| Traffic Management Bill
|
|
Mr. Chope: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 pmMr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in
Column Number: 164 The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 169, in
'but any fee set under this subsection shall represent the administrative cost of running the scheme and any fee above that amount shall be repaid.'.
Mr. Chope: I am sorry if there is any impatience among members of the Committee. However, we owe it to the people with an interest in such issues to consider the points of concern—I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East agrees with me—although it might be more convenient for us to leave now. I want to address amendment No. 169 in particular, which would limit the fee to the administrative cost. The Minister has said that it is not the Government's purpose to allow local authorities to use the fee as a revenue-raising measure. One sure way to prevent that would be to limit the cost of the permits to the administrative cost. That would also alleviate fears, notwithstanding the Minister's expressions otherwise, that some local authorities have it in mind to use a permit scheme to raise revenue. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept amendment No. 169, because it would serve both his purpose and ours. Mr. Wilshire: I am conscious of the time; otherwise, I would try to deliver a lengthy speech about stealth tax; this could easily be such a tax. Mr. McNulty: Go on. Mr. Wilshire: If the Minister wants me to, dawn may rise. Gillian Merron: He does not. Mr. Wilshire: It seems that it might not be necessary on this occasion, in light of what the Minister has said. The Minister, being a reasonable man, has developed a guilty conscience about stealth taxes and has said that the fee is not intended to be one, although there have been 60-odd and will probably be more before we get rid of this Government. We and the public need to be reassured that the fee is not meant to be a stealth tax, because the track record is pretty gruesome. It would be better to accept amendment No. 169 than my amendment, which deletes the whole subsection. That would put it beyond all doubt that the measure is not meant to be a revenue-raising exercise. If the amendment is not accepted, I will enter into a little bet with the Minister that it will not be long before certain authorities—probably those that are Labour-controlled—use the measure as a means of raising revenue. All that will happen is that people who have a good reason to repair things and to dig up the roads will receive a substantial additional cost, which will be passed on to the consumer and the receiver of the service. The last thing that people who already find it difficult to pay electricity, telephone and gas bills want is an extra charge. It will be yet another tax that the Government will try to pretend is not a tax. Mr. McNulty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I think was an implicit withdrawal of amendment No. 37 while we concentrate on amendment No. 169. Column Number: 165 My difficulty with amendment No. 169 is that it is clumsy. I do not know how we would define administrative cost or the point at which such costs were met. I do not know how we would explain to new applicants that it would cost nothing for them because our costs have been met. How would that sit with those who have already paid, and who effectively paid the cost in the first place? I will happily take the hon. Gentleman's bet, without any presumption about securing Royal Assent as we will have to wait and see whether the Bill becomes an Act— Mr. Wilshire: Are there any doubts about that? Mr. McNulty: I do not think so. It is brewing, I am told. We must ensure that there is sufficient ability to charge for the permits to pay for the scheme. However, it is not meant to be, and I do not think that it will be, a revenue-making scam, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The amendment is clumsily written and will not achieve its aim. There would have to be some laborious bureaucracy in place to achieve what the hon. Members for Christchurch and for Spelthorne seek. I tempt fate and ask the hon. Member for Christchurch to withdraw the amendment and, perhaps, come back with something better at another stage if he wants to achieve his aim. Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene, and for what he said about not accepting this wording, but something like it. Can he and I use that offer to get together and try to come up with a draft amendment, which we will table on Report, to meet the real concern that some local authorities might use the permit scheme as a revenue-raising measure? It is always difficult for the Opposition to come up with ideal wording, because the Government can say, ''That is not quite what we had in mind.'' Ideally, the Government would table an amendment on Report, or we could table one with assistance from the Government knowing that it reflected exactly the wording that they wanted. Mr. McNulty: No, that is far from it. I was not unhappy with subsection (5). All I was doing was exhorting both hon. Gentlemen to go away and try again, because this is not a successful attempt to achieve what they wanted. I am sorry to disappoint, them, but in that churlish spirit may I ask the hon. Member for Christchurch not to press amendment No. 169? Mr. Chope: No. We might as well put amendment No. 169 to a Division. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: No. 169, in
'but any fee set under this subsection shall represent the administrative cost of running the scheme and any fee above that amount shall be repaid.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
Column Number: 166 Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 7.
Division No. 28]
AYES
NOES
Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 189, in
Mr. Chope: Amendment No. 189 is about the need for a national permit scheme, which does not mean that everyone buys into it, but means that there should be some basic national parameters. This probing amendment is intended to find out what the Government think about the administrative nightmare that there would be if there were multiple schemes with different permit variations for operators working in different areas and boroughs in cities. Operators might be subject to penalties for inadvertent failures to apply. Will the Minister assure us that there will be standard core elements in any permit scheme—for example, relating to the period within which people have to apply and within which the permit must be dealt with, and the money that has to be paid to obtain the permit? Will he also assure us that the administrative burden and systems for utilities and large organisations, which operate throughout many parts of the country and work with many local authorities, will not be too complicated for what they have to do? It is true that there is an issue about the difference between urban and rural areas. That is surely one reason why we should have permit schemes only in areas that need them rather than different schemes in different areas. This is a plea for a Government response to the argument that we should have one national scheme rather than lots of individual, localised schemes. Mr. McNulty: I accept that there is a balance to be struck. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are differences between urban and rural areas, and we are pursuing the matter in the working group, which consists of representatives of local government, the utilities and others. The greater the standardisation that the group can achieve, the better, but I would like, in the first instance, to leave the matter to those who will operate permit schemes and those who will be on the wrong end of such schemes. Brian White: A number of the small, innovative companies that are coming into the market may not be aware of the working group, but they may need to dig up roads and so on. Will the Minister ensure that where such companies come on line, they are brought into the consultation process? Mr. McNulty: I cannot assure my hon. Friend that they will be part of the working group, but I can assure Column Number: 167 him that we want the broadest possible consultation with those who may be involved in street works or permit schemes. Part of the reason for our success in bringing people on board through the working group is that many people in the field know those innovative companies and can bring them on board. Clearly, however, consultation with those most directly involved will need to be as extensive as possible.Mr. Chope: I hear what the Minister says, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 29 January 2004 |
