to remove vehicles that are near to the highway but not actually on it. We felt that it would be inappropriate to take that out of the Bill; rather, it should be left in in order to avoid any future challenge that traffic officers were operating beyond the scope of their responsibility.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 20 relate to references to a traffic officer's having to be in uniform to exercise certain powers. The uniform will not require a hat. It will normally be an identifiable protective yellow jacket and leggings with an appropriate jumper. The amendments propose that that be amended to ''full'' uniform. While I understand the intent of the amendments, they are unnecessary and undesirable. The drafting is consistent with the wording used in similar legislation—for example, section 95(7) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to traffic wardens and sections 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in relation to constables. In those examples, the expression, ''uniform'', not ''full uniform'' is used. To use alternative wording would be unnecessary and inconsistent with that approach.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I follow the Minister's explanation. The fact that he has put on the record exactly what it means is probably sufficient, but he has not addressed the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, perhaps slightly tongue in cheek, about the need to be in uniform on a road but not off it. The Minister resisted an amendment that would leave in the expression ''near a road'', and we have had examples of why traffic officers with heavy lifting gear might need to operate off a road but near it. If he persists with that argument, surely he needs to address the question of wearing a uniform near the road? It is not just a debating point, because he has argued for the need to wear a uniform on a road and given reasons why traffic officers should have powers. The clause does say that they exercise powers and must be in uniform, but there are situations in which they need to be off the road but need not be in uniform, and the Government should consider those between now and Report.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

When the traffic officers are carrying out their duties, they will be duty bound and contractually bound to comply with a dress code for

working on the network. They will generally be working on the highway and wearing their uniform. They will also wear their uniform on the probably rare occasion when they are called in to work near the road.

Amendment No. 92 seems to be intended to avoid repetition of the wording that the powers referred to in clauses 6(1)(a) and (b) already include. Sections 35 and 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 use the same expression.

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 relate to clause 6, which the Government tabled new clause 10 to replace. However, the principle of amendment No. 10 also applies to new clause 10, so it needs some comment. Amendment No. 10 proposes that the word ''cycle'' be included in clause 6(1)(a). Similarly, amendment No. 11 proposes that ''cycle'' be included in clause 6(2). Both amendments aim to ensure that the power of traffic officers to direct vehicles applies to cyclists, but they are probably unnecessary because clauses 6(1)(a) and 6(2) were drafted to give traffic officers the same power as constables in respect of sections 35(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The word ''vehicle'' used in section 35 includes a cycle. That is the recognised interpretation of the word, and we do not want to depart from that approach in the case of traffic officers. To do so would be inconsistent with the interpretation of section 35 as it applies to constables, or to traffic wardens where legislation that relates to them also applies to section 35.

Members may be puzzled by our reason for using ''cycles'' in clause 6(3). That clause refers to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which uses the expression ''mechanically propelled vehicles'' rather than ''vehicles''. That expression does not include cycles, although section 163 also expressly refers to cycles. I hope that that clarifies the apparent inconsistency in the use of the word ''cycles''. I see that that explanation has excited a comment from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham.

Paul Marsden (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

Could I have an answer to my original question, which was why the original wording referred to sections 35(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, while new clause 10 refers to section 35(3).

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We were minded to table an amendment to clause 6. However, when the lawyers examined the clause, it became more convoluted as we began to amend it further to take out the power of arrest that we had inadvertently given traffic officers. Therefore, the draftsman tore up the clause and started from scratch, resulting in new clause 10. As we are getting into legal niceties, perhaps I could drop the hon. Gentleman a line to clarify the situation for the lawyers' minds.

Amendment No. 32 would give traffic officers a power of arrest because section 163(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 confers such a power on constables. To give traffic officers the powers conferred on constables by the whole of section 163, rather than subsections (1) and (2), would give them the power of arrest.

We have had a useful debate, and we have covered several interesting points. I hope that we can now consider the rest of the clause.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I thank the Minister for his full explanation of many of the points raised during the wide-ranging debate. The Opposition were concerned that the powers were drawn too widely. However, what the Minister said about the need to react to situations as they unfold carried weight, particularly given the example of the Selby rail disaster, a terrible tragedy that occurred close to my constituency in which one of my constituents was killed. There is a delicate balance between allowing the responsible person on the scene flexibility to react in an unusual situation and powers being too wide or unchecked. In the light of what the Minister said, we will not force a Division on amendment No. 6.

May I refer the Minister to a point that he did not answer? It is not the subject of an amendment today, but it may be on Report unless we get an answer from him. The Minister has not convinced me why we need the words ''on a road'' in clause 5(6). Without those words, the subsection conveys the Minister's wish that a traffic officer should wear his uniform at work. As we have already accepted that a traffic officer may be near rather than on a road during his work, why do we need those words? Their deletion would improve the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and give an answer before Report, or we may be minded to table an amendment.

