Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Noble Lords will speak standing and the House has agreed that there will be no Divisions in a Grand Committee. Therefore, unless an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.

Before the first amendment is called I have two points to make to the Minister. First, I thank him for arranging meetings with his officials which were extremely useful in explaining some of the complicated matters in the Bill.

Secondly, I hope the Minister will not mind if I take this opportunity to berate him in the most tactful way that I can. In the debate on civil enforcement of traffic contraventions in another place on 16 March, the Minister, Mr Jamieson, said,

"I have concluded that there is merit in putting civil enforcement guidance on a statutory basis. It would give the guidance greater force and make authorities more mindful of its content when carrying out enforcement activities. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will withdraw the new clause on the understanding that we will introduce a suitable amendment in another place, putting guidance to local authorities on civil enforcement of traffic contraventions on a statutory basis".—[Official Report, Commons; 16/3/04; col. 193.]

I notice that the Minister has not tabled such an amendment and I wonder whether he can give an assurance that he will table one while we are dealing with the Bill in Committee.

I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the way in which he introduced this additional point. I have good and bad news for him. The good news is that a government amendment will certainly be tabled to fulfil the commitments that we made in the Commons. The bad news is that there are one or two other government amendments that we are still to table as a result of developments in regard to the Bill which relate to later parts of the Bill. They will be tabled in good time fir proper consideration by the Committee.

Title postponed.

Clause 1 [Traffic' officers: introduction]:

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 5, after "traffic" insert "support"

I would like to support the amendment which would be useful in terms of avoiding confusion. I am sure that the Minister will provide a helpful answer. If he does not, we have the ability to degroup the 50-odd amendments with which it is grouped.

It has not taken long for the nuclear threat to emerge. Degrouping of that magnitude fills the Committee with proper terror and me with a very substantial degree of it. I hope, therefore, that my reply to the amendment and to the others with which it is grouped will be sufficiently helpful to enable the noble Viscount to feel able to withdraw it.

I remind the Committee why we are introducing the traffic officer service. Congestion on our strategic road network already costs the country around £3 billion each year, and traffic is forecast to grow by 25 per cent over the next decade. A quarter of all the congestion is attributable to incidents which also lead to more than 4,000 people being killed or seriously injured annually.

Pressures on the network continue to increase so the imperative for better traffic management is clear. Traffic officers will play a pivotal part in helping the Highways Agency to expand its role as a network operator and take a much more pro-active role in the management of traffic. At the same time it will allow the police to refocus some of their resources so as to concentrate on core activities.

The traffic officer initiative is about improving the motorist's journey on the network, and acting as the "motorist's friend". Here my noble friend may detect an inkling of the fact that I am responding sympathetically to the sentiments behind his proposal. As the motorist's friend, the officer will tackle congestion, remove obstructions and dangers, address safety and help the public to have a safe and reliable journey to their destination.

Traffic officers will focus particularly on managing traffic in the event of collisions and other incidents. They will work alongside the police, other emergency services, maintenance and repair contractors, vehicle removal contractors, and others to clear incidents quickly and to redirect traffic. But they will also be expected to take the lead in dealing with minor incidents, clearing obstructions and implementing traffic management measures to redirect traffic around obstructions. They will also help to improve information for road users on the nature, scale and duration of incidents.

We believe that the name "traffic officer" conveys the right message about the traffic officer's role to the public, striking the right balance between acting as the "motorist's friend"—which is clearly a crucial part of the role—and signifying the authority to take control and issue directions when needed.

The name "traffic officer" is acceptable to all the major stakeholders including Ministers, the Department for Transport, the Highways Agency and the police. It is now recognised in many circles, including both Houses, and is being used in ongoing consultations with external stakeholders. I hear what my noble friend says about reservations in some quarters but we have not received adverse comments on the name during our consultation. "Traffic officer" has the great virtue of brevity and clarity. That is of some importance. Vehicle livery and road signage and notices should be short so that drivers can read them quickly, even when travelling at high speed. On certain occasions the signs will, of course, be under the direction of traffic officers.

The proposed name is, as my noble friend indicated, similar to "community support officer", a service established under the Police Reform Act 2002. But I think my noble friend will recognise that community support officers operate predominantly on foot in town centres and pedestrian environments. Traffic officers will operate in a very different environment indeed. It is not desirable to have a longer rather than a shorter name when messages must be communicated to people, sometimes at high speed and in all weather conditions, day and night. For those very reasons, the traffic signs regulations allow the police to use signs on moving vehicles in a sharp and abbreviated form: for example, "Police—Slow"; "Police—Accident"; "Police—Use hard shoulder"; and "Police—Rejoin main carriageway". Those messages, which are communicating accurate information, are as brief as possible because the police are signalling to moving traffic which is often going at high speed.

We intend to authorise that kind of signage and communication for the traffic officer service. We believe that a far longer name, which noble Lords seek in the amendment, would be disadvantageous while in no way creating a significant advantage.

I understand the point behind my noble friend's amendment, and I recognise the intention to identify the traffic officer as being of support and help to the travelling public. Nevertheless, there are circumstances in which a traffic officer needs authority, and that authority needs to be recognised immediately and appropriately. That is why he should be called by the terms that we have defined.

The Minister has been kind in giving us an explanation of the duties of traffic officers, which has helped to set out what their role will be. When the Bill was debated in another place, the Government accepted an amendment which would bring about a standard uniform for traffic officers. However, having listened to the Minister, it is clear that those officers will be advising, or even telling, the motorist what to do when they are in their vehicles. Have the Government given any thought to what will be written on those vehicles? Clearly they are not police vehicles, but will they have blue lights? Will they carry a sign stating "Traffic Officer"? What will be written on them? When the motorist receives the message at high speed, will it be clear who is giving him that message? Will there be a blue or a yellow light? Will there be something to ensure that they have the necessary authority to carry out the role that noble Lords are suggesting?

It is intended that traffic officers will be designated by having red lights on their vehicles. They are different from the police. They are not police, but of course they have authority to redirect traffic which itself may be moving at considerable speed. Therefore, it is important that that authority is instantly recognised.

I wanted to clarify one point. The Minister pointed out, importantly, that signs on motorways state "Police—Left" or "Police—This or that". If the traffic officer in question is putting out the sign, what will it say? Will it say, "Traffic—Stop" or "Traffic—Diversion", with the first word insinuating that the sign is being placed by a traffic officer rather than a policeman, or will the traffic officer use the word "Police" when using signage to tell motorists what to do?

He will not use the word "Police"; he will use the words "Traffic Officer". That is what he is. Members of the Committee are not looking totally convinced by the quality of my argument at this stage. That may derive from the fact that we are all used to the colloquialism whereby police officers are often referred to as traffic officers when they are in control of police cars on motorways.

We do not see anything wrong with the public associating the traffic officer and his authority with the role of the police guiding traffic. In fact, in that respect the traffic officer is taking over aspects of police work, and that is why we want to use a phrase which is as close as possible to the public's understanding. These officers have areas of authority, but it is equally clear that they must be recognised as different from police, because they do not have direct police powers.

Will the Minister say what efforts the Government will make to educate the motorist about the powers of these new officers? A number of members of the Committee warned on Second Reading against a dilution of the instant recognisability and authority of the police. such as the blue light, and a number of other types of officer, such as community support officers, being seen in uniform. I am not clear about the powers of a community support officer who wants to search an individual. Is the individual obliged to undergo such a search?

We know that these officers will be using a red light. Will motorists have to yield to a vehicle with a red light? We all know, as motorists, that we have to yield to vehicles with a blue light, be they ambulances, fire engines or police cars. If there is a vehicle with a blue light repeatedly flashing, the motorist must pull over. Will that be the case with red lights? How will the motorist know what to do?

While the Minister is answering that, I have a question of my own. I declare an interest as chair of the Local Government Association Transport Executive. My point concerns recognisability and public perception. While it is very clear in the public mind that a motorway is a motorway, and that is one kind of road on which such officers will operate, it is much more difficult in the case of trunk roads. Some of them are under local authority control because of recent detrunking arrangements, and some will remain under the control of the Highways Agency. So it will be perfectly normal to have two very similar roads in one area: one, under Highways Agency control, will have the officers, and the other will not. That may add to confusion in the mind of the public.

May I ask a further question on rear-facing lights which are red? At the moment, as these officers are not police officers, they will not have to be obeyed. My understanding is that some time in the future it is proposed that these so-called traffic officers will have rear-facing blue lights. Legislation will have to be introduced because they are still not police officers.

I think I can give a categoric response to the contribution from my noble friend. There is no intention that they will have blue lights because, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, a blue light, particularly one flashing in one's rear mirror, indicates one proper authority to which we are all used to responding—but not too often, I hope.

Traffic officers will not be involved in pursuit, nor in monitoring traffic which is moving, so there is no question of their light flashing, to motorists' concern, in their rear-view mirror. The traffic officer is there to give warning of problems ahead. They do not have powers of arrest, so they will not go in pursuit of anyone who may contravene traffic regulations in relationship to their work. That is done by police officers and only by police officers.

Traffic officers will exert proper authority around an incident. They will have to be obeyed; they will have the statutory power to stop and direct traffic but not, as I think noble Lords were indicating, to engage in high speed pursuit of someone whom they regard as having broken the law. They will have the right to place mandatory traffic signs which will need to be obeyed, otherwise motorists will be breaking the law. But there is no intention to create for them the exact similitude of a police officer.

Surely they will need to force their way through a traffic jam to get to the place where the incident is happening so that there will be a red light in the mirror and people will have to move out of the way.

That is true, and I feared that aspects of this debate would relate to the whole question of our driving habits and how we respond to lights in our mirrors and so on. The noble Lord is correct—people would be expected to concede to a vehicle of authority, one which would be going about its lawful business of dealing with congestion. The matter on which I was seeking to disabuse the Committee was the notion that a red light would have the same effect as a blue light, which, as I understood the position, was an indication that a police officer might be in pursuit of individual motorists—pulling them over with regard to particular offences. That will not be the role of a traffic officer.

The Minister referred to signs given at high speeds. Does that mean that a traffic officer is allowed to exceed the speed limit?

No, when I referred to signs at high speed I meant signs that would be placed in any obstructed carriageway, or even above on a motorway sign, which would indicate that there was a problem ahead and that the problem had been identified by a traffic officer, not a policeman. But traffic officers would have the right to trigger or to set those signs that would need to be recognised at high speed.

I shall go a little further, because I have not gone far enough in reassuring the Committee about the point of the flashing red lights. There will be flashing red lights at the point of the incident. When they travel to the location of the incident the traffic officers will not be in emergency pursuit, as police officers sometimes are. We all know, for example with regard to ambulances, how quickly we move to one side to facilitate the progress of emergency vehicles. Traffic officers will not be in that category—that is why they will not be carrying those lights. The reason for a red light will be that the vehicle will largely be parked at, or he very close to the incident and the light will be there to indicate to everyone that a person in authority is there dealing with the incident and certain instructions will need to be obeyed.

I apologise for nit-picking. However, following the noble Lord's comments on red lights coming up in one's rear mirror, could the Minister tell us a little more? If a traffic officer is racing towards an incident of great importance, say, on a motorway, and needs to minimise disruption, improve the movement of traffic and perhaps make the road safer, will the motorist see that traffic officer in the rear mirror approaching with flashing red lights and a siren? After all, ambulances and police have sirens. If that is the case, will the traffic officer's siren be of a different nature to those of ambulances and the police, so that one can differentiate between all three?

The traffic officer will not be in charge of an emergency service. When it comes to motorways, he or she almost certainly will proceed down the hard shoulder to pass obstructions—as do recovery vehicles that also sometimes have flashing lights, but which are never associated with the police. That will also be the case with a traffic officer. He will not be expected to be hurtling down our roads at high speeds with red flashing lights. On the contrary, they will proceed to the incident. It is there that the red light will come into play, when the vehicle is in position to give warning to traffic. But they will not be authorised in the same way that police inevitably are, due to their emergency role, to engage in high speed driving above speed limits on occasions with a blue light flashing. Traffic officers will not be able, or expected, to engage in such activity because that is not their role. There will be no siren, either.

