Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 176, in

page 8, line 32, leave out 'considers' and insert

'has reasonable grounds to believe'.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

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

No. 177, in

page 8, line 39, after 'period', insert 'not exceeding three months'.

No. 178, in

page 9, line 5, after 'authority', insert 'reasonably'.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

Should I call Mr. Chope?

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

We try to parcel out the responsibility.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

I should look to see who wants to speak.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

Whether you were in the Chair or not, Miss Begg, I do not know, but it has been pointed out that the official Opposition team contains three very eminent people and a Whip. You will get the idea of what we are doing.

Turning to amendments Nos. 176 and 178, the Minister will have a sense of déjà vu because these are things that I regularly talk about. Clause 20(1) reads:

''If the appropriate national authority considers that a local traffic authority may be failing properly to perform any of their duties'',

it can do various things. I do not like the idea that an ''appropriate national authority'', late on a Thursday or a Friday afternoon, can, on a whim, decide that it will do something. It should have good reason to do it.

I should prefer the provision to include the wording ''reasonable grounds to believe'', rather than simply ''considers''. That authority could ''consider'' for all sorts of reasons, be they bad or not, or no reason at all. I have used that argument regularly, and I have heard the Minister's answer regularly. He did not persuade me last time, and I predict that he is unlikely to do so now.

Amendment No. 176 makes that point, and amendment No. 178 to clause 20(4) would mean that any national authority ''reasonably considers'' information specified in the notice, rather than just ''considers''. Otherwise, I envisage a situation in which someone simply says something—on a fishing expedition for information that they fancy obtaining—that is neither sensible nor reasonable. Under the amendments, such a statement would have to be reasonably connected with the purpose of the clause. The other amendment in the group is No. 177, to which I spoke earlier.

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

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, I shall leave amendment No. 177 to one side. In the five minutes since we last discussed it, we have not convinced each other, and we are unlikely to do so now. On amendments Nos. 176 and 178, I would agree with him, were it not for clause 18. We shall be issuing guidance on the network duty and the criteria for intervention, which will outline completely what is and is not worthy of consideration by the authorities. It will not be a case of someone, late on a Thursday night, receiving a bad phone call from another person and thinking, ''I know, we'll go and intervene in Dorset, just to get my own back and to make me feel better.''

Clear guidance has been set down on what the national authorities can appropriately consider the local traffic authority to be failing properly to perform. I hope to show, when the guidance emerges and we discuss later clauses, that we see intervention as a last resort. We envisage a series of discussions, and perhaps mentoring by other highway authorities that are in a far better position to recapture the failing nature of the highway authority, as well as a series of other measures, some in guidance and some that will be agreed by local government.

Everything possible will have been done before intervention is considered against guidance criteria. The word ''reasonably'' would be otiose because, in law at least, all public authorities act reasonably, although our experiences may beg to differ. If they do not, scope and redress are laid out clearly in broader administration and case law. We do not need ''reasonable'', but the reasonability and the detailed criteria against which to measure the success or failure of the network management duty will be clearly laid out in guidance. It will not be as arbitrary as the hon. Gentleman suggests, although I fully understand his reasons.

Of themselves and on their own, and with nothing standing behind them, I might have a degree of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says about those amendments and how he wants to change the nature of the provisions. However, with the guidance and the regulations outlined in the document that I

gave to the Committee this morning, as well as what we think will be the network management duty prior to our discussion with all interested parties and the criteria for intervention all underpinning the clause, I suggest that the language offered by the hon. Gentleman is unnecessary. I ask him to withdraw the amendment. As for amendment No. 177, we have been there, done that—I just say ''ditto''.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I have the wonderful feeling, because of what the Minister said, that I am within an inch of winning the argument. If I understood correctly, he said that if it were not for clause 18, he would have some sympathy for the amendment. I take that to mean that he would hold his nose while agreeing with me. That suggests to me that if there were a reference to clause 18, he would be right, and I would agree with him. However, it seems that what I suggest for clause 20—that the appropriate national authority acts if it has ''reasonable grounds to believe''—is a way of doing things that the Minister does not like.

I think that the Minister said that the appropriate wording would be ''if the appropriate national authority, having regard to the guidance contained in clause 18, considers''. I think that that is what he said, but he added that that was unnecessary because of clause 18. We need a reference to clause 18, because reference is made to clauses 16 and 17. That is why I feel so close, and I do not want to spoil it.

In the circumstances, I am prepared to accept the Minister's choice of words in order to establish the point on which he and I agree. I shall be happy to withdraw, in the hope—perhaps he will confirm it—that he will come back with an amendment on Report to pick up on the point about which we both agree.

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative)

I am prompted to rise because I think that my hon. Friend is on to an even more important point than I realised at the beginning of this extraordinarily interesting debate, and we need to see it through.

There could occasionally be political disagreement between the national and local authorities—it has been known in this wicked world—and we need to protect both sides from politics. We need to legislate for all the nation in a non-partisan spirit, so that the legislation works. That means that the national authority should be able to intervene only for the good reasons set out in the legislation. It should not be able to intervene on any other basis, such as, for example, because it disagreed with the mix of objectives and policies that a particular local authority was following, even though they were entirely reasonable in relation to the electoral balance of that area.

