asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why voters in the London mayoral elections were instructed on the reverse side of the declaration of identity to, "Vote once for your first choice and once for your second choice", when there is no obligation to exercise a second choice.

My Lords, the wording on the declaration of identity in relation to the mayoral election is a matter for the Greater London Returning Officer.

My Lords, I am only partially grateful for that reply. Is the Minister aware that I first raised this matter as long ago as 2000 during the mayoral election? I pointed out then that voters were being wrongly instructed that they had to vote twice. Is the Minister aware that I returned to the charge at the beginning of 2003 and I raised the matter again in good time for the matter to be put right for the mayoral election in 2004? However, on 4 March this year a series of orders came before the House. Tucked away in one of them was the same wholly improper instruction to voters.

Is it not obvious from the Hansard report of the proceedings on 4 March that no one—the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, included—noticed that the order contained the improper instruction? In the debate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested various forms of wording to bring home to the voter that he had a choice regarding whether to vote once or twice and no one suggested that the noble Lord was wasting his breath, although the matter was cut and dried in the regulations.

Too long.

My Lords, no. This matter is important and I must explain the background. Will the Minister state categorically that voters are not required to exercise a second choice? Will he give a categorical assurance that the Government will ensure that that will be made absolutely clear in future orders?

My Lords, I have some sympathy for the noble Lord and I congratulate him on his diligence, but in the end I cannot agree with his conclusion. It is made clear to voters that they can vote once for their first choice and once for their second choice. It is up to voters whether they wish to use their second vote.

My Lords—

Order.

My Lords—

My Lords, I really think that this is unacceptable. Perhaps the Minister should finish his answer.

My Lords, in the guide that is sent to all electors in the Greater London area it is made clear that they have no obligation to make use of their second vote. That was made clear in the mayoral address booklet that was sent to every elector.

My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten me on a matter of elementary logic? Does my noble friend agree that it does not remotely follow from the proposition put in the Question that one has to exercise a second choice? Indeed, it does not even follow that one has to exercise a first choice. There is nothing in the proposition that says that one must exercise any choice at all and, therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is completely misguided—simply as a matter of logic.

My Lords, I am drawn to conclude that what my noble friend says is absolutely right.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that a report published after the first mayoral elections for London on how the elections had been carried out showed that a great number of votes were considered to have been invalid? The reason given to the London group of this House was that people had not fully understood the voting instructions. Is it too early to know whether a similar situation exists for this election?

My Lords, I know that concerns were expressed about the first set of elections for the Mayor and the Greater London Assembly and that greater flexibility was then given to the returning officer with regard to the wording. Fewer ballot papers were spoilt in the most recent elections—a drop of 10 per cent. On an increased turnout, we should be happy with that progress.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a candidate in the recent Greater London Assembly elections—although the question I ask has no bearing on whether or not I was elected. The instruction given suggested that people had two votes in those elections. Many electors followed that to the letter by voting twice in the same column, thereby invalidating their vote. Did the Greater London Returning Officer take advice from focus groups or take other steps to establish whether electors would understand the instructions given to them?

My Lords, I am not immediately aware of whether the returning officer conducted research with focus groups, but I know that there was extensive consultation. No doubt that will be fed back into the various inquiries which will be undertaken into the conduct of the elections, and suggestions and improvements can be made for subsequent elections.

My Lords, has the Minister or the Greater London Authority considered inviting electors simply to number their preferences—1, 2, 3, 4—voting for as many candidates as they like? Many trade unions and other bodies use this system, which is clear. Why are we continually making it complicated to vote?

My Lords, I do not necessarily agree that it was that complex because a large number of electors managed to get it right. We should congratulate them on doing so. However, the noble Lord makes a valid point and no doubt the Greater London Returning Officer will want to consider it in reviewing the outcome of the election.

My Lords, will the Minister remind the returning officer that up until and including the 1945 general election there were a number of two-Member constituencies? It was then accepted that one could use only one vote, called a "plumper" vote, and not be required to use the two votes.

My Lords, it is a matter for the electors. Adequate steps were taken to ensure that people were aware that they did not have to exercise both votes.

My Lords, is the issue here not the advice that was given to returning officers but what was written on the ballot paper? The issue that surfaced in the debate earlier this year was the wording on the ballot paper. Can we be assured that, at the next mayoral elections, the proposal made in the debate in February that there be a particular form of wording on the ballot paper to clarify the position is put into effect?

My Lords, I take my noble friend's point—it is clearly a matter for the Greater London Returning Officer. Doubtless it is an issue to which the returning officer will give full consideration.

My Lords, I apologise to the House for having got over-excited earlier. Can I point out to the noble Lord—

Question!

My Lords, can I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that the regulations do not refer to voters having a choice? They state quite specifically that the voter is "instructed" to vote twice. That is my point—"instructed"—and it is wrong in law.

My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's interpretation. The regulations are clear. Obviously noble Lords are exercised about this matter and the Greater London Returning Officer will have to consider it, quite properly, in the fullness of time.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that anyone who voted only once in those elections was not considered to have spoilt his voting paper?

My Lords, electors were fully entitled to vote just once. The fact that they voted only once did not invalidate the vote.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What are the rules governing the application of the United Kingdom minimum wage for ratings on British-registered merchant ships; and what is the effect of these rules on the recruitment of British ratings.

My Lords, the national minimum wage applies to mariners employed on a UK-registered ship unless their employment is wholly outside the UK or they are not ordinarily resident in the UK. Foreign seafarers qualify for the minimum wage when they are serving on UK-registered vessels trading in UK waters. The effect of the minimum wage on the recruitment of British ratings depends on the crewing decisions of individual shipping companies, which are matters for the companies themselves.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he in a position to say whether the tonnage tax introduced in 2000 has had the beneficial effect of increasing jobs for British ratings? Have the Government considered reforming the Race Relations Act 1976 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to ensure that all ratings on UK-registered ships are paid the full minimum wage?

My Lords, recent research by the London Metropolitan University analyses the position on UK ships and that probably provides the current best statistical evidence. It shows that there were about 28,000 active seafarers in 2003, a slight decline from the 30,000 in 1997. The figure has risen again to about 28,000, which represents a small recovery, and there is a parallel small recovery in the number of officers.

There is no loophole in the Race Relations Act. Section 9 was amended last year to allow payment of foreign seafarers at differential rates on UK-registered ships on the ground of nationality only. I point out to your Lordships' House that it is possible—indeed, it is easy—for ships to be reflagged in order to avoid any such regulations.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the effect of insisting that all ratings on British ships, wherever they are, are paid at British rates would be a large part of the present British fleet being flagged out to avoid that happening?

My Lords, there is a distinct possibility that that is what would happen. It is relatively easy to reflag a ship. Indeed, in the past 24 hours I have come across evidence that, by logging on to an on-line site in Cambodia, one can reflag a ship in slightly under 15 minutes.

My Lords, can the Minister say what the situation is with regard to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary?

My Lords, I do not think that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is fully covered, but I shall check that and write to the noble Earl to confirm it.

My Lords, can my noble friend say how often the Inland Revenue has inspected UK-registered ships to ensure that the minimum wage is being applied?

My Lords, the Inland Revenue is responsible for compliance and, certainly, if it is aware that minimum wage regulations are being broken, it makes inspections. But other inspections are also undertaken under port authority regulations on matters of safety on board ships, contamination, and so on. In all such cases, I am happy to say that reports place the United Kingdom's registered ships at the very top of the international league.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What representations they have made to the United States Government concerning the holding of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

My Lords, we have long said that the British detainees should be either tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the UK. Following discussions with the US, we concluded that US military commissions would not provide sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards. We therefore asked that all British detainees be returned to the UK. Five returned in March. We continue to work to resolve the situation of the remaining four.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and welcome the statement of the Attorney-General that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are not being guaranteed a fair trial but that there should be a fair trial in accordance with international law and that there should be no compromise in principle. I note the statements from the Supreme Court, but the fact is that, after two years of incarceration, these prisoners are still being held in wholly unacceptable circumstances. For a country with ideals of liberty, which we have always admired and often copied and which have been an example to the whole world, is this not a matter which merits universal censure?

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the Government have consistently sought to resolve the position of the British detainees. Our position has been that the British detainees should be either tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. That has been the core of our argument. We expressed our reservations about the military commissions nearly a year ago and it was on that basis that five detainees were returned. We continue to press the US Government with respect to the other four.

My Lords, we sit within a stone's throw of the Star Chamber Court. Does the Attorney-General agree with Justice Stevens' opinion, voiced yesterday in the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Padilla v Rumsfeld, that:

"At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society ... Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber"?

Will the Government now support British citizens who are detained in Guantanamo with legal and financial assistance to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in the United States courts, as the United States Supreme Court said they could yesterday?

My Lords, we are obviously considering the implications of yesterday's judgment, and it is far too early for me to make any specific comments in relation to it.

My Lords, has the noble Baroness received any reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross on whether it is satisfied with the access that it has to prisoners and, in particular, on whether it is satisfied on the issue of mail? Relatives are receiving letters only infrequently and they are very delayed and heavily censored.

My Lords, I am aware that some concerns have been expressed by some detainees about the conditions in Guantanamo Bay, including the issue of mail. With regard to the International Committee of the Red Cross, I have not seen any specific reports, but I am happy to write to the right reverend Prelate if any issues relate to the substance of his question.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the United States Supreme Court majority ruling yesterday guarantees a fair review but it does not necessarily guarantee a fair trial, which is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, understandably called for the other day? Can she explain the Government's attitude to bringing home the remaining four British detainees at Guantanamo? Earlier in the year, it seemed that we were reluctant to have them back. Has the policy now changed on that? If they do come back, what will be their status and what will be the charges against them, and will the evidence for those charges be admissible in British courts?

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, knows that I shall not be able to respond to much of the detail of the questions that he has just asked me. Following the return of the five detainees, we agreed with the United States Government to continue discussions about the remaining four. The circumstances leading to the return of the five detainees were explained to Parliament at that time. We have had further discussions, which are continuing, but there has not yet been a resolution. As I said in response to an earlier question, we are looking at the implications of yesterday's judgment and it is far too soon for me to say what those implications might be.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the decision of the Supreme Court is particularly welcome at this time as it underlines the importance of the rule of law on both sides of the Atlantic?

My Lords, I think that I made it absolutely clear in the responses that I have already given that our position has always been that the detainees should be either tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. That has been at the centre of our approach and it will continue to be so.

My Lords, will the Government be offering financial assistance to those detained so that their appeals can be heard expeditiously and efficiently?