Mouchel, which has recently changed its name, is the equivalent of the Highways Agency in carrying out these operations when there are collisions on motorways and, perhaps eventually, dual carriageways. When its vehicles have to travel on the hard shoulder they have to obtain permission from the police in order to do so. Will that continue?

We are providing for exemptions for traffic officers to use hard shoulders. We recognise that arriving early at a point of congestion is to the benefit of all. I want to reassure noble Lords that they will not exercise the same role as police officers.

I want to push the Minister on one point. He made two statements. First, traffic officers would have the power to order motorists to stop their vehicles; and, secondly, they would not do that from a moving vehicle. Sometimes the police order vehicles to stop. On some occasions they slow down a whole column of motorway traffic approaching an accident. Will traffic officers have the power to stop vehicles only when they themselves are stationary?

The answer to the question is, "Yes". The concept is that the traffic officer arrives at the point of congestion caused by the incident and then takes action. The vehicle with its red light is part of the warning. Traffic officers have powers to direct traffic, and if necessary to stop motorists for that period of time when it may be necessary to clear the road as a result of an accident. That is when their powers are deployed.

As the debate continues, I have an overwhelming desire to see whether I can outperform in the number of hypothetical situations that one could stand on the head of a traffic warden or support officer. The amendment is purely to include the word "support". Presumably, "support" in each of these cases—I make a wild assumption—relates to the rest of that part of the Bill under which we shall discuss the traffic support officer against the background of the issue that it deals with, which will be nowhere near as much fun. Can we get on?

I was hoping we could get on in such a form that I did not need to rise.

It has been an interesting discussion. I have to say that I am not totally convinced. The Minister said at one stage that these officers would work alongside the police. Police community support officers work alongside the police. Working alongside the police means supporting the police. I am still not convinced. I will read carefully what has been said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 11, at end insert "; or

(c) liaison with local traffic authorities to assist the management of traffic moving over relevant and local roads"

I thought that the thrust of the previous debate dealt with how extensive the role of traffic officers should be. On the whole, the burden of certain remarks was that they needed to be restrained. That is the case. The role of the traffic officer is a limited one. The crucial aspect in which it is limited is the roads on which they will play their part, such as our motorways and our major trunk roads.

We recognise that in certain circumstances, to relieve congestion and problems on a trunk road, it may be necessary to exert a certain amount of authority with regard to joining local roads. The intention is that the traffic officer's duty will apply to trunk roads and to motorways.

The amendment takes the responsibility much wider than that, under the benevolent guise of indicating that most traffic management will have aspects of successful co-operation with local authorities. During the course of deliberations on the Bill we shall have plenty of time to debate co-ordination of activity with local authorities. It would not be right for us to accept an amendment that extends a traffic officer's duties to local roads. Not one of us can doubt that local authorities have an important role to play as regards roads. I need to resist the amendment because the concept behind the Bill is that traffic officers will operate on the trunk road network and on motorways.

There is already liaison between the national authority and local traffic authorities. That takes place through existing Highways Agency and local authority channels and more recently through national and regional control centres. Thus direct input from traffic officers is likely to be nominal, as their main activity will be to patrol the trunk road network. Others will be concerned with the level of co-ordination that we all recognise is beneficial; and so beneficial to the travelling public that a great deal of co-ordination already takes place. On that basis, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I am not entirely confident that the Minister has fully understood the LGA position. It is certainly not asking for the powers of traffic officers' support or otherwise to be extended. It is simply a matter of practicality. It is not difficult to imagine a situation in which a traffic officer, attending an accident on a trunk road, decides to divert the traffic on a day when the local authority has also decided that major roadworks will take place on the same road. The affected road may be some miles away and the traffic officer on the spot, with a blocked road and an accident, will not be aware of problems elsewhere in the network, unless there is some liaison.

While I fully accept that it would be better if such a matter were not on the face of the Bill, nevertheless I believe that the Committee and external agencies would like some assurance that at least in guidance the issue of liaison will be addressed very strongly. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for the motorist to know who is to blame for a situation that has arisen.

Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may make a couple of points following the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

I accept that my amendment might have been somewhat misleading to the Minister because, at the end, it says "and local roads". The amendment was not intended to extend the power of traffic officers to local roads; it was intended to ensure that when the traffic officer was liasing with local authorities, the local authorities would have to take into account what was happening on local roads. The issue of trunk roads cannot be taken in isolation. The noble Baroness cited a valid example which we have all seen whereby there is an accident on a trunk road, the road is closed and traffic is diverted on to a minor road. That has happened on motorways and dual carriageways.

My amendment was not about extending any remit but about ensuring that there will be adequate liaison between local authorities and the traffic officers. We would like that assurance from the Minister. I think he made a helpful point about guidance, saying that the point could be dealt with in some form of guidance. I would be grateful if he could clarify that, because I was not exactly sure what he was saying. His answer was helpful but I should be very grateful if he could expand on it slightly.

I am reluctant to expand too much on my response at this stage because, as the Committee will recognise, a substantial section of the Bill deals with the question of successful liaison and relations with local authorities. We are going to debate that issue at very great length. All I want to indicate now is that co-ordination is not only desirable but essential. It is already taking place between agencies. However, traffic officers will not be responsible for that level of co-ordination.

I am grateful to the Minister. He has not entirely answered my question but I shall read carefully what he said. I do not know whether I misheard him when he talked about guidance in his original comments. I do not know exactly what he meant by those. I would be grateful if he could reply briefly.

We are developing national and local protocols with local government on these issues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, indicated, those already apply to information exchange on issues of urgency. As I said, we will be able later in the Bill's passage to explore how we can give better effect to that co-ordination. I am merely saying that it would not be appropriate to extend that role to traffic officers.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I shall study with care. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I join the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in thanking the Minister for facilitating our meeting with officials before this debate. That was very useful.

My intention in opposing Clause 3 is to give us the opportunity to seek a very strong assurance from the Government that the measure in no way implies a reduction in the 550 existing traffic police who are hard pressed to carry out existing policing duties. I am sure that the Minister will give us that assurance but I should like him to include in it his colleagues in the Treasury. Such a measure as we are discussing may be viewed by others as an opportunity to introduce an economy. Traffic police have been significantly reduced in number. We cannot afford such a reduction. I assume that it will still fall to the traffic police to investigate accidents and other forms of lawbreaking but that they will not be investigating officers. Will the Minister clarify that diversions will involve the secondary road network? I am sure that that will be necessary in most cases.

My next point concerns my experience, which I should have declared at the outset as an interest, as a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority. I have ridden in a police car on a motorway travelling at 140 miles an hour not in pursuit of a miscreant but because information has been received that a vehicle has hit the central or outside reservation and has rebounded on to the carriageway. It is important to reach the scene very quickly in order to stop other vehicles colliding with the vehicle that has rebounded on to the carriageway. Most motorway accidents result not from the primary collision but from other vehicles running into the first vehicle involved in the accident. Traffic officers need to be able to travel quickly to prevent subsequent collisions as they need to attract motorists' attention to the first collision. I would appreciate the Minister's response to those points.

Perhaps I may raise a slightly different point relating to Clause 3. The use of hard shoulders was debated in another place. The Minister in the other place said that the Government intended to bring forward secondary legislation by the early summer of 2005 to allow traffic officers to use the hard shoulder. If we make progress on it, the Bill that we are discussing will come into effect rather earlier than the summer of 2005. Will the Government bring forward the relevant secondary legislation at an earlier date—I realise that the Minister said that consultation would be required—to enable traffic officers to operate effectively?

As we discussed in our rather wide-ranging debate on the first amendment, not being able to use the hard shoulder would certainly be an impediment to the operational effectiveness of traffic officers. It is important that the Government consider that matter. What progress is being made on the issue? If we are to have traffic officers, we need to ensure that they have the correct powers, that their duties are clear and that everyone understands them from the beginning. I am sure the Minister will agree that what we do not want is to start off in a muddle. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me what progress the department has made on that matter.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for contributing to this debate. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that traffic officers will not supplant but, rather, will supplement the police. Traffic officers will take responsibility for some important duties, but duties that have occupied police officers at the cost of higher priorities. I am sure that all police forces which have tackled trunk road and motorway incidents will have had the experience of deploying their limited resources at one accident when another high priority accident occurs. As the noble Lord said, the relevant officers need to reach the scene of an accident quickly. I want to reassure him regarding the role of the police. They are the only ones who can effect an arrest, and they are the only ones who can investigate an accident in terms of the necessary evidence for bringing a prosecution.

It is not expected that the police will not play an important role in any serious incident. The intention is to concentrate their role on important matters with which they alone can deal and to allow traffic officers to deal with the other, incidental consequences of such an incident—that is, relieving congestion and getting the traffic moving again. It is important that traffic officers should fulfil that role.

I turn to the extension of the role of traffic officers beyond trunk roads and motorways. We can envisage some circumstances in which it will be necessary for them to play their part, although that will not necessarily be on trunk roads. For example, where a tunnel was built on a significant road, traffic officers would be required because if anything went wrong in a short section of the tunnel, there would be the potential for congestion. The traffic officers would be deployed there, whereas their presence would not be merited on the rest of the road system—the road itself—because it was not a major trunk road in other respects.

Interestingly, noble Lords introduced to this part of the debate the question of the use of the hard shoulder. In the first instance, until the regulations are properly in place, the police will exempt a vehicle on the hard shoulder when it is clearly occupied by a traffic officer bent on his lawful business of moving towards the point where an incident has occurred. If the hard shoulder was being used by a traffic officer to take his wife and family to Blackpool, I have no doubt that there would inevitably be a different response from the police.

We intend to amend the motorway regulations in the summer of 2005. At that point, we shall make the emendation to allow traffic officers to use the hard shoulder without needing police protection but, in the intervening period, that is how they will go about their reasonable business. We need to consult on this point in order to get it right. We shall be changing motorway regulations and we need to ensure that we effect those changes accurately in all aspects. That is why it will be a year before we do so.

I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. Can he give me an assurance that if a traffic officer on a trunk road happens to be within an area covered by local authority traffic wardens, he will not be given parking tickets by over-zealous traffic wardens for parking in the wrong place and that he will not be clamped?

As I said, we anticipate that traffic wardens will operate on roads on which the local authority does not have that degree of power. Even if it had, it would not be painting yellow lines on them, thus giving effect to parking restrictions. However, I hear what the noble Viscount said and I am sure that a warning about the zeal with which they pursue their duties in this respect will go out to all officers.

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 3, line 24, at end insert—

"(e) ensuring the integrity of, and safety of persons involved in, any investigation into the causes of an accident or incident on such a road"

I support my noble friend Lord Berkeley. When one has a legislative provision and powers are set out with several purposes—here there are four lettered purposes—those purposes are more likely to be interpreted as exclusive. My noble friend Lord Berkeley is very rightly concerned with the safety of those who are at a particular spot investigating an accident. Paragraph (c) refers to,

"avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using such a road".

I suspect that the word "using" relates to people travelling up and down the road for their normal purposes rather than the traffic officer who has arrived to investigate an incident. Therefore, my noble friend Lord Berkeley is right in believing that it would be helpful to have an additional provision in Clause 5(3) to deal specifically with the risk of danger to those who are investigating an incident.

The safety of an individual investigating a crash or coning off the scene of a crash is very important. I took the police course in this particular respect about 18 months ago, and it is now being covered by and introduced into other constabularies. This is very important and I thoroughly support my noble friend's amendment.

I have a simple question for the Minister. I hope that he may be able to answer it, but if he does not perhaps he will write to me. As there will be a number of traffic officers patrolling motorways, as it were, it is quite likely that they could arrive at the scene of an accident before the police. Will they have any first aid training? Will they be able to help any persons involved in the accident? After all, the police have first aid training; they carry some medical supplies and they help. I am sure that the Minister and the Committee would not want a traffic officer to be prevented from being able to offer assistance to someone who had been involved in an accident. If the Minister cannot give me an answer now, I would be grateful if he would look into it for me.