If anything, my hon. Friend has underdone his case with the words that he has chosen. However, the Minister should think again, because the Bill offers no protection at the moment, and we need to protect duly elected councils from politically motivated intervention by the national authority, which I am sure is not the intention.

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

I understand that point; again, however, it is not necessary. We may be close, but I

am going disappoint the hon. Gentleman: with the best will in the world, I shall not come back with anything on Report. Clause 20 clearly refers to the power to intervene if a local traffic authority fails properly to perform any of its duties under sections 16 and 17. Those two clauses are all about the duty and the arrangements for network management.

Clause 18(1) states:

''The appropriate national authority may publish guidance to local traffic authorities about the techniques of network management or any other matter relating to the performance of the duties imposed by sections 16 and 17.''

The reference to clauses 16 and 17 in clauses 18 and 20 means that the thing is double locked, so we do not need to refer to clause 18 in clause 20. It is there by virtue of the reference to the principal clauses 16 and 17. Without my going into the issue of public administration and the capricious application of national laws, there are any number of ways to achieve the balance, or, as some would have it, the wicked ways, that are well beyond the scope of this Bill and this Committee in terms of a difference between the national and local perspectives, the national guidance and the clause being imposed, on a local authority of a different hue. During the lifetime of this Government—I cannot remember much about the last Government, who used to abolish things without intervening on them—I do not think that any scrutiny of how we have intervened, regardless of the success or otherwise, has been marred by some skewed partisan choice. I suspect that the record will show that the Labour Government has imposed and intervened on Labour local authorities at least as much as on Liberal Democrat or Conservative authorities.

With the triple lock between the reference to clauses 16 and 17 and their backing, the points that the hon. Gentleman made are clearly covered, for the reasons I outlined earlier. That is I why I ask him to withdraw his amendment and not to hold his breath waiting for me to come back with something on Report, because he will be bluer than he is now if he holds his breath too long—blue in the political sense.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I am impressed by that, although it was not quite as impressive as the praise from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, which is praise indeed. I subscribe to the Texas principle of politics, particularly when it comes to tabling amendments, which is that if enough holes are drilled in Texas, oil comes out of one of them. Every so often I come up with a gem, and my right hon. Friend has identified one this afternoon, for which I am grateful.

I do not intend to hold my breath. The Minister has realised that he has not persuaded me. It is always easy for an incoming Conservative Government—as we will be—to abolish things, because the current Government sets up so many silly things with so many targets to abolish. We look forward to doing that. Nevertheless, the Minister has told me what I have to do between now and Report stage. If he is not going to come forward with the words he prefers, I will. In order that I may go away and draft something different, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I should like to ask the Minister a question. This is the first in a series of clauses dealing with the enforcement of network management duties. Does he envisage those duties giving rise to third party rights to enforce or seek remedies for their breach? Does he think that this duty will stand alongside the duties under the Highways Act 1980, which are often the subject of civil action by those who have suffered as a result of a failure by local authorities to maintain the highway?

I wanted to debate the clause because I want to put on the record our strong opposition to this draconian and unnecessary part of the Bill, which introduces a long-winded process for enforcing network management duties. The Minister has more or less indicated that he intends never to use the powers that we are going to give him and which we will debate at further length on subsequent clauses. If he thinks that he has persuaded us—I do not think he has—he has certainly not persuaded the all-party Local Government Association, which is unanimous in saying that the proposed intervention powers in clauses 20 to 31 could have serious implications for the independence and local accountability of local traffic authorities. The LGA is concerned that those proposals contradict the Government's previously stated commitment to facilitate local freedoms and flexibilities for local government, and it would like the clauses to be withdrawn. I hope that the Minister will, on reflection and in due course, seek to withdraw them, because at the moment they create an unnecessary atmosphere of distrust, when we should be promoting an atmosphere of trust between the Government, Parliament as the legislature, and those who have important responsibilities for keeping our road network working.

The Local Government Association says that it has agreed a protocol with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on how central Government interventions in council activities should work. Apparently, the Minister believes that the proposed intervention powers would meet the spirit of that protocol, but that is certainly not the LGA's view. It says, and I agree, that the intervention powers are unnecessary and will do a lot of damage to what is otherwise a reasonable Bill in many respects.

This part of the Bill is a throwback to the tsar system that the Government are so beloved of. The traffic director will apparently have two different modes: a monitoring and intervening mode and a direct control mode. I am delighted to see a Chief Whip—

Ms Gillian Merron (Assistant Whip (funded by HM Treasury); Lincoln, Labour)

Not Chief!

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

A Whip, who knows a lot about direct control and, who I am sure, will be impressed by the thorough examination being given.

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative)

Perhaps my hon. Friend should remember that the current Chief Whip won this week, but the position could be little different on Report. My hon. Friend may be a few weeks early.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

My right hon. Friend is quite right. I was anticipating what has not yet happened. That reminds me of what happened under the community charge legislation when the most difficult time for the then Government was not Second Reading but Report, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right to remind the Government Whip of that.