My Lords, I am not sure to which appeals the noble Lord refers. He will know that a judicial review process is currently taking place in the United Kingdom, on which I am unable to comment, and, of course, we had the ruling yesterday on the cases heard in the US Supreme Court.

My Lords—

My Lords, this side, I think. My noble friend will be aware that analogous, although not exactly parallel, concerns have been expressed about the detention regime under Part 4 of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act in this country. Will she ensure that, in the Government's review of those provisions, exactly the same scruples and concerns are taken into account in the regime that we operate for foreign prisoners in this country?

My Lords, my noble friend is talking about a very different situation.

My Lords, can the noble Baroness remind us what has happened to the five who have returned to this country? Are they now facing trial?

My Lords, they have returned and, so far as I recall, they are not facing trial. If I am wrong, I shall of course write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, while I applaud the efforts of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and the Government to return British detainees to this country, the Question does not relate simply to United Kingdom detainees; it refers to all those who are detained in very severe circumstances at Guantanamo Bay. Are the Government making strenuous efforts to ensure that the United States obeys the international conventions and the rule of law under which prisoners should not be held in dire circumstances for very long periods without facing charge and proper judicial process?

My Lords, I think that I have made our position clear, but perhaps I should repeat it for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. We have consistently sought to resolve the position of the British detainees. If noble Lords look at the many statements which have been made, they will see that no other country has visited its detainees as frequently or made such strenuous efforts on their behalf. Again, I stress that our position has been that our detainees should either be treated fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. When we expressed our reservations over the military commissions last year, it was on the basis that the United States Government suspended all legal proceedings against two of the British detainees at our request.

My Lords, is it not clear, even for those who wish the United States well in the very difficult task that it has undertaken, that we have the greatest concern about the present situation? It has become a public relations disaster for the United States, and it is urgent and important that it makes its case more clearly to the world. In that connection, are the Government making any representations about the fact that the United States is not likely to have an ambassador in this country for the following six months?

My Lords, obviously the length of time that the United States takes to place an ambassador is very much a matter for it. The noble Lord will know, as I have said in response to many questions, that we have been strenuous in the representations we have made to the United States Government with regard to the position of the British detainees.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

When the Bill on the powers and responsibilities of the regional assemblies will be introduced.

My Lords, we will introduce a Bill to establish elected regional assemblies when one or more regions has voted in favour of establishing an assembly in a referendum. Our intention is that there should be referendums in the three northern regions this autumn. We will publish a draft Bill in July when Parliament has approved the date of the referendums.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of that response and as it is expected that the referendums will take place in the autumn, does the Minister not accept that to publish the powers and responsibilities of the regional assemblies some time in July, which will be probably less than a week or two before the Summer Recess, and with Parliament sitting for only two weeks in September, means that there will be very little time for this House to consider those powers and responsibilities? Can he give an assurance that opportunities will be presented to the House to discuss the powers and responsibilities in the draft Bill in good time before the start of a referendum campaign?

My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness. I am sure that there will be plenty of time for debate following the referendums. As regards time for debate before the referendums, clearly that is a matter which should be properly discussed through the usual channels. No doubt there will be sympathy for that discussion.

My Lords, how many millions of pounds will these regional assemblies cost our people, and are our people not already well represented in the House of Commons, county councils, district councils and in other ways?

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. In the end it will be for the people to decide. That is the purpose of the Government setting out a programme which enables people to vote in the regions on whether they wish to have a regional assembly. The Government take the view that regional government is of benefit, and no doubt many people agree with that.

My Lords, will the Minister return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham; that is, that there should be proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill and proper debate in both Houses before these questions are put to a referendum? There is great anxiety in the north-west of England about the nature of the powers that will be given to the regional assemblies. Does the Minister not agree that those issues should be explored in this place and another place before they are put to the people?

My Lords, in the six and a half years that I have been in your Lordships' House I have never noticed its failure to take these matters seriously and to scrutinise in great detail Bills that come before it. I am sure that there will be ample opportunity for proper scrutiny of the powers and functions of the regional assemblies. I understand that the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has announced its intention to hold an inquiry into the Bill and will examine how it may work. I am sure that that and other opportunities within the parliamentary timetable will exist for adequate scrutiny.

My Lords, there are those of us who, like the Government, are keen to see the referendums reach a successful conclusion but our campaigns are being hobbled at the moment. We do not know what proposition we shall advocate to the electorate in the regions because we do not have a draft Bill. Does the Minister accept that to say that the question of whether there is adequate debate is up to the usual channels strikes many of us as completely unacceptable? Until we see a draft Bill we cannot have any kind of debate, far less any assurance, on the basis on which these referendums will be fought.

My Lords, I do not hear people say that the usual channels do not work. Obviously there will have to be discussion there so that there can be debate before the referendums take place. I do not agree with the noble Lord's assessment that there is a hobbling of the opportunity for debate generally. In the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, the Government made clear the way in which they wish to address these matters. I am sure that there will be ample opportunities for thorough debate on what I think we all agree are important issues.

My Lords, does the Minister recall the question asked by my noble friend Lord Renton; namely, what will these assemblies cost the people who are represented by them? What calculations have the Government made of that?

My Lords, I do not have costings that I can provide today to your Lordships' House. I am happy to go away and see what figures exist. We have made plain our intention in this policy area. We spelt it out very clearly in the White Paper. In the end it is for the people to make the choice, and that is as it should be.

My Lords, what are the Government doing to excite the people that there will be something really worth while in these regional assemblies?

My Lords, I rather thought that the noble Lord was quite excited by them. Perhaps he can help us with this. We have been undertaking an information campaign over the past year or so, and I understand that there has been a very interested response. People are participating in public meetings and gatherings to discuss what might happen as a result of successful referendums. I am sure that any words the noble Lord can say to assist in that process will be gratefully received.

My Lords, if there is concern about the time available to address this legislation, will my noble friend convey to the usual channels that this House would be willing to meet exceptionally in the mornings to do that?

My Lords, I think that the usual channels have probably heard those words already.

My Lords, what will be the difference in powers between those regional assemblies that are elected and those that are not elected, such as in the south-east of England where I assume they will continue to exist? What powers will the non-elected regional assemblies continue to have?

My Lords, the non-elected regional assemblies will no doubt continue as they are. The elected regional assemblies will have a wide range of involvement in issues such as sustainable development, economic development, housing strategy, jobs, skills, and planning. We have made clear our proposition on this and it is for the people to make a judgment.

My Lords, does the Minister agree with his noble friend Lord Rooker that the existence of regional assemblies that are not sustained by legislation and the ones that may be if the referendum is successful is an Orwellian state of affairs?

My Lords, the noble Lord puts me in a difficult position. I think that I shall have to settle for agreeing with my noble friend Lord Rooker.

My Lords, in the light of these exchanges, can the Minister confirm that he has no idea when the Bill will be published? Can he also confirm that it is not the usual channels which will decide when the Bill is published? It is the usual channels which, presumably, will be given an indication as to when the matter is to be debated. Can he further confirm that if there are to be regional referendums in the autumn there is now insufficient time for this House and the other place to consider in the normal processes of Parliament the Bill that is to be introduced?

My Lords, I simply do not agree with the noble Baroness. I made it plain that we intend to publish a draft Bill this July. It is for discussion whether there should be debate around the draft Bill in your Lordships' House. I hope that there is, but that is something for the usual channels to sort out. Following publication of the draft Bill there will be ample opportunity for scrutiny.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the comments made by the Home Secretary about Mr Garry Mann on Mr Mann's return from Portugal and after his appearance before the Uxbridge magistrates were in accordance with government policy, and in particular the reported comment that the Home Secretary intended to "nail this individual".

My Lords, the individual concerned was convicted in Portugal of participating in, and leading, a riot and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The Home Secretary's concern was, and remains, seeing that any individual who is convicted by a court does not escape his sentence because of a technicality. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary remains committed to co-operating with the Portuguese authorities.

My Lords, has the noble Baroness read the article by Simon Jenkins published in the centre page of the Times last Wednesday, which stated that knee-jerk David Blunkett is:

"The judicial equivalent of a football hooligan".

Does she take the view that a senior judge—perhaps our reluctant Lord Chancellor—might be prepared to explain to the Home Secretary the fallacy of the proposition that any publicity is better than none? He might also be prepared to continue by pointing out to the Home Secretary that his intemperate outburst seriously undermines the integrity of that great department of state, the Home Office.

My Lords, I regret to tell the noble and learned Lord that I did not have the advantage of reading Mr Simon Jenkins's article last week. Needless to say, I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord's assessment. As to any tutelage that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may see fit to give my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I believe that may not be something that the Lord Chancellor would be likely to take up.

The suggestion that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has behaved improperly in this regard is not one with which I feel able to agree.

My Lords, would the Minister agree that the interference of the Home Secretary, which is not an isolated case, detracts from the great success of the campaign against soccer hooliganism; and that if he generalised his comments and committed himself to nailing soccer hooligans between now and the World Cup in two years' time he would get general support?

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. I do not accept that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has interfered in any improper way. I accept that some would rather he had expressed himself more felicitously. For instance, if he had said, "We wish to uphold the rule of law and act in comity with our Portuguese colleagues and enforce their judgments", I should imagine that the whole House would say, "Hear, hear!". He chose more colloquial language.

My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has my noble friend seen the very welcome statement issued this morning by UEFA, the European football governing body, praising England fans for their behaviour during Euro 2004. It states:

"The English authorities have worked hard in the last 10 years. Their work is starting to bear fruit and they should be commended. There has been a change in the make-up of England fans and we need to keep out the hard element".

Is that not a great tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton and his working group on football hooliganism, and a tribute to the good sense of this House and the other place in passing the Football Spectators Act 2000? It has made a real difference and for the first time one can be proud to be an England fan watching the team abroad.

My Lords, I agree without reservation with my noble friend.

My Lords, will the Minister comment on the view of Fair Trials Abroad that the recent comments of the Home Secretary in relation to Mr Mann will prejudice any chance of a fair retrial?

My Lords, I do not think that that is right. The matter will be dealt with by the Portuguese authorities, not here. I have already made it plain that although some may wish that my honourable friend had expressed himself differently, the import of his comments was clear.

My Lords, surely government must adhere to a policy that justice should be seen to be done; or do they?

Is there not a similarity, in essence, to cases in Northern Ireland where public officials, given inadequate protection against terrorism and having had to employ pragmatic measures, can find themselves charged with offences that would not in themselves merit a criminal conviction? Otherwise, these "fall-guys" would not be held over for periods well in excess of a year, so that more dubious evidence can be accumulated out of time and certainly out of context. Is that justice?

