HL Deb 18 June 1991 vol 530 cc84-7

60 After Clause 69, insert the following new clause:—

Charge for occupation of the highway where works unreasonably prolonged

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an undertaker executing street works in a maintainable highway to pay a charge to the highway authority where—

  1. (a) the duration of the works exceeds such period as may be prescribed, and
  2. (b) the works are not completed within a reasonable period.

(2) For this purpose "a reasonable period" means such period as is agreed by the authority and the undertaker to be reasonable or, in default of such agreement, is determined by arbitration to be reasonable, for completion of the works in question.

In default of agreement, the authority's view as to what is a reasonable period shall be acted upon pending the decision of the arbitrator.

(3) The regulations may provide that if an undertaker has reason to believe that the duration of works will exceed the prescribed period he may submit to the authority an estimate of their likely duration—

  1. (a) in the case of works in connection with the initial placing of apparatus in the street in pursuance of a street works licence, together with his application for the licence,
  2. (b) in the case of other works (not being emergency works), together with his notice under section 51 (notice of starting date), or
  3. (c) in the case of emergency works, as soon as reasonably practicable after the works are begun,
and that the period stated in an estimate so submitted shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(4) The regulations may also provide that if it appears to the undertaker that by reason of matters not previously foreseen or reasonably foreseeable the duration of the works—

  1. (a) is likely to exceed the prescribed period,
  2. (b) is likely to exceed the period stated in his previous estimate, or
  3. (c) is likely to exceed the period previously agreed or determined to be a reasonable period,
he may submit an estimate or revised estimate accordingly, and that if he does so any previous estimate, agreement or determination shall cease to have effect and the period stated in the new estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(5) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the time taken to complete the works and the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by the works.

Different rates of charge may be prescribed according to the place and time at which the works are executed and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.

(6) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of any charge.

(7) The regulations shall provide that a highway authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.

(8) The first regulations for the purposes of this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; subsequent regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

61 Clause 70, page 40, leave out Clause 70.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60 and 61. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 187, 188, 190, 124, 125 and 195.

We had interesting debates at earlier stages of the Bill on the provisions which deal with charging for the occupation of road space during works. Following further lively debate in Committee in the other place the Government undertook to come forward with replacement provisions which more closely met the objective of an incentive to carry out street works efficiently without placing an unnecessary financial burden on utilities and their customers. This group of amendments is the result.

Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 provide a new enabling provision for the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme of charges for occupation of the highway by undertakers where street works are unreasonably prolonged. It is expressed more clearly as a reserve power, with "a reasonable period" to complete the works to be allowed free of charge in each case, and charges to accrue only where works are unreasonably prolonged. The highway authority is to be free to reduce or waive charges. The first regulations prescribing fees, as before, are to be subject to affirmative resolution.

Amendments Nos. 187, 188 and 190 make directly parallel provision in the case of occupation of the highway by builders' skips, scaffolding and other relevant structures. Amendments Nos. 124, 125 and 195 do the same for Scotland.

I believe these revised provisions offer the satisfactory compromise of an incentive on utilities and others to execute works efficiently without penalising those who complete work within a reasonable period.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 60 and 61.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, these are most welcome amendments which make a considerable improvement on Clause 70 of the Bill. As my noble friend said, this will give an incentive to those who undertake street works on important highways to do so as quickly as possible. It is quite plain to those of us who travel a great deal that some incentive of this kind is needed, certainly on some roads. I hope and believe that as presently drafted these provisions will have that effect. I very much welcome them.

The Earl of Dudley

My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether I have misunderstood Clause 70(4). As I read it, the undertaker has powers under this amendment to invalidate any previous contract. It seems to me that by producing a new estimate he is given that power. It seems unreasonable that he should be put in the position that the contract should be invalidated by him alone before the local authority, or whoever he is dealing with, has had power to object or not to object, as the case may be.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I hope I can answer the point that has been made by my noble friend; I shall certainly read most carefully what he has said. If I am unable fully to answer him perhaps I may write to him. I also thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his kind words as regards these amendments.

My understanding is that subsection (4) provides for the revision within an agreed reasonable period where unforeseen circumstances arise and the undertaker requests the street authority to extend the time allowed to complete the works. As before, any dispute; are settled by arbitration. I hope that goes some way to answering my noble friend's point.

The Earl of Dudley

My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my question which was whether the undertaker is given the power to submit an estimate and by so doing invalidates the contract which has been previously made with him by the local authority. That appears to be the wording. It is an entirely one-sided power to cancel any existing contract. If he has fall en down on a job he is able, unilaterally, to cancel his contract. That is my reading and it seems to me to be unreasonable, unfair and too favourable to the contractor.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I shall have to write to my noble friend on this matter. I am sure we would lot wish to be unreasonable or unfair. I cannot believe that the Bill includes such a provision. There must be a misunderstanding.

On Question, Motion agreed to.