As we have heard, Amendment No. 18 seeks to assist accident investigations and those carrying out such investigations by enabling traffic officers to use their powers to stop and direct traffic to protect the scene of the incident. What has emerged from our brief discussion is the importance of traffic officers protecting the police who are carrying out the investigations. Traffic officers will have a critical and valuable role in protecting the scene of an incident during on-road investigations and the officers who are undertaking those investigations.

In circumstances where death, serious injury and/or criminality is involved, the police will take the lead and carry out an investigation with traffic officers providing support. Police will undertake their work at the scene of the incident, while traffic officers will undertake traffic management measures to protect and preserve the accident scene, including the investigating officers, until investigations are complete.

With additional resources for attending and dealing with incidents the police should be able to focus their efforts on the investigation, while traffic officers seek to minimise the disruption to traffic—including the possibility of secondary incidents. In that way accident investigations should be more effective than they are now; safer for all other people involved and less disruptive.

Clause 5(3)(c) and (d) would allow traffic officers to use their special powers to avoid danger to persons on the road, or indeed traffic using the road, and to avoid damage to anything on the road; and those purposes would enable traffic officers to act in that way. The Government's view is that those provisions do provide the protection for investigating officers that noble Lords have been debating. Indeed the purposes in Clause 5(3)(a) and (b) would also be relevant, because traffic officers would be concerned to manage traffic driving to and past the investigation site with a view to minimising the impact that the investigation would have on traffic flow.

Regarding the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, they will have training in emergency first aid and will be able to help in that area. I hope that, with those assurances, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. In doing so he has given us a strong justification of the needs of the traffic officers. It was very useful to hear how the Minister sees their role in relation to the police.

I would agree with him that one could possibly interpret paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) as covering my amendment, but I return to the helpful comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who said that avoiding danger to "persons or other traffic", as I understood from his contribution, is to do with using the road as drivers and passengers. I shall read the comments of my noble friend in response and then consider whether my concerns have been covered, or whether we should have another go at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 3, line 25, leave out "incidental" and insert "connected"

I cannot see the point of this amendment. The role of the traffic officer, as set out in the Bill, is extremely good. "Incidental" will widen the provision very nicely regarding incidents or even problems on roads which are not major trunk roads which are covered by this. I think the wording as it stands is necessary for the proper operation of these traffic officers whom I see as having a very important role. I oppose the amendment.

I always rush to the defence of downtrodden, overworked, underpaid parliamentary counsel whenever I can, just in case I might be in need of them in the future. However, I rush even more to their defence if they are accused of doing something when their intent is diametrically opposite. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, says that of course they want as much breadth as possible and are always prone to this weakness when it comes to drafting legislation. Our interpretation of the word "incidental" is that it will in fact narrow the competence of the officers. The amendment would broaden the responsibilities in such a way as to cause a frisson of horror among parliamentary counsel.

The great danger at this stage is that we start dancing upon the point of the dictionary pin when it comes to interpreting words. The noble Viscount's preferred word, "connected", is quite wide in its associations. It is linked to the activity which would fall within traffic officers' competence. However, "incidental" indicates subordinate to or lesser than the other powers identified.

The noble Viscount shares the anxieties we all have of others appropriating to themselves powers they ought not to have unduly. But on this occasion, we are in favour of the restriction and he, mistakenly, is in favour of broadening it.

What a wonderfully robust defence of those who draft Bills. I am sure they appreciate it; indeed. I do, because I know they are doing their best to get it right. I must defer to them if their meaning of "incidental" is better than mine. If that is the case, I am grateful to the Minister because his answer solves one of my problems. I hope that he will see that I put down the amendment not to be mischievous—that is the last thing I would do—but to ensure that the clause meant what the Minister has clearly explained that it does mean. He has said that it narrows the provision, and I am extremely grateful for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 6 deals with powers to stop or direct traffic. I am initiating this debate simply to test the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform on this clause. The report argues that the powers to stop traffic within this clause, along with those to place temporary traffic signs in Clause 7, are significant. The Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly will have the power to confer further powers by order under Clause 8. The report states that although the power,

"is limited by the fact that the further power must be considered necessary for the purpose of facilitating the performance of duties which may be assigned to traffic officers (clause 8(2)), the range of duties which may be assigned is wide".

It continues:

"The order-making power includes power to provide for enforcement through criminal sentences … and a Henry VIII power lo make supplemental, incidental, transitional or consequential provision".

Will the Minister explain whether the power could be used, for example, to give traffic officers a further power of arrest? Do the Government have any thoughts on what further powers might be needed? If they do not need further powers, I wonder why the provision is in the Bill. I should be grateful for the Minister's reply.

When we were debating Amendment No. 1, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, correctly drew the Committee to order by saying that we were in fact discussing nomenclature. We strayed rather wide and went on to discuss the powers of traffic officers to stop motorists. Perhaps this is the most appropriate part of the Bill at which to return to the issue. I am not sure that we have had a satisfactory explanation from the Minister of how the provision will work. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred to the number of police officers and sought assurances that there would be no reduction. I am concerned about confusion regarding roles not only among police and traffic officers and between the two agencies but in the minds of motorists.

The Minister assured me that the power to stop or direct traffic was available to the traffic officer only when he was stationary. I have looked carefully through Clause 6 but I did not see that restriction. I wonder whether the Minister can point out where that is stated in the Bill.

Secondly, in connection with Amendment No. 1, I raised the issue of the education of motorists. I am not sure that the Minister explained the matter satisfactorily. We are struggling with these issues in the drafting of the Bill, having read the relevant papers and listened to the Second Reading debate. I am not sure that all motorists will necessarily have listened to the Second Reading debate, although clearly it would have been in their interests to do so. For example, what will the Highway Code state with regard to motorists' reactions to traffic officers? Unless these issues are crystal clear, I suggest that the room for confusion might well lead to a reduction in safety.

I wonder that anyone might be so bereft of something to listen to that they would listen to the Second Reading debate of the Traffic Management Bill, if' it were broadcast.

Do the powers to stop or direct traffic definitely include the power to divert traffic? Clause 6 contains the words "to stop the vehicle". I understand and support that power. Clause 6 also refers to the power of a traffic officer to make a vehicle,

"proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic".

However, does a traffic officer have the power to intervene at a road junction and send traffic in a particular direction?

I am grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The point with which I most disagree was that raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, concerning whether the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was anxious about the extensive powers contained in the clause that we are discussing. That is not the case. However, the committee expressed real anxiety on certain parts of the Bill that we shall discuss. A government amendment has been brought forward to take account of those anxieties. We shall discuss that in due course. The committee did not criticise Clause 6, although other Members of this Committee have expressed anxiety about it.

I wish to deal with the specific points that were raised. The straightforward answer is that traffic officers will have the power to divert traffic, but that is an advisory not a mandatory power. They can put in place diversion signs but whether drivers obey those signs is a question of the laws that relate to driving rather than laws in respect of following a traffic sign. Traffic officers certainly need to have the power to erect such signs to divert traffic. Without such a power the management of traffic following an incident could not take place. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that the necessary powers exist but not quite in the form that he suggested. Perhaps we can debate that matter a little further in due course.

I turn to the matter raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. He is absolutely right; it is not the Government's intention to rely upon the public having read the Second Reading debate of the Bill in the House of Lords to gain an understanding of its provisions, valuable though such an exercise would be. We shall need to engage in a substantial process of information and communication with the public on the role of traffic officers and explain why certain aspects of their role will need to be complied with by the travelling public for the convenience of all.

I think I perhaps slightly misled the Committee— and I apologise if I did—with regard to whether the vehicle could be moving when indicating a sign to the public. I was seeking at the time to disavow the notion that traffic officers would be in hot pursuit—if I recall the debate—with their lights flashing in the rear-view mirror of a vehicle and acting like highway police patrols. I now seek to disabuse the committee of that notion.

It is the case that the traffic officer might be directed by a police officer. It might be through communication—as I think the illustration has shown—that further away from the incident action needs to be taken to slow down traffic. As the noble Lord clearly indicated, slowing down traffic on our motorways is not a task undertaken lightly. Signs have to be abundantly clear. Traffic officers will have the ability to get motorway communication signs up and their vehicles will have the ability to make the same kind of signals for slowing down traffic that a police car would make if it were at the same point. I wanted to clear up that point. I do not think that I was entirely accurate earlier in the way I responded to what was a rather different issue.

The Minister has somewhat confused me. It may be my fault, but I should be grateful for some elucidation. If I heard him correctly, he said that under the powers that traffic officers will have, they would not have the power to force anyone to do anything. In effect he was saying that if they say, "Please join a single line of traffic and go down that lane", and for some reason someone in a car says, "I don't wish to", they do not have to do so. I do not read that in the Bill. Perhaps I have the matter wrong. I should be grateful for the Minister's enlightenment.

Clause 6(1)(a)(ii) states that a traffic officer has power when he is engaged in the regulation of traffic on a road, to direct a person driving or propelling a vehicle,

"to make it proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic".

Clause 10 deals with offences. Subsection (5)(a) and (b) state that it is an offence to fail to comply with.

"a direction given in relation to that vehicle under a power conferred by section 6, or … section 7".

Am I not right in thinking that an offence is committed if a motorist does not comply with a request or an order—however one would like to put it—given by a traffic officer? It seems to me that that is what the Bill says. I was therefore rather confused by the Minister's response.

I may have the issue entirely wrong; I should be grateful for the noble Lord's response.

Perhaps I may pursue the matter. Clause 7(2) and (3), the proposed amendments to Sections 35 and 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and those to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, confer most of the powers a police constable would have in these circumstances and the authority that goes with it to the traffic officers. I should like to know whether that is a correct understanding.

That worries me. I think we are getting to the nub of one of the real issues of the Bill. If these people are there to make best use of road space in an increasingly congested motorway network they need to have two quite clear powers. First, they need to be able to stop as quickly as possible vehicles going towards the scene of an accident. That more or less means switching on a sign on the vehicle which says "Stop", "Proceed cautiously", or something similar. One cannot transmit many signs on a fast moving motorway. They need the power to do that.

Secondly, they need a power to get people off the motorway or trunk road in those circumstances. One does not actually want people going down a cul-de-sac towards an accident where they perhaps they may be trapped for two or three hours with all kinds of problems which arise in that case. The issue needs clarification, as I am sure it will give rise to much confusion.

This does need clarification, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have addressed this point with great accuracy and who have pressed me. I have been less clear than I should have been up to now' and I want to be as clear as it is within my power to be.

The traffic officers will need these powers, and they are police powers. They will need the powers to warn and, in certain circumstances, to instruct the travelling public to obey. I was seeking to indicate—I think that is where the point of confusion occurred—that traffic officers are not police officers. They do not supplant police officers in their powers because they cannot enforce such restrictions. They can place restrictions, and it will be an offence, enforceable by the police, if their instructions are not complied with. However, they are not the arresting authority. That was why I was eager to emphasise earlier that they will not be a red light in the rear-view mirror pursuing an errant motorist. That is not their role.

I agree with noble Lords in all their points. Will these officers have the powers necessary to attend at a point of congestion, to stop traffic where it is dangerous for it to proceed and to divert traffic when it is advantageous to the travelling public that such diversions should take place? The answer is that they certainly will have those powers. At the present time such activities are carried out by police officers and will in the future be carried out by traffic officers.

However, enforcement will still be the responsibility of the police because traffic officers are not police officers, with the power of arrest.

What happens when there is a serious accident, the traffic officer puts down a sign saying "Stop" and motorists do not stop? A policeman would get in his vehicle, put the blue light on, and make sure that those motorists did stop. I am concerned that there will be confusion when an officer has the power to tell people to do something but not the power to do anything about it if they refuse. I am seriously concerned that road safety could be compromised in these circumstances.

Before the Minister speaks, perhaps I can help him. He can deal with both points, which are similar.

I understood the Minister to say that if the motorist ignored the instructions of the traffic officer, he would be committing an offence under the Bill, but the traffic officer would not have the power to arrest him. Presumably, however, the traffic officer would have the ability to, for example, take down the number plate of a car, inform the police, who could take further action. I am assuming that to be the case, and it is connected with the point made by my noble friend Lord Goschen.