My Lords, perhaps we could remain within the context of this Question. The Portuguese authorities applied the rules. Your Lordships will know that in this case the defendant had an opportunity, if he so chose, to postpone the hearing for 30 days. He chose to have an expedited hearing. It was a valid process within the meaning of the Portuguese law.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in this case government policy was communicated to the population with great clarity? Could she urge her ministerial colleagues throughout government to communicate government policy with equal clarity on all other matters, so that it can be just as easily understood?

My Lords, I know that many would prefer Anglo-Saxon terms to others.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that it is quite clear to all of us that the Home Secretary, by using the words he did, has scored an own goal?

My Lords, I do not agree.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the fact that a very senior government Minister can make remarks of this kind which are—to put it at its lowest—ambiguous, is a very clear demonstration of why it is important to have and to retain in the Cabinet a senior judicial and judicious figure who can seek to preserve his colleagues from these unfortunate errors? Does she also agree that noble Lords not cognisant of this point would do well to bear it in mind when we come to debate the Constitutional Reform Bill?

My Lords, I have to say to the noble Viscount that I am surprised that he should suggest that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was "ambiguous" in any way. I think that the reverse is true.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 9, leave out "management" and insert "movement"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that it is common ground between us that congestion is a nuisance and a source of irritation and expense. It may surprise the Minister to learn that I am ready to applaud the Government for bringing forward what seems a sensible Bill. I would welcome it even more warmly if the Minister, in replying to this very modest amendment, which I shall explain in a moment, could assure me that he was satisfied that the new powers given to the Highways Agency and the additional powers given to local authorities would be used. I am far from satisfied about that at the moment, because my own observations lead me to think that the highway authorities and the Highways Agency are extremely dilatory in some of their operations and thereby contribute considerably to blockages, which are a nuisance to us all.

This is a very modest and crude amendment. I do not for one moment expect the noble Lord to accept it; it would shock me if he did. But I seek an assurance—I hope that I have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I realise now that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, is to reply. I am glad that his attention is riveted on what I say.

In the past there has been a large measure of just going along with congestion as an inevitable fact of life. There has been no will on the part of government, local authorities or the Highways Agency to take steps to promote movement. When I was the Minister responsible for transport many years ago, I developed the rather old-fashioned idea that highways were for movement. I would be grateful for a generous acknowledgement by the Minister that he and the Government whom he represents rate highly the idea of freedom of movement, and that it ought not to be sacrificed in the way that it has been in the past— that is all that I expect today.

Both the Highways Agency and local authorities can be blamed for the irritating habit of coning off large sections of road and leaving the restrictions in place in the pious hope that something may happen in their absence. It does not.

My attitude to the whole Bill will depend on my getting a satisfactory answer from the noble Lord that the desirability of movement on the highways will not be lost sight of and that it will be secured only if the measures in the Bill are accepted by those who give them an opportunity, with pleasure and determination. I beg to move.

My Lords, I had the unworthy thought that perhaps there is just a small element of mischief in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, because much of the Bill is concerned with easing movement, getting rid of congestion and dealing with traffic disruption.

Given that the noble Lord's amendment is based specifically on Clause 1 and the duties of the traffic officer, surely it will not have escaped his attention that in Clause 5, which sets out the special powers of the officer, the phrase "movement of traffic" appears at least twice. Clause 5(3) refers to the duties of the officer to maintain or improve the "movement of traffic". It also refers to,

"preventing or reducing the effect of anything causing ... congestion or other disruption to the movement of traffic".

Later on, when dealing with the highway authorities, the Bill is drafted in the same vein. Surely, there is no disagreement between Ministers and the noble Lord on the essence of what is being said about the need for the relevant authorities to ensure proper movement of traffic and to avoid congestion. I shall be amazed if the Minister disagrees with that, and if he wishes to accept the amendment.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for welcoming the Bill. He asks for reassurances; I hope that I can give them to him. He seeks a generous acknowledgement that the Government have taken on board his amendment. But I underline the point that my noble friend Lord Borrie has just made: the main purpose of the Bill is to keep traffic moving. The point was made over and over again in Committee in the Moses Room, where, I know, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, finds the acoustics dreadful. But there is no question but that keeping traffic moving is the fundamental point that underpins the Bill.

The use of the expression "management of traffic" is broad, encompassing the core activities that we intend traffic officers to undertake. It accurately captures the essence of a traffic officer's function and is also well understood by all stakeholders. Although a primary objective of traffic management is to help to keep traffic moving, traffic management may at times involve stopping or delaying traffic. For example, in the event of a road accident, it may be appropriate and necessary to close a road or part of a carriageway.

Traffic officers will have the power to stop traffic and may use that power to avoid danger to persons or other traffic. In such cases, the traffic officer's duties and powers are used, not to keep traffic moving, but to protect people and property. Another example would be their powers to stop and direct traffic at traffic surveys. That would inevitably delay traffic, albeit for a very good reason.

We therefore consider that "management" is a more apt word than "movement", particularly in the light of the underlying principle that we wish to keep traffic moving. I will hold my breath in the hope that the answer that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, satisfies him. If it does, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am very happy to declare myself entirely satisfied with what the noble Lord has said. He will recognise that it is far from the case that my anxiety springs from a desire to be mischievous, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I am cut to the quick by the idea; I have no such intention. I am concerned that many of the powers to which the Bill will add have been unused in the past. I am sure that the noble Lord and the Government appreciate that. I take the whole Bill as evidence of that. However, I hope that they will keep their mind on the fact that energy in this field has not been particularly visible in either the Highways Agency or the local authorities. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind. Meanwhile, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment, which, as the noble Lord said, I never intended to press to a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 7, leave out "provided for by section 5" and insert "referred to in section 5(1)"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 10. All three amendments are small drafting improvements to improve consistency and accuracy. They have no policy implications.

Amendment No. 2 relates to the first clause and is to replace the words, "provided for by section 5" as they appear on page 2, line 7, with the more accurate wording, "referred to in section 5(1)".

Amendment No. 5 relates to Clause 5 and is to replace the word "regulations" as it appears on page 3, line 11, with the word "orders", for consistency with Clause 8, which uses the word "orders" not "regulations".

Amendment No. 10 relates to Clause 11 and is to replace the word "granted" as it appears on page 6, line 13, with the word "given", for consistency with Clause 2(2) which uses the word "given" not "granted". I beg to move.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 14, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 4, and they suggest that Clause 2(1)(b) and Clause 2(5) should be deleted. I want to know why those provisions are in the Bill. Are they necessary? I beg to move.

My Lords, I did not intervene on the first amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton because I was sure that the Minister was going to give him a satisfactory answer, which he did. We are grateful.

My noble friend Lord Peyton has raised an important point about the designation of traffic officers. In the Explanatory Notes, the Government state that in the longer term there is the option to employ contractors to provide traffic officers. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister could say what they mean by "the longer term" and when they would consider that these traffic officers could be employed by external service providers.

My Lords, I hope that I will be able to satisfy both noble Lords about this amendment. Traffic officers in England will be designated by the Secretary of State and will be employees of the Highways Agency, and there are no current plans to do otherwise. In fact, in the other place my right honourable friend the Minister made that clear when he said that there are no plans to contract out and that,

"the Government are keen to influence the development of the new role".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 27/1/04; col. 37.]

However, the Government wish to retain the flexibility to be able to exercise the option of employing contractors in the future. We would consider this only where there are clear value for money benefits and benefits for road users, without undermining the integrity of the service.

For example, this might be a suitable option for limited parts of the network, such as a tunnel or a bridge. Indeed, the Dartford and Severn crossings have already set a precedent where the operator or concessionaire may directly appoint persons as traffic officers or similar. For this reason, the Government are not happy to take out the flexibility that Clause 2 provides to enable the use and development of new procurement and service delivery options in the future. Because we have no plans at all to take advantage of this flexibility at the moment, it is impossible to put a time scale on our determination not to contract out, but I hope that the explanation that I have given is satisfactory to the noble Lord and he will agree to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, once again, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will forget entirely that word "mischief" as applied to myself. I am happy to say that I am content to withdraw the amendment. I shall read with care what the Minister has said, but he has made a useful contribution to my peace of mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 3, line 11, leave out "regulations" and insert "orders"

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 4, line 25, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 9. My principal concern is why Highways Agency traffic officers require the same power to stop any vehicle in the same way as a police constable. It seems to be a general power with no specific purpose, which could lead to some confusion.

I am aware that consideration is being given elsewhere for non-police to offer fixed penalty notices, both endorsable and non-endorsable, for moving traffic; that is, criminal offences. Unless this enforcement is always done as a conditional offer by post, non-police will need to stop vehicles.

That leads me on to Amendment No. 9, which would allow the traffic officer to stop a vehicle only for offences for which the officer can prosecute under this Bill and for no other reason. I beg to move.

My Lords, my noble friend seeks to remove the power for traffic officers to stop traffic as set out in Clause 6(4) and add a power to stop traffic in Clause 10(4). The effect of his amendment would be to stop traffic officers from being given the power under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to stop vehicles. This power is necessary for traffic officers to be able to carry out their functions effectively.

It is true that under Clause 6 traffic officers will already be given the power of Section 35 of the 1988 Act to stop traffic. However, the Section 35 power may only be used where the traffic officer is,

"engaged in the regulation of traffic".

Section 163 does not contain that qualification. This means that it could be used in circumstances where the primary duty being carried out by the traffic officer was not clearly "the regulation of traffic" as such, for example, escorting an abnormal load, or on patrol on a motorway. He might notice that a tarpaulin cover on the back of a lorry was coming off and thus liable to cause an accident, and he may pull the vehicle over to get the driver to secure it properly. I stress that the use of Section 163 by a traffic officer would not be unlimited. It would be restricted by Clause 5 to the purposes defined in subsection (3), such as avoiding danger to other traffic using the road. It is on that basis that my noble friend will recognise that there are limited but nevertheless necessary powers with regard to this position, which are slightly wider than his amendment would permit. I hope that with this explanation, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am delighted with the full and clear explanation given by my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 7:

After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

"GUIDANCE AS TO EXERCISE OF TRAFFIC OFFICERS' POWERS

The appropriate national authority may—

publish guidance as to the exercise of any powers conferred on traffic officers by or under this Part, or

approve for the purposes of this Part any such guidance published by another person.

A traffic officer shall have regard to any such guidance in exercising any such powers to which the guidance is relevant.

Before publishing or approving any guidance under this section, the appropriate national authority shall consult and have regard to any representations made by—

such bodies representing the police,

such persons who exercise functions as undertakers in relation to street works or apparatus in streets, and

such other persons,

as the authority considers appropriate.