The Minister's reply on clause 8 did not commend itself to me, and I hope that it did not do so to my hon. Friends. His reason for accepting clause 8 was that it would allow the speeding up of new powers that are deemed necessary. Dictators never have a problem acting with speed or obtaining new powers that they deem necessary. Democracy is a slowcoach, but that is surely preferable to allowing changes without proper scrutiny or wide consultation. The protection of liberty and allowing elected Members to have their say should override the Minister's desire for speed. The Bill will be far better without clause 8, and when we get to the clause 8 stand part debate, I shall urge the Committee to vote against it.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I shall not comment on clause 8 until we reach it, but the hon. Gentleman makes a point about clause 5(6), which refers to a traffic officer not exercising his powers on the road unless he is in uniform. Some traffic officers will operate in places other than the road, including in the control centre. When officers are specifically on the road and interfacing with the public, it is important that they should be in uniform, whereas in the control centre, they will be operating the signs on the road and enforcing speed limits the signs, but the public will not see them. It would not therefore be imperative for them to wear uniform there. I hope that that is helpful and will deter the hon. Gentleman from tabling another amendment on Report.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I am grateful to the Minister and will reflect on what he has just said.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 disagreed to.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Point of order, Mr. Beard. Can I make it absolutely clear, so that we can get it in to Hansard, that the Government have just voted against part of their own Bill?

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Yes, that is so.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Powers to confer further special powers on traffic officers

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I beg to move amendment No. 93, in

page 4, line 27, after 'may', insert

'after full consultation with all relevant parties'.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 12, in

page 4, line 36, leave out 'any Act or'.

No. 13, in

page 4, line 36, at end insert—

'(3A) An order made under this section may not amend any Act'.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

This is by way of a probing amendment to discover what would be the Government's intention if the clause were to remain in the Bill: would there be any consultation on any further special powers given to traffic officers that might be brought in? If the Minister puts on record that there will be consultation, whom will it be with and what form will it take? I do not want to pre-empt what may be said in the clause stand part debate, but this is a clause that gives the Liberal Democrats considerable concern. If it were put to a vote we should certainly vote against it, given its wide-ranging powers. In the interim, and in the assumption that we might not be successful in striking out the clause from the Bill, I should like to know whether the Government envisage consultation, in what form they envisage it, and how it might take place.

I also ask the Minister to tell us why, for clause 2, it was appropriate for the wide powers of privatisation to be held back for ministerial diktat alone and not put into the clause? That would have been a sensible place in which to put them and would have allowed parliamentary scrutiny. However, the principal point is to ascertain how the clause might be acted on in future.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross from the Liberal Democrat Benches. If one must have a choice, I would prefer to sacrifice speed rather than adequate consultation and parliamentary approval. However, I accept that the Government may not be persuaded to remove clause 8 from the Bill, and so I hope that they may be persuaded to water it down in the interest of the democratic process by accepting amendments Nos. 12 and 13. The effect

would be that were clause 8 to remain in the Bill it would not give power to alter any Act of Parliament. Indeed, it would expressly not have that effect.

I hope that the Minister is prepared to compromise. Although it is right in the light of experience to ensure that traffic officers have the powers that they need to discharge their duties properly, that should not be at the expense of the parliamentary process.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

I agree that it is an undesirable development, meaning that it will become easier to amend and complicate legislation without going through the proper process of scrutiny in the way that we are today on this primary legislation. My right hon. Friend has done a service to the Committee and to the House of Commons by drawing attention to the quite wide-ranging power as it stands in the Bill, which would allow changes to occur without going through the proper process. We need to make it difficult to legislate; we have far too many laws and are generating too much additional law at all times. It is much better to have a long and careful process on more occasions, like that used for primary legislation. It makes Governments a little more reluctant to pick up the legislative pen. It makes them consider the impact of the legislative pen a little more carefully, clause by clause, line by line, in a workman-like way, as we are doing today.

I have some reservations about the Liberal Democrat proposal. If there is one thing that my constituents are more annoyed by than not being consulted over a proposal, it is being consulted and then having their views ignored. It is a doubly annoying phenomenon that happens all too often these days; the Government proceed ostensibly full of good will and wishing to consult, but when they get an obvious answer from a locality that their line is not popular, their policy is ill conceived or their intentions are wrong, they steamroller on none the less and ignore the consultation. My fear is that something similar will happen in this instance.

