| Traffic Management Bill
|
|
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in
No. 13, in
'(3A) An order made under this section may not amend any Act'.
John Thurso: 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.
4.30 pmMr. Knight: 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 Column Number: 063 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. Mr. Redwood: 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: 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 Column Number: 064 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
reducing anything that can cause congestion,
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. Mr. Redwood: 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: 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. Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman explains what happens with funerals. He should count himself lucky. Column Number: 065 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: 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: 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: 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. Mr. Marsden: 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.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 27 January 2004 |
