---

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend made a valid point in raising the use of temporary and agency staff to plug gaps in the system that should be filled by trained postmen and women, who do a fantastic job. I am glad that he expressed his admiration for the Post Office workers in his constituency. The Post Office and Royal Mail management must address that issue urgently, particularly in his constituency.
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1577
 

 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1579
 

Points of Order

2.18 pm

Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to raise the use of the word "shifty". On 1 February 1994, I was called to account by Madam Speaker for good-humouredly but mistakenly using the word "shifty" in relation to the late Donald Dewar—a less shifty man one could not hope to find. She made it clear that if the word was used in relation to an individual rather than their policies she would take the matter seriously and demand a retraction. I would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you or Mr. Speaker looked at Hansard, because I distinctly heard the Leader of the House use the word "shifty" in relation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If he falls foul of that ruling, he should come to the House and apologise as I was rightly required to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I did in fact hear what was said by the Leader of the House. As I understand it, the epithet was attached to the word "opportunism" as opposed to being directly attached to a person. There is a fine distinction to be made between those two things: if an hon. Member is attacked directly with a derogatory word, we deprecate that. This applies to Front Benchers and to all Members of the House: we are enjoined to use moderate language at all times. I do not believe that it lifts our standing in the eyes of the electorate when language is used that, on reflection, is agreed not to be the most suitable for the occasion.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During business questions, the Leader of the House had the opportunity to say that there would be condemnation in all parts of the House of the thuggery, vicious remarks and incitement to racial hatred of the British National party, and that it was the duty of all parties to fight that behaviour. On behalf of the Opposition, I want to make it clear that we contest seats against the BNP everywhere in the country and we passionately disagree with its views. In all parts of the House, we hate its creed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand why the hon. Gentleman wished to place that on the record, but he will know that it does not require a ruling from the Chair.

 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1580
 

Traffic Management Bill [Ways and Means] [No.2]

2.21 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Traffic Management Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in connection with permit schemes.

I shall try my very best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be neither shifty nor opportunistic.

On Second Reading, a Ways and Means resolution authorised

"the charging of fees in relation to permits issued, or applications for permits to be issued, under permit schemes".

That wording was tied closely to the wording of the Bill as it existed at the time, and it would not be consistent with the amendments made in another place to allow fees to be charged in connection with the variation of permits. Variation might be needed, for example, when an undertaker approached an authority to ask for an already issued permit to be varied to allow more time for works to be carried out. Therefore, it was necessary for the Ways and Means resolution to be drafted so as to cover variation and to reflect the amendments that were agreed by all parties in the other place. It is merely a technicality, and no more.

Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Will the Minister clarify one matter? Is not the Ways and Means resolution drawn fairly widely, so that instead of merely allowing fees to be charged in connection with permit schemes to recover costs only, it could result in some local authorities charging fees in connection with permit schemes to make a whopping profit?

Mr. McNulty: I do not accept that. This point was raised at length in the Grand Committee and in all subsequent stages in the other place. Certainly, their lordships felt able to endorse the amendments put forward. This was one of the strongest points put in that debate, and if their lordships can come to that position, I hope that this House would also agree the point—

Mr. Knight: Not necessarily.

Mr. McNulty: I know that it will not necessarily be the case. The point is merely to reflect the amendments as drawn up in the other place. Given that the words of the original Ways and Means resolution were drawn so tightly in relation to the clauses on permits in the Bill as discussed in this place, it needs to move on technically to reflect those amendments to include variation on permits rather than simply their application. I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure is not being anything other than helpful in terms of the debate, to examine the Lords Hansard, where he will see that this question was explored in full. That is not the purpose of amending the Ways and Means resolution.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con): I fully accept the undertaking that the Minister has given in response to my right hon. Friend's question. Although the House has heard what he said, can he direct us to the
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1581
 
specific place in the legislation where the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) made is ruled out?