Such bureaucracy will soon develop its own house style and its own policy and will not be willing to listen. It would be an added insult to add consultation procedures without even specifying who has a right to be consulted, so that I waste even more time on behalf of my constituents contacting another bureaucracy that is unlikely to respond. If the Liberal Democrats are serious about more local control, they should not draft proposals that entail merely consultation. They must put some teeth into the consultation. There must be limits on the power of those proposing the policies and carrying out the consultation should the consultation discover that the measures are unwelcome or that there is a large majority view against them. I am not minded to support the Liberal Democrat proposal because it is mere window dressing and it will not work.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I have two questions to which I hope the Minister can provide crystal clear answers. The first is to ask whether the Minister can give an assurance that the clause will not give ''Dick Turpin'' powers to members of the car-parking and

wheel-clampers social club, to enhance their ability to take people to criminal courts and to harass them with bailiffs. I want the Minister's assurance that no additional powers will be given to these people in sparkling new uniforms.

My second question considers clause 8 in the context of clause 5 and the powers that might be exercised for

''maintaining or improving the movement of traffic'',

reducing anything that can cause congestion,

''avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using . . . a road''

and preventing damage.

The Minister and I discussed road humps in an Adjournment debate, and he will be pleased to know that the road humps that we debated have now been removed from one of the estates in my constituency, much to the delight of all my constituents in the area.

At a later stage, could a specific power be given under clause 8, with due consideration and consultation, to allow traffic officers to inspect current road humps and any plans for future road humps? It is clear from the evidence from my constituency that the provisions in clause 5(3)(a) to (d) match the problems caused by inappropriate use of the cushion road humps on large estates such as the Manton estate. That pro-motorist but also pro-community piece of legislation would be most welcome.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

The hon. Gentleman makes a superb case on a problem that has bedevilled many communities throughout the UK. I congratulate him on his campaign. Is he aware that the emergency services are particularly keen that his proposals should be taken up by the Minister, because they find that their vehicles are impeded and damaged by the ridiculous street humps that we have in so many places?

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Nottinghamshire fire engines could not straddle the Manton road humps; Nottinghamshire ambulance service was not consulted about them but had to cross 21 humps to reach the extremity of the estate and 21 again on its way out.

Road humps in Britain are put predominantly in large council estates and large mining villages, and in mining villages a disproportionate number of people have back problems. It is not just the statutory services that object to the road humps, but the bus services as well. The same elderly miners who have back problems use the buses, and they have become the most vitriolic and strident campaigners against road humps.

Road humps also cause problems for the funeral services. A hearse is particularly unsuited to crossing road humps, because it is a low load-bearing vehicle. If a funeral cortege travels from St. Paul's church in the centre of Manton to Worksop cemetery, the entire cortege has to cross 13 road humps. I can imagine no greater indignity.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

The hon. Gentleman explains what happens with funerals. He should count himself lucky.

The residents of Commercial road, Staines, can still remember when a hearse came over the road humps to collect the coffin and the body and when it came back the other way it was grounded, had to be towed away and was late at the crematorium.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I suppose that there is the possible advantage that the road hump will jolt so much that the body will rise in its coffin and be resurrected, but as far as I am aware that has unfortunately not yet happened to any of my constituents.

However, my point is that if so-called road safety developments are unthought-out and badly designed, they are an impediment. Traversing a cushion road hump at 60 mph is more comfortable for passengers than at 10 mph, which gives an incentive to drive faster rather than slower. Removing the kerbs from footpaths makes it more dangerous for young people and the elderly to cross a large stretch road with humps. Such badly designed and badly thought-out initiatives are naturally rather unpopular.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

Is not the point, as some of the key campaigners who have advocated such road safety measures have suggested, that it is the local authority's responsibility to consult all people? One group that tends to be neglected is pedestrians.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

Absolutely—pedestrians, motorists, the emergency services, the bus services and the funeral directors. I merely make the point that traffic officers could be given the new role of spotting such obstacles, which are a major impediment not only to traffic but to the cohesion of the community. Given the example of the removal of the road humps on the Manton estate, that function may be an appropriate way for the Government, who are pro-motorist and pro-car, to demonstrate their willingness to take a step further.

Paul Marsden (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

I cannot let it pass that although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that road humps can be a great impediment if the location and materials are ill-conceived, I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, who has done sterling work for Road Peace, agrees that the funeral director might be travelling because he has someone in the back who has died at the hands of a speeding driver. Road humps save lives. We should bear in mind that speeding drivers kill, I think, 10 people every day.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but is not the answer that road humps are not the way forward? There are other ways of slowing vehicles down without the downside of road humps, which increase noise pollution and air pollution and damage vehicles.