We are discussing the creation of a new traffic tsar, which prompts me to ask the Minister what happened to the last transport tsar, Lord Birt? His name is in our minds today as a former director-general of the BBC—perhaps he will be brought back a chairman of the BBC. Does he still have a job as transport tsar, and where will he fit in? Will he be superior or subservient to the traffic director, or will he be the same person?

This part of the Bill introduces serious intervention powers for the Government. Having had the privilege of being a Minister dealing with local authorities, I do not think that it has ever proved sensible for Government to try to intervene directly in the responsibilities of local authorities. Even during the days of Hatton in Liverpool and Bookbinder in Derbyshire, Conservative Governments held back from using such powers as they had to intervene directly. The caution that we exercised was sensible, and I certainly believe that the proposals in the Bill will never be used and are therefore redundant.

Why does the Minister believes that the new powers are necessary when section 59 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 already provides a power of intervention by the national authority with respect to any serious failure to co-ordinate street works. I understand that that power has never been used. Does he envisage that the powers in clauses 20 to 31 will similarly never be used, although they will take up quite a lot of debating time in this House and in the other place.

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

The point made about the intervention powers was well made, and I have serious reservations about whether the Government need to reserve to themselves that level of powers.

I have a slightly different approach, which I hope we will discuss when we come to the amendments on the next clause, and I shall reserve my arguments until then, but I would certainly support the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) if he pressed his amendment to a vote.

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

I said from a sedentary position, for which I apologise, that if the hon. Member for Christchurch thought that Third Reading was the difficult part of the poll tax legislation—

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

Report stage.

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

I meant Report stage. I merely said that the 1997 election, rather than Report stage, was its final denouement.

On the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, the answer to the first one, if he can remember it, is no. It was about third parties and specifically the relationship between a local authority and the national authority. There is no locus at all for third party rights in that relationship and that is not envisaged.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Highways Act 1980, but specific actions brought by individuals about the specific state of specific sites in terms of the highways network are totally outside the scope of this part of the Bill.

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative)

How does the clause, with its very strong powers for central intervention and control, square with the Government's recently stated policy of more devolution, more power and more independence for local authorities?

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

As that was the only matter of substance raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch, I was about to come to it.

The general duty of street authorities to co-ordinate works in section 59 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 specifically concerns the execution of work of all kinds in the streets for which an authority is responsible. It does not concern the far wider network management duty that we have put in the Bill, which goes far beyond that specific duty concerning street works. It is not a replication of section 59 of the 1991 Act, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. It includes street works, but goes way beyond that in terms of traffic flow and overall management.

The intervention process is certainly within the context of the protocol suggested by the Local Government Association and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We have stated clearly that when it comes to the network management duty and all the regulations and guidance associated with the whole of part 2, on which I produced a little note, the LGA will be at the table and discussing fully not only the guidance alluded to in clause 18 on definitions and measurement of the duty, but also the criteria for making intervention orders in clause 27. The LGA will be sitting down with us, as will other parties, to determine what the criteria will be for intervention.

As I said this morning, this is not about a Stalinist sledgehammer to crack a nut in Christchurch or anywhere else. It is simply about getting to the stage where intervention powers can be utilised, as a last resort, but in the spirit of the protocol. As I said barely half an hour ago, subsequent discussions with the LGA in terms of guidance and regulations, will be a real participative process. I freely admit that we want to get to the stage where the power is never used. That does not mean that it is redundant. There may well be recalcitrant local authorities who, no matter what is done in invoking LGA colleagues to mentor them, or having officials from the Department work closely and informally with them, or whatever, resist getting to the stage at which the network management duty is fulfilled, and there would, ultimately, have to be intervention. I can cheerfully say—this is not a contradictory statement—that, as a Minister, I want the clause and the powers to be in the Bill, but I hope

that they are never used. I would consider its use to be a failure on our part as well as on that of the local authority.

That sort of grown-up, mature relationship between central and local government is rapidly being restored by the Government, and that is long, long overdue. I have never heard such a travesty as the notion that somehow all was milk and honey under the Conservative Government and that we are now the vicious slayers of local government. Rather than intervene if they did not like something, they abolished it. That is slightly more draconian than what we are suggesting. There will be input at every stage in terms of the LGA.

I do not know where the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) got the notion of a traffic tsar. A traffic director put in, in the last instance, will be very localised and will deal with localised problems in a highway authority area. It is a good line to suggest that that is a tsar or, if that is too politically incorrect for him, a tsarina, but that is not the case. The appointment of a traffic director is part and parcel of that intervention. The director will work with the local authority to turn round whatever difficulties it has with the network management duty and get out as quickly as possible. This is not the hoary old method of the Audit Commission sending a whole team in to take over a local authority, as happened back in the 1970s and 1980s. The process is participatory, with an end game to the intervention, if it proves necessary.

I hope, in all seriousness, that that will not be necessary. It is well within our policy of flexibility, fairness and working with, rather than doing things to, local government. I urge my hon. Friends to support the clause.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.