In this section—

"undertakers" has the meaning given by section 48(4) and (5) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c. 22) (streets, street works and undertakers), and

"street works" has the meaning given by section 48(3) of that Act."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment would ensure that guidance issued to traffic officers also deals with how to handle street works activity, and that the undertakers of street works are consulted on the guidance. The utility companies have argued that the objective of traffic officers of keeping traffic flowing must be tempered with the additional objective of paying due regard to the need to provide and maintain other essential services.

The Minister has indicated that traffic officers will operate primarily on motorways and major trunk roads where there are proportionally fewer street works. It is none the less important that guidance issued to traffic officers should also deal with how to handle street work activity. Indeed, at an earlier stage, the Minister indicated that guidance would cover this point. Perhaps I may give an example. Where a permit has already been issued, traffic officers should have the power to stop street works only under limited and agreed conditions.

The Minister in another place confirmed that the Highways Agency is already in the process of introducing a system of governance to guide traffic officers in their existing duties and powers. However, he also indicated that there would be clear guidance on how officers should operate in connection with those carrying out work on roads for the Highways Agency or the utilities. It is therefore right and proper that the utilities should be included in the consultations promised by the Minister. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Davies, could repeat that assurance.

In our debate in Committee the noble Lord indicated that there was merit in the arguments I put forward, in particular in support of this new clause. But in his reply he also stated that he thought the new clause unnecessary because the national authority can issue guidance. However, the purpose of the new clause was not only to ensure that new guidance could be issued, but also to ensure that any guidance issued takes account of the consultation held with all interested parties, specifically including the statutory undertakers of street works.

In his reply the Minister focused on motorways where, as he rightly indicated, there are severe restrictions on statutory undertakers carrying out works. However, he neglected to refer to trunk roads where many street works take place and where traffic officers will perform their duties. Given that, is the noble Lord able to give me the assurances that I require? I hope that he will be able to do so and that he will realise that I am trying to be helpful in this process, enabling the Government to clarify what will and will not be included in guidance. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the arguments put forward by the noble Viscount, but he will recognise that his new clause is exactly the same as that which we debated in Grand Committee. Although I understand the intention behind it, I have to report to the House that our views have not changed on the desirability of the proposed clause. It is unnecessary because the appropriate national authority may issue guidance already and does not need a specific statutory power to do so.

Indeed, formal guidance would normally be appropriate only where an authority is providing it to a third party carrying out functions on its behalf. However, the traffic officer service will be provided by the appropriate national authority, so it is not necessary to have a statutory power, and certainly not a statutory duty, for the publication of guidance to be set out on the face of the Bill.

In practice, and this is where I come close to the arguments articulated by the noble Viscount both today and in Grand Committee, operational guidance is a necessity. I acknowledge that what was sought in Committee was a reassurance in relation to such guidance. As most noble Lords will be aware, traffic officers, albeit without the powers proposed in this Bill, are already operating in the West Midlands. I can assure noble Lords that they are following a comprehensive set of working agreements, procedures and guidelines drawn up by the Highways Agency and the police that are already in place. These arrangements are working well, but will remain under review and will be subject to change when traffic officers are able to use the powers that this Bill seeks to provide. I can assure noble Lords that these documents have been prepared by working closely with the police. There has also been consultation—addressing the burden of the noble Viscount's remarks—where appropriate with other stakeholders, including local authorities, maintenance contractors and breakdown recovery service organisations. This consultation and liaison will continue.

With those assurances, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel that the main issues put forward in tabling his amendment have been addressed and that he can withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I think that he has given me the assurances I require. However, I was not quite clear whether he said that the utilities would be included in the consultation. He mentioned a number of bodies, which I think included the utilities, but it would be helpful if he could confirm that.

My Lords, I am happy to clarify the point. The utilities would be included in such consultation.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 5, line 19, at end insert—

"( ) In any regulation made under section 9(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 due to an imminent danger to persons using the road or because the vehicle is causing an obstruction on the road."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment also refers to the perennial problem of this Bill in that so much of it is to be left to secondary legislation and guidance. We have to accept the assurances of the Minister that his department will deal with this in a way that noble Lords find satisfactory. As a result I have to come back to the Government on this because they have gone some of the way, but not all the way. I seek two specific assurances, which I hope that the Minister will be able to give, that will certainly satisfy those involved in the rescue of motorists who break down.

This amendment would put on the face of the Bill an undertaking that the Government will not interfere with the right of individuals to choose who should rescue them, assuming that they are not obstructing traffic on the carriageway or posing a danger. We had a lengthy discussion about this in Grand Committee which resulted in two simple questions that I want to pose to the Minister. I hope that he will be able to give me satisfactory answers. First, in the secondary legislation, will the Government ensure that a motorist who breaks down on the hard shoulder of the motorway but does not cause an obstruction is to have the right to choose who will rescue him? Concern has been expressed by motorists and the rescue services about the risk of double charging. The Highways Agency will immediately ring a local contractor who will move the car off the motorway, but will not do anything more than that. The result will be a charge of just over £100. while the motorist will still have to call one of the other services to which he belongs, incurring a second charge. If the Minister can give me that assurance, it would be most helpful.

Secondly, we are concerned that unintentional muddles could be caused, ultimately resulting in motorists incurring higher costs. We want to make sure that traffic officers will not intervene if a vehicle is not obstructing traffic or posing a danger unless specifically asked to do so.

We have accepted the Government's assurances that they do not want to set up their own breakdown service. But we are concerned that the Highways Agency will use local contractors who could. in effect, re-charge the motorist. I know that the Minister's department has been in discussion with the rescue services, so I would be enormously grateful for his assurances. It will enable us to move on from this issue. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have much sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. It could be called the "Automobile Association amendment", but is none the worse for that. The association is voicing a fear on behalf of millions of motorists belonging to that body. Other bodies engage in this exercise for a fee and provide a pretty satisfactory service overall. Unless there is an exceptional case of "imminent danger"—the phrase used by the noble Viscount in his amendment—surely there is no case for creating a situation in which the motorist is charged twice over.

I doubt whether there is a need for the amendment. We all hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory assurance on this point. I cannot imagine that the highway authorities would wish to get involved in anything more than dealing with emergency and disaster situations.

My Lords, all I would like to add to the amendment is the consolation—or whatever one may wish to call it—that when the Bill becomes an Act traffic officers will give to someone who has broken down the same leeway as at present if he or she has already called an emergency organisation.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Borrie, who has taken the words out of my mouth with regard to why the amendment is unnecessary and the basis of the assurances that we need to give in order to render it unnecessary. I agree with his remarks in that respect. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Simon. I can give him a full assurance on the point that he raised. The same situation will obtain for motorists when traffic officers are exercising their powers as obtain at present when the police are exercising theirs.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, indicated, we have had discussions on this issue at each stage of the Bill thus far. This has been concomitant with the discussions taking place outside Parliament between the Government and the motoring organisations, which have been conducted, I am pleased to report, in a constructive vein. I understand that since Grand Committee the RAC and Green Flag have both written to my honourable friend the Minister indicating that they would be willing for their concerns to be addressed by secondary legislation rather than by any amendment to the Bill. The noble Viscount is right to articulate his concerns. However, I hope that he will recognise that those who express the greatest worries about the situation do not wish to see the Bill amended on this point.

The Government have consistently indicated that the proposed regulations would give traffic officers powers similar to those currently held by the police. The Minister indicated in correspondence with the motoring organisations that the Government would consider, in consultation with them, whether there is a need to set out more fully in the regulations or in other guidance material the criteria for the removal of broken-down vehicles by traffic officers. That consultation is taking place on the basis of the point articulated in this short debate—namely, that there should be no threat to the existing system whereby decisions are taken by the motorist as to which motoring organisation should be employed to remove the vehicle, except in those exceptional cases where the police at present, and traffic officers in addition in the future, need to institute immediate action in an emergency and as a matter of road safety.

Officials have prepared the groundwork for this. A working group, with representatives from the recovery organisations, has been established to help the Highways Agency to develop the detail of the policy and its implementation programme, including the preparation of the secondary legislation to which I have referred. It will also draft a memorandum of understanding setting out how the traffic officers service and the on-road services provided by the breakdown organisations will inter-relate in practice.

I am happy to repeat the assurances given by the Government that the Highways Agency will not operate an alternative vehicle breakdown recovery service. On that basis, I hope the noble Viscount will feel that he has had the necessary assurances and will withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assurances, as far as they go. I shall study carefully what he has said. If I consider his assurances are satisfactory, I shall have no need to come back to the matter at Third Reading. However, if I consider there are chinks in them, I shall reserve the right to do so. In the mean time, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 6, line 13, leave out "granted" and insert "given"

moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 7, line 25, at end insert—

"( ) The Royal Parks Agency in considering or proposing a new closure or restrictions in any part of the road network under its control, or in assessing the results of any such experiment, shall have a duty—

to have regard to the effects of any such closure or restriction on the road networks controlled by local authorities embracing or abutting on the park or parks concerned;

to consult with those authorities and to consider the results of any local ballot concerning the proposed closure or restriction that may be conducted by those authorities; and

not to make permanent any experimental closure or restriction that the other authorities concerned consider to conflict with their duties under this section."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that the Royal Parks Agency had a duty to take into account the possible effects it may have on the road network of surrounding boroughs and to consult those local authorities in the light of any changes it proposes to make.

The Minister will be somewhat relieved that this issue was debated in detail on Friday by my noble friend Lady Hanham, with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, responding for the Government. That debate concerned the speed limit in Richmond Park, which the Royal Parks Agency has lowered to 20 miles per hour. I do not wish to go into the merits of whether the speed limit should be 20, 30, 40 or even 10 miles per hour; however, it is important that the Royal Parks Agency should have a commitment to consult the boroughs in which it is situated and which surround it. That is the main issue.

A local park may not be a park in isolation; some parks have major thoroughfares running through them, and some have strategic roads which are important to Transport for London with regard to the movement of traffic. The Royal Parks Agency has a habit of making up its own mind and, for example, closing gates. It wanted to close two gates in Richmond, but there was an outcry because those living south of the park found that such an action would treble the time of their journey to the local hospital. Ultimately, only one gate was eventually closed. However, it was not a satisfactory process.

Local councils represent the local populace; they are their elected representatives. It is only fair that the Royal Parks Agency should, at the very least, have a duty to consult local authorities before it makes any changes. The amendment is reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has tabled a similar amendment, although I have no idea whether it is better than mine. I shall listen with care to the Minister's response. I hope he realises that this is a serious local issue and that those who live next to parks in London feel that it is important that decisions should not be made without any reference to their elected representatives. I beg to move.