Paul Marsden (Liberal Democrat, Shrewsbury and Atcham)

I believe that the hon. Gentleman may be right. There can be detrimental effects, but at the end of the day road humps unarguably save lives in certain locations. However, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is absolutely right that some locations are not appropriate and that road humps sometimes cause many problems.

I cannot let it pass that the right hon. Member for Wokingham thinks that it is a bad idea to have consultation, especially when the amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and I tabled, is intended to deal with statutory instruments. We should not allow statutory instruments to sneak through. The reason for tabling the amendment was to get on record which authorities the Minister would consult. I hope that the list would include local authorities and traffic authorities, but that would be up to him. I hope also that he will reassure the Committee that consultation is an important part of the process.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to page 5 of the first report of the Transport Committee for the 2003–04 Session, which says about clause 8:

''Even though these powers are subject to the affirmative procedure we believe there should be a thorough exploration of exactly what is proposed, and why these powers cannot be identified now.''

Likewise, the AA motoring trust said in a recent parliamentary briefing of 26 January that the clause should be deleted. It stated:

''This section is unacceptable from a public policy standpoint. Parliament should not give the Executive the power to grant itself unspecified powers, which are not themselves limited to those referred to under section 5''.

I sincerely hope that the Minister can reply to those points.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

May I say to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that I enjoyed his contribution? I am pleased to hear from the Labour Benches such marvellous, libertarian, common-sense and pro-motorist views. If he needs a new home after the vote downstairs at 7 o'clock, I will be in the Strangers' Bar and would be happy to discuss terms with him.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that Labour Members come from the tradition of making the cars.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the offer still stands.

As the afternoon has worn on, I have become slightly more relaxed as the draftsman of amendments Nos. 12 and 13. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has supported me on a couple of amendments, so the balance seems to have improved and I have not had to endure the same difficulty as I did this morning.

What my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham and for East Yorkshire said is correct, and I am attacking not just the Labour Government, but any Government who say that they do not care what is in a Bill because if it suits their purpose, they will change it without reference. If that is going to happen, I do not see the point of having a Parliament or a Standing Committee, but that is what the clause will do. I cannot believe that it is right.

I have no difficult with subordinate legislation, which is sensible as there are plenty of arguments in favour of not cluttering up the House with unnecessary detail. However, no matter what reason

the Minister gives, I cannot bring myself to believe that it is right and democratic to give the Government the power to change any Act by fiat. That is not democratic, and I plead for the Minister to stand up for democracy and, rather than justify the clause, say that he is willing to consider it again. It cannot be correct to allow a Secretary of State to say that he does not care what legislation says and will change it without consulting Parliament.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

If the debate continues to range so far and wide, there will be no cause for a stand part debate as we will have covered all points.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

The debate has indeed been wide ranging, and I too have enjoyed the contributions from both sides of the Committee.

Amendment No. 93 is possibly unnecessary, but the spirit behind it is not. The Government always consult as appropriate on draft regulations to ensure that they are sensible and carry the appropriate support. Any proposal would be subject to parliamentary or even judicial challenge if such consultation had not taken place, and consultation is a standard practice.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked what form the consultation would take. Consultation does not have to be statutory to be good, but we envisage wide consultation of interested parties to the usual Government standards that have been used for some time. We want to make the consultation meaningful and to have proper discussion. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, consultation must be not a ritual but a proper discussion in which we listen to what people have to say and in which they can make a difference. If it is any help, I can tell the Committee that in previous consultations on matters that seem unimportant in the great vista but are important to certain groups of people, we have listened carefully and changed our minds substantially.

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham asked who would be consulted. That will depend on what we were doing, but the police, fire brigade and the ambulance service come immediately to mind. Local authorities, freight and motorist bodies and recovery companies would also probably be involved, as would any other bodies, such as environmental groups, that have an interest in the particular issue.

My natural inclination is not to accept amendments Nos. 12 and 13. The Government are reluctant to put in the measures for which they provide. However, if they are not there, we may need some minor consequential amendments to primary legislation. The amendments would severely restrict and reduce the clause's effectiveness. In many cases, they would make it unworkable for the purposes intended.

In practice, the Government are able to amend secondary legislation, so the amendments are not necessary. They would tend to render the clause useless. There will be some minor peripheral issues, but not major issues that we would want to bring through by these means. They would be brought forward by affirmative resolution statutory

instruments that would come before and be debated by both Houses of Parliament.