Mr. McNulty: I can indeed. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which we are asking the House to agree today—they have already been agreed in the other place—make explicit the Government's intention that permit schemes should not be used by local authorities to raise significant amounts of revenue at the expense of those carrying out necessary works in the street. Instead, the level of fees should be linked to the cost to the authorities of operating the schemes and no more. Exactly what those costs should be, such as those in relation to processing applications for a permit, keeping a register of permits, and ensuring that those issues of permits comply with any condition attached to them, will be set out in regulations. It is those changes in amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which have been agreed by the other place, that necessitate the change. We made explicit in those debates in the other place that what I have just said is what prevails. That is entirely the point that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) just made.

With that short introduction, I commend the new Ways and Means resolution to the House.

2.25 pm

Mr. Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): I, too, will seek to meet your instruction to be moderate in language at all times, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister will do so, too.

It is always worth while for the House to note a Ways and Means resolution, not least because it often means that another stealth tax is on the way from this Government. We have seen that on many previous occasions, and many people will be rightly suspicious that that is precisely what we are seeing again today. The Minister and my right hon. and hon. Friends have already referred to previous debates on this issue, both in Committee and in another place. The Minister will be aware of genuine and considerable concern that part of the purpose of this aspect of the Bill is simply to be a revenue-raising measure. He has sought to reassure the House in the past couple of minutes that that is not the case. He was not wholly convincing, as he said that we would have to wait for the regulations to ensure that. We are right to be suspicious that we have not yet been told how that will happen.

Even before we get to discuss the details of the proposal, it is important to establish the principle. On the surface, it appears flatly to contradict what the Minister said in Committee. He made the point that all these matters should be dealt with in regulations, and, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), he said that he understood where he was coming from, but that

"the Bill is not about introducing permit schemes as a revenue-raising exercise."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 2004; c. 163.]

In that case, why do we need a Ways and Means resolution? We need it precisely because it is a revenue-raising exercise. The very existence of this debate shows that, no doubt inadvertently, the Minister was misleading the Committee, and that this part of the Bill
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column 1582
 
was always intended as a revenue-raising exercise. It is a resolution put forward by a Treasury Minister, perfectly properly, no doubt on the advice of the House authorities that this part of the Bill requires a Ways and Means resolution, precisely because it is a revenue-raising exercise.

The Minister went further in Committee. He said:

      "I do not think that it will be a revenue-making scam".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 2004; c. 165.]

I hope that that counts as moderate language. We would excuse him of wanting to promote a revenue-making scam—it is not a scam at all, as it is perfectly clear that the purpose of this part of the Bill is to raise revenue, and I am glad that at least Treasury Ministers agree. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's response to that.

This is an important matter, because we need to address who will end up paying this new stealth tax that the Government are imposing on us. On the surface of it, it will be paid by relatively unpopular bodies—the utilities. They are always a good, unpopular target, as all of us have been stuck in traffic jams when the road is being dug up, and we tend to blame the gas company, the electricity company, the cable television company, or whoever it is. Such companies have to dig up the roads to promote their business, and all Members will want such work to be carried out as speedily and efficiently as possible, so that disruption is minimised.

But the truth is that this permit scheme potentially involves revenue raising, and in the end it will be not the companies themselves that pay the tax, but all of us, as their customers. When I say us all, I mean us all. Everyone in this country is a customer of one or other of the utilities, so particularly during emergencies or when the supply of an essential service is cut off, we welcome the fact that they are able to dig up the road, repair the problem and get our lives back to normal. There is genuine concern that, as a result of this potentially revenue-raising measure, the bills of every household in this country will be increased to pay for it.

It is also noteworthy that this measure seems to cut across the policies of other Departments. In their exercising of power, this Government, who promised us joined-up government, want to promote broadband. However, making digging up the roads more expensive will make the roll-out of broadband more expensive and difficult, and it will therefore happen more slowly. The Minister should perhaps talk to his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, who constantly tell us that broadband Britain will be one of this Government's triumphs.

---