My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I shall refer also to Amendment No. 95. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has demonstrated very well the perceived lack of democratic accountability with regard to the Royal Parks, an issue which was also referred to in the debate in your Lordships' House on Friday. It is particularly true on the highways and traffic management side.

I moved an amendment in Committee that would have enabled Transport for London to give directions to the Royal Parks, at least with regard to strategic roads. The Minister quite rightly said that TfL could not give instructions to the Government, the Royal Parks Agency being a government body. But, as we said on Friday, do the Government really need to worry about whether people take photographs or light bonfires in Royal Parks; have they not got more important things to do? However, that is a slightly different issue, to which we shall return.

I still get the impression that there are seriously bad communications between the Royal Parks, local authorities and some surrounding residents. I was advised that the best answer would be to move an amendment transferring the responsibility for highways and traffic in the Royal Parks from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to local authorities. I received a communication from Westminster City Council which said that it would welcome such a move. I do not know whether it is a good idea or a bad idea, but it would enable TfL to give instructions to the city council in respect of any strategic roads running through the Royal Parks, such as the Mall, Constitution Hill and so on. I was then advised that the amendment was not acceptable to the clerks so I tabled the present amendment, which takes the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 a step further. Rather than just consult, the two or three parties—the Royal Parks, the Highways Agency and Transport for London—would have to reach agreement. That might help.

I shall briefly explain the reason for my amendment. It is not a vendetta against the Royal Parks on the part of me or anybody else. A Written Answer which I received yesterday illustrates my argument. It concerned the lovely party celebration that has been taking place in Hyde Park. The Royal Parks will receive £1.1 million of revenue for it, which is great. However, in the process of setting up and operating the event, it closed North Carriageway to westbound cyclists. It shouts at them if they go down there. The Written Answer stated that they could go round Marble Arch instead. I know that the Minister is a keen cyclist like me, but I would challenge many people to go round Marble Arch, either in or out of the rush hour, as a sensible alternative to going through the Royal Parks. In April, the Department for Transport issued a new document entitled Policy, Planning and Design for Walking and Cycling—Local Transport Note 1/04, which states in the first paragraph that the Government,

"recognises the necessity for improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists ... Promotion of walking and cycling is important in helping to support other major Government objectives such as improved public health, better air quality, and sustainable land-use planning".

It is therefore clear that the Government support cycling, but here is an arm of government—somewhat removed, I suggest—which says, "You can get knotted. You can go round Marble Arch on your bicycle and if you get killed, it's nothing to do with us".

A related matter is the use of the North Carriageway as a car park for the contractors who are building that lovely edifice. The explanation which is given is that contractors come from all over the country. Is that not true of anybody who comes to London? They are allowed to park in North Carriage Drive because it is close to the site on which they work and there is nowhere else they can park within a reasonable distance. Actually, there is. There is an underground car park immediately underneath. Alternatively, they could come by public transport like everybody else if they do not want to pay the congestion charge.

Royal Parks needs to develop some policies that are joined up with the rest of government. My amendment and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, would go some way towards encouraging or forcing it to do that.

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for his amendment and for providing us with the chance to debate this issue again and, of course, I respect the trenchant views of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I shall address the majority of my remarks to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, but I pay due regard to the arguments of my noble friend. I assure him that joined-up government is an important concept. He will recognise that this issue touches on it.

If the roads in the Royal Parks were there solely for the effective movement of transport, there would be no gainsaying the argument of my noble friend; that is, that they should be fully integrated into a normal pattern of control. However, he will recognise that the roads in the Royal Parks are an integral part of the nation's heritage which those parks represent. We also have a responsibility to preserve the primary purpose of the parks, handed down over many generations, which is to provide enjoyment to the public. The Government are the responsible authority in that respect. I therefore assure my noble friend that although I am going to disappoint him in not accepting his amendment, which he would probably have predicted, he will recognise that the role of the Royal Parks goes beyond effective transport movements in London. They have a part to play in that, which I shall address shortly in responding to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. My noble friend will also recognise that we have an obligation to preserve the parks for their primary purpose and that is why they are the responsibility of the Government. I shall speak about the interface between government departments and agencies in a moment, but I am sure that my noble friend will appreciate that to change the status of the roads of the Royal Parks would create not integrated, joined-up government, but a considerable dissonance between government departments.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I shall be brief. I do not disagree with anything that he has said, but how are those sound objectives met by allowing contractors to park their cars there? I once saw a caravan parked there overnight. How does that enhance the quality and the beauty of Hyde Park?

My Lords, I am not here to defend the Royal Parks in every conceivable detail of its policies. I hope that the complaints that my noble friend has articulated will be borne in mind by the authorities and his representations are appropriate. However, I emphasise that the issue of the Royal Parks amounts to more than its roads. Nor are its roads simply or even primarily a part of the public highway; they are an integral part of the facilities that we offer in our great cities, particularly in London, to the public.

In response to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I emphasise that it is essential that central government, who are responsible for the parks, can scarcely impose on local authorities the duty to consult if they are not prepared to follow the same principles in their own operations. In the particular case of the Royal Parks, I reassure your Lordships that the Government are concerned to fulfil their due obligations.

The Secretary of State is required under the Crown Lands Act 1851 to manage Royal Parks on behalf of the Crown for the quiet enjoyment of the public. The roads are an integral part of the parks. Although they have increasingly come to be seen in recent decades by those who use them as just another part of the local road network, park roads are not public highways. Their primary purpose is to allow access to the parks. They are not intended to be through roads for motorised traffic. Against that background, I emphasise that it would not make sense to impose a duty on the Royal Parks to manage their roads as if they were part of the local road network. We accept that where a volume of traffic is significant, there is a need to manage carefully the problem in conjunction with neighbouring authorities. My noble friend Lord Berkeley has voiced both today and in Committee some of the frustrations that have arisen when there has been insufficient consideration of the impact on the local network of decisions taken in respect of the Royal Parks.

The Highways Agency is already committed to consultation. The Secretary of State is required under the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to consult local boroughs and TfL before exercising any functions in relation to the management of park roads in such a way as to affect a highway for which the agency is responsible. There is a clear need for that form of consultation as park management would often involve different objectives to those of a local traffic authority. We all recognise that demands are sometimes made on parks which relate to their roads as part of the public highway. It is only reasonable that the Royal Parks should be considered a special case. For instance, in the case of a large event in the park which might lead to road closures, we insist that park managers work closely from an early stage with the local authorities, police and Transport for London on the arrangements for that event, including anything that might cause disruption to traffic. Sometimes it will be recognised that Royal Parks must accommodate projects or events, such as temporary stabling for the Household Cavalry in Hyde Park, which might impact on neighbouring roads. In each case, the organisation using the park is required to seek planning permission, which includes permission for any traffic arrangements.

In the same vein, local authorities are involved in planning the arrangements for national celebrations such as the Jubilee and other ceremonies. As for unforeseen incidents, as the GLA Act recognises, it might not be possible to consult local authorities when roads have to be closed through emergencies or at short notice. However, in such cases, the agency endeavours to communicate information to the relevant local authorities as soon as practicable. If authorities have any examples when that has not gone smoothly and wish to present those issues to the Royal Parks, I emphasise the fact that they will find a sympathetic response.

I recognise the points made about the necessity for some of the roads in the Royal Parks being relied on by the public as crucial routes, as has inevitably happened in recent decades. Because of that, we must balance the responsibility of the parks authorities to maintain the park as a public facility, while at the same time recognising that decisions in relation to those roads can have a significant effect on traffic flows. That is why the fullest consultation is necessary.

I hope on the basis of the assurances that I have given to the noble Viscount, he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, the Minister has given a helpful answer. Of course, it is only really helpful if the parks authorities not only inform local authorities of what they are going to do but listen to responses. In many ways, they have done the first but not the second. I hope that this short debate will encourage them to listen more carefully to responses. In the mean time, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 7, line 38, after "make" insert "and publish"

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this small amendment inserts a duty so that the local traffic authority shall publish such arrangements as it considers appropriate for planning and carrying out the action to be taken in performing its network management duty, as set out in Clause 17.

We believe that the local authority should publish its objectives and policies. Many local authorities publish such information, but there is no duty on them to do so and no guarantee of uniformity in the terms of access to the information. If they were required to publish, it would help local accountability and it would help local residents and their local representative in another place—their Member of Parliament—to understand what was going on. It would also help the utility companies and any other road users, because they could see what local authorities were planning to do and how they were planning to achieve it.

It is important, if we are to have sensible traffic management, that we can all see what it is going to be. Each local authority should set out its plans, making them clear. I hope that the Government support this modest but useful amendment. I beg to move.

My Lords, Amendment No. 12 would require a local traffic authority to publish its arrangements for carrying out its network management duty. We have deliberately not been prescriptive as to how a local authority should carry out its network management duty. Dissemination of relevant information is extremely important, but it is not for national government to determine how to do it in every circumstance. Those are local decisions, best left to a local authorities.

If the duty were to be considered in isolation, it might have its attractions. However, the provisions in the Bill have been designed to reflect the wider relationship between local and central government. Both central and local government have signed up to the new modernisation agenda. The principle of plan reduction is a key element in this. The aim is to reduce the amount of planning documents that central government departments require for approval or monitoring, looking instead for other means of achieving the same goal. Requiring the publication of an additional plan, as this amendment suggests, runs counter to that idea.

That said, we agree with the noble Viscount on the need for a robust monitoring and evaluation framework under which to assess an authority's performance. That is intrinsically linked to the determination of success and, ultimately, consideration of failure and possible intervention. As such, this framework will be developed for inclusion in the guidance under Clause 27.

The guidance will be developed with assistance from the working and advisory groups set up by the department to consider Part 2 of the Bill. The advisory group is composed of road user representatives. The working group consists of local authority practitioners and includes representatives from organisations such as the Local Government Association, the County Surveyors' Society, and the Association of London Government. The aim is to provide a proportionate framework of analysis which is consistent with the modernisation agenda, while allowing proper assessment of performance. As the guidance document will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, noble Lords will be able to satisfy themselves that these issues are adequately covered. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, the Minister said that the guidance would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Will it be subject to an affirmative order?

My Lords, I am advised that it will not be subject to an affirmative order.

My Lords, then I am not sure how we are going to scrutinise it—perhaps that is an issue that we may consider. It is another issue in the Bill on which the Government have said, "Don't worry, we'll put the details in the guidance", yet we have to take on trust what the guidance is going to say. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has told me that the details will be in guidance and has given me assurances, I take him entirely at face value. I am sure that they will be there. But it would be helpful between now and Third Reading if the Minister could write to me and explain how we are going to scrutinise that guidance.