We thought carefully about examples, and I do not think there are many. There is a tiny example of where a small change in legislation may be needed: the Bill gives the power for the traffic officer to escort heavy loads, but he has no power to dictate at what time of the day that could take place, which would mean a minor change to a piece of legislation elsewhere. That is the sort of minor change we anticipate.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

My hon. Friend will be aware of the regulatory reform process, which has built into it the kind of consultations about which he has been talking, allowing a number of organisations to express views. Would he consider looking at that kind of regulatory reform, which would assist him in taking the clause forward?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

We are prepared to consider anything that improves consultation. My Department consults well in general, but if there is something we can do to improve, we will. I thought that the right hon. Member for Wokingham was going to say to me—it has been said to me on other occasions—that sometimes the one thing worse than not being consulted is being consulted. Some people are on consultation overload; we are mindful of that. Certain bodies find it difficult to respond because of the number of consultations that we send out. We have to be thoughtful.

I enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, who took us back to Dick Turpin powers. I assure him that there is no intention of powers being brought in so that traffic officers can rob members of the public at the side of the road, in car parks or anywhere else. That will be good news to him, but I have one word of disappointment for him. The traffic officers unfortunately will not be inspecting his road humps. They essentially appear on local roads, and, of course, traffic officers will not operate on those.

I am not yet aware of road humps on any motorway, but I am aware of some severe dips on the M6 in Warwickshire. I am sure the traffic officers would take an interest in whether they were growing deeper. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that ancient mine workings have caused those dips. Anyone who has been across them will appreciate that they are like a helter-skelter ride.

Mr. Wilshire rose—

John Mann rose—

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

As I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, I will give way to him first.

John Mann (Labour, Bassetlaw)

There has been a growing spirit during the day of maximum compromise in the air. There is another set of road humps, which I have not yet properly addressed, in my constituency, some of them on more major roads. I suggest that a compromise could be reached whereby the road humps could be taken out and used as part of the infill for the dips.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That suggestion is ingenious, and I will certainly give it careful consideration. I can tie the two issues together by saying that road humps can do

a useful job in some circumstances by slowing traffic and making the roads safer.

John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham)

No way.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Well, they do. I know that in some parts of the country, local people would rightly be up in arms if the humps were removed. However, before any such measure is taken, people should be properly consulted. Generally, such measures are not supported if people are not thoroughly consulted. In my view, before local authorities put in road humps, they should exhaust every other means of traffic calming, and they should have in mind not a particular method but a way to reduce the number of people killed and injured on the roads. Sadly, on the roads on the estates that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw mentioned, many of those people are children.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

In the spirit of our debate, perhaps I can make an offer through the Minister to the right hon. Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. If their authorities have money to spare that they do not want to spend on traffic calming, would they please transfer it to my authority? As my hon. Friend the Minister says, other parts of the country have a desire to improve traffic calming.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

That is right; and if the local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw has extra funds to pass on to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), I am sure that he will wish to ensure that it does so.

The debate has been rather wide ranging, Mr. Beard, and we may have tested your patience a little. However, I hope that the Committee will resist the amendment.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I thank you, Mr. Beard, for your indulgence. The debate has been wide ranging, but it has been all the better for it. I compliment the hon. Member for Bassetlaw on his speech. En passant, he made a number of telling points on the subject of road humps, and most of us hope that before long they will be on the way out. They delay emergency vehicles, they cause damage to vehicles and the increase noise and air pollution. There are far better ways—

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Order. Could the hon. Gentleman leave coffins and road humps to another time?

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

I did say en passant, but I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman said.

I make no criticism of those who serve the Minister for including clause 8. After all, it is the duty of those who serve Ministers to ensure that Bills cover all eventualities and give powers to deal with all the problems that may arise. However, the accumulation of power in clause 8 is unacceptable. One need only look at its wording. Subsection (1), which confers further special powers, would be bad enough if the conferring of the powers related only to the existing duties of the traffic officers, but in subsection (2) further special powers can be given to facilitate the performance of

''any duties which may be assigned to traffic officers''.

In other words, if duties that we did not envisage today can be given to traffic officers, further powers can be given and powers to alter legislation can be made under the clause.

The essence of the Minister's defence seemed to be, ''I'm honest David: trust me.'' We do trust the Minister; he is held in the highest regard in all parts of the House. However, we are making legislation. I shall not say, as Sir Robin Day once said to Sir John Nott, ''Ministers are here today and gone tomorrow''. However, a time will come—I hope that it is a long way off—when the Minister will be moved on. We may then have a transport Minister who takes a totally different view of the powers given in clause 8. Although we are prepared to trust honest David, we are not prepared to trust his unknown successors. I hope that the Committee will decide, on reflection, that the Bill would be far better without clause 8. However, if we have to have it, I would rather it remained somewhat meaningless. That said, Mr. Beard, we would like the opportunity to vote on amendments Nos. 12 and 13.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Amendment No. 93 has elicited from the Minister the explanation that I hoped that we would receive and has put it on to the record. In that sense, the amendment has achieved its objective, and I shall withdraw it. However, as we have decided not to have a clause stand part debate, I shall make a few remarks.

