Traffic Obstruction and Public Utility Works

HL Deb 14 February 1990 vol 515 cc1437-53

6.57 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are planning to reduce traffic obstruction and delay due to public utility works in highways.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the background to my Question is the Government's recently announced policy to grasp the nettle of London's dire traffic congestion by a strategy of drastic measures. A major feature of that policy is to free all the main traffic routes in central London from vehicles parked at the kerb so that the whole width of the road is available for traffic movement. That is a logical and entirely admirable policy, but it removes only one of the obstacles to the free movement of traffic.

The second obstacle on the highway, and quite as obstructive as the parked vehicle, is the public utility street work which requires the surface of the street to be broken open for the work to be carried out. This denies to traffic a significant part of the highway, usually as much as half the highway. It is worse than a parked vehicle because the obstruction usually continues for several days or even weeks and —worst of all —often the contractor starts the job, opens up the highway, deposits heaps of materials and gear, and then leaves it for days or weeks before returning to complete the job. For the driver of a private car or a light delivery van this really rubs salt into the wound.

The Horne Committee, which made a survey of this, indicated that street works, large and small, amount to between 2 and 3 million a year. Naturally, the majority are in urban areas where traffic is heavy and where the concentration of buildings is densest. As an example, in the City of Westminster road openings are estimated at about 90 per annum per kilometre. In the City of London that figure rises to approximately 200 per annum per kilometre. All too often, as soon as one of the major utilities has finished a job, along comes another to open the road again in the same area.

The great majority of roadworks are carried out by the traditional methods of breaking open the road surfaces, excavating to find the cable or pipe requiring attention or replacement, completing the necessary works, filling in again and reinstating the surface.

Today there is a new technology of trenchless digging which is beginning to be used. To their great credit, British Gas has been the pioneer in that field in this country. It is currently relaying more than 1,500 kilometres by the trenchless technique. That is over half its annual programme. British Gas has adopted the trenchless technique not just pro bono publico but because it is comprised of shrewd people, trying to serve their customers and their shareholders. They have discovered that it is cheaper and quicker, and it always involves less breaking up of the road surface and therefore less traffic obstruction.

As an example, where there are no service joints to be made, lengths of a quarter of a mile or more can be moled before a new service hole is needed. The technique can be used to lay new pipes or cables up to 1,000 millimetres in diameter, or for relining old pipes needing repair.

One may well ask why all the public utilities do not use this new technique if it is so good. The answer is that it requires their workforce to be trained to use the new sophisticated moling machines, and the contractors must acquire the necessary range of machines and organise their workforce to do the job in small teams of skilled workers.

British Gas has adopted the technique for no other reason than that it is cost effective in money and time. In the event, it is conferring a substantial benefit on the public by reducing traffic obstruction.

The other public utilities such as electricity, water, British Telecom, and cable television which is coming along very fast too, evidently need an additional incentive to persuade them to adopt the new technique. The obvious solution would be the introduction of a lane rental charge for highway obstruction, which of course would be set at a level related to the very high cost of traffic obstruction in urban areas and to the number of days for which the obstruction continues. Then we could expect all contractors to make efforts to introduce the new trenchless technique.

Incidentally, I understand from some of my old friends in the water industry that Yorkshire Water PLC in particular is already doing so. Of course, the technique can be used for sewer pipes as well as for mains supplies.

No doubt the other public utilities will experience the same benefit as British Gas when they have taken the plunge, or perhaps I should say engaged the mole. They will find that the trenchless technique is cheaper and quicker, and the workforce very quickly takes to it because they see that it is really good.

The initiative to bring about this desirable end lies with the Government. I understand that a Bill has been drafted to cover all the aspects of a new street works Bill, including the power to introduce lane rental charges. I made vigorous representations to the Ministry of Transport to make sure that it did so. I should also add that if and when this much required Bill comes along it will be over half a century since we last had legislation in this field, so the present legislation is somewhat out of date. I feel certain that it will receive support from all sides —I see the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, sitting on the Front Bench —so the Government may like the change from some other legislation which has not received support quite so easily.