The Minister has been helpful in his reply, but he made one statement which I believe will come back to haunt him during later stages. He said that the Government were not being prescriptive in the Bill. Under a later amendment I shall demonstrate to your Lordships' House how they have been over-prescriptive. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 8, line 9, leave out "and"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak to the amendments grouped with it, which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and myself.

I know that the Government recognise that alongside the need expressed very clearly in the Bill to reduce congestion and disruption of traffic on our roads, there is also a need from time to time to dig up our roads in order to maintain essential services. Clearly, a collapse in the supply of gas, water, electricity or telecoms is at the very least inconvenient and at its worst catastrophic to the general public and commercial enterprises alike. Therefore, roads must be dug up to deal with those requirements. It would be of value if that need were set out in Clause 17 and were traffic authorities were required not to discriminate between their own roadworks and those carried out by the utilities. As I understand it, local authorities are responsible for about half the roadworks that are regularly carried out. I was pleased in Grand Committee to hear my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting say that the Government sought to ensure that all works—whoever was responsible for doing them—would be better co-ordinated in future and based on an objective assessment, without discrimination as to who was performing them. But it is difficult to be convinced of that without explicit confirmation in the Bill that traffic authorities will not discriminate.

Of course, I see the absurdity of treating local authorities and utilities completely alike. It would be absurd if local authorities charged themselves for permits or fined themselves for offences under the Bill. But why cannot the same general terms and conditions—indeed, detailed terms and conditions—apply to whoever is carrying out the roadworks? For example, if night-time working is required of utility works at certain times of the year, such as Oxford Street in December, why should local authorities not be similarly constrained?

There has been some suggestion that local authorities will incur bad points rather than fines for committing offences as a way of measuring compliance. Why could the same not be done for utilities? At the very least, utilities should incur fines only for failure to reach, say, 90 per cent of a compliance target, with the target being raised in subsequent years in order to raise the compliance levels from year to year. This would be a positive incentive towards compliance, which would be less punitive in its immediate effect and which would certainly discriminate less between local authorities and utilities doing roadworks. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to support the three amendments in this group in my name and the names of my noble friend Lord Borrie and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I shall not delay the House long because my noble friend has articulated the importance of a level playing field between the utilities and local authorities very well. It is very important that local authorities are seen to be playing the same game with the same targets as the utilities. A time may come when some kind of permit scheme is necessary because as a noble Lord—I cannot remember who—said in Committee, the part of the local authority that deals with the permits is likely to be different from the part that deals with road surfacing.

I suspect that in the longer term it may be a good thing to treat everybody exactly the same. Otherwise, as my noble friend said, the incentives for local authorities will not be the same as the incentives for the utilities. Something like 50 per cent of delays are caused by surfacing and other local authority works and the other 50 per cent are caused by the utilities. I think it is important that this is addressed. I hope that my noble friend will have something to say about it. I gather that there have been some interesting meetings between Ministers and the utilities on this matter. I think it is important that the Government come up with some assurance that everybody will be treated equally.

My Lords, I added my name to this set of amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Berkeley, because they seem eminently sensible. People may have good intentions about working together but unless it is specified, it probably will not happen. I am not convinced that bureaucrats always obey the spirit, rather than the letter, of what is written down. We need something of the letter. If we do not unify the system and bring it together, I can see that there will be two sets of regulations with cracks between them and they will not work together properly.

There is a big issue about why local authorities should charge themselves or fine themselves. The concept of one part of government paying another part of government for services is quite common, so I do not see it as much of a problem. It is called transfer charging or transfer pricing. One transfers charge from one part of government to another. I do not see a problem with it.

The idea of fining a utility does not seem to be particularly sensible. Utilities have to exist and utility companies have to provide utilities. The fine is basically a hidden tax as it will be passed on to consumers or the utility will go bust. One cannot allow water or electricity companies to go bust so there is no point in fining them. The suggested system of points, which I can see could be built into the comprehensive performance assessments of local authorities or other assessments, would be very sensible. I do think that it is sensible to have one unified approach to highway authorities, local authorities and utilities, which may have been privatised but which are carrying out a public service.

My Lords, although I have some sympathy with this amendment I have a slight quarrel with its scope. Nobody can deny that gas, electricity and water supplies are essential services, but can the same always be said of telecommunications? A few years ago, I was seriously concerned by the road outside my house constantly being dug up in order to install cable television to some, not all, of the neighbouring houses. Can anybody seriously claim that cable television is an essential service? I think not.

My Lords, I very much support the principle behind these amendments. It is important that utilities and local authorities are treated on the same basis. We know that they are equally responsible for roadworks in our streets and they should be treated as equally as possible.

My Lords, utility companies already have a statutory right to carry out their own works in order to install or maintain their apparatus. In Committee, we made it clear—but clearly not clear enough—that the duty placed on highway authorities in Part 2 of the Bill will not change this. My noble friend Lord Borrie makes the very specific suggestion that equal conditions should be applied to highway authorities' own works and to utilities' works. Where permit schemes operate, the regulation-making powers in the Bill would enable the same conditions to be applied to all works. The network management duty will require the effective management of utility works and authorities' own works. That would be based on an objective assessment and decisions taken on the basis of the best overall outcome without discrimination.

The statutory network management duty guidance will make clear to authorities the importance of parity in their dealings with all works and I must underline "all works". Authorities must, and will, have regard to this in meeting their duties. In drawing up the secondary legislation and guidance underpinning permit schemes, we will ensure that highway authorities take proper account of the disruption that may be caused by their own works. We will ensure that they do not discriminate unfairly against utility works.

I hope that on the basis of the very direct reassurance that I have given noble Lords these amendments will be withdrawn.

My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for the support of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I also welcome the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggesting that the amendment was too broad in including telecommunications. However, my response is to consider commercial enterprises. If telecoms are not functioning, so work is needed in the roads, they are losing business, money and work day by day. Therefore, telecoms, as an essential service, rank alongside electricity, water and gas in the year 2004. I have no apology to make for including telecommunications in essential services.

I shall have to read how the Minister responded. I detected a slight sign of irritation on his part that I had not accepted his reassurances in Grand Committee. However, there were a number of uncertainties in his response. I will look closely at what he said today. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 8, line 24, at end insert—

"( ) A local traffic authority shall publish information (street works monitoring information) relating to the duration, location and extent of—

street works within the meaning of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c. 22); and

works for road purposes within the meaning of section 86(2) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (highway authorities, highways and related matters); on the authority's road network.

( ) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision with respect to the content of street works monitoring information and when it must be published."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment deals with another "uncertainty"—as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, put it—to the reply given in Grand Committee. My amendment makes provision to ensure that local traffic authorities have a duty to publish information relating to street works—their location, their duration and their planned extent. It aims to enhance the accountability of the highways authority in carrying out, and the traffic authority in monitoring, such works. It also helps with the Government's often-stated intention to bring the local authorities more fully in line within the same requirements as apply to utility companies.

It remains the case that the highways authorities—which, as we know, are responsible for half of the street works—are also charged with approving and policing the works of the utility companies, which are responsible for the other half. This is in itself an unequal situation, which of course we have recognised during the passage of the Bill.

In Grand Committee, the Government said that they would encourage local authorities to make publicly available any relevant information. However, encouragement is not quite a good enough incentive. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, indicated that Section 53 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 covers much of what this amendment is meant to do by enabling regulations to be made by the appropriate national authority requiring local authorities to keep a register of undertakers' work and their own works. We all know that there is no duty to ensure that local authorities make that information about their own works available. That is the important point.

My amendment will provide the basic information on which others can check that highways authorities are carrying out their duties properly and will also enable greater coordination of works where possible. It will also enable the Government to assess properly the impact of the Bill on reducing congestion by reviewing not just utility works but local authority works and indeed any other works. I am aware that there have been concerns that this might create a bureaucratic burden for the local authorities. But they are already collecting and registering this information. We want to ensure that it is published and available to the public. I beg to move.

My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, this amendment was debated in Grand Committee. I said then that in principle we would encourage parity between street and road works. The New Road and Street Works Act 1991 already enables regulations to be made by the appropriate national authority, requiring local authorities to keep a register of undertakers' street works as well as their own works for road purposes.

Regulations made in 1992 already prescribe that the description and location of street authority works for road purposes must be kept on the register. This could already be extended to cover duration under the existing legislation. Under the same Act it is required that, as long as the information is not restricted, it must be made available for inspection.

4.45 p.m.

The amendment requires this sort of information to be actively put in the public domain. This is on the basis that it could then be used to establish whether authorities were treating utilities' works and their own in the same way. However, while some of the works and some elements of those works may be similar, others will be different. Information on the location, duration and extent of works would not necessarily provide for an assessment of equitable treatment of all works within an authority.

Authorities maintain and upgrade the roads as well as undertaking safety and quality of life improvements such as junction modifications, home zones, traffic calming and the like. Utilities' interests require them to occupy the highway in a different way. Parity is extremely important and local authorities will need to take this into account when considering their own works and those of utilities. If they do not it might contribute to the failure of their network management duty.

The draft network management duty makes this clear. This has been developed with the assistance of the utilities to ensure that it reflects their concerns. The question of how best to assess this falls to the monitoring and evaluation framework and the criteria for determining whether to intervene. As the guidance will be subject to parliamentary process, your Lordships will be able to satisfy yourselves that this is adequately covered.

We have just debated the principles underpinning the modernising government agenda. Again, our desire is to avoid placing this sort of prescriptive burden on local government. I hope that with these assurances, the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He said my amendment produced a prescriptive burden. I think my amendment was rather unprescriptive and produced hardly any burden at all. He said that this should be dealt with in guidance. I shall study his response carefully. However, I am somewhat disappointed. We are trying to encourage open government, and I am sure that the noble Lord would agree in principle with that sentiment. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 [Guidance to local traffic authorities]:

moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 8, line 28, at end insert—

"( ) Subject to any guidance published by the national authority under subsection (1), the Mayor of London may publish further guidance to local traffic authorities in London in relation to Greater London Authority and strategic roads about the techniques of network management and any other matter relating to the performance of the duties imposed by sections 16 and 17."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know this is a matter that we debated in Grand Committee and I am seeking—on I think a very appropriate day—some sort of assurance from the Minister that arrangements exist for the proper consideration of the strategic bus network in London.

