Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

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.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

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.

Viscount John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire, Conservative)

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.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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?

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

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.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

Half-past five.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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.

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative)

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.

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

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.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

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.

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

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.