I ask my noble friend who has been good enough to come here this evening to answer my Unstarred Question: when can we expect him to introduce this very desirable Bill which would make a significant contribution to improving traffic movement? Or even —I would suggest to him —how about a Private Member's Bill, which I would gladly introduce for him?

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, upon putting down this Unstarred Question. It seems to me that it follows on very nicely from the previous debates we have had in your Lordships' Chamber. We had a transport debate on 17th January, one on London traffic on 24th January, and the debate on the Motor Trade Consumer Protection Bill on 2nd February.

I am personally indebted to the noble Lord because I must admit that I had not heard about British Gas and the new trenchless system. Nor had I thought of charging people who dig up the roads a fee for closing the lanes. I had worked out that there are roughly seven different utilities which dig holes in our roads: water, electricity, gas, British Telecom, drains, as well as road improvements and repairs to the fabric of the road.

I shall concentrate basically on one thing for which there are no statistics —that is, the number of accidents which these roadworks cause. Mark Twain said that there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. Such statistics that I shall be quoting are produced by the Department of Transport, and I am sure they are fairly accurate. Briefly, in 1988 there were 246,000 accidents, 5,050 deaths, 63,500 serious injuries, and 254,000 slight injuries. That is fairly staggering although the number of deaths has been descending steeply for many years.

Dealing first with motorways, drivers become infuriated when there is a lane closure, mile after mile of traffic and, as far as they can see, no one doing any work at all. That can go on for a long time. Then there are the dreaded contraflows which are dangerous. However, when one considers the multiple pile ups which there are in fog or bad weather, when there are accidents involving 50, 60 or 100 vehicles, the fact remains that our motorways are the safest roads in the country and account for less than 3 per cent. of all accidents.

I am afraid that I do not have any statistics for causes of accidents; that is, whether they are caused directly or even indirectly by roadworks. However, there is little doubt that frustration and enforced delays, which lead to driver fatigue, must have a considerable effect. I believe that that is proved by the fact that most accidents occur at about 5 o'clock in the evening.

In 1988 71 per cent. of road accidents involved cars —that is, approximately 306,700 cars —against only 4 per cent. involving heavy goods vehicles —which is approximately 7,600. Most accidents take place on built-up roads with vehicles travelling at speeds of between one and 40 miles per hour and even more on built-up roads with vehicles travelling at speeds of between 41 and 75 miles per hour. The latter accounts for 70 per cent. of accidents.

Also, 70 per cent. of accidents occur at or near road junctions. Let us think about that. There are through roads in London where most accidents occur. The traffic builds up because a road has been dug up. Then, towards the end of the day, a person who has put in a full day's work gets into his car, and becomes frustrated at the delay. Once past the obstruction, he puts his foot down and becomes impatient. There is a tendency to jump the traffic lights or to become involved in an accident when turning right at a junction.

I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that often a hole is dug in a road, the workers disappear and the hole remains there for days or even weeks. Finally something is done. The hole is filled in and, hey presto! the next week another utility comes along and does exactly the same thing. My Lords, there are things like letters. Cannot these different utilities get together and write to each other to say, "Look, we have to dig up such and such a road at this spot. We propose to do that on this day. When we have finished, before we fill in the hole, would you like to come along and do any work which is needed?" That would save an awful lot of time. However, it seems to me that utilities like British Gas and the electricity boards never talk to each other. Apart from the frustration to the poor motorist, that must cost an awful lot of money. If one hole is dug but is used by five or six utilities, then there is only one infill instead of perhaps five or six. Therefore, economically that would make sense.

As we know because we have discussed it very recently, London is coming to a halt. There are too many cars on too few roads. It is no good building any more roads because we do not have the space. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, suggests, there are new methods which can be used to reduce all those bottlenecks caused by people digging holes, then everyone would benefit.

7.8 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, it is easy to see that this is a debate on transport: the House has emptied, the lights are down and the television cameras are not switched on, because people are not interested in important matters like transport but in other matters elsewhere. Nevertheless, those of us who are interested in transport are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for asking this Unstarred Question. Apart from anything else, it gives us the chance to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on the subject of the Home Report, a subject on which we have been longing to hear him speak for quite a long time.