I agree with the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, who highlighted the accumulation of power and the multiplier effect, which are my concerns about the clause. I have not sat on a Standing Committee before, but I have experienced consideration in Committee in another place, where I have listened to Ministers at the Dispatch Box saying in a silken-tongued way that this would never be used and that that was merely to keep for a rainy day when some unforeseen circumstance that might not have been thought of could just occur. I remember listening to Lord Sewel saying all of that in relation to section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. We have now had, I think, 55 motions using that section—a backstop power that nobody could envisage using except very occasionally, but which has become a regular feature of the parliamentary process. While I do not think that this will necessarily become a similar section, it has all the hallmarks of something that could be used in such a way. If a power needs to be in the Bill and is not, and the other powers cannot be dealt with by proper parliamentary scrutiny, my first choice would be to see the clause struck out. If not, then my hon. Friends and I will vote for the Conservative amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 12, in

page 4, line 36, leave out 'any Act or'.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question put: That the amendment by made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 7.

Clause 9 - Removal of certain vehicles by traffic officers

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I beg to move amendment No. 156, in

page 5, line 7, at end add—

'(2A) No regulation made under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall require the payment of a fee by the registered keeper of a vehicle when that vehicle has been moved or disabled as a result of any unlawful act by another person.'.

Nigel Beard (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 157, in

page 5, line 7, at end add—

'(2A) When exercising any powers made under provisions referred to in subsection (1), and before arranging for the removal of a broken-down vehicle, a traffic officer shall grant the driver of the vehicle, where present, a reasonable opportunity to contact a breakdown organisation of their choice and if that organisation confirms to the traffic officer that it will attend the broken-down

vehicle as soon as practicable, then the traffic officer shall allow that organisation a reasonable period in which to attend the aforesaid vehicle.'.

Amendment No. 158, in

page 5, line 7, at end add—

'(2A) Any fee or charge set for the removal of any vehicle under this section shall be reasonable and in line with similar charges applicable in the open market.'.

New clause 20A—Traffic Management Forum—

'(1) The appropriate national authority shall create a Traffic Management Forum.

(2) Membership of the Traffic Management Forum shall comprise representatives from the Department for Transport, the Highways Agency, the Local Government Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers, accredited recovery organisations and such other bodies or persons as the appropriate national authority considers suitable.

(3) The Traffic Management Forum shall prepare a Code of Practice (the Code) to be observed by traffic officers, by accredited recovery organisations and by any organisations providing services equivalent to those provided by accredited recovery organisations (collectively known as rescue and recovery organisations).

(4) The Code shall include guidance on—

(a) the exercise by traffic officers of powers under sections 99 to 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to remove broken down vehicles;

(b) procedures to be adopted by traffic officers and by rescue and recovery organisations in order to achieve the purposes identified in section 5(3); and

(c) any further and consequential matters that relate to the existence provided by rescue and recovery organisations in the performance by traffic officers of their duties under this Act.

(5) The Traffic Management Forum may from time to time prepare a revised version of the Code.

(6) Before preparing or revising the Code, the Traffic Management Forum shall consult such bodies or persons as it considers appropriate.

(7) After preparing the Code or a revised version of the Code the Traffic Management Forum shall send a copy to the appropriate national authority.

(8) If the appropriate national authority approves it, the Code shall be laid before each House of Parliament and the Code, and any revised version of the Code, shall not come into force until it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(9) The appropriate national authority shall not issue any guidance on the issues detailed in subsection (4) without first consulting the Traffic Management Forum.

(10) For the purposes of this section ''accredited recovery organisations'' shall have the meaning contained in The Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2001.'.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Our debates have been more productive than the exchange that I had in Westminster Hall, so I am delighted to be back in Committee.

The amendment would provide:

''No regulation made under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 shall require the payment of a fee by the registered keeper of a vehicle when that vehicle has been moved or disabled as a result of any unlawful act by another person.''

One might have thought that that was common sense and the way of the world. Apparently, however, it is not. Increasingly, the victims of crime are being charged for the privilege of collecting their vehicles from where a criminal has placed them. A recent topical example was drawn to my attention by one of my constituents who runs an archetypal small business called Perfect Pizza. One of his delivery mopeds was

stolen. On the following day, he was told that the moped had been recovered and that he could collect it on payment of £105 to the Portsmouth depot of Boarhunt Garages Ltd. Thereafter, daily charges of £12 would accrue until it was collected. After my constituent had reported it stolen, it was found less than 400 yd from his business. It had been removed on the instructions of the police so that their scene-of-crime officers could carry out forensic tests. It was then taken to Boarhunt Garages.

