The Committee met at half past three of the clock.

HL Deb 27 April 2004 vol 660 cc59-120GC

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) in the Chair.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)

Before calling Amendment No. 68, I should advise Members of the Committee that should Divisions be called in the Chamber, this meeting of the Grand Committee will be adjourned for approximately 10 minutes.

Clause 17 [Arrangements for network management]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 68: Page 7, line 38, after "make" insert "and publish

The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 68 inserts a duty on a local transport authority to publish such arrangements as it considers appropriate for planning and carrying out the action to be taken in performing its network management duty as set out in Clause 16. We are asking that it should publish its objectives and policies as it seems to me that that would help accountability. It would help local residents, utility companies and other road users, and it might even help the local Member of Parliament to see what the local transport authority plans to do and how it attempts to achieve it. The Minister may say that most local authorities do publish such information. However, it seems that there is no duty for them to do so.

Part 2 of the Bill concerns network management duty. As we saw earlier, there are substantial intervention powers. Therefore, the clearer the duties are laid out, the easier it will be for everyone to have a view on what local authorities are achieving and whether they wish to press for intervention. The amendment seeks to draw out the Government's thinking on this issue and to see whether it is necessary to include it in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

Before I say anything, perhaps I may explain why I am here rather than my noble friend Lord Davies. Yesterday, he took his dog for a walk but chose to ride a bicycle while doing so. The dog was distracted and my noble friend fell off and hurt his neck. He came in yesterday in great pain and was expertly administered to by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, who, for a little while, had his hands round the neck of a Government Minister. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, was terrific. I should like publicly to thank him and I hope, I expect on behalf of everyone in the room, that Bryan gets better soon. There have been a number of jokes about a Minister taking a traffic management Bill through Parliament and falling off his bicycle, but we shall leave that.

Amendment No. 68 would require a local traffic authority not only to make arrangements to perform its network management duty but to publish the arrangements. That, we feel, would be an unnecessary additional burden on authorities at a time when the Government are reducing their demands on authorities to produce plans of various sorts and becoming less bureaucratic. Much of the information will be in the public domain; for example, an authority's transport policies and where the traffic management sits in the organisation. More importantly, the assessment of authorities against the criteria will be in terms of their performance of the duty and not on what they have written down.

If authorities find it helpful to publish information about the arrangements they have made either in hard copy or electronically, they are free to do so. But we do not consider it appropriate to make it a requirement on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Astor

For the Minister to say that it would be burdensome and bureaucratic is extraordinary, because the Bill puts a huge amount of burden and bureaucracy on to local authorities. We are always trying to make the Bill less bureaucratic and burdensome.

The Minister said that it was a question of the performance of their duty, not what they have written down. How do we know whether they have performed their duty adequately if it has not been written down and published? How will it be assessed? I remain somewhat unconvinced by the Minister's answer. These provisions will impose duties on local authorities and if they do not succeed in those duties, major changes will take place, as we will see later in the Bill. We are saying that we will see if local authorities are performing adequately without ensuring that they have published what they intend to do so that we can judge whether they are indeed performing adequately. The judgment should be made not just by the department but within the local authority so it can see what it is doing. I find the Minister's answer somewhat unconvincing and will wish to return to this on Report.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

If I may intervene, I am told that the criteria for performance are covered in later clauses—Clause 18 for guidance on the duty and Clause 27 for guidance on criteria. Perhaps we will come back to discuss this subject later.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful remarks. We may indeed have to do that. However, it is important that it is clear to all local authorities what their duties are in regard to local traffic planning. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bradshaw

Before the noble Viscount sits down, I thought the Minister's reply was somewhat at fault. I believe that under the beacon status system which has now been approved, certain councils have in fact been relieved of duties to prepare local transport plans. If they do not prepare a local transport plan and they do not publish the criteria by which they are managing the highways, all the utilities which depend upon them and their own highway department— which presumably will also be seeking leave to dig up the road—will not have, in published form, any sort of real-time, electronic or written-down system to which they can refer. If I am right, I will wish to join the noble Viscount in raising this again on Report. It should be axiomatic that a local authority somewhere publishes the plans for the local highway.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 69: Page 8, line 4, leave out "(but need not)

The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 69 relates to Clause 17(3), which states: The traffic manager may (but need not) be an employee of the authority".

When the Minister kindly organised a meeting with his officials and I put the question to them, the answer was that the traffic manager might not be an employee because this could be contracted out. I thought further about that, and if that is the case, it needs to be made clearer in the Bill. In what circumstances would a local authority contract out the duty of the traffic manager? We need a little more information. If a traffic manager is an employee of the authority, then there is a clear line of accountability and all the other people in the local authority are aware of that. But are we talking about contracting out the duty to a local firm or a national body? It seems to me that it is a rather dangerous provision.

Of course, I realise that many services within councils are contracted out. However, the traffic manager has not only a managing role but a policy-making role. Therefore, we are saying that the local authority could contract out the policy-making role to a third party. That is what concerns me and—this is a probing amendment—I should be grateful if the Minister could explain under what circumstances he believes that that could happen. Does he agree that there is a policy-making aspect to this issue? If that was the case, we would have some concerns. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Viscount. Behind this clause is flexibility for the local authority. We have deliberately not specified how the role of traffic manager should be performed, who he should be and where he might fit into the organisation. Local authorities are free to make such decisions for themselves. Even if they contracted out the job, the duty would still rest with the authority.

Clause 17(3) states: The traffic manager may (but need not) be an employee of the authority", as we have heard. That provides for the traffic manager to be an external organisation or individual if the authority considers it the most appropriate way to meet the network management duty. By deleting the phrase in brackets, Amendment No. 69 would leave an element of uncertainty about who else could be a traffic manager, and that would be unsatisfactory. We want authorities to be able to choose what is best for them without there being any doubt. I repeat that the intention behind the clause is that local authorities should be given flexibility, and I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw the amendment. Of course. policy will remain with the local authority and not with the traffic manager, however appointed.

