Clause 2 - Designation of Traffic Officers
Traffic Management Bill
11:00 am
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
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.