On a day when the whole of the capital is about to be held to ransom by the most irresponsible action by the Tube drivers—one about which I believe the Government should take action, because I think we are seeing a monopoly being exploited to the detriment of all of us—we need to know that we have a bus network that is coherent and extends over several London boroughs. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we have proper direction of that network and that it is not subject to the maverick concerns of any one borough. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has outlined the reasons behind it. We discussed at length in Grand Committee which roads might be subject to the guidance from the Mayor, a point which was certainly unclear. If most, if not all, bus routes could be included in such guidance, it would be a very important part of keeping London moving and of course filling the lovely buses that we have. It is an excellent idea and I fully support it.

My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. Perhaps I may interpret the amendment not specifically in terms of any particular day, but in terms of the significance of the bus network and bus provision throughout the year. I hear what the noble Lord says about the salience of buses, particularly today, but, as we all recognise, buses have a very significant role to play in public transport in London. That is why, as my noble friend indicated, there has been a very substantial increase in the number of buses and bus journeys, which we all recognise as a reflection of a more efficient transport system in London initiated over recent years.

As we explained in Grand Committee, the Government's view is that the issues specific to London are best set out in the national guidance. We shall consult on that guidance shortly, but it may help if I give a flavour of the relevant part. The guidance is intended to set out our view of what constitutes the objective to facilitate the expeditious movement of traffic on the road network for which another body is the traffic authority. It refers to joint working arrangements and ensuring that policies are consistent, which I think is the burden of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.

In London TfL has responsibility for activities such as bus services on some roads, as the noble Lord indicated, without having direct control over those roads. As he said, for that to work effectively across London, TfL will clearly need assistance from the boroughs and vice versa. We see part of TfL's role as London's strategic transport authority as identifying reasonable and practicable outcomes from borough activities to support the Mayor's transport strategy and TfL's policies for meeting the network management duty. Examples would include ensuring so far as possible that bus services were uninterrupted throughout the year, and that enforcement was undertaken to prevent unnecessary congestion.

It seems reasonable for boroughs to take into account both the objectives of the Mayor's transport strategy and the outcomes identified by TfL in their approach to their duty. It also seems reasonable for the boroughs to look to meet those outcomes when considering the arrangements that they need to put in place to meet the duty. This should all be reflected in boroughs' local improvement plans. Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, local improvement plans are subject to the Mayor's approval. Subject to consultation it is our intention to include these principles in the network management duty guidance to which local traffic authorities must have regard. We recognise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made that this is particularly significant in the capital city with regard to effective bus operation which is such a crucial part of transport provision. I hope he will recognise that we have addressed this issue as a matter of great significance and that on the basis of the points that I have made about how we intend to tackle this issue, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his statement, which I am sure is reassuring to many of us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 8, line 30, at end insert—

"( ) The guidance shall cover, among other matters, the respective responsibility of a local traffic authority, the police and fire service to attend to spillages of diesel fuel and render the road safe again for the passage of motorcycles and other vehicles."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that diesel spills are cleared up by the authorities so that they do not pose a threat to road users, especially motorcycle riders and bicyclists. The problem of diesel spillage is a major concern to motorcycle riders. Indeed, Northamptonshire police launched in February of this year a year-long series of innovative initiatives, codenamed Operation Biker, to cut deaths of motorcyclists. So serious is the problem of diesel spillage that one of these initiatives is a diesel spillage campaign aimed at lorry drivers and other diesel vehicle drivers.

There are some awful statistics, enough to make a seasoned motorcyclist like myself give up his efficient mode of transport. On average more than 3,500 people are killed on British roads each year—the equivalent of 10 each day. However, new findings show that motorbike riders represent 22 per cent of this figure, even though motorcycles account for only 4 per cent of road traffic.

Nationally in 2003 about 28,000 riders were killed or seriously injured. A rider is 35 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than any other class of road user, albeit the vast majority of motorcycle collisions occur in perfect riding conditions; that is, in daylight with dry road conditions. Surely the Government can demonstrate their concern for these vulnerable road users. By accepting this amendment they would demonstrate their concern. I beg to move.

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, the need for which was amply demonstrated in the answers given to me yesterday by the Minister in response to my Starred Question regarding road casualties.

My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment No. 18 would require that the guidance on the network management duty must include information on the respective responsibilities of traffic authorities, the police and fire service in dealing with diesel spillages. We have deliberately not singled out on the face of the Bill specific issues like this to be included in the guidance in order to avoid giving some more prominence than others. Part 2 of the Bill specifically deals with network management by local traffic authorities, thus any guidance under Clause 18 would not be binding upon the police or fire services.

That said, we are aware of the importance of tackling diesel spillage. I will aim to demonstrate that the issue is already covered and therefore this specific amendment is unnecessary. Guidance on dealing with diesel spillages and similar accidents is already available in Section 14 "Weather and Other Emergencies" of the Code of Practice for Maintenance Management published by the Institution of Highways and Transportation in 2001, and in the Highways Agency's Trunk Road Maintenance Manual. The existing provision in the Bill covering the network management duty guidance already allows us to build upon this. We have gone to great lengths to understand and reflect the needs of all road users, particularly those on two wheels, in the development of this policy.

We are about to go to public consultation on the draft of network management duty guidance. The department would be very happy to receive comments from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, as part of that process. The guidance has been prepared with the help of the advisory group for Part 2, as mentioned previously, made up of representatives of all the major road user groups, including the Motorcycle Action Group and the British Motorcyclists' Federation. The advisory group is happy with the content of this draft.

The draft guidance recognises that both police and local authorities have responsibilities for the management of traffic on the road network. It also states that the best outcome will be achieved by authorities and police working together to establish which activities should be carried out by each organisation, and which are best carried out together.

On the specific question of diesel spills, these are covered in the advice to local traffic authorities on the management of incidents. This points to the need for local authorities to work closely with the emergency services to support them both in the management of the incident and the active management of its effects on the road network. Of course, this would include restoring the road to a safe condition. It talks of the need for local traffic authorities to have robust processes and procedures for dealing with the types of incident that occur frequently on the network. Authorities are also reminded of Section 14 of the code of practice in the network management duty guidance. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will accept that this amendment, however well intentioned and however important, is unnecessary and I ask that he withdraw it.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for his kind support. I also thank the Minister for his comments. However. I do not believe that I was asking for too much in asking the Government to accept my amendment. After all, I believe that the guidance to local authorities states, "may publish guidelines". Therefore, there is no compulsion to publish guidelines. I do not accept the Minister's comment that motorcyclists should not be given more prominence than other road users. I have amply demonstrated that they should be given more prominence than other road users due to the horrific statistics. As I said, motorcyclists represent 22 per cent of those killed on British roads each year. Surely that more than amply demonstrates why more prominence should be given to the section of road users comprising motorcyclists.

In addition, the examples that I gave today and in Grand Committee show that the present system is not working. I have no reason to believe that any change that the Minister proposes would alter that fact. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. It is more than likely that I shall return to the issue at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5 p.m.

Clause 19 [Power to require information relating to network management]:

moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 8, line 35, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on an earlier amendment, the Minister accused me of trying to be prescriptive and said that the Government were not prescriptive. In Clause 19, the Government are being prescriptive—perhaps over-prescriptive. It gives the Secretary of State additional powers to demand information from local authorities. My amendment would strengthen the principle that any information demanded by the national authority should be only what could be obtained reasonably and at reasonable cost.

The amendments also make it clear that the reasonableness principle should apply equally where more than one authority has been issued with a direction. Clause 19(3) would allow the Secretary of State to require all authorities to provide some information at short notice, and there would be administrative and financial costs. There must be good reason for demanding that information, and it is not stated or clear as the clause is written. I hope that the Minister will think my amendment entirely reasonable, because this time it is the Government who are being over-prescriptive. I beg to move.

My Lords, when we were dealing with Amendment No. 12, I said that we had deliberately not been prescriptive about the way in which a local authority should carry out its network management duty. I did not say that the Government would not be prescriptive; I did not use the word in its absolute terms. Hansard will confirm that I used "prescriptive" and then heavily qualified it to local authority and management duty. The clause provides the ability to gain supplementary information without having to use the more formal intervention notice process. During the Bill's progress through Parliament, the Government have made it clear that we will not be looking to use the clause as the main way of gathering monitoring and evaluation information from local authorities. We will look to embed that process so far as possible within existing processes, such as the local transport plans. I am more than happy to repeat those assurances.

With that in mind, I will aim to demonstrate to the noble Viscount that his amendment is not necessary. Proposed new subsection (3B) requires a statement accompanying any request. That addresses issues of good governance, but those are not for the Bill. I cannot think of a circumstance where any request for information would not be accompanied by an explanation of why. If he would like reassurance that that would be the case, I am happy to give it.

The question of cost gets to the heart of the test of reasonableness. Either the request is reasonable or it is not. If an authority feels that the test has not been met, I would expect it to draw it to the attention of the appropriate national authority. No additional statement would be needed to ensure that that happened. The Bill in its entirety is subject to a regulatory impact assessment, as is only right and proper. However, that becomes disproportionate when extended to the exercising of individual provisions such as this.

Proposed new subsection (3A) looks to link the test of reasonableness to the specified period for a response and reflect the fact that a direction could be given to more than one authority. Clause 19(1) introduces the concept of a specified period for a response, and Clause 19(2) states that the information must be that which would be in an authority's possession, or that it could be reasonably expected to acquire. It is implicit that it would be for the appropriate national authority to request information that an authority could be expected to acquire within the specified period.

The addition of "authorities" is also unnecessary as that is implicit through the drafting of Clause 19(3), which allows the order to be given to more than one authority. I hope that the noble Viscount finds my explanation satisfactory and feels able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, the Minister has gone some way to reassure me. I shall have to study his response with care and consider whether it is satisfactory. However, I am grateful certainly for the spirit behind his response. The devil is always in the detail, and we will have to look carefully at that. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

Clause 20 [Intervention notices]:

moved Amendment No. 21:

Leave out Clause 20.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 to 31. Those amendments would leave out Clauses 20 to 30. On this group, the Government and I have a difference of principle. It is not a difference about how the Bill will work or its technical details, but a major difference. The clauses give the Secretary of State the power to intervene in local government in a way that no Secretary of State can intervene in any other area. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has much more experience of local government than I, may develop that point.

The Secretary of State will have the power to appoint a person or persons—it could be rather a lot of people—to be traffic directors. They will be appointed because the department and the Secretary of State consider that a local authority is not doing its job in traffic management. However, as we heard in Committee, we will not know the basis on which the decision is arrived at. There will be no criteria, so we will not know why the Secretary of State will decide that one local authority is managing and that another is not.

