|
Mr. McNulty: This is a fascinating debate. I missed it when we debated the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, because although the issue of Crown immunity emerged in the end, that was after my departure as a Minister for planning. I will not take revenge for that and have the debate now, although perhaps it needs to be had at some stage. What is in the Bill reflects section 167(5) of the New Roads and
Column Number: 168
Street Works Act 1991. For consistency, we wanted clause 37(2) to be identical to that. I will not go into the whole story of why the Bill should reflect the 1991 Act, save to say that, until the debate about Crown immunity and Crown employee immunity has been had in far wider forums than the Committee of the Traffic Management Bill—I will happily participate in that debate—it is appropriate that the Crown definitions in the 1991 Act carry on in the Bill. I will resist the urge to go into the Crown immunity debate at this time on this measure.
Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister. I expected that reply: it is the only sensible one to give, because the issue is much wider than that raised by the Bill. That said, I am glad that I had an opportunity to flag it up. I should make it clear that, when I raise these matters, I am expressing a personal opinion, not speaking on behalf of my party.
Gillian Merron: Oh!
Mr. Wilshire: I say that only in case I am accused at some stage of producing a party policy on something that I think requires a general debate in which all of us, irrespective of the party to which we belong, could usefully participate. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Interpretation of Part 3
Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in
Although this may be the last amendment to be considered this afternoon and under this part of the Bill, it is important, and I give my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne all the credit for raising the point. He identified the fact that, under this part, there will be a power to create new criminal offences that will never be required to be subject to a debate in relation to an affirmative resolution in this House and the other place.
The Minister conceded that, although some offences will be replicas of what is already on the statute book, there will be some new ones. That is bad enough, but if we look at the regulatory impact assessment, we see that the Government themselves recognise that at the moment it is by no means certain that the benefits of that will outweigh the costs. They have promised that a fuller RIA will be produced when the regulations are prepared. At that stage, following consultation with highway authorities and utility companies about the range of options available and the risks associated with those options, the Government will offer more detailed information about the anticipated impact of their proposals and, in particular, about the balance of costs and benefits.
Parliament still has a big job to do to scrutinise the outcome of that and, when the further RIA is
Column Number: 169
produced, to say whether it agrees that the benefits outweigh the costs to such an extent that the regulations should be passed. That is why it is important that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This measure deals not only with the liberty of the subject, given the new criminal offences; significant sums of money may be involved for individual businesses, and there is the potential for an extremely adverse effect on the British economy. Surely those issues are important enough to be debated in the context of a statutory instrument subject to an affirmative resolution, rather than as currently proposed.
Mr. McNulty: I am tempted to be flippant and say, ''You say potayto, I say po-ta-to,'' when it comes to the negative and affirmative procedures. The hon. Gentleman would have a point if the regulations had been drawn up in a little room under a cupboard at the Department for Transport that no one knew of until people came blinking into the sunlight once they were done and dumped them in the Vote Office. If someone observed the regulations on an Order Paper they might pray against them and notice that they were fairly substantial.
The regulations will arrive in the following context, however. We have established a working party to consider their formal content and the accompanying guidance document on a permanent scheme. We will be consulting widely on both documents with local authorities, utilities and other organisations that might be affected by, or have sufficient interest in, the new arrangements. Following consultation, we will revise the documents as necessary before they are laid before Parliament under the negative procedure, against which anyone can pray so that we might have the debate that the hon. Gentleman wants. I would hope
Column Number: 170
that after all that consultation there will be nothing but acclaim for the negative order, and that the authorities, the utilities and everyone else will simply be able to get on with their business.
If the regulations had dropped from the sky or had come from the DFT with no consultation or wider input, I might have had some sympathy and have gone for an affirmative resolution, but potayto, po-ta-to, tomayto, to-ma-to—I say negative, you say positive. I hope that with the indulgence of my colleagues it will be negatived. I want a proper consultation process to ensure that the end product is all the richer. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, allow the clause to stand part of the Bill and go home.
Mr. Chope: I think that I will test the affirmatives and the negatives.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 6.
Division No. 29]
AYES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
NOES
Bayley, Hugh
Borrow, Mr. David
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Merron, Gillian
White, Brian
Wright, David
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]
Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes to six o'clock till Tuesday 3 February at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
Begg, Miss Anne (Chairman)
Bayley, Hugh
Borrow, Mr.
Chope, Mr.
Knight, Mr. Greg
McNulty, Mr.
Mann, John
Merron, Gillian
Miller, Mr.
Redwood, Mr.
Thurso, John
White, Brian
Wilshire, Mr.
Wright, David
|