Lord Bradshaw

Before the noble Viscount intervenes again, it seems to me that this matter goes to the very heart of the Bill. In appointing the traffic manager, the local authority appoints someone whose job it is to share out the use of the highway between a number of conflicting parties. Such a job is not easy to give to a contractor. For example, Halcrow may be employed in that role, but it is not employed to exercise policy decisions on the part of the local authority. If one goes down the road of putting policy out to contractors, one ends up in the position of the railways, which is absolutely impossible for anyone.

There must be someone right at the middle who will take all the conflicting demands, involving the interruption of traffic and the use of road space, and act as a policy judge between them. The decisions that he makes in favour of one will obviously be to the detriment of another. Therefore, I ask the Minister to think very carefully about this matter so that he does not give to contractors the job of making policy within the council.

Lord Tordoff

I am something of a spare part in this Grand Committee. I am here only because I was very involved in the New Roads and Street Works Bill, several centuries ago, when Lord Underhill, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and I filled the time of the whole Chamber day after day. That is why I consider this to be a suitable Bill for Grand Committee. What went wrong with that Bill—we thought that we had cracked it but we obviously failed—was that, ultimately, the people who should have picked up responsibility for doing something about road usage and holes in the road failed to do so. I think my noble friend is perfectly right in saying what he has just said. There needs to be someone with responsibility for making sure that these matters are dealt with. It is not clear from the Bill as I read it that that is the case at the moment.

I do not intend to interfere much more on this Bill. I shall leave it to my noble friend and to my noble kinswoman. I have been trying to get that in for some time! There is a general point here. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who is an expert on holes in the road, will agree that the Bill that we passed all those years ago failed because the authorities who ought to have held the balance between the conflicting interests failed to do so. I remember we had long discussions with NJUG, the AA and the RAC. We really thought at that stage that we had the balance about right. But, so far as I can see, the provisions of that Bill were largely ignored when it came to looking after the use of the road, people digging holes in it and so on. However, good things came out of it. The standard as regards the filling up of holes went up quite a bit as a result of that Bill. However, I caution the Committee that we must be very precise within this Bill to make sure that we are putting the responsibility where it belongs and that we make those responsible report to their local authorities and to their local citizens.

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

I am glad to follow my noble friend Lord Tordoff—my noble kinsman, indeed, we think. For some weeks I have tried to get to grips with what it is I do not like about this Bill and what it is that is leaving me profoundly uncomfortable. There are certain specific points which I can identify, but this debate has encapsulated where the problem lies. This is a Bill that in its conception and in its public face is about the problem of street works— it is about holes in the road, utilities and so on. That is an issue which I think we would all agree needs to be addressed. The problem is that the Bill as it is worded goes very, very much further. It refers to the kind of issues to which my noble friend Lord Bradshaw referred which concern allocation of road space and some of the sustainable transport measures that are being brought in. The kind of issue that we are discussing goes very much further than was originally envisaged in this Bill. It is now potentially leading to what looks like a change of local transport policy which is so significant that local authorities may well have to tear up much of the work that they have done in the past five years.

I am sorry to speak in such vague terms on a specific amendment but this issue will be a thread that will run through our proceedings on this Bill. There is a fundamental dysfunctionality between the words as printed and the original intention of the Bill.

Lord Lucas

It appears to me that this Bill as it is now allows the possibility that someone will be appointed who is not an employee of the local authority to exercise a great deal of discretion in matters where there are some very big commercial interests involved. A three-month delay on a bit of planning so that the road is not dug up again would be a very serious matter. A number of my forebears held such posts, and very lucrative they were too. Where we are dealing with that kind of discretion in the modern world, we should keep it under the umbrella of the local authority.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

I should like to say two things. I must stress that all we are doing in this clause is giving flexibility to local authorities. We are doing nothing more sinister than that. No one will force local authorities to contract out. It may be possible to set guidelines or rules for a contracted-out traffic manager while keeping policy in-house. All we are doing is allowing that option. It is very difficult to understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, is so upset about this amendment and the Government's reaction to it. It seems to me to be totally clear: we are giving local authorities flexibilities. Do they not want that?

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

Subsection (5) states: The arrangements must include provision for ensuring that the authority … determine specific policies or objectives in relation to different roads or classes of road in their road network". Determining specific policies or objectives for different roads is far removed from the question of managing whether telecoms dig up the road one week and the gas people the next. This is very much about traffic management. That is why local authorities are so concerned.

Viscount Astor

My modest amendment seems to have sparked off an interesting debate. I was again somewhat surprised by the Minister's argument as I thought that he took my argument to justify his position. He said that I was creating uncertainty. In fact I narrowed down the issue: I am creating certainty. I am saying that by taking out the relevant words, he has to be an employee of the authority, he cannot be contracted out, which is a way of stimulating debate on how this might happen.

We must go away, think about this area and scratch our heads to see whether we have got the matter wrong and the Government have got it right, or vice versa. That is what we shall do. We may even come and talk to the Minister before Report. I am grateful for his response. It certainly shed light on the issue. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 70: Page 8, line 11, at end insert ", having regard to the importance of street works relating to essential services such as gas, electricity, water and telecommunications and, in particular, the need to ensure the safety and security of supply of those services; and () in implementing the arrangements does not discriminate in its application between its own works and street works:

The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. It has two purposes. The first is specifically to put in the Bill the need to balance the maintenance of essential services, which often require the roads to be dug up, against the need to reduce congestion and disruption of our roads. The other is to achieve equity between utilities and private companies on the one hand and local authorities—who themselves sometimes dig up the roads—on the other.