The noble Viscount is not only striving to be helpful, but he is extremely helpful. He has expressed the matter better than I could.

It seems to me that the point is clear— it is or it is not. Subsection (4), which refers to the Road Traffic Act 1988, states:

"In section 163 of that Act (power of police to stop vehicles), in subsections (1) and (2) after 'uniform' there is inserted 'or a traffic officer"'.

That leads me to suppose that a traffic officer is being given similar powers to those of the police constable under that Act. I am quite prepared to go on talking for a moment if the Minister wants to look at the advice he has been given. It is an important point, and it may be more complicated than I think it is. However, as I read this, if the amendments proposed to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 are as simple as I think, they seem to meet the point made and give the traffic officers the powers of the police in those circumstances. I may be wrong, of course.

I was trying to reassure the Committee that, as the noble Lord indicated, traffic officers will take on certain police powers. Their signs will be mandatory. The difference is that, if the police place mandatory signs and someone breaks the law at that point, a police officer can take the immediate action of arrest. The traffic officer would do exactly what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, indicated. He would make clear the identification of the offence and that the legally applied requirement of the traffic officer had not been complied with, and, in due course, it would be prosecuted.

I make a final intervention because I sense that we are not getting far on this issue. I am concerned that these officers will have powers to do things but without the authority to do anything about it if people do not obey them. For example, people respect and obey a police officer who slows down the column of traffic on a motorway, but I am concerned that a new breed of officer will be doing that. In theory, one would not have to obey his commands. If one did not, the officer would not have any immediate ability to do anything about it. Does that mean that police officers will have to accompany traffic officers almost the whole time?

I do not think that we should make too much of this situation. After all, we are all forever driving past temporary roadworks where traffic lights have been installed but where there is no policeman to carry out the immediate arrest of anyone who disobeys the lights. Everyone knows that, if you drive through such a red light, you are almost certain to be observed because anyone working there, by definition, will have his own safety at stake and will certainly take steps to provide the necessary evidence.

Traffic officers will be empowered to place mandatory signs. We shall communicate their powers to the public so that people know that they are duly authorised to act when incidents occur. They will adopt police powers. They will not be able to do what a policeman can do, which, in the most extreme case, would involve an immediate arrest.

It has been useful to debate Clause 6 and the powers that it contains. I think that Members of the Committee are clearer as to what the powers are. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation.

I mentioned Clause 8, but perhaps I should leave that to the debate on whether the clause shall stand part. The Minister did not deal with it and so I shall deal with it then. I am grateful for his contribution to the debate. It has been of enormous use in aiding the Committee's understanding of the clause.

I referred to the powers in Clause 8 when we discussed Clause 6. They are similar and connected. Clause 8 provides for very wide powers. I accept that they have to be made by the Secretary of State and that a draft order has to be laid and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Clause 8(1) states:

"The appropriate national authority may by order made by statutory instrument confer further special powers on traffic officers".

I am not clear what they are. I realise of course that there are major thoroughfares that are not part of the trunk road or motorway system—for example, the Mersey Tunnel is not part of the trunk road system, nor is it a major thoroughfare. Therefore, a traffic officer would need to have the powers for such matters. I imagine that various toll bridges may be included.

Will the clause broaden the scope as regards the number of roads that may come within it? Do the Government consider that they would have to go further than just trunk roads? Rather than redesignate roads, will they include roads that, for example, link trunk roads or link a trunk road to a motorway? Or can Clause 8 be used to give traffic officers special powers of enforcement? Is that where the clause is going? What is the purpose? Is it about a geographical spread? Is it there to give traffic officers greater powers of enforcement? Why do the Government feel that the clause is necessary and what are the reasons for it? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the Committee on why it is in the Bill. That would aid the Committee as it is an important area.

I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving me the chance to explain the importance of Clause 8, which provides a power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to confer additional special powers on traffic officers by statutory instrument.

The only special powers conferred on traffic officers by the Bill are those of stopping and directing traffic and placing traffic signs. We believe these powers will be sufficient for the officers to carry out their duties effectively. But we are concerned that if experience shows that additional special powers would be appropriate, then this clause allows such powers to be conferred without needing further primary legislation.

This is an innovative concept. It is a radical new approach to traffic management on trunk roads and it represents a significant change in the Highways Agency culture and remit. Traffic officers will be operating in a demanding and exposed environment. As operational experience develops it may be that further special powers are identified that could make the traffic officer service more effective and efficient. The Highways Agency is certain to learn important lessons during the early years of operation. Clause 8 provides the ability to confer new special powers on traffic officers to ensure that they remain adequately empowered to carry out their duties effectively and safely and to so confer such powers over a relatively short period of time by using the speedier legislative process of secondary legislation.

The clause contains clear limitations on both the extent of the powers which may be conferred as well as the purposes for which they may be exercised. First, the national authority would have to be satisfied that any such power would be necessary to facilitate the performance of the duties as set out in Clause 1(2); that is duties that relate to traffic management and the authority's functions as highway and traffic authority. Secondly, the exercise of special powers is subject to the restrictions set out in Clause 5, particularly subsection (3), which limits the purposes for which special powers may be used to assist traffic movement on motorways or other trunk roads, to prevent or reduce congestion on such roads, to avoid danger to persons or traffic on them, to prevent damage to the road or anything on or near the road, and for incidental purposes.

We have no plans to expand the powers of traffic officers beyond those specified in the Bill. However, it might be decided in future that traffic officers should be able, for example, to check that vehicles are not overweight in order to protect valuable highway infrastructure. We do not think it is necessary now, but it is a possibility in terms of highway management. As we all know, congestion is caused partly by roadworks; roadworks are partly due to the weight of traffic; and traffic weight is crucially affected by individuals' compliance with load restrictions. However, we are not taking these powers now. We are merely indicating that, in due course, it might be felt that additional powers are necessary for the benefit of the travelling public.

A statutory instrument could be made for the enforcement of such powers, including the creation of new offences. A power conferred without any provision for enforcement would be unlikely to carry credibility, and so we feel the ability to include enforcement provision is necessary. The instrument could also include any supplemental, incidental, transitional or consequential provisions necessary including by way of amending any primary or secondary legislation.

The special powers conferred by the Bill are granted by extending to traffic officers certain existing statutory powers held by the police. This requires the amendment of or reference to the relevant statutes governing the police. It is likely that any additional special powers would be similarly granted by way of adoption of existing statutory provisions necessitating their amendment. Clause 8 would allow that to occur. In England, the SI would be made in Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. In Wales, the SI would be made by an affirmative vote of the National Assembly in plenary session.

In setting up this innovative concept, which will aid the motoring public and has widespread support, we think that we are providing the requisite powers to do an effective job. In this clause we are merely giving ourselves the opportunity to learn from experience. If an additional power were to be necessary, it would be the subject of a statutory instrument that would require the affirmative support of both Houses of Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales.

There are two separate matters to bear in mind. First, my noble friend mentioned overweight vehicles. The power to inspect such vehicles is already conferred on the Vehicle Inspectorate. Secondly, what is the view of senior police officers on the possibility that police powers will be conferred on these traffic officers at a later stage without primary legislation?

Before the Minister replies, perhaps I can give him a chance to consider the question put by the noble Viscount. I should remind the Committee that, in its report on the Bill, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform said:

"The Bill contains a formidable array of delegated powers".

The one that it wished to draw to the Committee's attention was that in Clause 8. As the Select Committee and indeed the Minister pointed out:

"The order-making power includes the power to provide for enforcement through criminal offences (but limited by the bill to summary offences) and a Henry VIII power to make supplemental, incidental, transitional or consequential provision".

It goes on to say:

"We draw this provision to the attention of the House because of the width of the power, and suggest that the House may wish to invite the Government to explain whether, for example, the power can be used to give traffic officers a power of arrest".

The Minister has in effect said that the provision could be used to do that. I think that the Committee ought to beware of that and take it seriously. I can easily foresee a situation where an accident is caused by a grossly overweight lorry or a car without insurance, tax or MOT and its brakes do not work—or where someone just ignores the directions of the traffic officer and the police are not present—and there is a clamour from the Highways Agency and the traffic officers saying, "We need powers to enforce what you are trying to make us do". Would it not be useful to have such a power so that we can see whether people have paid the road tax or whether their tyres are balding? There will be a clamour to increase powers. There is no doubt that if they had such powers their lives might be more effective.

The Committee and the House need to be aware that this issue will be raised. We need to consider whether we want such powers in the Bill. If your Lordships feel that it would be a retrograde step in terms of extending the powers albeit to admirable people, but in effect giving powers to officers who are not police officers, we should consider it carefully. Perhaps the Minister could tell the Committee what conversations there have been with the police forces in this country and with the Association of Chief Police Officers, and whether in certain circumstances they would approve of the extension of powers. Is that in the mind of the Government?

It is an important issue because we need to know how such powers could be used. We can all foresee the clamour when the public suffer. The first thing that one would see would be headlines in a tabloid newspaper saying, "Traffic officers do not have the powers that they need, so what will the Government do about it?" We need to consider that. When the Minister replies to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, perhaps he could include a reply to those issues.

Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I can expand on the matter. This is an occasion when Henry VIII did quite a good job. It depends whether one likes the clause or not. I believe that it is a very appropriate clause. My noble friend mentioned overweight vehicles, but there is also the issue of bridge strikes, which cause endless delays to rail and road travel. Similar things happen at level crossings. Whether we like it or not the Vehicle Inspectorate is not around much, as we have discussed many times in the House, although it carries out occasional checks. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, suggested earlier, will there be fewer police? There are not many police at the moment so this could be another opportunity for adding further powers in the future which I believe most law-abiding citizens would welcome, especially if the purpose of the Bill is fulfilled, which is to keep traffic moving. This is an important clause.

I am grateful to my noble friend for his support and to other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. My noble friend Lord Simon will readily recognise that there is a Vehicle Inspectorate. Of course, the inspectors have no right to stop vehicles. We know the limitations of their role. In response to his second question about the police attitude in this regard, the Association of Chief Police Officers is satisfied with our provision in the Bill, provided that it is subject to adequate and proper parliamentary scrutiny. He will recognise that we have affirmative procedures linked to this matter.

On the general issue of the power of arrest, which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised and which was the concern of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I can tell the Committee the Government's intent. In the other place the Government moved an amendment to make it absolutely clear that we do not intend to bestow the power of arrest on traffic officers.

There was a suggestion in the other place that the Bill as drafted may give rise to such an interpretation. A government amendment struck out any ambiguity in that respect and made it absolutely clear that we do not intend to give traffic officers the power of arrest. That is in the Bill that is before the Committee.

We have no plans to give powers to traffic officers in relation to enforcement, or to confer on them the power of arrest for the very simple reason that the Bill is about aiding the motorist and tackling congestion. We want the officers to be seen, and we expect them to act, in the role of motorists' friend. When incidents occur, they will facilitate motoring progress. To confer powers of arrest on such officers would significantly change their role and their perception in the eyes of the public. The publicity to which I alluded earlier when responding to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, will be necessary to educate the nation about the role of these innovative traffic officers as officers who will facilitate the progress of the motorist. Their role will not be concerned with punitive activity and will have nothing to do with powers of arrest. On that basis, perhaps the noble Viscount will feel able to accept the position.

The Minister has been extremely helpful to the Committee in explaining Clause 8. I am grateful for his assurance that the powers will not be used to give traffic officers the power of arrest. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would quite like them to have powers of arrest. However, it begs the question: if they are not to be given powers of arrest, why do they need Clause 8 and what kind of powers will they be given? The Minister has not been particularly explicit on that. We may wish to return to the matter on Report and tighten up the powers that may be given. At the moment the provision gives the Secretary of State, although he has to return to Parliament, extremely wide-ranging powers. I accept that the Minister does not intend to use it to do that, and I am sure that that is the case. However, as we all know, Ministers and Secretaries of State change—in the Department for Transport they change quite often—and policies change. Of course I accept the assurances of the noble Lord. We may reconsider this matter, but in the mean time I am grateful for the response of the Government.