Some local authorities have agreements with others on traffic management. If one is intervened on, does that mean that the other takes over? We also heard in Grand Committee that there was no estimation of the cost, how many people might be involved, how long the appointment would last, under what criteria they would operate, or when the Secretary of State would consider that a traffic director had succeeded. The powers are the most interventionist that central government have ever produced in the area.

The power is extraordinary; I do not know how the Minister's department got away with it. I do not understand how it ever got it past the Deputy Prime Minister's department, which believes in local democracy, referendums and regional assemblies. If a local authority is failing that badly, the local electorate will throw it out. It will be obvious; the Secretary of State will not need to intervene, because the electors will. That is local democracy. The clauses are undemocratic. They take away power solely on the Secretary of State's judgment and give it to him. So far as I can see, he does not have to prove why an authority is failing. The Minister might say that an authority could take the Secretary of State to judicial review, but we all know the cost of that and the time that it takes; by that stage it would be far too late.

I looked very carefully to see whether we could table any amendments to the clauses that would make them more palatable. We could have tabled a raft of amendments, but they would not have made the clauses any better. The principle is wrong. It is undemocratic and interventionist, and will not produce better traffic management. The only thing that we can do is to take out this part of the Bill. It does not work. I do not know who dreamt it up, but I find it staggering that the party that the Minister represents could come forward with it. It seems against every principle that his party has ever enunciated when it comes to dealing with local government. I hope that noble Lords will support me because I have been unconvinced so far by the Minister's responses to all the amendments we have tabled to this part of the Bill. I shall listen with care, as I always do, to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, says but he will have to produce a much better argument than he managed to produce last time. I beg to move.

My Lords, I wish to offer the support of these Benches for this group of amendments. I shall be brief, not because they are not important, but because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, they are matters of principle. No amount of fiddling around with the detail of the Bill will get around that. Two fundamental points of principle are at stake. The first is whether it is right for any government to pass legislation that allows intervention into the work of local authorities in circumstances that are unspecified on the face of the Bill. That would be fundamentally wrong.

The second point of principle is that of intervention. Not only will we not know fully when the Bill is passed under which circumstances a traffic manager will be imposed on a local authority, but such a person will be accountable to no one in the local community. They will be able to effect policies that will affect the lives of many people living in an area. Those people will not know who that person was, they will not have voted for that person and the wishes of the democratically elected local authority will be overridden. That will be a step too far for almost anyone.

The proposals are also impractical. I need to declare two interests. I am a local councillor and chair of the Local Government Association's transport executive. I am also a member of the board of the Audit Commission which has a raft of inspection and regulatory powers over local authorities. It would be almost inconceivable to imagine a local authority that could undergo Audit Commission tests and not have any major failings picked up at that stage. This group of clauses is unnecessary and, sadly, seems to have been inserted as a knee-jerk reaction to Daily Mail-type stories about local authorities that do not know how to manage the traffic.

It would be a shame if we were to move to that type of centrist intervention in the work of local authorities just to satisfy ill-informed, vocal minorities made up of only a few people.

My Lords, I am somewhat surprised by the extremes to which the Conservative and Liberal Democrat speakers have gone. This group of amendments seeks to remove 11 clauses. The noble Viscount said that the Government's proposals were so bad that he had been unable to think of any way to amend them. Certainly, no suggestions have been made as to what should replace them. Some of the statements made were extreme. The noble Viscount said that there was no clear basis for intervention. But the basis for intervention would be a failing by a local authority to perform the duties set out clearly in Clauses 16 and 17—at least the noble Viscount must believe that they are clear, because he accepts them. The noble Viscount must have noticed Clause 20(2). The authority must be given, it says,

"particulars of the grounds for giving the notice",

and,

"an opportunity … to make representations".

Those words provide suitable safeguards to ensure that the grounds for intervention are rational, sensible and not capricious.

The electorate has been brought into play by both previous speakers as the be-all and end-all of what the local community could do if it did not believe that traffic management was being run properly. Elections do not come every year; there are gaps. There would be a long gap if something went seriously wrong now, because we have just had a number of local authority elections. Is it being suggested that there should be no powers of intervention by anyone because local autonomy is so important that the electorate should have to wait two or three years before anything could be done? That would be unreasonable.

Local autonomy is vital. Local authorities have been treated with tremendous respect by all parties for a long time and that is an important part of the governance of the country. However, to suggest that nothing should be done when they completely fail in their obligations that are set out in the clauses passed today—and no one could intervene unless the matter was very serious—would be most unreasonable. Her Majesty's responsible opposition, whether Conservative or Liberal Democrat, owe it to us to make proposals or suggestions other than to say that there is a major difference of principle between us.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. If this power of intervention is needed so badly, can the noble Lord give a recent example of when this power should have been used? Why has there been no clamour for that over the years?

My Lords, I cannot help the noble Viscount. I am just suggesting that by proposing powers in a Bill we should take into account the possibility of something going wrong. There should be some fail-safe mechanism and none would be provided if the two parties opposite were successful in removing these 11 clauses.

My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I should welcome the calm, lucid voice of my noble friend in destroying the case of the Opposition in, as he rightly pointed out, all its extremism. If there was ever a weapon of mass destruction fired at a Bill it would be one which did not include any amendments to any of 11 clauses, but proposed that all of them should be taken out of the Bill on an issue of principle.

We have discussed the matter of intervention with some intensity in both this House and another place. I recognise the force of the Opposition's arguments on certain issues of principle. Of course I accept that local authorities are in the best position to deliver improvements in their area and ensure that maximum use is made of the existing road network. But, as my noble friend indicated, the question is what should be done if they fail. Should the Government do nothing, particularly considering the responsibilities of a local authority that would be likely to impact on a much wider area than that local authority?

The concept behind the Bill, the issue of traffic management, is that we are addressing the problems of congestion, which are not the several and individual problems of any single local authority. So often a problem is solved in one place and not tackled in another and that merely moves the issue on. Of course we require some degree of integration with regard to this policy. We need responsible positions to be taken up by local authorities. As my noble friend indicated, the premise behind the Bill is that local authorities have that responsibility. It is clear that the power of intervention—certainly the final power—would be taken as a measure of last resort. A whole raft of prior processes are to be undertaken, beginning with guidance. They give the authorities a clear indication of what is reasonably expected of their traffic management.

After hearing the speeches of Members opposite. anyone would think that intervention was a new or novel concept. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked me directly, "How on earth did you succeed in getting this past the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister?". Both local and central government accept the principle of intervention and have even gone so far as to agree a protocol governing how intervention should operate in practice. And which department is responsible for signing off that protocol? It is the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Therefore, if the noble Viscount tries to suggest that my department has been involved in some sleight of hand to bypass the vigilance of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I can reassure him that we are working entirely consistently with the protocol, which is agreed with local authorities.

The process outlined in Part 2 of the Bill is consistent with that protocol. Furthermore, it contains a long list of existing service-specific powers for statutory intervention. These allow the relevant Secretary of State to tackle failure relating to a range of areas. I do not know which planet some Members opposite have been inhabiting if they have not noticed intervention by Secretaries of State in relation to specific local authorities defined as failing in certain areas. Those areas include housing, the environment, planning, education, libraries and museums.

Of course, intervention of such a dramatic kind as envisaged in the Bill as last resort is exactly that—it is an intervention of last resort. How on earth could we propose to deliver the national management if we had no capacity to intervene in any local authority which was manifestly failing to live up to its duties in this respect?

Therefore, the powers of intervention are not at all unusual. It is a widely accepted concept that the appropriate national authority should intervene if an authority is failing in its duty. Surely it is not unreasonable to extend this in respect of something as important as the new duty of national traffic management.

It is also not unreasonable for the appropriate national authority to exercise the power without returning to Parliament. I emphasise the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not upbraid the Government or criticise the provisions of the Bill in this respect. Its concern related to the guidance on criteria in Clause 27 and we have addressed that by ensuring that it is subject to the parliamentary process.

That is entirely right and proper. Parliament's role is to agree the framework within which this should operate, but individual decisions should fall to the appropriate national authorities. This is not an unfettered power. Any decision taken must be consistent with the principles outlined in the guidance under Clause 27, which would need to stand up to scrutiny. I also emphasise that this, too, could be subject to judicial review.

There are parallels elsewhere. The Local Government Act 1999 provides for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, as the case may be, to direct that a specific function be exercised by him or by his nominee if a local authority is deemed to be failing. This can cover the work of the whole authority. The intervention powers are exercised by statutory direction and no parliamentary order is necessary. In practice, that is no different from the checks and balances of the intervention order contained in the Bill, so we are not breaking new ground. We are following a well-trodden path of prudent provision and of the necessary responsibility of the national authority to respond where there is conspicuous failure to deliver the objectives which are sought by the legislation.

We have offered reassurances throughout the parliamentary process, but I am happy once again to put on record our clear intention that these powers are very much a measure of last resort. We look for every opportunity to resolve problems with the local authority before considering the imposition of a traffic director. Even where that was unavoidable, the provisions are constructed in the Bill in such a way as to confer on the traffic director only the provisions that he would need to do the job.

The Bill therefore offers a flexible, proportionate approach to be taken to address the problem of a failing authority. I emphasise that there is nothing new in this Bill in terms of its powers in this respect. They are necessary powers and surely it will be recognised that, as regards all the powers of local authorities, traffic management is bound to have an impact on areas beyond the scope of those powers. It is therefore necessary to have a structure which tackles the significantly failing authority.

As I have indicated, the Opposition have not tabled amendments to refine the process and to indicate areas of improvement. They have said that 11 clauses of the Bill—11 clauses—are unacceptable and they propose that they should be deleted. I have not the faintest hope of dissuading them from pressing their deletion today. However, I am concerned that in this House and in the country as a whole the strength of the Government's position should be recognised.

My Lords, the Minister accused me of wanting to get rid of 11 clauses. But he will have another 87 left, so he should not worry too much.

The Minister did not address the very strong argument put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, who rightly pointed out that a scheme is already in existence under the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment that can be utilised to judge how effectively a traffic authority is performing. As she said, it is there and it can be used, and that is why these clauses are unnecessary. That is the central point of my argument and that of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. He rightly pointed out that in Clause 16 there is a network management duty. Local authorities will have to abide by that in any case. Removing those clauses will not affect their duties.

This whole part of the Bill is interventionist and undemocratic. It is objected to by most local authorities, including Conservative and Labour authorities. They believe in local democracy. This part of the legislation is extraordinarily interventionist. I believe that those clauses should be taken out. I have grouped together amendments to remove Clauses 20 to 30, and I should like to test the opinion of the House.

5.28 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 154; Not-Contents, 121.