STREET WORKS LICENCES (Hansard, 22 May 1991)

§ Sir Peter Blaker
I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 99, line 26, leave out 'or'.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 14, in page 99, line 27, at end insert ',or. () requiring the Licensee to give security for the performance of his obligations under paragraph 8 or under section 78 (liability for loss or damage caused).'.

§ Sir Peter Blaker
This is a paving amendment for amendment No. 14. It deals with a small but important issue on which I would welcome an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister.
Schedule 3(3) deals with the conditions that a street authority may attach to a street works licence. There seems to be a gap in those conditions, which amendment No. 14 seeks to fill. It enables the street authority to require a licensee to give security for the performance of his obligations. That is important because, under schedule 3(8), a licensee must indemnify the street authority in respect of any injury, damage or loss that his works may cause. Under clause 78, the licensee must compensate other persons—for example, utilities—whose apparatus in the roads is damaged by the execution of his work or by bursts or explosions. However, the licensee may be a person of no financial substance. Therefore, we must ensure that the street authority has the power to require a provision of security.
I would welcome a statement from my hon. Friend the Minister about whether he thinks that such a power exists. It is not mentioned in schedule 3. The issue is made more important because, under clause 46(2), the licensee no longer has to have the consent of a utility before he starts work. That is a change from the provisions of the Highways Act 1980, under which he had to have the consent of the utility before starting work. Will the Minister explain whether the street authority already has that power and, if so, where it exists?

§ Mr. Freeman
I hope that I can give my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) some reassurance. The amendment deals specifically with licensees—those who dig up the roads and are not statutory undertakers, such as British Gas or British Telecom. Rather, they may be companies laying computer cable across the road, which do not already have the statutory right to dig up the road. The question is whether the licensing authority—the highways authority—has the power to satisfy itself that those who dig up the roads and could damage the apparatus of statutory undertakers are not men of straw, but have sufficient financial security and safeguards. My advice is that street authorities have such powers and responsibilities in issuing licences.
While not commending the amendment to the House, I should be happy to correspond with my right hon. Friend to clarify that issue. It is already the case, under existing legislation, that people can dig up the highway, damage the apparatus of others and be sued by them. They may not be people or companies of finanical substance, so we are not creating a new problem: it already exists. We are ameliorating it with the new controls over qualifications of supervisors and operators provided for in clause 63. We want to ensure that those who dig up the roads do so in a more professional way.
I accept that licensees should be in a position to meet any claim that is made against them. They should have the necessary financial resources to defend themselves and compensate, where appropriate. However, my Department can see no evidence of that problem at present. If evidence of damage is produced, we shall certainly discuss licensing policy with HAUC, the Highways and Utilities Committee. We can give further guidance to the highway authorities about the procedure that they will Follow to give licences in order to avoid problems arising for the statutory undertakers.
In summary, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South will accept my offer to communicate further with him and substantiate my claim that the power already exists for the licensing authorities to make stipulations and requirements as they deem necessary. At present, it is not necessary to deal with the problem, but if it does arise we shall be the first to institute consultations.

§ Ms. Walley
If the Minister is in correspondence with his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), will he send a duplicate copy of any letters to the Opposition so that we may be kept informed of all developments?

§ Mr. Freeman
That goes without saying. I have always done that and will continue to do so.

§ Sir Peter Blaker
In light of my hon. Friend's assurances, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.