Clause 8 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 38:

After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. Anything that helps introduce clarity into the exercise of traffic officers' powers, particularly in relation to the police and in the context of our debates on previous amendments, would be a good thing. I hope that the Minister agrees that requiring guidance to be published would help to ensure clarity.

I am grateful to both noble Lords. As they will have anticipated, I have considerable sympathy with the arguments they have put forward on this proposed new clause. I hope to convince the Committee not of the merits and arguments behind the new clause, but simply that the new clause would be otiose because we already have the powers, as the Bill provides, to do exactly what the new clause suggests.

The new clause is unnecessary because the appropriate national authority can already issue guidance. It does not need a specific statutory power to do that. It needs to issue guidance only when the authority is dealing with a third party. As the traffic officer service will be provided by the national authority, we do not need to provide a statutory power, and certainly not a statutory duty, in the Bill.

In practice—as noble Lords have indicated, this is the merit behind this debate and behind their new clause—operational guidance is certainly a necessity. As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, was generous enough to acknowledge, such guidance is already in an advanced stage of preparation. Very substantial consultation has taken place on the procedures and guidelines being established for traffic officer activities. Members of the Committee will recognise that that has been done by working very closely with the police, so that both parties are absolutely clear on the respective roles and responsibilities.

The procedures cover all aspects of the service, from the high-level partnership arrangements and objectives to the detailed procedures that traffic officers must follow out on the road. There has also been extensive consultation with other stakeholders, including local authorities. maintenance contractors and breakdown recovery service organisations. I can assure the Committee that that consultation will continue.

One aspect was raised in relation to motorways. I want to emphasise that our motorways, as all Members of the Committee will recognise, are special roads. There are severe restrictions on the ability of statutory undertakers to effect anything that may impede safe progress on our motorways. All agreements, procedures and protocols are being carefully documented and will be continuously reviewed and updated if necessary. If in the future the traffic officer service were to be provided by a third party, the work done to date would be incorporated into contracts that would be necessary in those circumstances.

I recognise the merits behind the new clause in articulating matters that need to be done and consultation that needs to be carried out. I can assure the Committee that the statutory authorities have the power to do that and are doing it. I hope with that reassurance that the noble Lord will not feel the need to press the amendment.

I thank the noble Lord for his assurances. It would have been more helpful if the Highways Agency had already published its governance and guide for the traffic officers. We would then have had more clarity in relation to this matter and may not have had to push the Minister for an explanation. We shall read his answer. I am grateful to him for trying to give greater clarity. If necessary we shall return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 41:

Page 5, line 19, at end insert—

"(3) In any regulation made under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall not remove the right of a person present whose vehicle is to be removed pursuant to section 99(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (removal of vehicles illegally, obstructively or dangerously parked, or abandoned or broken down) to choose who shall remove the vehicle, unless it would, in the reasonable opinion of the traffic officer, be unreasonable to do so because of an imminent danger to persons using the road or because the vehicle is causing an obstruction on the road."

Before the Minister responds, I add my name to that of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, as having an interest in this clause. The fact is that, if a motorist breaks down on the hard shoulder and he tells a traffic officer that he is a member of a recognised breakdown service—The AA, the RAC, Green Flag, the Environmental Transport Agency or whatever—those organisations will always be able to tell the traffic officer that the rescue service is on the way.I believe that rescue services normally tell people when they can expect to have their vehicle recovered. Therefore, I support the view that the traffic officer should be told, in guidance, that if information is available from the driver of a broken-down vehicle that the rescue service is on the way within a reasonable time, the traffic officer should not activate the powers that he has to call upon the breakdown contractor employed by the Highways Agency.

However, I would ask the Minister to go a little further. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the charges, which were fixed some time ago, for the removal of broken-down vehicles. Bearing in mind that many people who may not be members of breakdown organisations may be those whose cars are uninsured or unlicensed or that they may have been convicted of offences and are unlikely to pay the removal charges, what sanctions do the Government propose to take to recover the money when broken-down vehicles are removed from the hard shoulder?

As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, mentioned, the majority of motorists are responsible enough to belong to an organisation which will remove their vehicles. But those who do not belong to such an organization are very likely to fall into the category of those who do not have a licence or pay for insurance or they may have a conviction. In addition, they may drive vehicles which are liable to break down because they probably care less for them than do other people and therefore they will have more need of the breakdown service.

Who, ultimately, pays for the breakdown service if the person who is rescued does not have the wherewithal to pay for it? We are very familiar with the fact that, as motorists who pay for insurance, we all are paying for the large percentage of people who do not bother to take out insurance. I shall return to that subject later. We pay indirectly through an addition to our premium, which goes to the Motor Insurers' Bureau. All of us who pay our premiums presumably subsidise those who do not bother. We know that that costs a great deal of money, sometimes for the Exchequer and sometimes for insurance companies, but I should be grateful for some assurance on that point. I accept that if traffic officers arrive at the scene of a breakdown and the driver does not have breakdown cover, the vehicle must be removed. But I am very concerned about the financial arrangements which then apply.

I want to move the discussion on to what happens when lorries break down. However, before I do so, I understood from the noble Viscount's remarks that if a car were to break down on the hard shoulder, what he said would apply— that is, the AA, the RAC or a drivers' agency could rescue the car, but if it was on the carriageway, it would have to be rescued by the police. However, if the car is on the hard shoulder, it is not causing an obstruction. Therefore I should have thought that the need to remove a car in that situation would be less urgent.

I turn to the subject of lorries. Some lorries have rescue contracts and some do not. There have been many instances of lorries causing obstructions—not necessarily on motorways; on trunk roads as well—when there has been a conflict between the driver's or owner's desire to save what is left of the load on the lorry and the need to get the lorry off the carriageway and thus speed up the flow of traffic. I am not sure what the role of traffic officers would be in such a scenario and how the rescue services would deal with lorries, which need rather specialist equipment to remove them. I should be grateful for my noble friend's comments on that.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this important topic. It has caused considerable debate outside and, indeed, considerable representations have been made. There has been a great deal of correspondence between Ministers and organisations, which are rightly concerned about their interests in this area.

I assure the Committee that the Government have no intention of setting up traffic officers as a competitive service, as, I believe, the noble Viscount envisaged, or anything approaching a monopoly service for breakdown activities on our trunk roads and motorways. That is not provided for in the Bill; nor is it the remotest intent of the Government to pursue such an objective.

The reason that we disagree with the noble Viscount in his representations and want him to withdraw the amendment is that substantially we intend to continue with the regulations which govern the police and their activities in relation to breakdowns. We intend to transfer such responsibilities to traffic officers but shall do no more than that. The regulations are tried and tested. They have been subject to change over time, but the legislation on which they are based goes back over several decades.

The noble Viscount will recognise that certain breakdown organisations have also existed for several decades—in fact, in one or two cases, for a century or more—and, in recent years, there have been new arrivals in the market. They have not experienced circumstances in which they have not been able to carry out their due and proper activities under these regulations, and we do not intend to change that position.

The regulations do not confer a blanket removal power on the police. A constable may, indeed, remove a vehicle which has broken down or stopped and is causing an obstruction or possible danger to road users. He can also remove a vehicle which has broken down or stopped in breach of regulations—for example, parking prohibitions or controls—and he can deal with a vehicle which has broken down and appears to have been abandoned without lawful authority. That is what the regulations say and that is what we intend should continue so far as concerns traffic officers.

In exercising those powers, traffic officers will have regard to the arrangements made by individual drivers who have broken down and to the effectiveness of those arrangements in dealing with the problem. They will want that information in order to assess what the appropriate and reasonable course of action on their part should be. They would need to take into account the relevant circumstances to assess whether the exercise of intervention and removal powers was practical and appropriate.

Existing powers contain no qualification of the exercise of the police removal powers along the lines proposed in the amendment; nor do they make any mention of the potential role of the roadside assistance organisations or the possibility of a driver seeking assistance from friends, family or other motorists who may stop and offer assistance. Yet, without any of those considerations, organisations which assist those in distress in such circumstances have been able to carry out their activities with a conspicuous level of success.

Neither Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act nor the current regulations in any way prevent citizens joining a roadside assistance organisation of their choice or calling them for help. But the regulations enable the police to make the necessary judgment as to the appropriate course of action. That is all we want traffic officers to be able to do.

The current regulations also empower others, such as traffic wardens and community support officers, to remove vehicles which are causing an obstruction and are likely to cause danger to road users or which are illegally stopped or parked. Parking attendants have similar powers of removal in respect of vehicles which are parked or have broken down and are stopped on designated parking places. Again, no such qualification as proposed by the noble Viscount's amendment is included in the regulations.

Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act provides a suitable framework for the powers to remove vehicles from the road. It has stood the test of time and we do not propose to change that. The traffic officers' role—I apologise to Members of the Committee if it is felt that I am reiterating this too often this afternoon—is to manage traffic in the event of collisions and other incidents. They will work alongside the police and other emergency services, maintenance and repair contractors, vehicle removal contractors—they will play their part, too—and others to clear incidents quickly, to keep traffic moving past the scene and via the network of local diversion routes, and to ensure that up-to-date information is fed through to motorists. They are not there to provide an alternative vehicle breakdown recovery service.

The best organisations provide an excellent service. We are not in any way seeking to interfere with that, and they will be able to continue with their lawful business. It is the Government's intention to work closely with a wide range of organisations to ensure that any new regulations and operational arrangements are developed in an open and inclusive way, in addition to the formal consultation and secondary legislative processes required by the 1984 Act.

The Highways Agency has set up a working group involving a wide range of representative bodies, including roadside assistance organisations, recovery contractors, road haulage organisations and the police. That group has already met with the intention of addressing the new regulations, the new Highways Agency contracts for statutory removal, and standards and protocols between the agency and the roadside assistance organisations and others who operate on the strategic road network.

That is the position that we already have in place and, in our view, it works effectively. It is our intention to bring the traffic officers into that framework to ensure that these provisions work more effectively, but only within the powers that already obtain at present with regard to the police.

I have been asked a number of specific questions. The benefit of making a rather lengthy reply on the principle behind the amendment is that I am able to delve deeply into the recesses of my resources in order to provide answers to specific questions, as I shall now attempt to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about certain aspects of the breakdown procedure, including cost. The present fee, which is currently subject to review, is £105. However—I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this—the review will include other issues which also need to be considered in relation to the removal service. Therefore, we set up a working group with the Home Office, contractors, the RAC, the AA and others to work on those issues. The group has met once and it will continue to meet on this important matter.

The noble Lord also asked me what would happen when a removal contractor took away a vehicle but did not get paid for his labours. The answer is that, under current regulations, he can keep the vehicle until someone pays the proper price for the work carried out. However, as the noble Lord hinted, that may not in all cases be worth the effort involved in removal.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked me about the Birmingham trial. The traffic officers in that case did not have the powers which the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will confer upon them. Therefore, inevitably they were restricted to operating directly under the wing of police officers, carrying out support tasks and co-ordination of information to contractors, and so on. Limitations are involved in trials, but in all human experience there are always such limitations until all the powers are fully in force.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley asked me about lorries which break down. When lorries are on the hard shoulder, that often requires the closure of an additional lane to allow for repairs and removal. Traffic officers will support that work and, indeed, their role will be crucial in directing traffic and placing signs. The lorries are usually repaired and removed by specialist contractors, which, as my noble friend recognises, is specialist work. Those who carry out such work receive their payments from the owners of the lorries; otherwise they fall foul of the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—that is, they do not get their lorries back.

Therefore, on the more general issues, I reiterate that we understand the anxieties of reputable organisations. I think that the noble Viscount will recognise that Ministers in another place have been assiduous—I know that my honourable friend David Jamieson has been assiduous—in meeting representatives in order to provide the necessary reassurances. However. I emphasise that the Bill's main provision is to continue the regulations that have served us well until now. On that basis, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendment.

