New Clause 16 (Hansard, 3 February 1982)

§ Mr. Cryer
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)
With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 112, in title, line 10, leave out 'section 163(1) of’.

§ Mr. Cryer
I shall not detain hon. Members for long, but I understand that the Automobile Association is keen on the amendment and new clause, having drawn my attention to this matter. Unfortunately, it also drew it to the attention of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox). The alteration that I have made is contained not in new clause 16, but in new clause 18. The device seems extremely sensible. In April and May 1981 the AA conducted a survey and visited 433 sites where road works were in process. It did not visit motorways or trunk roads, on the basis that they are adequately signposted. The AA found that 51 per cent. of the signs were adequate and that 49 per cent. were inadequate.
Reasonably, the AA suggests that something should be done to allow ordinary citizens some form of redress. New 455 clause 16 requires a sign to be exhibited, giving the name and address of the contractor, site foreman, day and night time contacts and so on. The clause states that the sign should be visible to road users. A mistake arose because I thought that the sign should be visible to pedestrians. Local authorities are short of money, and I thought that they would have to exhibit large signs if they were to be visible to all road users and to those using both carriageways. I therefore suggested that the sign should be visible to pedestrians.
If a motorist found that road works were inadequately signposted and that they were dangerous, he could stop the car, get out and find all the information requested in the new clause 16. In the same way as planning applications are exhibited, a duplicated sheet, covered with cellophane or a waterproof material, could be fastened to a nearby lamppost or to one of the roadwork signs.
Such a provision would not put local authorities to great expense, but would allow pedestrians, lorry drivers and motorists, who see danger in inadequately marked road works, to make immediate contact. That is important. I am sure that all hon. Members will have taken up a case with a district council, only to find that the county council is responsible, and vice versa. Therefore, if public utility or local authority road works are involved, a sign should be fastened nearby, saying who is responsible. If someone thought the situation dangerous, something could be done.
I hope that the Minister will consider the clause. I accept that it is not as good as I initially intended. However, if he will agree to consider it with a view to introducing a neater form of words, I shall be happy.

§ Mr. Macfarlane
This new clause appears to me to fall outside the intentions of the Bill, because the matter it largely relates to is not apposite to local legislation. National requirements as to traffic signing, to which subsection (2) wholly, and subsection (1) largely, relates, are prescribed by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport, Scotland and Wales, in the Traffic Signs Regulations and general directions that they make under section 54 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. Any new requirements as to traffic signing would have to be proposed by them in an amendment to the regulations. However, I hope to be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman that his objectives are already met.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) proposes, first, that chapter 8 of my right hon. Friend's traffic signs manual—which is advisory—be made mandatory. We are all agreed on the importance of having road works adequately signed and protected. The manual gives advice on how that should be done. It does not lay down requirements—it is not possible to specify them with legal precision for all the varying circumstances that may be met on actual sites—but section 174(1) of the Highways Act 1980, and section 8 of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, require any person executing works in a street—any person, not just a local authority—to protect and sign the works adequately. Failure to do so is an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £10 for each day it continues. Observance of or failure to observe the advice given in chapter 8 can be brought in evidence before a court in respect of an alleged offence of that kind.
Therefore, subsection (1) is unnecessary. So, in the Government's view, is subsection (2). That would require contractors to instal on signs much detailed 456 information—which incidentally could prove dangerously distracting to drivers—telling those interested where to get in touch with those responsible for the works. Some of this information would vary during the course of the contract. The purpose is apparently to enable the responsible persons to be contacted speedily in an emergency, or the roadworks are seen to be inadequately protected—at other times the person directly responsible could be traced through the contracting firm, the name of which is usually displayed on the site. But any such emergency can and should be referred to the local police. They have power to remedy any defects in signing or protection. They also have power to prosecute for failure to provide adequate protection—and indeed, new clause 2 will enable them to do so without, as at present, having first to seek the written consent of the Attorney-General.
I believe that what we have so far in our legislation adequately covers the hon. Gentleman's new clause. He expressed his anxiety about the way he had phrased it. Perhaps he had not had the chance to carry out detailed research. However, I am convinced that the points are adequately covered.

§ Mr. Wheeler
There is one point that my hon. Friend should consider. I cite the example of the city of Westminster in the centre of London, where ever 12 months there are about 20,000 road openings, of which about 90 per cent. are opened under the emergency procedure, which means that no notice is given. There is perhaps a case here, given the difficulties that the police have in central London, for acquiring the information set out in subsection (2), to be given in a written notice in a polythene bag. My hon. Friend might like to reflect on that before the Bill is finally disposed of.

§ Mr. Macfarlane
I shall not give my hon. Friencl an assurance that that will be looked at because, as I said to the hon. Member for Keighley, what is applicable elsewhere is equally applicable in the centre of London. I am convinced that the present legislation adequately covers what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do. Not only is the new clause inappropriate to the Bill, but there are adequate safeguards in our present legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.

§ Mr. Cryer
I have done the research. I have chapter 8 of the traffic signs manual, "Traffic Safety Measures for Road Works", with me.
I am concerned that the AA survey found that many of the signs, although they are desirable, are not exhibited. My new clause specifically referred to "pedestrians", not road users. A sign of the cheapest kind that I described should be exhibited simply to exert pressure on those public utilities or local authorities which do not provide adequate signs. They would know that their names and addresses were exhibited on the roadworks, and that people, apart from the police, might breath down their necks. People could ring their local councillors, the local gas board, or whatever, saying "Your roadworks are not properly guarded and signed". At the moment, unless equipment is left adjacent to the roadworks with the owner's name clearly marked on it, people often do not know where the work originated. That is why I proposed a simple sign of the type that I described.
457 In view of what the Minister said, I hope that he will consider the matter further so that a provision may be introduced in another place concerning a simple information panel.

§ Mr. Macfarlane
I am anxious to help the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps there has been some confusion on the part of the AA. It may be under the impression that, for example, in Northern Ireland, observance of chapter 8 of the the traffic signs manual has been made mandatory. That is not so. I understand that in Northern Ireland a statutory instrument introduced a provision corresponding to section 174 of the Highways Act 1980, which does not apply to Northern Ireland. That instrument brought Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales, although observance of the manual's advice on roadworks is not mandatory.
On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman has highlighted a number of features which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend. However, this Bill is not the appropriate place for the inclusion of his proposal.

§ Mr. Cryer
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I do not see either of the hon. Gentlemen whose names are appended to new clause 17, so that clause is not moved.