This is a Government who say that they are in favour of ensuring that the victims of crime get a fair deal. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, thereby demonstrating that, in this narrow area at least, he is prepared to accept that that principle should rule. Surely it is intolerable that such a financial penalty should be imposed on the owner of a small business when he is the victim of crime and the vehicle is taken away at the behest of the police in order to help to identify the perpetrator? The response of the owner of this small business to the suggestion, ''Don't worry, you can claim it on your insurance,'' was, ''Claim it on my insurance? That means that ultimately I and other people who have insured cars and vehicles will end up paying the bill.'' That is why he is a very successful businessman: he applies those principles across the board rather than believing that claiming on his insurance is a nil-cost option.

Amendment No. 157 relates to a slightly different issue, but it addresses the concerns of the RAC recovery services, the Automobile Association and Green Flag that the Bill as drafted will give power to the Highways Agency effectively to double charge their members. This concern was expressed on Second Reading. Discussions and correspondence with the Minister and his officials have not yet allayed the concerns of the roadside recovery industry. Hence, amendment No. 157—I will not read it out in full, but I hope the Minister will agree that it will effectively encapsulate in writing what he has been saying all along, namely that the roadside recovery services have nothing to fear from the wide terms of clause 9. If they have nothing to fear, he can satisfy them, by accepting amendment No. 157.

Amendment No. 158 addresses the issue of the standard charge. It would provide that any fee or charge set for the removal of a vehicle under this section of the Bill will be reasonable and in line with similar charges applicable in the open market. At present, there is a standard charge of £105, which has been in place since the late 1980s. The charge is the same, whether the vehicle has to be moved many miles or only a short distance, and irrespective of how far the rescue vehicle has had to travel. Without this provision is would be open to the Highways Agency to start setting fees so that it made a substantial profit on the recovery of vehicles, and thereby to impose a further stealth tax.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Ah, a stealth tax.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister is sensitive to the subject of stealth taxes, and so he should be, because his Department is in the forefront of imposing stealth taxes upon the motoring public. The example of the

moped that I used in my remarks on amendment No. 156 is an example of where £105, to take a moped to a depot three miles away, is clearly extortionate. I do not think that there should have been any charge, but amendment No. 158 would ensure that where there were charges they would be proportionate and reasonable.

New clause 20A will be spoken to by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. It establishes a traffic-management forum. Conservatives are supportive of this, but that cannot be a substitute for the very specific amendments that I have outlined.

Brian White (Labour, North East Milton Keynes)

I shall speak briefly to new clause 20A. The hon. Member for Christchurch has outlined a number of fears about road safety, and these were articulated on Second Reading. I should declare that I am a member of CSMA/Britannia Rescue, just for the avoidance of doubt. New clause 20A is about another way of trying to address road safety concerns, by informally bringing together those involved in the roadside recovery companies with the Highways Agency. Will the Minister address their concerns? We can bring these companies together in a way that allows them to have their fears allayed and ensures that, as changes happen, there is a form of consultation. That was the purpose of new clause 20A—to try to get the Minister to look at that side of things.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch on his restraint. He managed a whole four and a half hours in Committee before he mentioned the words ''stealth tax'', but in the end he blurted it out. I am sure that we will hear more about the stealth tax.

These are serious amendments that deserve serious attention, like many of the other amendments. The proposed qualification in amendment No. 156 is not contained in existing statutory powers to charge for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles. The existing powers are contained in section 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Removal, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles (Prescribed Sums and Charges, etc.) Regulations 1989. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was the Minister at the time.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I was not.

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

It must have been just after that time. However, those powers were, of course, brought in at the time of the Government the hon. Gentleman supported, and he was a Member of Parliament then and might have even voted for them. The existing powers to charge relate to the police, county councils and metropolitan district councils. The regime works well. The primary burden of responsibility for a vehicle rests with its registered keeper. That applies with all road traffic offences, including the abandonment of a vehicle, which is a major problem, particularly in urban areas. It is for the keeper to insure against any costs or liabilities associated with their vehicle, and to take due care of it.