On the first purpose, as I suggested at Second Reading, the very obvious public interest—which is clearly addressed in the Bill—in reducing obstruction in our streets needs to be balanced against the public interest regarding the safety and efficiency of our gas and water mains and so on. Security and sustainability of supply are most important to the general public and, indeed, to the ongoing work of commercial enterprises of all kinds. Clearly, a collapse in the supply of gas, water, electricity or telecoms can be catastrophic for commercial enterprises in particular.

The Government are pushing BT and other telecom suppliers to roll-out broadband. My noble friend Lord Erroll referred to that at the close of the previous Committee sitting. One must bear in mind that although some temporary disruption of traffic is involved when holes are dug in the highway, the greater the success of broadband roll-out in the years to come, the more likely it is that businesses will be able to locate staff at home, thereby reducing the need for staff to commute to work—which is one of the biggest causes of congestion on our roads at certain times of the day. Clause 17(4)(b) as drafted refers to the authority taking "any possible action" to deal with the causes of congestion. That is a very wide provision. It would be helpful to have it balanced in the way I have suggested.

As I indicated, the second purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, in seeking to implement its arrangements for network management, the local authority takes the same approach to highway authority and local authority works—skips, scaffolding—as it does to works and obstructions caused by the utilities. As I understand it, local authorities and utilities are each responsible for roughly equal numbers of road and street works and should, as far as possible, be subject to the same terms and conditions.

It seems to be the Bill's intent that only utilities, but not local authorities, would be charged for permits to undertake road and street works. Only utilities would be subject to fines for offences. Local authorities would be subject instead to a points system. Why is there to be such discrimination if the Government are serious about tackling congestion caused by whomever? After all, local authorities are responsible, as I have suggested, for roughly half of the works on the road. I beg to move.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

I should like briefly to speak, but before I do so, might I enlist the Deputy Chairman's help in reminding noble Lords that audibility has never been a feature of this Room? Although I grant that it has been improved recently, it is still quite difficult to hear. If the Deputy Chairman were to persuade those who are speaking to enter into a more intimate relationship with the microphone, it would help those who are of an increasing age and do not hear every word.

However, although I am speaking immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I heard every word that he said. While I admire the clarity of his voice, I hope that Members of the Committee will decline the amendment in due course if it is ever seriously moved.

The utilities have enjoyed great privileges. They have received covert support from local authorities, which felt it was not in their interests to quarrel or be nasty to utilities. Anybody who enjoys great privileges tends to abuse them and to cease to be grateful for them. I have had frequent occasion in the not too distant past to refer in the Chamber to the number of quite unacceptable delays caused by utilities, which seem to take prolonged holidays while they just dig the place up. It is often a long interval before they finish their digging. The conviction that I have that roads and highways are designed for movement is too often flouted.

I shall not speak at greater length, but it would be very dangerous to allow the utilities to continue to abuse their privileges as they have in the past. Highway authorities have been greatly to blame for folding their arms and doing little to encourage speed or efficiency on the part of the utilities. I hope that the amendment will be rejected in due course.

4 p.m.

The Earl of Erroll

I put my name to the amendment because it also refers to telecommunications. The real problem is that it is as essential for companies these days not to lose their connection to the information superhighway, as it is sometimes called, as it is for new connections to be established at short notice. The Government also need such connections in order to communicate with companies. Many matters are dealt with electronically, and that will be increasingly true in the future. E-procurement—electronic procurement— systems are in place and will soon be the only way of dealing with local authorities and government, however small a trader one is. If one does not have access to that, one will go out of business.

The matter on which I have been lobbied is that the Bill as drafted could give rise to unfair situations due to the different treatment of the Highways Agency and some of the utilities. The special position of telecommunications people is due to the fact that most of the trunk infrastructure, which causes the disruption, has already been laid. The major digging up has already been done. It is therefore essential to ensure that there is at least a level playing field—as people like to call it—and that the Bill provides for such work to be carried out efficiently.

The amendment would remove one of the potential inequalities regarding the Highways Agency, which might become bogged down in bureaucracy regarding the demands of the utilities. It is a question of ensuring fair treatment between public authority works and private operators which are probably trying to do a job that is also essential for the public authorities.

Lord Lucas

I find myself in sympathy with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I hope to hear from the Minister how this balancing act will be achieved. If the answer when my broadband connection goes down because of a break in the cable is that I cannot have it back for three months because the road has just been resurfaced, I shall not be pleased, and I shall be contending with my noble friend in favour of the amendment. If on the other hand I am told that that sort of consideration will be treated in much the same way as a gas leak or a cut in the water supply, then I am going to be feeling reasonably content about it.

I wish to understand better the last part of the amendment where local authority works are brought into the scheme. It seems odd to promote a scheme that covers only half of the works that happen in a road. If we are to co-ordinate street works, let us co-ordinate those of the local authority as well as what is happening with the utilities and others.

My own amendment is merely to give the Government a chance to elucidate what they mean by the word "insignificant". The last serious traffic jam that I was caught up in was caused by a flasher. I do not know whether that would count as "insignificant".

Lord Bradshaw

I shall try to speak up. We have one or two concerns with the Bill. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that the works of the highway authority should be ranked alongside those of the utilities, so that both parties would contribute to the overall plan being considered by the traffic manager.

I would take the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, to task to some extent in that, in my quite considerable experience, utilities frequently use the word "emergency" to designate the work they are carrying out, thereby getting round any plan. They often dig up the road and find that they do not have in stock the part that they need—the valve, the tube or the switch or whatever. That might be because the utilities have taken to employing ever more subcontractors at ever lower levels. They do not have stocks of available parts and the road is often left open, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said. A hole is dug in the road and then someone goes to look for the part—and the opening remains there for days.

So we look for equity of treatment between the highway authority's own works and those of the utilities. However, we also look for the utilities to act responsibly, not say that there is an emergency when there is not one and carry proper stocks so that, if emergencies arise, they can usually effect repairs reasonably promptly.