Indeed, the Home Report is at the very centre of the whole question of public utility street works. It starts with the immortal words, "The problem with which we are charged is not a new one", and, indeed, it illustrates the point by including a frontispiece dated 1817. The report was published in 1985 to deal with an Act which, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, indicated, goes back as far as 1950.

There has been growing criticism of the planning and operation of roadworks. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated many matters which are in the public mind and illustrated that very well. One sometimes forgets the difference between the amount of traffic on the road in 1950 and today. I do not know the factor but it is a very large multiplier. We are still trying to run our road system with that increased amount of traffic and trying to use it at the same time as a ducting for an increasing number of services, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said. New inventions such as cable television and all these wonderful optical cables are going through the middle of what is supposed to be a duct for traffic rather than for every other utility.

The AA has carried out a survey and studied something like 914 roadworks, 332 public utilities and 52 developers. It is interesting that it found that 44 per cent. of utility sites are badly planned and operated, 29 per cent. of local highway authorities works are badly operated and planned but, worst of all, contractors employed by the utilities have a failure rate of 55 per cent. by AA standards.

Again, as the noble Earl indicated to us, that is not only frustrating for drivers of vehicles and people wishing to move themselves and goods across the country, but it is extremely dangerous. He vividly explained the situation of motorways. I must admit that I had not taken motorways into consideration when I prepared my speech but that is very important. Much of our road network is coned off for much of the time, although not usually for putting gas mains underneath it.

Again the AA survey demonstrates that roadworks have repeatedly shown poor standards of safety and dangerous practices and it says that there is an indifference by those responsible. That is a serious matter. People working on sites in the road are exposed to considerable danger. Unless there is maintenance of a high standard of safety and good practices, there will be a lot of human suffering.

I find it particularly worrying that the survey can point at lack of management interest and control because, as has been said before in your Lordships' House, safety must start at the top of the organisation if it is to be effective. I remember that we talked about that in relation to the King's Cross fire and the Fennell Report. We there pinpointed the lack of an atmosphere in which safety was considered to be important. It is quite clear from what I read of this AA survey that the average local authority, the average contractor, the average utility is not giving enough direction from the top of the organisation to a need for safety among the people actually working on the roads.

I turn briefly to the Home Report because I do not intend to detain your Lordships for very long this evening. I have a few points relating to the report and to the Government's response, which was made in July 1986. It is an excellent report and deals at great length with the sort of things we have already heard and to which other noble Lords will doubtless refer. It goes into great detail about the reinstatement of roadworks: who should be responsible, who should pay, how they should pay, how they should be capable of being brought to task if the reinstatement is not adequate, both in the short and the long term. It goes into considerable detail on communication —a point the noble Earl made —between the various utilities and undertakings.

On the question of different organisations getting their act together, the report mentions mapping and pinpointing places where roadworks should take place. That gave me a strong sense of déjà vu and took me back to 1984, when your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology produced a report on remote sensing and digital mapping. That report strongly recommended that local authorities should be encouraged to digitise their maps in order that utilities could have a common base on which to pinpoint their areas of operation.

On 5th July 1985, at col. 1403, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, if the Government would read again the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology on the digitising of maps. I said, This will go some way to assisting local authorities in finding where the holes in the ground should go the first time, instead of the second or third time. Are the Government aware that members of the Select Committee are somewhat upset that the Ordnance Survey is not pressing ahead with this important matter as fast as it should be?"—[Official Report, 5/7/85; col. 1403.] I should like to ask the noble Viscount how far the digitising of maps has gone since that time, because it is a very important mechanism for ensuring that accurate mapping is carried out which can be used by a number of utilities.

I now turn to some specific items. I direct your Lordships' attention to Recommendation 37(3) of the report, which states that the various pieces of legislation should be amended so as to, oblige the utilities to take advantage of excavations to make accurate records of all existing apparatus found, whether belonging to that utility or to other utilities". That again bears on the point made by the noble Earl, that over the passage of time there seems to be a history of people not quite knowing where anything is under the road.