The amendment would transfer costs from vehicle keepers to the public sector. One could call it a stealth tax. For example, the taxpayer would carry the burden of cost in cases in which vehicles are abandoned but the culprits are not identified or convicted. Shifting that burden to the taxpayer is unacceptable. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Christchurch thinks that the taxpayer should pay, so that people can fecklessly abandon their vehicles, which they do. It would prove to be a major loophole for those who seek to avoid the cost of disposing of their vehicles in a proper manner. We only have to look in our constituencies or at the roads coming in to London to see that there are plenty such vehicles around. They place a cost on the public sector, which we should retrieve from vehicle keepers where possible.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

The Minister addressed amendment No. 156 as though it refers to all abandoned and dumped vehicles, but I was referring to stolen vehicles. Does he say that if items of our property are stolen and then recovered by the police, the police should be able to charge us for their storage in police custody and impose a penalty fee for their recovery? How is that consistent with the additional penalties that the Government propose to impose on the perpetrators of crime?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

I feel some sympathy for people whose vehicles are stolen, and who retrieve them only to find that they have been damaged or destroyed. That is why we insure our vehicles, but circumstances when such things happen are not happy ones. Nevertheless, it is for vehicle keepers to take care of and insure their vehicle; it is not proper that that burden should fall on the public.

If the public purse were to fork out in all cases of abandoned or stolen vehicles, how many more vehicles would be ''stolen''? The way to get rid of one's car would be to park it in a road and report it stolen. The public purse would then pay for it to be taken away at no small cost. The cost of removing abandoned vehicles is substantial. We are reviewing motor insurance, and I have sympathy for people who find themselves in such circumstances, but it is not right to place the burden on the taxpayer. That would encourage more and more people fecklessly to abandon their vehicles.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

In the spirit of compromise, will the Minister consider an amendment limited to cases in which the police move a vehicle in order to carry out scientific tests on it for the detection of crime?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

If the hon. Gentleman tables further amendments during the Bill's later stages, the Government will, of course, examine them carefully.

I move on to amendment No. 157. Broken down, damaged and abandoned vehicles are a safety hazard, particularly on motorways and high-speed roads. It is essential to the safety of their occupants and other road users that such vehicles are moved quickly. Hard shoulders of motorways and verges on dual carriageways are dangerous places. There are far too many fatalities and serious accidents involving

stranded vehicles, which is why people are advised to leave their vehicles and move away from the hard shoulder in such circumstances. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 sets out a framework that allows the police to remove vehicles in those circumstances. The framework generally works well, and the regulations made under sections 99 to 102 set out the circumstances and charges that apply for removal and disposal of vehicles. The Bill will extend those powers to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales, operating through traffic officers, and will enable the correction of minor anomalies involving the disposal of vehicles after removal.

The RAC and other recovery organisations are concerned, as was said on Second Reading, that the Highways Agency might either set up its own recovery service in competition, or remove broken down vehicles in an aggressive or restrictive way, which would damage recovery organisations' ability to provide a service for their members. I reaffirm the assurance given on Second Reading that that is not our intention. Breakdown organisations, which do a good job on our roads and make a valued contribution to safety, will be able to attend to members who break down on motorways and trunk roads as they currently do. The Highways Agency will seek to work with the breakdown industry to improve further the way in which such breakdowns are dealt with.

Broken down vehicles represent a safety hazard, as statistics sadly demonstrate, and they cause congestion. It is vital that traffic officers are able to remove a stationary vehicle. The amendments would constrain the ability of a traffic officer, who will have become experienced in assessing such situations, by granting new rights to drivers and breakdown organisations. That could result in the dangerous situation wherein the removal of a broken down vehicle from a hazardous location was delayed while discussions were held about how long it would take the breakdown organisation, or a friend or relative of the driver, to attend. That would be unacceptable for all concerned.

I fully understand the concerns of recovery organisations and their members not to be subjected to over-zealous removal by the authorities, but that is not what we want to happen. The best recovery organisations, of which there are several, provide an excellent service for their members, and we want that to continue.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Is there any current contract in which a charge is made for the removal of vehicles?

David Jamieson (Labour, Plymouth, Devonport)

Yes. The police have standing contracts with breakdown organisations to remove vehicles in their areas. In some cases, the person in the car is charged for that service. The police do not take that on lightly; they do not want to do it regularly. However, there are extreme cases, such as, for example the case when someone is not a member of one of the national organisations. I was involved in a case in which the national organisation was so bogged down with severe weather one evening that a breakdown organisation was called in to tow vehicles out of a flooded road. It was just by chance that the organisation was present to pull vehicles out of the

flood and a charge was made, including to me because my car was one of those involved.

There will be cases in which traffic officers will have to act to remove a vehicle in the interests of safety or because it is causing unacceptable congestion. It would be bizarre to compromise safety by requiring the traffic officer to hold a discussion with the driver before taking action.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Is the Minister thereby guaranteeing that traffic officers will not discount the option of using a roadside recovery operation, except in cases where it compromises safety or unreasonably impedes traffic flow?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.