Lord Berkeley

I support Amendment No. 70 but I have a few questions about it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that many utilities call street works "emergencies" when they may not be. On the other hand, if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, did not have his broadband, then in his view it would be an emergency.

Although it is right that the utilities and the local authorities should be assessed equally on the amount of road congestion they cause, I am not quite sure how that can be done. Will a value for money assessment be made of lane closures and the consequent five-minute traffic jam caused for cars and lorries? Will the assessment apply to cyclists and pedestrians who never suffer such delay because they can get through traffic jams? Worst of all, will the traffic manager—who may or may not be a local authority employee—have targets for cutting delays?

How will all that work? I can just see it coming. Oxfordshire County Council, for example—as I live in Oxford I am using this example—will give a contract to Capita, which will make a profit or loss depending on whether it has achieved its targets. The amendment is based on good principles but I can see it snowballing. I think that we have a lot more work to do on the idea.

I agree that there should be no discrimination between the local authorities resurfacing the roads. They also have a habit of digging things up but then discovering that they do not have the right type of stone—as happened in a large shopping street in Oxford where the cost has increased by God knows how many times and delays have been occurring for several years. They are not immune from it, and there is a reason for that. However, I think that a few more questions need to be answered before we decide whether this amendment should be made in this form. In principle, however, I support it.

Viscount Astor

I have a very simple definition of what I regard as an "emergency" in the essential services, whether it be gas, electricity, water or telecommunications; it is whether they fail in my street. For the benefit of any utilities that might read Hansard, that is Chester Street. If they fail in anyone else's street, I regard it as a service supply problem that can be dealt with when convenient. I am afraid that that is what most people think about emergency services. If it matters to us we care deeply about it and we want it fixed as soon as possible. Although it is somewhat unfair to assume that utility companies dig up the road because they enjoy doing so and enjoy watching us queuing in the traffic— after all, it costs them money—that does not mean that they always do it efficiently or in the right way or at the right time.

We know from the Department for Transport's own surveys that half of the congestion caused by roadworks is the responsibility of the utility companies and half is the responsibility of the local authorities' activities. I can see that there will be conflict between a traffic manager employed by a local authority and the rest of that authority. He will be saying, "We haw to have a flow of traffic; otherwise I am not doing my duty", and someone else in the authority will be saying, "We want street lighting here and something else there". There will be conflict. However, if the responsibility is contracted out as the Government want, the traffic manager can be reached only via a call centre in Bombay. God knows how the interface will work.

That difficulty will exist and it will put the traffic manager in a difficult situation with some of his colleagues. I am therefore interested in the part of the amendment that would become paragraph (c). It seems to offer a way, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, of ranking local authorities alongside utilities. I think that that is a good way of expressing what we would like to do. If this part of the amendment were accepted, it would give the traffic manager the power to say to the rest of his authority, "The work you want to do must rank alongside that of the utilities. Therefore you must take the same things into consideration when you plan to do those works". I think that that would help the traffic manager. It would make life easier and give a clearer authority for him to operate within the local transport authority. That could be helpful. I hope that I have spoken loud enough for my noble friend to hear.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

Just.

Viscount Astor

I shall seek to improve. So, I see merits in the amendment. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

As I live in the next parallel street to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I agree with him. I would wish for Chapel Street to be well looked after at the expense of his road, Chester Street. I very much hope that the noble Lord. Lord Peyton, can hear me. The first Question I heard when I arrived here three or four years ago was one asked by him about the Strand, which utilities were digging up, all at the same time, which was appalling. I have followed his campaign ever since. I admire and agree with everything he has said about roads in London. I hope that the noble Lord can hear me.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

Yes.

Evans of Temple Guiting

Good. Amendment No. 70 would place on the face of the Bill a requirement for traffic authorities to consider the importance of street works when making arrangements for meeting their duty and to ensure that they do not give preferential treatment to their own works.

Utility works benefit individuals, businesses and the economy as a whole. Clearly, we have no interest in preventing these activities. That is addressed through the drafting of the main duty along with existing legislation.

Utility companies already have a statutory right to carry out their own works to install or maintain their apparatus. The duty placed on highway authorities in Part 2 will not change that. What we are aiming to achieve through the network management duty is the better management of both utility works and authorities' own works. In order to do that, authorities will need to consider the way that all works are coordinated and carried out. That should be based on an objective assessment and decisions taken on the basis of the best overall outcome without discrimination.

Amendment No. 70A aims to provide an example of something that would be considered as having insignificant effect, and therefore could be disregarded while meeting the network management duty. Clause 17(4) recognises that an element of proportionality is required in meeting the duty. However, here we have chosen not to offer examples or illustrative lists in order to avoid the risk of appearing either to give undue weight to some things or to dismiss others by virtue of omission.

During the last sitting of the Grand Committee, we debated the merits of including various levels of detail in the guidance issued under Clause 18 rather than on the face of the Bill. To assist deliberation of Part 1, I sent a draft of the network management duty guidance to those who tabled amendments, and copies were made available to those who participated in the first day of Grand Committee.

Before I talk about the guidance in relation to the amendments, I should like to take the opportunity to state for the record that there was an omission on the covering sheet of the draft provided. While the title of the document and the main text made it clear that it was a draft of the Clause 18 guidance, regrettably, the covering sheet omitted the word "guidance" from the first sentence— how many noble Lords noticed that? That has been corrected in the copies available today.

The draft guidance shows how a clear message can be sent to local authorities on the scope of the duty, and the arrangements that would need to be in place for meeting it. That is in contrast with Amendments Nos. 70 and 70A, which illustrate the danger of losing the focus of the duty by adding additional strands through primary legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred at the last sitting to the question of primacy or priority of the duty as set out in Clause 16 and to how that relates to paragraph 13 of the draft guidance. The question of primacy is at the heart of Amendment No. 70. Clause 16 places a network management duty upon local traffic authorities, which will mean that it should be given due consideration with resulting action to address problems.