Recommendation 43 refers to the question of the Traffic Signs Manual. In the Government's response —which I repeat was in July 1986 —the recommendation that the Traffic Signs Manual should be revised and updated was accepted. How far has it been brought up to date after that time? I ask because the response says there is a need for primary legislation which, will need to include basic requirements on signing and guarding … with a provision that these requirements will be deemed to be satisfied by compliance with a detailed code of guidance to be specified by the Secretary of State for Transport". I am not sure whether that detailed code of guidance has been brought into operation, but I am sure that primary legislation is not in place for it.

Recommendations 49 and 50 interest me to a certain extent in relation to the Unstarred Question on transport problems for the disabled which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has down for next week. This refers particularly to the blind and disabled being fully consulted in preparation for the changes to Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual. The Government indicated in their response that that recommendation was accepted. Has any progress been made in that direction?

Recommendation 50 states: Where local organisations of the blind or the disabled wish to take an initiative in providing advance information about street works to their members, the utilities and the highway authority should assist in providing the relevant information". That recommendation was accepted. How much progress has been made? That certainly is not something which needs primary legislation. Have the local authorities been assisted or encouraged to provide such information?

Recommendation 56 is interesting, again in relation to the investigation by your Lordships' Committee on Science and Technology of research and development in local government. It refers to the possibility of using prefabricated multiway duct systems. Has any progress been made on that? When your Lordships' Select Committee visited Leeds in, I believe, 1987, we saw some interesting patented applications which had been produced and which could be fitted into new roads to allow ducting to be built in situ in the kerbside, as the road was built. That struck us as being a very interesting idea.

In Recommendation 64 there appears to be something of a disagreement between the Horne Committee and the Government in the wording. The recommendation states: In all major highway schemes (to be defined by national agreement) there should be a statutory obligation on highway authorities to give notice to utilities likely to be affected by the scheme not less than five years before it is implemented". The response again falls back on model guidelines. It states: The Model Guidelines could provide guidance on the lengthy periods of notice required for major highway schemes". Are the Government still convinced that there should not be a statutory obligation written into the legislation when it finally comes before us?

There are many recommendations in this report which are extremely worthwhile, particularly those which emphasise the training and supervision of people working for local authorities and for utilities in teaching their people the right and proper way in which to handle all these difficult problems on the roads. However, one has to ask: why has legislation not come forward? This report was published in 1985 and the response appeared in 1986. The proposals for legislation were published by the Government in May 1989 but still there is no legislation in sight.

It is indicative of the time lag that the Printed Paper Office no longer keeps the Home Report because, so far as the PPO is concerned, it is out of date. That seems to me to be a shocking indictment of the way in which a most sensible, useful and helpful report has been treated by the Government. The Government can find time for legislation on projects like Autoguide; interesting, potentially exciting and worthy, no doubt, but, in terms of actually getting anything done on our roads, it bears no comparison to the recommendations of the Home Report.

The truth is that, if we were not a rather silly sort of civilisation, we should not try to combine roads, sewers, electrical cables, gas and telephones all in one situation; we should try to find some way of separating those utilities. However, that is a problem for the town planners rather than for legislation. The potential for legislation is here to make a considerable contribution towards improving the situation on our roads. I hope that very soon the Government will tell us when they are going to legislate.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, for giving us the opportunity tonight, despite a thinly-attended House, to discuss the urgent need for action on public utilities. As has been said already, the committee was set up as long ago as 1984 by the Government because there was rising concern expressed time and time again about the problems of congestion. There was also concern expressed about the operation of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.

The committee was set up under the chairmanship of Professor Michael Home to review all aspects of that Act. We have been reminded tonight by most noble Lords that the committee reported in November 1985 which is four years ago. The Government responded in July 1986 which is over three-and-a half-years ago. More importantly, in their response the Government of the time said that they accepted most of the recommendations of the Home Report. Yet here we are still awaiting legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said.

It is not my intention to go through the report and deal with the various points contained in it. I want to deal with the need for legislation and the reasons why we have not got it. I wish to make three references contained in the summary of conclusions and recommendations of the report. These are introductions to three of the recommendations; Recommendation I says: The confusion of responsibilities for reinstatements of utility openings that is inherent in the existing system must be resolved". The introduction to Recommendation 2 states: The many variations around the country in specifications for the reinstatement of utility openings are undesirable". The last quotation is from the introduction to Recommendation 6: The present PUSWA notices procedures are cumbersome, unsatisfactory and not appropriate to the current levels of street works activity". Those are just three of the points which I picked up from the Horne Report as to why action and legislation is necessary.

