REQUIREMENT OF CONSENT FOR NEW ROADS BUILT OTHER THAN BY ROADS AUTHORITY (Hansard, 20 June 1984)

§ Mr. Allan Stewart
I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 18, line 17, after 'intimated', insert 'by the applicant'.

The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 74.

§ Mr. Stewart
These are technical and drafting amendments.

§ Mr. Craigen
I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 18, line 38, leave out 'less' and insert 'more'.
348 I move the amendment more as a probe because clause 20(4) deals with construction consents and states that all work shall be completed within a period of not less than three years. A number of people whom I consulted think that this should read "not more than three years." This appears to be clarified by clause 20(6)(b). I hope that the Minister can clarify the matter because it could be remedied now.

§ Mr. Allan Stewart
I confirm that the clause as drafted ensures that no construction consent can be imposed with a time limit of less than three years. That period is taken from the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, and subsection (6) allows for an appeal to the sheriff against any conditions other than a condition of time less than three years, which is illegal in terms of the subsection.
The amendment would impose a maximum time limit of three years for construction of a road by a person other than a roads authority. Because the amendment would impose no minimum time limit, unreasonable conditions for completion of a road could be imposed without any appeal. I considered the amendment carefully because I realised that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) was questioning the drafting of the clause. I hope that the explanation satisfies him.

§ Mr. Craigen
I am grateful for that clarification. Does the Minister think that three years is a reasonable period, or is it too long?

§ Mr. Stewart
There can always be different views on such matters. I hesitate to quote precedent, but that period is taken from the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892, and experience suggests that it is satisfactory.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
Like all those present, I have been captivated by the discussion so far. I intervene briefly now only because I am intrigued by clauses 20 and 21. As hon. Members will know only too well, I am not in any way an expert on roads or their construction.

§ Mr. Maxton
My hon. Friend cannot drive on them either.

§ Mr. Foulkes
My hon. Friend is getting close to seeing a disturbance in the Chamber, which would be most unfortunate. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us as to exactly who is going round building roads without any authority in Scotland. I travel around Scotland a lot, although, as has been pointed out, not as much as I used to do. Come September I shall no doubt be travelling a little more. I have not seen people illegally building roads in the middle of the night, or at any other time. It is fascinating that clause 20 should specify all that great procedure for those who have a strange longing to build roads.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many people have been taken to court for building roads illegally. Has it been a growing offence in the past five years? Has the Minister lost control over it? Are these provisions being introduced because there is a rash of illegal road building in Scotland?

§ Mr. Craigen
I believe that the legislation brings us into line with England, so perhaps there is a precedent there.

§ Mr. Foulkes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. These things do spread across the border. Things get out of hand. They start off in England and move up to Scotland. It started with glue sniffing and it now seems to be illegal road building. I am glad that the Minister and the Government are putting a stop to that illegal road building. To be fully aware of the position, we need to know how much illegal road building has been going on, and who has been doing it. I ask the Minister to name the guilty men.

§ Mr. Allan Stewart
I listened, as always, with great care to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). There is a genuine point to clause 20—that it is possible for building developers to provide roads on housing estates that are of a very low standard, which lands purchasers with a problem. Therefore, the clause is necessary, for it requires the consent of the local roads authority to be obtained for the construction of any new road by someone other than a roads authority. Apart from the roads authority, those who build new roads are mostly developers of new housing estates.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Is the o Minister saying that housing contractors are going round building roads without permission? I am now making a serious point, because that would seem to be rather strange.

§ Mr. Stewart
This clause and clause 21 would prevent that from happening. The problem is not building roads completely without permission, but building roads that are not up to the proper standard. That is why the roads authority's consent is required in the first instance.

§ Mr. Maxton
I too am rather fascinated by the clause, although I am perhaps slightly more serious than my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). Of course, the local authority gives someone permission to build a road. I notice that in clause 22, the local roads authority has the right to stop up or temporarily close any new road which another person … has constructed—(a) without construction consent". What will happen if the Ministry of Defence starts to build new roads within the Coulport area as part of the extension of the Trident programme? It will have to do that. Anyone who knows anything about the programme will accept that that is so. Strathclyde regional council, the local roads authority, is opposed to the extension of Coulport and the bringing in of Trident. If the local roads authority says that it will not give the Ministry of Defence construction consent, what will happen? If the Ministry of Defence then goes ahead and builds those reads, can we assume that, under clause 22, Strathclyde regional council can send in its workmen to stop them up and so ensure that there is no access to them?
I hope that my interpretation of the clause is correct, and that Strathclyde regional council will have the ability to say that it does not want Trident or the development of Coulport. If these clauses mean that it can use its powers to ensure that Trident does not come to the Clyde or the west of Scotland, I give them my wholehearted support.

§ Mr. Allan Stewart
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) asked what would happen if the 350 local authority refused an application for construction consent under clause 20. Subsection (6) sets out the procedure by which an applicant can appeal to the Secretary of State in accordance with the procedure prescribed by any regulations under subsection (7)".