Paragraph 13 of the draft guidance explains the qualification of, so far as may be reasonably practicable having regard to other obligations, policies and objectives". That means that the duty is placed alongside all the other things that an authority has to consider, and it does not take precedence. But the statutory duty reflects the importance placed on making best use of existing roads for the benefit of all road users.

The guidance gives an example of road safety. No responsible authority would take the duty as a licence to ignore the need to reduce the number of people killed or injured on our roads. As my noble friend said at the last sitting, we recognise that local authorities have competing obligations; that is the nature of their work. What is quite clear is that this legislation will emphasise a greater role for the local authorities to address themselves to traffic management.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also asked during the last sitting for clarification of how paragraph 14 of the draft guidance sat with the Bill. I think that it is worth taking a few moments here to offer that explanation as it relates to the wider point raised by these amendments—the need to retain the focus of the duty in primary legislation.

Paragraph 14 of the draft guidance elaborates on the need for local traffic authorities to think about the road network beyond administrative boundaries. That directly relates to Clause 16(1)(b), which requires that authorities facilitate the expeditious movement of traffic on road networks for which another authority is the traffic authority". The draft guidance goes on to give an explanation of the reasoning behind that. As I believe was said on the first day of Grand Committee, road users do not generally view the road network as divided between local authorities. They use the network as a whole, irrespective of who is responsible. Under the duty, an authority needs to consider not only its own network but the effects of its actions on the networks of others, which is a very important point. That is to achieve the best operation of the network as a whole, especially in conurbations where networks of adjacent authorities can be highly inter-related.

I should like to comment on the words of my noble friend Lord Borrie. Obviously, we want both utility works and local authorities' own works to be done efficiently. The cliché here, of course, is a level playing field for both as far as possible. However, it is not always possible to treat both types of work in exactly the same way. Charging for highway works would mean, in effect, local authorities charging themselves.

The network management duty requires local authorities to look at all works. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, talked of the importance of the Internet. The regulation-making powers in Parts 3 and 4 are wide enough to take into account emergencies on matters such as urgent connections. There are already similar provisions for regulations in the 1991 Act. These appear to have worked quite well.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made some very interesting points. Part of the Bill's thrust is towards better planning by utilities, for example encouraging them to carry stocks so that the sort of thing he illustrated does not happen. Obviously, we do not agree with the improper use of emergency powers by the utilities. We simply do not condone that.

I hope on the basis of this rather lengthy explanation—and I apologise for that—that these amendments can be withdrawn.

Lord Borrie

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive survey of the situation on the amendments and other noble Lords for their contributions.

I was struck by one phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. He said that roads are designed for movement. Indeed they are, but they are also designed to contain a number of artefacts under and over them. The public have a tremendous interest in their adequate maintenance, servicing and so on. Both noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Bradshaw, were concerned with the abuses by the utilities—at any rate in the past—in certain respects of what they are allowed to do, and not completing the work that they may have begun.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred to the misuse of so-called "emergencies". I shall not say any more about that at the moment. I have an amendment relating to that under the permit scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has kindly remained with us, although he threatened to depart shortly. He will know that there is a definition of "emergency" in the 1991 Act. The Government have not chosen to put one into this Bill. We may return to that in due course.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his words of support for my amendment. However, he very rightly was concerned with how to achieve a balance—if one is asking for a balance to be made— between the needs to avoid congestion on the one hand and the needs of the public to have proper supplies of gas, electricity, telecom facilities and so on. That is an extremely important question. I am sure my noble friend would agree that one cannot possibly deal in the Bill with how such a balance can be achieved. That does not mean that—and I hope he agrees with me—trying to instruct an authority to seek to obtain a balance between concern with congestion on the one hand and concern about proper utility facilities on the other should be set out in the Bill.

I say "in the Bill". There is an argument here, as no doubt there will be in other discussions that we shall have later this afternoon, on whether doing so in draft guidance or in regulations can be sufficient or perhaps more desirable and achieve greater flexibility than doing so in the Bill itself. I am not sure that the Minister has answered me fully on whether merely stressing a balance should be drawn should be excluded from the wording of the Bill.

Lord Lucas

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions I asked when the Committee last sat. I shall read them carefully because they were quite dense. I shall make sure, but from my first reaction I was content with what he said.

Secondly, I should like to draw the Minister briefly on the meaning of "insignificant". The Government must have some idea what they mean by the word. Even if the Minister will not give examples, can he enlarge on the issue? Does it mean the sort of thing that takes a day and it is just there for a day. Is that insignificant or significant?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

I am advised that it depends on the circumstances. A very small object on a very busy road is significant. A very small object, such as a brick, on a side road or a country lane does not have the same significance. That is how we are defining "significance".

Lord Borrie

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

Before calling Amendment No. 70A, I commend to Members of the Grand Committee the plea from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, about audibility. It is certainly true that, while the audibility and acoustics in this room have improved greatly, they are still not of the best, and I encourage noble Lords to enunciate and speak up for the benefit of those who find it a little difficult to hear. If, which it does not, my authority as Lord Chairman enabled me to give marks out of 10 to the seven contributors to the previous debate, I can tell the Grand Committee that I would give three of your Lordships 10 out of 10 and the other four marginally less.

A noble Lord

Names!

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I decline to name the noble Lords in question.

[Amendments Nos. 70A and 71 not moved.]

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 72: Page 8, line 24, at end insert— () A local traffic authority shall publish information ("street works monitoring information") relating to the duration, location and extent of—

1. (a) street works within the meaning of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c. 22); and
2. (b) works for road purposes within the meaning of section 86(2) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991;

on the authority's road network. () The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision with respect to the content of street works monitoring information and when it must be published.