Last Friday another Question on the issue of street works was raised in your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, whom I am very pleased to note is going to reply to this debate tonight, gave the customary reply which we have also heard over the past two years from various spokesmen on the Government Benches. He said: A Bill … will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found". —[Official Report, 9/2/90; col. 1029.] The noble Viscount added at col. 1031: However, many factors must be taken into account when determining the legislative programme … Street works reform would have required a lengthy, technically complex Bill and there would not have been sufficient parliamentary time this Session". That reply reflects the Government's attitude, but it does not take into account that the local authority associations and the public utilities group have been hard at work in the closest co-operation on the proposals for implementing the recommendations of the Home Report. In that regard, I wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, for sending me two consultative papers setting out the Government's proposals for legislation following the debate on London's traffic on 24th January.

One of them, containing 45 paragraphs, indicates the degree of preparation for legislation. The other paper deals with other matters to which I shall refer later. The noble Viscount pointed out that the proposals had been drawn up on the advice of the street works advisory committee, the setting up of which was Recommendation 72 of the Home Report. In the covering letter the noble Viscount says that the committee has been in consultation with the highway authorities and utilities committee set up by the local authority associations and the public utilities group.

In early 1989 the Secretary of State wrote to express appreciation for all the hard work which the joint local authority associations and the national joint utilities group put into the detailed technical aspects of implementation of the proposals in the Home Report. The Secretary of State ended by saying: We shall introduce a Bill as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found". I repeat that all the local authority associations have been working in close co-operation. In May 1989, the ACC, the ADC and the AMA issued a document called, A Step Ahead: Improving the Pedestrian Environment. That was a matter dealt with in the Home Report. In the same month the same associations were joined by CoSLA in producing another booklet entitled, Highway Maintenance: Code of Practice.

The committee set up by the associations and the utilities has been hard at work with three working parties: one on a computerised street works register; another on training and certification; and a third on reinstatement specification. The associations were bitterly disappointed when there was no reference to legislation in the current Session concerning the Home Report. The Association of County Councils was so incensed that at one time it floated the idea of the promotion of a Private Member's Bill. The chairman of the highways committee of the AMA wrote to the Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Atkins, to convey the dismay of the Local Authority Associations. He pointed out the vast amount of work which had been undertaken involving large numbers of senior officers and elected members.

The Minister replied that legislation was not included for the current Session because of, the very heavy pressure on legislative time". However, Mr. Atkins expressed the hope that the co-operative work towards a reform of the situation will be continued; an effort which Mr. Atkins said, has developed so well since the Horne Report''. I can testify to the kind of work that is being carried out by the joint committee of the associations and the utilities group because I have seen many reports which have been submitted to the highways committee of the AMA. As its president I have received the reports, and I can see the amount of work that has been carried through.

I believe that we must repeat the question which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked last Friday; namely, does the Government give the subject low parliamentary priority?" —[col. 1031.] I believe that the transport Minister and the department would like to see legislation on the Home Report. The Government have reiterated their commitment to legislation, but they have given no comment as to when. It must be emphasised that this situation is creating real difficulty for local government which is committing a vast amount of resources in terms of staff hours in order to develop the procedures necessary once the legislation is in place. That is through the highways authorities and the utilities committee and the working parties to which I have referred.

Unless a clear commitment is given to legislation in the next Session of Parliament, there is a real danger that elected members will curtail the amount of time they are prepared to allow officers to spend on this subject. That is a factor which I hope will be taken into consideration. Further, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, mentioned, in the debate on London's traffic reference was made to the position of red routes. We have also had recently a statement from the Secretary of State that the potential growth of public transport in London concerns the bus. The development of the bus and the development of red routes will all be at naught if the Home Report's recommendations to tackle street works congestion are not dealt with.