Before the noble Viscount replies, perhaps we can be clear on this point. The Highways Agency will employ the traffic officers. The traffic officers will be those who arrange to have the vehicle removed—be it a lorry, a bus or whatever—unless the person is a member of a reputable organisation, such as the RHA or the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which has a rescue service. I am concerned not to put the Highways Agency in a position whereby it sites a broken down vehicle, takes it away and faces the costs. Some rescued vehicles are probably not worth sufficient to bear the cost of both removal and repair. Often when such vehicles break down a significant sum is added to the towing cost before they are fit to be driven again.

I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer the question. However, I hope that the matter will be taken into account in the review of charges so that the Highways Agency does not have a net charge on its books for vehicle recovery which should be defrayed by the road user.

Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask a question on the same issue. I am concerned about double charging. Should someone break down on the highway and the traffic officer come to their help and remove them from the highway to the hard shoulder or off the road, so that the AA or RAC recovery services can deal with it, will that movement be a chargeable action? Will they be charged—currently—£105? If so, how will they pay? Or will the charge apply only if the traffic officer organises the removal of the car to a garage, recovery point or whatever? When the Minister replies to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on the principles of the amendment, I would be grateful if he would kindly deal with that point.

One thing that occurred to me is that most constabularies—I do not know whether it is all constabularies, but certainly a number of them—have rules regarding the time—one, two or three hours—that a broken-down vehicle can remain on the hard shoulder. They tell the owner of the broken-down vehicle that that is the case. They also tell the owner that after that time they can be towed away by whomever the police happen to choose. If this right is to be transferred to the Highways Agency traffic officers, will the same rules apply—be it one, two or three hours—and will leeway be given as the police give?

I emphasise, first, as I have indicated, we are drawing on powers that already exist. So the Highways Agency's traffic officers will operate as regards removal only as the police do now. No charge applies to transferring the vehicle to the hard shoulder to get it out of the way as an obstruction. The charge applies when removal is made from the roadway to another safe place.

I shall make the obvious point. I must admit that I did not emphasise it enough in my initial response to the Committee. The traffic officers will not have their own breakdown facilities. They do not have any more than the police have for immediate removal of vehicles. Traffic officers will act as police officers do now in terms of summoning the necessary support to deal with obstructions on the carriageway. Their concern will be to get the carriageway clear. That is what the traffic officer is there for, in the same way that that is the current responsibility of the police officer.

On the question of the powers, I was touched by the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that the Highways Agency might fall into this dreadful trap of carrying out activity which is of great benefit to all motorists, but then having to sustain undue cost from the feckless few who have caused the problems. In the discussion about the proposed regulations we shall look very closely at the point he was seeking to identify—whether it would be necessary for the Highways Agency to even prosecute in order to recover the charges in which they might have been involved. The noble Lord will recognise that this is a complex area on which a significant amount of discussion needs to take place.

I want to emphasise the main point: these traffic officers in respect of this particular activity will act as the police do now. As far as I know, relationships at national level between the police and breakdown organisations are cordial in the extreme and from time to time can have their more difficult moments in immediate incidents. But we all know the difficulties when immediate pressures are upon people. I see no reason why traffic officers should not enjoy the same good relationships with all concerned to make our highways safer and free from congestion.

I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification that traffic officers will not charge motorists to get a vehicle from the road to the hard shoulder. We are still in effect in a situation where motorists can be charged twice because the motorist may have to call for their respective recovery service to help them.

I am a little surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and a bit disappointed. He seemed to imply that one only breaks down on the motorway if one is driving a clapped-out car. He suggested that it is not worth collecting it because it is worth less than the cost. I broke down on the motorway the other day. My car is quite old and might be a little clapped-out, but I would be very disappointed to find that it was worth less than £105. That would come as an enormous disappointment when I tried to trade it in for something somewhat newer.

The interesting part of the debate is that there is no difference between the Minister and myself on what we want. The difference is what is in the Bill. The Minister has been enormously helpful. I agree with everything he said about what we want and how we want it to operate. I am not sure that that is not what it says in the Bill. If we are in such agreement on the subject, the obvious point is why not accept my amendment? There is no problem. My amendment does not do anything that is in anyway in conflict with what the Minister has said: in fact it aids and abets. So there is no reason why the Government should not accept my amendment.

I am aware that there has been correspondence between the Minister in another place and the RAC on the issue. The Minister said that he,

will … consider … whether there is a need to set out more fully, in any future Regulations or in other guidance material, criteria for the removal of broken down vehicles by Traffic Officers".

That is helpful, but it does not go far enough because he simply says that he will consider it. We need something firmer than that. While I am grateful for the Minister's response, the Government will have to move further between now and Report, otherwise we shall bring back this amendment and seek to persuade your Lordships of its importance and validity. There is nothing in the amendment to which the Minister can object because it does nothing that the Government does not want. We know that there is always a natural reluctance for Ministers to accept amendments, but I am sure that the noble Lord is a generous person and does not have that natural reluctance. I hope he will look carefully at the issue between now and Report because the matter is important.

I recognise that the Government are trying to be helpful, but I hope the Minister will recognise that we feel that the Government need to go further than they have done thus far. Unless we can make real progress, this is a matter to which we shall return on Report and which we shall seek to put on to the face of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 51:

After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—

I wish to offer my support, although I did not put my name to the amendment. I am sure that a report to Parliament with such information will be a riveting read and I expect that people will speak of little else in the pubs of Needham Market when it comes out. I look forward to many happy hours reading it. The amendment is important when considered in the context of the powers that are allowed for in Clause 8. If we are to have a Bill that contains so much authority for the Government to introduce wide-ranging new powers by statutory instrument, the basis upon which we assess whether those powers are needed and the effect of those provisions is important and needs to be sound. On this occasion, unusually for me, I support the production of yet another glossy document for parliamentarians.

I have added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I am sure that the Minister will say that an annual report on the work of the traffic officers could be incorporated within that of the Highways Agency, or something like that. That is, of course, correct and, no doubt, we are all used to reading Highways Agency reports avidly when we cannot go to sleep at night. Such reports state how much money has been spent, how many people are employed and various other facts.

One of the reasons that I support the amendment is because of the very issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised about the powers contained in Clause 8. The amendment requires a report on the "activities and effectiveness" of the traffic officers. That is the important part, because otherwise we shall just have a normal departmental report on how much money they have spent, how wonderful they are, what their pension contributions are or whatever. It will not reveal what we really wish to know and what Parliament will consider in future. I am absolutely convinced that the Government, in whatever shape or form, will be under enormous pressure to come back and change the powers of the traffic officers.

So we will clearly need to know, over a period, how effective traffic officers have been. This is the way that the matter should be dealt with so that the department has to explain its activities and how effective they are. When we deal with such issues in future we shall be able to judge the criteria and see how well the system is working.

I support the amendments for the reasons put forward, particularly by my noble friend Lord Astor, and with the provision, perhaps, of a sunset clause on the matter. We wish to avoid endless piles of documents and having to come back with primary legislation to amend the Act. I would have thought that if the system has not worked itself out within the first five to 10 years of operation, then there will be a serious problem. So, publishing an annual report for up to, say, ten years would be a worthwhile exercise. I suggest that after that, we will all have become bored with it, we will have forgotten about the matter and may wish to move on to another set of officers.

I hope that I can reassure everyone who has taken part in the debate that we are all on the same side. An annual report of the Highways Agency's work is already presented to Parliament. It includes a thorough report of its activities and its achievements against a set of performance indicators. It is quite a tough document. This reporting requirement will in the future include details of the new traffic officer service. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner suggested, he has anticipated some of the matters that will be in the report. We expect to report on the effectiveness of service including the impact of congestion, safety benefits, costs and public perception gained through customer services. We would certainly take on board my noble friend's two points—matters which he wished very specifically to see in the annual report.

I hope that I have persuaded noble Lords that this will not be, as the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, said, a woolly annual point about pensions and everything else. We take on board absolutely the need to report annually in a very hard and objective way. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I think that that is a rather encouraging and helpful reply. I appreciate what my noble friend has just said. I also very much welcome the support from noble Lords opposite who spoke earlier in the debate. It is important that this information is not just lost in the Highways Agency annual report. The work has to be properly highlighted and it has to give rise to a proper discussion. That may be one way in which the concerns of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, about it being an unnecessary publication can be avoided. However, as long as the information is published and made available to Parliament and an opportunity is given for a debate to take place on it, then I think that that will meet the requirements that I set out in tabling the amendment. With that assurance, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 58:

Page 7, line 22, after "expeditious" insert ", convenient and safe"

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 94. Clause 31 talks about the word "traffic" including pedestrians and I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, says about bicycles—as an avid bicyclist myself too, would like to be certain that "traffic" includes bicycles. However, looking at the matter, I wonder whether "traffic" should mean all road users.

It is not just bicycles that we should consider. There is the question of horses—we see them moving to Hyde Park, with many types of people riding them. We see hunts crossing main roads. Indeed, what about the Household Cavalry going to mount a guard? Will we see a mounted traffic officer in the near future? What about mounted guardsmen at St James's? Will we see a traffic officer take over from the police and relieve them of that duty? What about demonstrations? What about the Notting Hill carnival? Is it envisaged that the traffic officers should look after those people? Should the interpretation of "traffic" not just include pedestrians and bicycles, but all legal road users? Perhaps the Minister could answer those questions.

I rise to say that we are perfectly content with the amendments and believe that they add to the Bill. They cover types of traffic or people who are frequently ignored by local traffic authorities. I do not believe that this has anything to do with traffic officers. This is a separate issue of the management of networks by local government. It is opportune to make it obligatory on such people to consider cyclists and pedestrians and, taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, it is important that we consider horses and other road users.

I shall speak to all of the amendments in the group, particularly those in my name—Amendments Nos. 61, 65 and 94. I believe that we are all trying to achieve the same objective, which is to make sure that all road users are included—and I welcome my noble friend's confirmation that "roads" in this case include footpaths and pavements, and that is important. I am being somewhat cautious, having regard to the debate on whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill, when my noble friend the Minister tried to say that traffic officers would be the motorists' friends. That is clearly welcome, but I hope that they will equally be the pedestrians' friends, the guardsmen's friends, the cyclists' friends and friends of anyone else who uses the highway.

Therefore, it is important that the needs of all road users are taken into account when considering the question of securing the expeditious movement of traffic. I expect that eventually traffic officers will have targets and guidance on that to accompany the Bill. When we begin to have indicators to measure congestion, we shall also need some measurement of safety and of ease of transit for pedestrians and cyclists as well as motorised vehicles. I am not sure how that would be done, but one can give many examples.

When one crosses Hyde Park Corner as a pedestrian or cyclist, one sees that the traffic lights are set to ease the flow of road vehicles. A cyclist or a pedestrian travelling at a normal rate faces a red light every time, but car drivers do not. I hope that my noble friend will take that matter into account when considering the issue of guidance. I believe that Transport for London is doing a great deal to help in that respect, but many other local authorities are considerably worse. They make pedestrians wait. You press the button to cross the road and you have to wait for a minute-and-a-half before the light turns green because it is always set on green for the road users. Why should pedestrians not be able to move on immediately as car drivers do?

I believe it is terribly important that all the network management duties apply to all users equally. I, together with other noble Lords who have spoken to the amendments, am not convinced that all the amendments fit together. However, I am sure that if my noble friend accepts the principle, someone can come up with a grouping which responds to all the concerns that we have identified.

The grouping of these wide-ranging amendments gives us the chance to debate a very important consideration—the question of the safety of traffic. I use the word "traffic" because I shall argue strongly that it should be recognised that traffic certainly includes cyclists. In an increasingly wide range of local authority obligations, "traffic" also relates to the proper rights of pedestrians. I heard what my noble friend Lord Berkeley has just emphasised. There are many ways in which pedestrians can feel that their interests are not taken into account in the same way as are other types of traffic.

However, the response to the broad issue of safety is clear. My noble friend Lord Faulkner, speaking from his great experience of safety issues, referred to Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, which contains the phrase "convenient and safe". As he will recognise, the provisions of that Act remain in force. Therefore, we take an overarching and governing position with regard to the obligations, which include the very important concepts of safety that he emphasised. The question is whether the Bill would be enhanced if we explicitly added the concepts of safety and the convenience of traffic when traffic officers exercised their duty.