The noble Lord said: This is another of those "level playing field" amendments, although it seems to be a very large one. The amendment is intended to ensure that utilities companies are placed on a so-called level playing field with local authorities. It will encourage local traffic authorities to publish information about the highways authorities' works on roads in order to enhance the accountability of the highways authority in carrying out, and the traffic authority in monitoring, such works.

As we have heard from noble Lords speaking today and on Second Reading, a variety of utility groups are concerned about the lack of equality in how they and the local authorities will be treated under the Bill. Utilities and local authorities are equally responsible for avoidable street works. They should both be subject to the same rules and requirements.

If local authorities and the Highways Agency do not come fully within the scope of the Bill, improvements in co-ordinating street works will not materialise as utilities will be unable readily to align their works with those of local authorities. The Government have stressed repeatedly the even-handed nature of the Bill. However, it remains the case that the highways authorities, which are responsible for half the works in our streets, are also charged with approving and policing the works of the utilities companies, which are responsible for the other half. That, in itself, is an unequal situation which should be recognised.

The amendment requires the highways authorities to provide data on the conduct and performance of their own works. That will provide the basic information by which others can check that highways authorities properly carry out their duties. It is therefore fully in line with the Government's stated intentions for the Bill and I am sure that it will be welcomed—at least, I hope that it will be.

The Government may argue that Clause 19 meets the requirements of the amendment. However, Clause 19 does not set out a general duty to provide information; rather, it is apparently intended to assist the national authority when it believes that a traffic authority may not properly be exercising its network management duty. It merely gives the national authority the power to serve a direction asking for specific information from a traffic authority. Information would be provided only when such a direction was served and then only to the national authority and only in relation to the items which happened to be specified in the notice.

This amendment, therefore, is necessary to ensure that local traffic authorities publish information about the highways authority works in the road in order to enhance the accountability of the highways authority in carrying out and the traffic authority in monitoring such works. It also helps with the Government's often stated intention to bring local authorities more fully within the same requirement that applies to utility companies.

The amendment gives the Government the opportunity to demonstrate in the Bill the assurances they have given that it applies to the highways authorities and utilities in equal measure. At present, their assurances have failed to assuage the fears of the utility companies. As BT has succinctly put it, it is the utilities that will feel the full weight of the new rules and penalties following enactment of the Bill—local authorities will not. So I challenge the Minister to prove this belief wrong by accepting the amendment.

4.30 p.m.

The Earl of Erroll

This may not be the right amendment to speak to, but it reminds me of some extremely good lobbying that I experienced earlier. It pointed out that Susiephone worked extremely well in Scotland and Northern Ireland so that people could see what works were coming up and dovetail their works with it. Utilities were very willing to fit in wherever they could.

I suspect that the amendment is looking only at retrospective publishing of what is going on, so I am not sure I am speaking to the right amendment, if it exists. Perhaps my remarks could be applied to whichever amendment is most suitable. The publication of this sort of information relating to future and planned works by the network manager would be extremely useful to everybody concerned and would probably do a lot more than penalties and threats to achieve the desired result.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

I hope that I can rise to the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. I will do so not, I am afraid, by accepting his amendment, but by convincing him that it is not necessary.

Amendment No. 72 would extend the arrangements an authority needs to put in place to meet the network management duty to include publishing information on street and road works. It would also give the appropriate national authority power to make regulations on the content of the street works information and when it must be published.

In principle, we would encourage authorities to make relevant publicity available wherever possible. Indeed, there is already a duty under Section 53 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which covers much of what the amendment looks to achieve. Section 53 enables regulations to be made by the appropriate national authority, requiring local authorities to keep a register of undertakers' street works and their own works for road purposes. These are the categories to which the amendment refers.

Regulations under Section 53 can prescribe the information to be recorded and can therefore include the duration, location and extent of works—the items listed in the amendment.

In addition, Clause 44 allows the scope of the register to be widened to cover skips, scaffolding and related structures and records of the location of apparatus already in the street.

Under Section 53, availability of information is covered. The contents of the register must be made available for inspection, at all reasonable hours and free of charge by anyone who might want to see it, provided that the information is not restricted.

The guidance on the network management duty will refer to this duty and cover the principle of providing information for the benefit of the public and, of course, those looking to minimise disruption through co-ordination of works.

On the basis of that information, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rotherwick

I thank the Minister for his helpful answer. We shall go away and consider it carefully. I am not sure that he has given comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. He may have to delay the purchase of his Susiephone in Scotland if the information is not forthcoming. The Earl of Erroll: Susiephone is a not a little gadget that one buys. It is a system for coordinating road works that has been extremely effective.

A noble Lord

Who is Susie?

The Earl of Erroll

I do not know. I just know that it is called Susiephone. I think that I am correct.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 [Guidance to local traffic authorities]:

[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 74: Page 8, line 28, at end insert— () Subject to any guidance published by the national authority under subsection (1), the Mayor of London may publish further guidance to local traffic authorities in London in relation to Greater London Authority and strategic roads about the techniques of network management and any other matter relating to the performance of the duties imposed by sections 16 and 17.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 74, to which the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Rotherwick, and the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, have added their names. The amendment is based on the premise that London is unique in a number of ways. First, its roads are administered by no fewer than 35 highway authorities. That is partly a consequence of London having very high population density, which is 13 times the national average, and of the comparatively small areas being covered by each borough. The average size of boroughs in London is 50 square kilometres, against 350 square kilometres for districts nationally. Secondly, Transport for London's 580 kilometres of GLA roads pass through 32 of the 33 boroughs. Thirdly, London is the fifth largest urban area in the world.

The amendment would take proper cognisance of those factors and give the Mayor the ability to issue guidance supplementary to that of the Secretary of State about the network management duty in London. That mayoral guidance would relate to GLA roads and borough "strategic roads". TIL believes that some 1,500 kilometres of the 13,000 kilometres of borough roads should be designated by the Secretary of State as strategic. It seeks common standards of operation and coherence in the conditions attached to access for the maintenance of the highways themselves and utilities' plant beneath. Such guidance would extend to common winter maintenance standards such as gritting; common regimes for street cleaning and routine maintenance; and common standards in signing.

