|
Clause 22
Appointment of traffic director: supplementary
John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 183, in
John Thurso: This is a relatively small point, which need not detain the Committee long. The amendment
Column Number: 142
would make this a sunset clause. Put simply, once an order had been made, it would have to be revisited no later than every six months to ensure that it was still required. The Minister partly answered the point in his comments about guidance, and I suspect that he will reply in broadly the same terms now. However, I would be interested to know why it would be inappropriate for the order to be reconsidered in a positive way every six months, rather than simply being left to lie.
Mr. Wilshire: This is a complete rerun of an earlier debate, so perhaps the Committee can take it as read that I repeat everything that I said then.
Mr. McNulty: As regards amendment No. 183, perhaps the Committee could also take it as read that I repeat what I said earlier. Let me add, however, that I would be horrified if any traffic director was in place for a year, let alone five years.
That touches on amendment No. 107. As I said earlier, we envisage intervention orders outlining the particulars, objectives, general powers and exit strategy for the intervention. The process might take a month, but if it took six months and two weeks, the amendment would require the entire rigmarole set out in clauses 20 and 21 to be gone through again.
Intervention is meant to be sharply focused, with clear time limits and exit strategies, so that local authorities can, as we all want them to, carry out their network management duty by themselves, on their own terms and in their own fashion, with no intervention from central Government. I do not see what would be achieved by going through the whole process set out in clauses 20 and 21 every six months. That would go against the grain of quick, light-touch intervention.
John Thurso: Perhaps I can help the Minister. I think that he said that each order would specify the duration of the intervention. If so, I happily agree that the amendment is otiose, and we need discuss it no further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 4.
Division No. 17]
AYES
Borrow, Mr. David
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Merron, Gillian
White, Brian
Wright, David
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Redwood, Mr. John
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Monitoring and reporting
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
Column Number: 143
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.
Division No. 18]
AYES
Borrow, Mr. David
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Merron, Gillian
Miller, Mr. Andrew
White, Brian
Wright, David
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Redwood, Mr. John
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Intervention in activities of
local traffic authority
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.
Division No. 19]
AYES
Borrow, Mr. David
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Merron, Gillian
Miller, Mr. Andrew
White, Brian
Wright, David
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Redwood, Mr. John
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Exercise of local traffic authority functions
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.
Division No. 20]
AYES
Borrow, Mr. David
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Merron, Gillian
Miller, Mr. Andrew
White, Brian
Wright, David
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Redwood, Mr. John
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Application of sections 20 to 25 to local traffic authorities exercising functions jointly
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 4.
Division No. 21]
AYES
Borrow, Mr. David
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Merron, Gillian
Miller, Mr. Andrew
White, Brian
Wright, David
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Redwood, Mr. John
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
Column Number: 144
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Criteria for making intervention orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 18—Consultation—
'Prior to the issuing of intervention notices or orders, the Secretary of State shall consult with such organisations as he considers appropriate over the content and timing of such orders and notices and over the criteria against which the performance of a local authority may be assessed.'.
Mr. Chope: Why will the Minister not produce his performance indicators sooner than the time that he told us, the end of the year? He must recognise that the performance of many highway and traffic authorities is far below the standard that we would wish; surely something can be done sooner than the end of the year to chivvy that along. I do not want to go back over the debate about a particular local authority, namely Northamptonshire, but I ask the Minister whether he is content to allow that authority to carry on as it is until the performance indicators are produced. If the Government are serious about reducing congestion and improving traffic flows, they should introduce their performance indicators sooner than the end of the year.
4.15 pm
Mr. McNulty: We are not publishing that approach until the end of the year at the latest because we want the current performance criteria to be as robust as possible. That involves a great deal of input not only from the Committee, but more importantly from a range of stakeholders, not least the Local Government Association and other local government organisations. We regard that input as vital given that they will be the recipients of any measures that follow failure of such performance criteria.
It is touching that the hon. Gentleman has such an almost childlike, magical view of legislation, as though there will be no network or traffic management until the Bill is passed, but the world is not like that. A number of things are going on in local government and in Government to improve matters, not least, as I have alluded to before, work on local transport plans. Those plans are being assessed against performance, and this year, thanks to the £1.9 billion of funding that I announced just before Christmas, significantly more elements of performance measurement, reward for good performance and improvement are being dealt with.
A host of other interventions—some public, some private—are going on as we speak in highway authorities throughout the country. It is right to discuss the broad criteria in greater detail in order to come up with criteria for performance assessment that local government agrees to from the beginning, rather than simply imposing them from the centre, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like.
Column Number: 145
Brian White: A number of organisations, such as the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety, will have a view on some of the detailed guidance. Will the Minister ensure that their views are actually input into his discussions?
Mr. McNulty: As I will be party to those matters as they unfold, I shall undertake to meet PACT and any other group to hear their views, above and beyond how we have heard their views thus far through people putting their views to us in debate or by means of amendments, in order to take those matters further. I would not just do that in the context of the network management duty or other elements of the Bill, but in the context of my role as the local transport Minister. I would be more than happy to do that. That is not a universal invitation to every single organisation that might have the word transport in its name, or in brackets after its name, but I will happily talk to serious organisations with serious considerations, such as PACT, in relation to the Bill, or their wider concerns.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4
Division No. 22]
AYES
Bayley, Hugh
Borrow, Mr. David
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Merron, Gillian
Miller, Mr. Andrew
White, Brian
Wright, David
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Redwood, Mr. John
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Guidance to traffic directors
John Thurso: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in
John Thurso: I shall not detain the Committee for long on the amendment, which reflects a debate we have had several times over on the need to consider safety at various levels. I am not sure I want to add anything to the debate, and I am fairly sure that the Minister has nothing to add. I see that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is nodding in agreement with that.
|