In drafting the duty, we have been concerned to ensure that the expeditious movement of traffic is not at the expense of other obligations, policies and objectives. That is explicit in Clause 16(1). The existing responsibilities and duties of local authorities remain as before. As I have indicated, they include the important issue of safety. Of course safety is important, and it will remain a high priority.

We have purposely avoided including lists of obligations to avoid appearing to attach less importance to others by virtue of omission. Anything that was not included in any such list would look as if it were no longer the responsibility and duty of traffic officers. That is why I wish to defend what I recognise my noble friend has found a degree of fault with. I seek to defend the general concept of the responsibility while he, quite rightly, emphasises that that must include safety. I want to give him an assurance that it certainly does.

Ultimately, the objective in this part of the Bill is to encourage authorities to devote more attention to managing their road networks actively and to manage the traffic using them. We would not wish to lessen the focus of the legislation by including other issues, no matter how worthy—and I cannot think of any more worthy than the one which my noble friend has introduced of safety—on the face of the Bill. The guidance on the network management duty is probably the place to draw out these points while maintaining the duty in a meaningful form.

Amendments Nos. 60 and 64 seek to make an explicit reference in Clause 16 to the fact that in the context of the network management duty, traffic includes pedestrians. Amendments Nos. 59 and 63 aim to enhance this by stating quite clearly that the term covers more than vehicles. Similarly, Amendments Nos. 61 and 65 seek to reinforce the term "traffic" by providing that it includes cyclists and pedestrians. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley deals specifically with cyclists.

Clause 31 already states explicitly that traffic includes pedestrians, and, of course, cyclists are included in traffic. Elaboration on the scope of the duty is surely best left to guidance which the appropriate national authority can issue under Clause 18. The draft of the guidance, which has been placed before the Committee, clearly draws out the fact that pedestrians are covered by this duty. I emphasise again that cyclists are already widely accepted to be traffic and authorities clearly need to take account of their needs.

Amendment No. 73 relates to road hierarchies. I do not think that this would have a great deal of effect. Clause 17(5)(a) covers the issue of hierarchies by requiring that the arrangements authorities make to meet the duty must include specific policies or objectives in relation to the different roads or classes of road. Clause 18 allows the guidance to cover any other matter relating to the performance of the duties imposed by Clauses 16 and 17. On that basis, I think the issue which my noble friend raised about hierarchies of roads is covered.

That leaves me, at the last, with the question of guardsmen and those on horses. I remind the Committee that, as Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, I have the interests of my fellow officers very much in mind, whether they are on foot or on horseback. I certainly would not be party to a Bill which in any way, shape or form infringed their safety while going about their lawful and essential business. So I assure the noble Lord that when we refer to "traffic", we also include horses.

If the Minister will forgive me, there is one category that he has not mentioned, and that is skateboarders. Do they count as pedestrians or as vehicular traffic? The question is a worrying practical one.

The answer that am being given is singularly inappropriate; namely, that it is a grey area. I should have thought that, whatever skateboarders may be, they do not comprise a grey area. I cannot give an immediate answer to the noble Earl but I shall take his question on board. When we considered whether we had covered all aspects of traffic, I must say that is one consideration that eluded us. It ought not to have done. I am grateful to the noble Earl for reminding us of it.

While the noble Lord conducts that intense research on skateboards, will he please include roller skates as well?

I hope that I may ask a similarly tactful question; does the road network include BOATs?

I do not know whether the noble Lord refers to boats that are powered or to boats that are towed behind vehicles.

I refer to byways open to all traffic.

We are talking about highway traffic. I have yet to see a boat sail up any of our motorways or trunk roads.

I am sure that the Committee would not object if my noble friend wished to reinforce his point about his duties as Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard if he were to wear his uniform at the next sitting of this Committee.

I appreciate very much what my noble friend said in response to the debate. He made a number of very important points. I should like to look particularly carefully at what he said about safety. I am not sure that safety can be omitted simply because one does not want to create a list. I shall want to look very carefully at the wording that he used. As I say, I appreciate the way in which he responded to the debate. I also appreciate the contributions that other noble Lords have made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Before my noble friend does so, I hope that I may return to the words,

"securing the expeditious movement of traffic".

As has been said, that phrase includes cyclists and pedestrians. Clause 31 states, at line 17, page 14, that "'traffic' includes pedestrians". I wish to press my noble friend a little further on that point. If "traffic" includes pedestrians, surely it would not do any harm to include cyclists in particular in that definition in Clause 31, which applies to Part 2 of the Bill. Then there would be no need to have any amendments on cyclists with regard to Clause 16. Adding the two words "cyclists and- to the definition in Clause 31 after the word "includes" would make the cyclist lobby, which is quite vociferous, very happy.

I am very eager to make the cyclist lobby happy, not least because there is an intensive lobby in this House and in the other place in the form of the parliamentary cycling group. However, when we refer to other traffic we include all traffic other than pedestrians. The reason we specify pedestrians is that they are additional to all traffic whereas cyclists and officers on horseback are part of all traffic.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 66:

Page 7, line 25, at end insert"; and

(c) facilitating overall transport policy objectives set out in relevant local transport plans, and in London the Mayor's transport strategy and local implementation plans and regional transport strategies"

I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for tabling this amendment as it gives me an opportunity to ask the Minister what on earth Clause 16 actually means. It begins by stating:

"It is the duty of a local traffic authority to manage their road network".

Indeed, it always has been the duty of local authorities to manage their road networks. It has certainly been the case over the past 15 or so years, certainly since I have been involved in local government, that, increasingly, management of the highway network has changed in response to both community and government aspirations regarding other policy objectives, such as the reduction of noise, improving safety, improving air quality, providing bus and cycle lanes, and so on. Those policies and certain planning policies have a profound effect upon the network and the way in which local authorities manage it. Local authorities want to be able to make those choices in a way that reflects the aspirations of local communities.

Clause 16 begins by asking local authorities to do something that they already do. Then it adds the caveat that local authorities must do that,

"so far as may be reasonably practicable having regard to their other obligations",

which is what they are trying to do at the moment. The clause then states that local authorities must consider how they can make,

"more efficient use of their road network",

and seek the avoidance and elimination of congestion. Either the entire clause is simply a "motherhood and apple pie" provision and is included merely so that the Government can tell the road lobby that they have done something, or it will result in guidance being issued to local authorities obliging them to give greater precedence to the narrow aspects of traffic management than to other matters, such as safety, air quality or noise.

From the point of view of local authorities it is very difficult to see what Clause 16 seeks to achieve. I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter and seek clarification from the Minister with regard to the Government's intentions in this regard.

I should like to follow that point. This part of the Bill is crucial for the entire Bill, if that is not considered to be the case, everyone is wasting an awful lot of time here. While it quite properly lays out local authorities' responsibilities and so on, my understanding and hope is that it also recognises that, particularly in London, there is a crucial need for a much more co-ordinated approach to the entire question of not transportation—I must stop using these Americanisms— but of transport in London.

I consider networking in terms of the networking of the entire system. Those of us who have seen the control centre realise that modern science has produced the means of managing the entire system in one go. That is happening. The problem is that the very best local authorities have very good approaches and programmes for within their local authority areas but, 50 yards away, that conflicts with the next local authority that has a different approach to the matter.

I may be wrong but I feel strongly that this is the most important part of the Bill. It concerns an urgent and necessary matter but it requires us to get away from the concept of looking at this point and that point. We need a co-ordinating system for the network in London and Greater London.

I entirely agree with what the previous two speakers have said. The LGA has produced a briefing that clearly shares the concern about what the clause means and whether it gives primacy, rather than parity, to certain duties.

The draft network management duty, which the Government have circulated, is very emollient about these matters. It states that,

"the duty is placed alongside all the other things that an authority has to consider'',

and that it is to be viewed as part of the wider road network and should be integrated with the ditties of neighbouring authorities. However, I find it very hard to read that into the wording of the Bill. Clause 16 includes the words,

"so far as may be reasonably practicable".

If I were to place a duty on the Minister to turn up for lunch tomorrow with me,

"so far as may be reasonably practicable",

I would expect him to shift most other things except possibly the death of his mother-in-law into second place. I would expect him to give real priority to turning up. I think that is the ordinary English usage of the phrase.

However, if I wanted to express what the Government seem to think this clause means, I would say,

"as far as may be reasonable",

and make it a much gentler duty to achieve these things. Many things need to be set alongside the duty that we are discussing. In the ordinary English reading of the phrase, anyone would expect to give the duty priority, and the first thing they would have to do would be to dig up all the speed humps.

Do not the words, "as far as is reasonably practicable", include traffic conditions? I remember one occasion when Barbara Castle as Minister of Transport was due to speak at an election meeting. She failed to arrive because it took her three hours to travel the length of Park Lane. She had attended as far as was reasonably practicable.

I am not so sure that some of us, even in our present state, could not manage to walk the length of Park Lane in less than three hours. Therefore, there was an alternative strategy on that occasion.

I turn to the issues raised by the amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, for giving the clause the importance that it merits. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, identified the present responsibilities of local authorities. We all know that the best authorities discharge those responsibilities so far as is practicable. However, the issue involves giving emphasis to the problem of congestion as it extends beyond local authority boundaries. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, emphasised, that is a particularly important matter in London but it is by no means confined to London. The problem of congestion is acute right across the country and certain factors cannot help but increase road usage. We aim to ensure that they do not increase road congestion as that already strains the patience of our fellow citizens to the utmost.

Road usage is destined to increase according to all the analyses of economic factors such as car ownership, increased leisure time and people's desire to use the roads for a multiplicity of reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, identified so accurately, the clause emphasises the responsibilities that we are discussing. It is the centrepiece of the Bill. The clause encourages local authorities to devote more attention to traffic management. The objectives, policies and obligations mentioned in the clause are already wide enough to ensure that a local traffic authority is able to consider local, regional and national plans and strategies where they are relevant to the performance of its network management duties. I ask noble Lords opposite to withdraw their amendments as the clause already contains powers to consider other factors. At the same time it places the necessary emphasis—which is at the heart of the whole Bill—on dealing with congestion in an integrated and concerted way.

The amendments seek to prevent the arrangements made for meeting the duty conflicting with other plans and strategies. However, it would indeed be surprising if there were not some divergence between this duty and other obligations. If that were the case, I do not see why the other obligations should take precedence over the duty—quite the opposite should be the case. What we are seeking—

What would happen if the relevant obligations comprised other government obligations? Many towns across the country have islands of land that have been cut off by urban dual carriageways and therefore have not been developed. We have all seen those derelict islands of land. In seeking to meet the Government's objective of developing brownfield land, many local authorities have reduced the road space on either side of the islands of land, put in more crossings and made the land accessible so that it can be built on. That meets a government objective of using brownfield land but it also reduces road space and therefore possibly adds to congestion. Local authorities want to know which objective has primacy. How many directions can local authorities cope with at one time? That is at the heart of the concern about primacy.

I recognise that local authorities spend all their time trying to balance the conflicting demands of their electorates—those demands often conflict—with demands from government and other agencies. However, as I think the noble Baroness will recognise, the problem with the amendment that we are discussing is that it would appear to give precedence to other duties when the purpose of the Bill is to make the tackling of congestion a priority. Through the actions of traffic officers we seek to improve the way in which we tackle congestion on our roads. We ask local authorities to give primacy to that issue particularly as regards co-ordinating their actions with those of local authorities beyond their boundaries, as I emphasised a few moments ago.

On this point of primacy I have a concern—and it may be an unnecessary concern. If this primacy is given, could a local authority that has either pedestrianised the streets, or wishes to pedestrianise part of the town, be prevented from doing so because we have a primacy as regards the road network managing of traffic?

We all know of towns in which high streets have been pedestrianised where one could argue that that has disrupted the flow of traffic in the surrounding area. Would those circumstances make it difficult—I see the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, nodding her head—for a local authority to introduce a pedestrian area, or would they affect the rules that apply to some streets that are pedestrianised, even though they are not pedestrianised all the time—they are sometimes pedestrianised only at specific hours of the day? I am concerned about that overarching primacy as well as the whole of Clause 16.