The control and co-ordination of road works is equally as important as the promised stringent control of parking on red routes. Both the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club have expressed concern at the delay in bringing forward legislation. The RAC says: It is appalling that after five years Professor Home's recommendations have still not been implemented despite the almost unanimous agreement that the recommendations are right". The AA comments that, whatever the reason for not implementing legislation, the AA believes it was a very shortsighted decision and that the level of disruption to traffic movement caused by roadworks is enormous". I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the illuminating survey carried out by the AA. It showed that more than a third of all road works examined were operating at a standard below the minimum required. Surely that must be thorough justification for legislation.

There is a problem. In two recent decisions the Government have thrown spanners into the works. A key element in the package is the introduction of the computerised street works register. The local authority associations and the utilities have jointly agreed on a specification. But the cost of the next stage of that development will be around £700,000. Progress is now deadlocked because the Government are insisting that they will meet only one-third of the cost, the balance to be shared between the associations and the utilities.

The main beneficiaries of such a register will be the general public. Surely the cost of further development of the computerised register should be met by central government. It must be emphasised that the local authority associations have no nationally developed budget to cover this kind of expenditure. It would be a tragedy if this kind of work which is vital and which has been praised by the Minister did not go through because the Government would not meet the small cost of £700,000.

Last year the Government issued a consultation paper proposing that utilities should be charged for the occupation of road space when excavating a road. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was prepared to accept such charges. This has introduced an element of controversy into what up to now has been a jointly agreed and widely supported legislative package. The associations have reacted. First, the joint committee of highway authorities and utilities was not consulted over this proposal. The department has consulted on all other matters and there has been general agreement. Secondly, the Government have made it clear that grants to highway authorities would be reduced to reflect any income derived from the charging system. Thirdly, the association consider that other proposals in the Horne package would have a far greater impact on congestion.

The associations have been concilliatory in their response. They have supported the possible inclusion of an enabling power in legislation for the Secretary of State to introduce a charging mechanism. However, they wanted an assurance that this would be used only if it could be shown that other provisions in the agreed street works package for reducing congestion were ineffective.

We have the Horne recommendations. The Government accepted in the main all 73 recommendations. We have the working groups praised by the Minister for Roads and Traffic. We already have draft legislation and yet we still do not know whether there will be legislation soon. In fact, we know definitely that we shall not have legislation soon. I know that the noble Viscount may be in difficulty on this point, but promises have already been made about other legislation in the next Session.

This matter is extremely important. The CBI has expressed concern about congestion. Everyone is concerned about congestion. The Government should give a definite undertaking to introduce a Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Unless that undertaking is given, the work that is being done now may not continue. That would be a tragedy because the work will be vital to implementing the proposals.

7.46 p.m.

Viscount Ullswater

My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for having introduced this short debate on the subject of utility street works. The subject is not a new one, as the noble lord, Lord Tordoff, said when he quoted from the preface of the Home Report, although the degree of public expectation from people as users of the roads and customers of the public utilities is probably higher now that ever before.

We rightly expect high standards and quick response times from the utilities, while at the same time wanting street works to be co-ordinated and done quickly to minimise disruption to traffic, and good standards of road reinstatement. This is a tall order, and there is no doubt that a complete overhaul of the legislation governing utility street works is required if there is to be a real and lasting improvement. The Government are committed to bringing forward at a suitable opportunity legislation to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.

It may be convenient if I briefly summarise the findings of the Home Report on the Review of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, the Government's proposals for legislation, and the preparations that have been made for the implementation of a new regime for utility street works. The 1950 Act came about as a result of the work of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament under the chairmanship of Lord Carnock that reported in 1939. Until that time it had been necessary to include provisions to protect the interests of the highway authority in every Private Bill needed to empower the utilities to place and maintain their equipment in streets, and such provisions were often the cause of contention. The Carnock Committee resolved most of the contentious issues by recommending a comprehensive new code which would apply equally to all the utilities. This code became part of the 1950 Act.

All legislation has to be kept relevant and apposite to the circumstances of its application. The conflict between the interests of the utility and its customers, on the one hand, and those of the highway authority and road users, on the other, has become all too apparent in recent years. The cumbersome and outdated procedures prescribed by the 1950 Act no longer serve their purpose. To take but one example, the requirements to serve notice in writing on all the authorities involved before starting street works results in unnecessary bureaucracy. Utilities dig each year more than 3 million holes, the figure mentioned by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, that are subject to the requirements of this system of paper notices —a system in which there are 18 different forms of statutory notice for use by the utilities and a further 21 for use by other authorities; and a system which fails to distinguish the important advance notices from the routine. The highway authority has little opportunity to make adequate arrangements for traffic management, still less to co-ordinate works between various utilities. The possibilities for simplification and efficiency gains offered by information technology are precluded by the present statutory requirements.

