THE TRAFFIC DIRECTOR FOR LONDON (Hansard, 26 February 1991)

§ Mr. Chope
I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 39, line 6, at end insert— '(3A) The Director shall keep under review the manner in which the London authorities exercise their functions under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 in relation to priority routes or roads which, in his opinion, are likely to affect traffic using any priority route.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendment No. 52.

§ Mr. Chope
I need not detain the House for long. The amendment incorporates in the Bill the connection with the other legislation that hon. Members will shortly have a chance to consider—the New Roads and Street Works Bill.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes
As I was not a member of the Committee, I apologise if the point that I now raise was canvassed there. Amendment No. 52 proposes to add the provision: Where a London authority are asked by the Traffic Director for London to designate a street as a traffic-sensitive street and so on. What will constitute a traffic-sensitive street? I presume it is a term of art.

§ Mr. Chope
Traffic-sensitive streets are roads in which works would cause significant disruption to traffic under the terms of the New Roads and Street Works Bill. They will have applied to them special requirements for the 912 planning and co-ordination of those works. In other words, local highways authorities will have power to give directions to undertakers of works governing the timing of the works. So the highway authority will be very much in the driving seat in ensuring that the minimum amount of disruption is caused by street works on those roads.

§ Ms. Ruddock
I understand that the details of the way in which the traffic-sensitive route provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Bill will operate have been worked out by a joint local authority/local utility working party and that that working party is not aware of the proposals in amendment No. 52. It seems to that working party that those proposals would greatly undermine the spirit of co-operation that now exists in the working party. It appears, according to the amendment, that the traffic director and the Secretary of State could reach an agreement over the heads of local authorities and local utilities and ignore any agreement that might have been reached by the joint working party.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Perhaps the Minister will explain amendment No. 45 in more detail. I understood that, under the New Roads and Street Works Bill, local authorities would be responsible for co-ordinating pavement and street repairs after various statutory undertakers and others had completed works. Why is it necessary for the functions of local authorities to be removed in respect of the priority route network?
I am not clear to what extent the authority of the traffic director will extend beyond the priority route. Will it be the immediate junctions, feeder roads to them or any roads that could be affected by the priority route scheme? If the definition were drawn at its widest, large areas of a borough might be handed over to the control of the traffic director rather than remain with the elected local authority.

§ Mr. Chope
The answer to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) is that amendment No. 52 provides for the traffic director to request the London local authorities—the highway authorities for priority routes or roads—which are likely to affect traffic on any priority route and to designate those as traffic-sensitive. If a local authority were to fail to comply with the traffic director's request, the amendment gives the director a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who may direct that the local authority complies. That seems eminently reasonable. Indeed, some people might think that power to issue such directions should be given to the traffic director himself. We do not seek that power, and I hope that that will be taken as showing the spirit of co-operation to which the hon. Member for Deptford referred. The hon. Lady says that that is not what they think. Perhaps my explanation will allay their fears.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Do I understand the Minister to say that the power of an order would rest solely with the Secretary of State, who would have to hear a report from the traffic director about the director's dispute with the local authority and then decide whether to make an order? Would such an order be subject to parliamentary approval?

§ Mr. Chope
I do not think that it would be subject to parliamentary approval, but the procedure about which the hon. Gentleman speaks would take place. The traffic 913 director would have to put his case to the Secretary of State. If the local authority wished to put an alternative view, the Secretary of State would have to adjudicate.
Amendment No. 45 would require the traffic director to keep under review the manner in which the local highway authorities discharge their duties under the New Roads and Street Works Bill. The most important of those is the duty to co-ordinate works of all kinds in relation to priority routes and other roads likely to affect traffic on a priority route. It is envisaged that in that way the director will have access to the register which will be established by the Bill. That will enable him to maintain an oversight of the conduct of roadworks affecting the performance of priority routes.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked about the distance from the priority routes of roads that could affect those routes. Obviously, that depends on circumstances. I cannot give a more precise answer, but that is the common-sense answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.