Perhaps I may chime in on the same issue. The noble Lord says that there should be an elevated level of priority for these duties, but paragraph 13 of the draft Network Management Duty states that,

"the duty is placed alongside all the other things that an authority has to consider, and it does not take precedence. So, for example, securing the expeditious movement of vehicles should not be at the expense of an authority's road safety objectives".

Either I am misunderstanding this, or I misunderstand the noble Lord. The two do not sit together.

Before my noble friend responds, I have been interested that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, have been talking about the problems of primacy in keeping the traffic moving; and, therefore, perhaps local authorities cannot pedestrianise a street or a town centre. I would suggest that they fall into the trap of assuming that traffic merely equals cars, because pedestrians will find it much better in a town centre. I do not know how the Government intend to measure that. If we are talking about traffic including cyclists and pedestrians, there must be some means to balance the needs of pedestrians when they are crossing dual carriageway roads, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said. That has to be balanced with this primacy for keeping all traffic moving, including pedestrians.

I am grateful to my noble friend. It was an entirely appropriate rejoinder to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. Local authorities will need to balance their responsibilities. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, they do that all the time. We recognise that there are conflicting obligations upon authorities. There are always such issues to be confronted.

The Bill seeks to give effect to a new structure regarding our general position to deal with issues of traffic congestion. We merely seek to identify for local authorities the necessity for effective management of their road networks in the decisions they take, with the issue of congestion being an important issue to consider.

Of course if the choice is between pedestrianisation for the benefit of the town and closing a road, a local authority may well believe that it would better serve the needs of its electorate by pedestrianisation. Who would gainsay such an initiative? At other times it may be that other priorities with regard to development take priority. Surely, it is right that through this legislation we should expect local authorities to address themselves to the issue of congestion. In doing that they should recognise that there is a great deal to be achieved by closer relationships with neighbouring authorities. That is particularly true in our great conurbations, especially with regard to London boroughs and London, but it is true across the country. I do not seek to suggest that what we have sought to do is to elevate the question of road congestion as the top priority for local authorities to address. That would be a ridiculous concept and nor would local authorities for one moment countenance such a proposition. However, they will understand that it is right that the Government should put in place measures that tackle the ever-growing problem of traffic flows and the barriers to traffic flows for the convenience of their electorate. It is important that in doing that we have a strategy and provision for emphasising the significance of the position. The amendments would remove the ability of the national authority to take the necessary steps to achieve the network strategy and management duty for which they are responsible.

I recognise that we shall have considerable debates about the role of local authorities in respect of traffic management through many stages of the Bill. But this is the broad clause that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, emphasised is absolutely critical to the Bill. For that reason I resist the amendment.

The problem with the Bill is that, in common with me, few people in the nation have taken on board the powers of this part of the Bill—Clauses 18, 19, 20 and particularly Clause 21 on the intervention orders which states:

"If the appropriate national authority is satisfied that a local traffic authority are failing properly to perform any duty under sections 16 and 17 it may, by order made by statutory instrument (an 'intervention order'), make provision for or in connection with the appointment of a traffic director".

If it works and if the Government are serious about it, this is a body that will have power to enforce a proper network management process. In an area like London, that is long overdue and if it works it will be a godsend to everyone.

Am I right to conclude from what the noble Lord has said that this draft network management duty is what I should take as my Bible in understanding what the Bill is meant to achieve? Therefore, the words,

"so far as may be reasonably practicable",

should not be in the Bill because they impose a primacy on the duty and that, in accordance with paragraph 14 of the draft network management duty, we should seek to impose some kind of' a duty on authorities to communicate with, or to have regard to, the needs of their neighbours. Paragraph 14 appears to be entirely without support in the Bill. There is no duty in the Bill that a local highway authority should conduct itself so as not to cause congestion in neighbouring areas. It is expressed as a pious hope—one with which I agree— in the draft management duty. If the draft management duty is where we should be, we need to make some amendments to the Bill. Does the noble Lord agree with that?

I do not think that I can agree until I see the colour of' the amendments of the noble Lord. I make the obvious point: road users do not identify boundaries between local authorities; they travel on roads and the roads cross authorities. I return to the point that I am trying to express as forcefully as possible and which has been accurately expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh: we need co-ordinated strategies between authorities. The purpose of the Bill is to emphasise that authorities need to manage their roads and their traffic cognizant of that requirement.

I recognise that local authorities have competing obligations—that is in the nature of their work. What is quite clear is that this legislation will emphasise a greater role for the local authorities to address themselves to traffic management. Should they fail lamentably, there is provision for action to be taken. because action needs to be taken where we are not able to tackle congestion satisfactorily.

It has been an interesting debate. The reason why Clause 15 is so important, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, alluded to, is because it sets up the provision of' a very wide-ranging power in Clauses 20 and 21. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that it includes pedestrians. Traffic can be backed up for half a mile, but you have to have an awful lot of pedestrians before they are backed up for half a mile. Pedestrians are occasionally impeded because the synchromesh on crossings is wrong and they might have to wait a minute, but you do not get lines of pedestrians.

This clause changes the emphasis for local authorities. The Minister admitted that expeditious traffic movement has always been the duty of local authorities, but they have always balanced that with other community objectives. I believe that the clause gives a certain primacy to traffic movement—it changes the balance. The Committee needs to be aware of that. It might be argued that that is a good thing—the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, certainly seems to favour that argument. But we need to be aware of how important this clause is.

The Minister said that my amendments are unnecessary. The more he says that, the more I wonder how necessary the clause is. The clause is necessary if we are seeking to change the emphasis and give a much stronger duty to local authorities to ensure a flow of traffic over the other concerns of the community. That is what it does, and we need to be aware of it. If we are not—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, recognised this—we will need to consider it, particularly when we reach later clauses. I suspect that when we look at the powers that the later clauses will provide, we might look at Clause 16 again on Report to find out whether the Government have it exactly right. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 67:

Page 7, line 25, at end insert—

"(c) ensuring that the authority's road network is maintained in a condition fit for its purpose; and

(d) ensuring that any defects are remedied as soon as may be reasonably practicable"

I have an amendment in this group as well. This is starting a discussion which will continue with a number of my later amendments—the relationship between traffic and the other users of the road space, principally the neighbouring businesses and householders. If I want to make changes to a property that borders a highway, I may well need to park a crane and take up part of the highway for a while. If I want to be connected to some new service, such as broadband or cable, I may need, particularly if I am a large commercial concern, to cause considerable disruption to the highway. How are these highway authorities to balance the conflicting demands on them?

As the Bill stands—this comes back to what I was saying on the last grouping—I do not see what guidance the Government are intending to give local authorities on how to balance these duties. Are they to say, "No, Lord Lucas can wait six months for his broadband because we have a nice, pretty, new street and we are not going to have anyone digging holes in it"? Or will they say that there has to be a reasonable balance between the proper provision of services to people's neighbouring highways and keeping traffic flowing and the highways pretty? I do not see how that balance is expressed in the Bill. The amendment is merely an attempt to draw that out from the Minister.

The amendment is highly relevant. Something which I have been lobbied about quite a lot is the problem of connecting people to broadband. People think of the road network in terms of carrying the physical communications traffic. It also carries the electronic traffic under the roads, in conduits. That electronic information—IT traffic—is essential to the well-being and the future of the country and small businesses. If it is not taken into consideration and people cannot get fast, expeditious and timely connections on to the electronic traffic highways—the backbone of the Internet or whatever it might be that they need to communicate with—then businesses can suffer. If you cannot get repairs done or new connections made, it will make life very difficult. Therefore, it has to be taken into account at an early stage when people are planning these things.

We have had a lot of discussion about "practicable". I feel that "so far as is consonant with" is a rather good alternative expression.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. However, I remind the Committee that the duty in Clause 16 is focused on managing the road network and the traffic using it. There is already a separate duty on local authorities to maintain their roads. As they would be the first to point out, this depends upon the resources they have to fulfil this obligation. The Government have greatly increased funding to local authorities for maintenance in our recent decisions.

It goes without saying that maintenance is of importance to the road network, but it is not the basis and the objective of the Bill. The duty we are talking about here is managing the network effectively. The amendment would be unlikely to change any position with regard to the obligations of the local authority to maintain its highways which are the subject of other provisions.

I regard Amendment No. 67 as well meaning; it is concerned with our roads being in good condition. We all recognise that inadequate maintenance causes delays and difficulties. But it is not appropriate to a section of the Bill which is concerned with the broader strategic aspect.

The purpose of the network management duty is to encourage local authorities to weigh up competing priorities and co-ordinate their works to minimise disruption. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have said. Of course there are very good reasons why the roadway needs to be interfered with for the provision of services. That is the nature of the problem that we all recognise.

No one wilfully digs up a road. I know that stories are legion in which people maintain that something has been extracted from the Louis Blanc field of socialism, 1848, whereby men dig up roads for the sole purpose and enjoyment of digging up the road, thereby apparently accounting for an increase in national productivity. However, no one seriously believes that our problem revolves around the issue that people arbitrarily and meaninglessly dig up roads. They all have a good reason for digging them up. The problem is that each and every one of them does it severally in an unco-ordinated way, and that leads to under-use of the network simply because our roads are constantly disrupted by these factors.

In seeking to defend the Bill, I am not discounting the very important considerations about the provision of services which would require the highway to be interfered with. The Bill is seeking to achieve some degree of priority by the local authority, so that that activity is co-ordinated and we minimise the loss of highway usage by such means.

Of course highway maintenance is bound to form an important part of the duty. I share the desire for authorities to take care of the infrastructure so that not only is it safe but its lifespan is maximised. Placing specific requirements on the face of the Bill is not the way to do it. Again, it leaves us with the problem of what we have left out if we draw up a list. Secondly, these considerations can be referred to in statutory guidance, which is a more appropriate way to discuss them than in primary legislation.

Amendment No. 67A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also seeks to add an additional strand to the network management duty. Local traffic authorities will be required to minimise the disruption by other users as far as is consistent with safety and the efficient provision of services to the customers of commercial concerns.

The duty already covers the causes of disruption that the amendment seeks to address. The consideration of wider issues such as safety are taken into account in the clause. Clause 16(1) is clear on that. It allows the local authority—and I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, as I make these remarks— to have regard to other obligations, policies and objectives when exercising the duty, but it clearly indicates to a local authority that we need some priority in this area. We need a recognition by local authorities that congestion is an important issue that can be tackled more intelligently within the framework of the provisions of the Bill.

Expanding the network management duty in the way suggested by the noble Lord would dilute its focus. We have already had several other equally valid representations, which I am sure the noble Lord would recognise, on why they should be identified as considerations to be taken into account. If we sought to do that we should be faced with an inexhaustible list. In doing so, we would still be open to the charge that we had left out crucial areas. Statutory guidance, which is given on the basis of this measure, will be the basis on which these kinds of issues should be sorted out. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will recognise that they can safely withdraw their amendments.

Yes, of course. My amendment was merely a probing amendment. I am delighted to have heard a statement of the Government's position. We shall come on to the substantive questions later in the Bill. The Minister again reiterated the phrase "some measure of priority" being given to the network management duty. That is what is in the Bill, it is not what is in the draft network management duty. Perhaps the noble Lord could write to me. I must ask him to try and reconcile the words in the draft network management duty with the words in the Bill. They just do not hang together. I will not try to persuade him from one course to another, I would just like to make sure that the Bill does what he wants it to do. At the moment the two do not work together. I would love to have a letter explaining how they are seen to work together.

I will certainly address my mind to the point the noble Lord so reasonably makes. We have a long way to go with regard to this section of the Bill. It may be that we have a framework within which we can satisfactorily tease out these issues as we discuss the Bill. If not, I shall certainly take steps to write on the matter to the noble Lord and to all Members of the Committee.

I thank the Minister for giving considerable clarity on the issue. Of course we shall go away and look at it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday at 3.30.

The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.

The Committee adjourned at live minutes after seven o'clock.