Recognising problems such as these, in 1984 the Minister of State for Transport invited Professor Michael Home to chair a committee to review all aspects of street works legislation and associated matters. Its report, Roads and the Utilities, published in November 1985, is a model of its kind, providing a comprehensive and clear review of a complicated issue, leading to recommendations for action which command a wide degree of support.

The Government published their formal response to the report in July 1986, accepting the main recommendations, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned. These were: first, that the primary responsibility for carrying out reinstatements following street works by utilities should be placed on the utilities themselves. Local authorities and their direct labour organizations would be allowed to tender for such work if they wished, but would no longer have a statutory right to elect to do the permanent reinstatement themselves.

Secondly, there should be new performance standards for reinstatements with better specifications for materials and workmanship, backed up a by a system of training and certification of workmen and their supervisors. Proposals for improvements in the procedures for service of notices, for inspections, for traffic management, and for safeguarding road users were also accepted.

Thirdly and lastly, came the contentious proposal on sharing the costs of diversionary works on utility apparatus required by highway schemes. Here, the Government proposed that parties involved should agree a code of practice designed to ensure that no unnecessary works were undertaken, and that a cost-sharing agreement should be negotiated between highway authorities and utilities.

In accepting the main recommendations of the Horne Report, the Government recognised that primary legislation would be required to implement many of them. At the same time, i t urged local authorities and utilities to embark on the detailed technical work required to prepare the ground. The Street Works Advisory Committee was established to give the Secretary of State for Transport direct access to the best expert advice available. That committee has assisted in the formulation of detailed proposals for legislation, which were included in a consultation paper issued by the Department of Transport last May.

Over the last three years a considerable effort has been made by representatives of local authorities and utilities, in association with government officials, to draw up the various codes of practice which will underpin the proposed new arrangements. I must pay tribute to the industry of those involved, who have produced draft codes of practice on diversionary works, specifications for reinstatement, notice and inspection procedures, and begun devising arrangements for the training and certification of workmen and the establishment of a computerised street works register. I am sure that this computerised register will overcome some of the problems mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.

It is most important —and, I must emphasise this point to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill —that the interested parties should continue to co-operate in this preparatory work to ensure that the implementation of the new arrangements can be done more effectively and quickly once the new legislative framework is in place.

The noble Lord also asked me about the funding for the new computerised streets works register. The Government have made a proposal to the local authority associations, which he mentioned, and to the utilities for the joint development and funding of a computerised street works register. The Government believe that the offer was a fair one, reflecting the benefits to be enjoyed from the system. However, the Department of Transport is happy to discuss the way forward with all interested parties.

There are two aspects of the Government's proposals to which I would like to draw particular attention. The general standard of signing and guarding of works, in particular the protection afforded to pedestrians including blind and disabled people, can and must be improved. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also, quite rightly, mentioned motorways in this connection.

I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the Department of Transport's technical advice on safety measures and signing at road works—Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual —has been comprehensively reviewed and will be published in its new form later this year. Advice booklets on the new standards for use by the utilities and their contractors are being prepared.

A related matter of particular concern is the protection of the more vulnerable road users. This was considered carefully by Professor Home in his report. As well as the prescription of improved standards of signing, guarding and lighting of works in progress, the proposals for legislation will introduce standards for completed reinstatements. In setting such standards, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have the needs of pedestrians and cyclists very much in mind. The new arrangements for training of workmen and supervisors will also lay stress on the importance of protecting vulnerable road users. That is an important point and it was quite rightly brought to our attention by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Underhill, when they quoted from the AA survey.

My noble friend Lord Nugent has drawn particular attention in his Question to the need to reduce traffic obstruction and delay caused by utility street works. The Horne Report argued the need for improved co-ordination of road works and better traffic management during the execution of works. The Government fully accept the importance of that aspect and have indeed gone further than Home in their proposals to protect the interests of road users, whether they be on wheels or on foot.