Local highway management policies vary, as typified by winter gritting arrangements. Boroughs can choose whether to grit or not, even on the same route. Bus routes are not restricted to individual boroughs and a single route might therefore pass through as many as six boroughs. The choice of one borough not to grit can restrict vehicular movement and deprive residents in other areas of London of their bus service.

There is of course no need for London's roads all to be managed identically. Local residential roads should be managed to meet residents' needs. However, the London-specific guidance needs to focus primarily on strategic routes used by the majority of Londoners for many journeys. TfL has defined a "network of interest" which identifies those strategic routes. The network is 2,000 kilometres in length. It comprises 16 per cent of the length of London's roads and is used for about two-thirds of all journeys. It includes the GLA roads, the A roads and major bus routes.

On strategic routes, there is a particular need for the coordination of works and other planned obstructions. The utility service operators and highways authorities each carry out about half of all works on London's roads. Altogether, about 140 organisations have the right to dig up the roads. Many of these will need to liaise with all 35 highways authorities and, therefore, need to have a single administrative system for notifying works and plans, unless undue costs are to be incurred and passed on to Londoners. TfL's London Works is being developed to provide just such a single process, to capture all the necessary information about all works.

London's special transport needs have been recognised already in the creation of the GLA network for which TfL is the highway authority, the only such urban network in the United Kingdom. TfL's role already reaches across the whole of London—it is the owner and operator of all the 4,800 sets of traffic signals, for example—and the London Traffic Control Centre has a London-wide remit. Transport for London is also the manager of one of the main public transport services.

When a number of your Lordships, myself included, visited the London Traffic Control Centre on 30 March, TfL made clear to us that it can do a great deal to help the London boroughs in their efforts to meet the requirements of the new Bill and specifically the network management duty. The fact that the Government have already acknowledged the need to designate strategic borough roads in London and to provide TfL with a degree of oversight as to how those roads are developed shows, I hope, that they have accepted the logic behind this argument.

I believe that it is entirely appropriate, therefore, that London's need for strategic transport management is reflected in powers for the Mayor to issue London-specific guidance that will seek coherence in the daily operational management of strategic borough roads. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor

I put my name to the amendment following our debate on Second Reading where, indeed, I raised this issue. I think that the issue of strategic roads is certainly important.

Meanwhile, although I have had not exactly second thoughts, situations have arisen which require closer inspection. I was particularly drawn to an article in the Times which says: Ken Livingstone withheld £1.5 million worth of funding yesterday from a council that is challenging his anti-car agenda by ripping out road humps and bus and cycle lanes". We will debate road humps and bus and cycle lanes in later debates. The article continues: The Mayor … claimed that the London Borough of Barnet was endangering pedestrians by allowing cars to drive uninterrupted down residential streets and park on wide pavements. His attack came as the London Assembly prepared to publish a report which says that 'humps are neither the only nor necessarily the best tool in the box"'. Ken Livingstone was quoted as saying: Barnet's half-baked policies are putting children's lives at risk. We are not going to allow that to be undermined by the loony Right in Barnet council". Well, it is loony Right meets loony Left as far as one can see. Mr Livingstone went on to say that the money would be withheld, pending an investigation by Transport for London". The Conservative councillor, Brian Coleman, put up a robust defence and, said lawyers had advised him that Mr Livingstone could not withhold the money as the council had the power to determine policy on traffic on local roads". I have no idea whether Barnet council's view on road humps is the correct one or not, but it clearly feels that it is, and it clearly feels that it is within its powers and remit to decide what its policy should be. The Mayor has another view. He is perfectly entitled to that other view. I do not know the merits of that. However, it seems to me that, as the councillor suggests, the Mayor is not entitled to withhold funding because he does not agree with the policy. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the Minister whether the matter would be improved by guidance, or would guidance allow the Mayor to issue guidance that could conflict with national guidance? The London Local Government Association has expressed concern that such guidance could conflict with national guidance.

I understand that Transport for London has not consulted the Association of London Government or the boroughs about this amendment. That is something they need to do if noble Lords are to consider the amendment seriously between now and Report, and I would urge them to do so. It seems to me that this is an important issue. We all understand the importance of strategic roads throughout London. If strategic roads do not work through London, everything else gets jammed.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was right when he spoke about gritting; the fact that different boroughs have different policies; and indeed that buses might go through six boroughs. So this is important. However, we want to ensure that the guidance does not give Transport for London the power to have a sudden large expansion of a strategic route network without adequately considering whether roads are strategic. Indeed, we want to ensure that any guidance that is issued fits clearly with that issued by the department.

While I am concerned about strategic roads and think that there is a lot to be said for Transport for London having a co-ordinated policy with the boroughs, I am not 100 per cent convinced that the amendment is the way to do that. I am happy to be convinced, but the one thing I am clear about is that Transport for London has not yet done enough work with the boroughs, nor had enough discussions with them to explain to them how they think this would work for me to be 100 per cent comfortable with the amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Bradshaw

I was one of the people who visited Transport for London. I think that it was amply demonstrated to us that there is a need for a co-ordinated approach to strategic roads. I would remind the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that Ken Livingstone is not a permanent fixture and that we are making laws for the future—not for the next few months of Ken Livinestone's reign in London.

We are addressing the issue of whether the strategic network—basically, the main bus routes—should be subject to oversight, which should be made the subject of guidance, and that any person in a borough should not be allowed to do anything to interfere with the operation of bus routes, which affect all Londoners. In some respects, to allow them to do so would fly in the face of the whole purpose of setting up Transport for London, which has London-wide duties.

