CONTROL OF WORKS AND EXCAVATIONS (Hansard, 20 June 1984)

§ Mr. Ancram
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) pointed out that on 30 January my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport announced the appointment of Professor M. R. Horne, recently of Manchester university, to review the workings of the Act and to examine the matter of roadworks by statutory undertakers. I am glad to report that that review team visited Scotland and that the police and COSLA have submitted evidence to it. There was also a contribution from my Department. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments. It would be premature to change existing law when a full scale review of statutory undertakers' operations is taking place. I hope that hon. Members will feel that it is worth awaiting the outcome of the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke to his new clause succinctly and briefly. I appreciate the intention behind it. However, I am not sure that he would achieve anything in practice. Such closures are dealt with by powers in the Road Traffic Regulations Act. The amendment is not appropriate in this Bill. Regardless of that, it is already the practice of my Department, when arranging such lane closures, to consult the organisations to which the new clause refers. They include the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club, the Road Hauliers Association, the Freight Transport Association, the Scottish Auto-Cycle Union and the Scottish Council of the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport. If he wishes to suggest further bodies whom he would like us to consult, I shall be pleased to consider them.

§ Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, North-East)
Apart from short-term routine maintenance, is the Minister aware that lane closures are especially frustrating for motorists, especially when no one is working on the closed lane? 387 Recently it has been especially difficult on the Forth road bridge. It may be of great help if those responsible for roadworks remembered that the roads provide a service for road users.

§ Mr. Ancram
I appreciate the frustrations that my hon. Friend and others experience from roadworks. They will appreciate, however, that on occasions the urgency for the necessary work precludes some of the consultations to which I have referred. Even in those circumstances my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to consult the police and the local roads authorities.
What I am telling my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries is that those decisions are not taken solely or arbitrarily by my Department, but that a consultation process is already built in. In the case of the A74, he may believe that the results of the consultation are not as he would wish, but he must appreciate that that road, in view of its age, requires much maintenance and renovation if it is to serve the purpose for which it was intended. One penalty of such maintenance and renewal is that parts of the road will be closed at given times.

§ Mr. David Marshall
Does the Minister agree that in any list of bodies to be consulted on transport in Scotland he should include the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Transport and General Workers Union?

§ Mr. Ancram
I shall consider any suggestions for consultation that are made by hon. Members.

§ Mr. Craigen
The Secretary of State is responsible for motorways. What often happens is that sections are coned off long before the work begins, which creates unnecessary hold-ups. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is on to a winner here, and I hope that the Minister addresses his mind to the point.

§ Mr. Ancram
I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is also referring to the A74. My Department works with Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway regional councils, as the agent authorities, and we try hard to minimise lane closures and to avoid busy periods such as the Glasgow fair holiday. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that it is in the interests of all road users that the work is done at some time and that, whenever it is done, it will cause inconvenience to some.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries will recognise that there is consultation and an understanding of the problem that he outlined. As to statutory undertakers, I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian listened to what I said and will withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I am grateful for some of the Minister's comments, and I hope that I did not give the impression of being unduly heavy on the public bodies that look after the services underneath the roads. From time to time many of those services must be maintained urgently, as one of my constituents in the village of Longniddry discovered to her alarm a few months ago when her house was blown up as a result of a gas leak. Would to God that that road had been dug up and the gas main repaired before the accident happened. One should not treat such matters lightly.
I am glad that the Minister and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have recognised that there is deep 388 dissatisfaction when roads are messed about repeatedly and apparently unnecessarily. There is a need for better co-ordination.
One's life in this place seems to be a constant waiting for the outcomes of reports or reviews, but I understand from the Minister's remarks that the present review may lead to a review of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, and not before time. However, in view of what the Minister said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Ancram
I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 34, line 19, leave out 'six' and insert 'twelve'.
This amendment provides that where anyone has carried out works or made excavations on a public road he will be responsible for maintaining that part of the road for 12 months instead of, as at present, six months. The clauses are unlikely to be used often, as few works are done on roads by bodies other than the roads authorities or public utilities, which are subject to separate codes of maintenance. However, in so far as it might arise, 12 months is a reasonable guarantee period, and I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Craigen
Two small points have been drawn to my attention. In subsection (5) the word "door" is used. It has been observed to me by a roads department that this might cause a little confusion, because in subsection (4) there is no mention of a roads authority being able to carry out the permanent reinstatement. It is felt that such a provision should have been included in the Bill. I should he obliged if the Minister would respond to those points.

§ Mr. Ancram
In regard to the use of the word "door", I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are different types of coverings for openings in roads. In his and my language some would be called covers while 01 hers resemble more closely a door. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that the definition is there to ensure that both types of covering are included.

§ Mr. Craigen
I asked about it only because a roads department raised it with me.

§ Mr. Ancram
As a lawyer I have always taken the view in dealing with legislation that a word should be given its ordinary meaning. In terms of covering openings in roads, the hon. Gentleman will recognise, as I do, that there are different types of covering. One may be better described as a door than as a cover.
In reply to the point about subsection (4) the hon. Gentleman will see that it provides: A person shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after he— (a) executes such works as are … make good any damage to the road occasioned by the works or excavation and shall immediately thereafter give notice to the authority that the damage is made good". I find difficulty in understanding the hon. Gentleman's question because the requirement and the obligation appear to be in the subsection.