It is proposed that the highway authority will be placed under a duty to co-ordinate all excavations in the highway (including its own) with a view to minimising the disruption to road users. The highway authority and utility will each be required to observe a code of practice on the co-ordination of works and be subject to a fine for failure to do so. The highway authority will be empowered to designate as traffic sensitive those streets where works could cause great disruption to road users. On such streets, utilities will be required to consult the highway authority in advance before starting works. Where the highway authority is satisfied that works may cause serious disruption to traffic it will have power to direct the utility on the times of working.

My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is vice-president of the International Society of Trenchless Technology, has explained that the trenchless methods of construction and maintenance are now well established in this country. He told us that British Gas has used this extensively. The Government welcome the increasing use of such technology by the utilities and their contractors, particularly when it reduces the amount of disruption to traffic and inconvenience to the public caused by road works. As the various techniques are improved we may hope to see them become more cost-effective and still more attractive to the promoters of works.

However, we do not believe that the proposed street works legislation should include compulsion on utilities to use trenchless methods, which may not be appropriate in every case taking account of all the factors involved. The proposed powers for highway authorities to apply to traffic sensitive streets should nevertheless serve to increase the incentives on utilities to adopt working methods which cause less disruption to road users.

The Government are determined to tackle the problems of traffic congestion by every means they can. Utility street works and building works undoubtedly impose costly delays on traffic. Although much of this disruption is unavoidable and as customers of the utilities we often benefit from the work which causes it, unnecessarily long or frequent disruption to road users can and must be avoided. It was for this reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport came forward with a further proposal last autumn to take a power which would enable him to require highway authorities to charge the promoters of works in certain circumstances for their occupation of road space. My noble friend Lord Nugent called it "lane rental". This measure could act as a powerful incentive on the promoters of works and their contractors to minimise disruption and delay in the most traffic sensitive areas. The proposal drew a large number of responses which are currently being considered by my right honourable friend.

I wish to deal with one or two points raised during the course of this evening's debate. Perhaps I may take the three points which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made. First, on digitised maps, the Government fully accept the importance of developing this system which has implications well beyond the field of utility street works. However, I wish to write to the noble Lord to explain how far work in this area has progressed. The Government's response to the Home Report stresses the importance of utilities ensuring that the location of their equipment is recorded in an accurate and consistent form.

The noble Lord also asked me about the interesting proposal concerning multi-channel ducts. The Government have invited the National Joint Utilities Group to re-examine the possibilities for the use of this new technology, including the prefabricated multi-way duct systems. However, one must recognise that on occasions there are practical difficulties in combining certain services in the same duct. We shall certainly be encouraging their provision in new roads wherever possible.

Lastly, the noble Lord spoke about Recommendation No. 64 —will an obligation on highway authorities to give notice to utilities of their works five years ahead be included in legislation? The code of practice on diversionary works has been agreed between the utilities and the highway authorities which will include such a requirement. The code will be backed up by new duties in the proposed legislation.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also referred to road safety and quoted some statistics. I say to all Members of your Lordships' House that the Government take the problems of road safety very seriously. They have set themselves the objective of reducing road casualties by one-third by the year 2000.

I now come to a part in my speech which I think will not please noble Lords quite so much. I have to say that I cannot tell the House today when a Bill to reform street works legislation will be brought before your Lordships. However, it will be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity can be found. It is simply not possible to vouchsafe that in advance, given the kinds of competing and urgent claims that can arise on the legislative programme. In the meantime we must all do our best to sustain the momentum.

Whether as drivers, pedestrians, occupiers of property or customers of the utilities, we all want to see utility works carried out efficiently and safely and with minimum inconvenience and disruption. The Government intend to play their part in securing what is needed to achieve that. The proposals for legislation which we have brought forward for consultation represent a considered and balanced approach to these improvements.

I have noted with interest the broad support that the measures command across this House and I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to this and to the detailed suggestions made by noble Lords. I hope that it will not be too long before your Lordships have another opportunity to debate the subject, in the context of a Bill to reform the Public Utilities Street Works Act.