While I am perfectly at ease with the fact that someone in Barnet can pursue his policies off the strategic network, I rather think he should not pursue them on it because of the knock-on effects, which are considerable. When we went to visit Transport for London we were shown the very sophisticated systems for bringing together the roadworks of the utilities, the borough and Transport for London so that proper co-ordination could be effected. We were assured that the boroughs all had both an input and an output from the system. So, it is a genuine system which allows people to see what each other are planning before they make plans. The amendment is not tabled in my name, but I believe that it is one which the Government should seriously consider accepting.

Lord Berkeley

My name is not added to the amendment, but I rise to support it and to speak also to my Amendment No. 75. which is in this group.

First, as I said, I support Amendment No. 74. I, too, visited TfL's control centre. As an example of the need for TfL to have some control over the traffic in borough strategic roads, TfL quoted to us the fact that Westminster Bridge and the Embankment are TfL roads whereas Whitehall, which takes one or two buses during the day, is a Westminster City Council road. Clearly, it is stupid for TfL not to have any role in deciding what happens to Whitehall as it is a major London bus route. One can give many other examples. I firmly believe that it is essential that TfL should have this role, obviously, working with the boroughs. If the Bill is going to make any sense whatever in terms of traffic management in a city such as London, TfL must have a role.

Perhaps I could now turn to Amendment No. 75.I shall not repeat what my noble friend Lord Faulkner said about the need for Amendment No. 74. I thought it would be useful to discuss whether the same rules should apply to certain roles in the Royal Parks. Clearly, that is not so for all Royal Parks and not all roads. However, I can think of the Mall, Constitution Hill and maybe Birdcage Walk in London—and there are probably others further out from the center—where it would do no harm for TfL to have a role in traffic management rather than just the Royal Parks doing it. I suspect that there is a technical reason why my amendment would not work. Ministers would say that it is wrong for an authority such as TfL to give the Government advice, because—under SI 1997/ 1639, the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997, of which I happen to have a copy—the Government run the Royal Parks. I shall refer to that later.

I put that to one side for the moment. The gritting issue mentioned by my noble friend Lord Faulkner applies equally to Royal Parks. I have been told that when we had the snowfall this winter they managed to grit a road about 50 feet wide through the middle of Hyde Park, which takes no traffic whatever. I think that they did it so that the police could go and have their cups of tea more safely. But they did not grit the strategic cycle route. When I phoned up to complain they said that they did not have enough staff. I asked: "You are expecting us to bicycle up Park Lane in the snowstorm, are you?" He said: "Yes, basically".

I do not think that that is acceptable. It is a strategic cycle route. There are many strategic roads in the Royal Parks about which TfL might do rather better if it had some role. I have also heard that the Royal Parks have a habit of closing the Mall or Constitution Hill without giving any notice. Processions are planned months, if not years ahead. It is ridiculous that TfL is not told. Closing those roads causes gridlock over half of West London. So I think that there is an important role for TfL.

I know that there is better co-ordination coming, but I think that TfL should have the same responsibility for certain roads in the Royal Parks, which we can call strategic, as is planned in Amendment No. 74 for local authorities. In fact, I should like to discuss with my noble friend the Minister between now and Report the transfer of both highway and traffic authority responsibility to local authorities for roads in the Royal Parks. I think that an amendment is needed to the statutory instrument because, frankly, the way the Royal Parks go about running the transport it could do with some amendment.

The Government are in charge of regulations against kite flying in the Royal Park. Paragraph 4(18) on page 4 of this lovely statutory instrument states that one cannot, take photographs of still or moving subjects". There are lots more things one is not allowed to do. It really is time—shall we say—to bring the Royal Parks into the 21st century rather than have Victorian rules for carriages where the riff-raff go on foot and on bicycles. Frankly, I sometimes feel like riff-raff when going through the parks. That subject is for another day. I believe that it is very important that TfL, should be able to give guidance to the Royal Parks on certain roads.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

Amendment No. 74 would give the Mayor power to issue statutory guidance to boroughs on the network management duty in relation to the strategic road network. I suspect that I am in total agreement with the spirit of the amendment, if not the method employed.

London provides specific challenges in terms of the network management duty. There is the importance of the strategic road network, the proximity of the boroughs and the fact that the actions of any authority can quickly have an impact on the roads of another.

Road users have a right to expect a consistent approach to network management across the capital. As a result of the Bill, TfL and the boroughs, individually and collectively, will need to work closely to deliver the duty.

All parties would have to ensure that their arrangements for meeting the duty were compatible. There would need to be a degree of predictability in responses to events, from emergencies to bad weather. Mechanisms would also be required for sharing the information needed to manage the whole network in London, both strategically and on a day-to-day basis.

In addition, due regard would need to be given to TfL's leading role in providing strategic operational coordination.

All of this suggests the need for the ALG and the boroughs to reach agreement with TfL at an early stage on how to achieve these objectives. Ministers have made this clear to TfL and the ALG and, together with the DfT, they are working to ensure that the guidance provides a framework for delivering the outcomes needed for the duty to be met seamlessly across the capital.

Turning to the specifics of the amendment, the guidance issued under Clause 18 will cover all that is necessary in terms of the principles of the network management duty generally, along with any special features for London. We recognise that there will need to be arrangements between TfL and the boroughs but these are not appropriate for statutory guidance.

Amendment No. 75 seeks to give the Mayor power to issue statutory guidance to the Royal Parks Agency on the network management duty in relation to its roads in greater London. Some of the roads in London's Royal Parks contribute to the operation of the wider network, with others, of a more local nature, providing access to the parks themselves. All, though, are important for pedestrians, cyclists and others who want to enjoy our wonderful parks.

More importantly, as far as the amendment is concerned, the Royal Parks Agency is an agency of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The amendment would, in effect, be giving power to the Mayor to issue statutory guidance to the Secretary of State. This would be inappropriate, and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister in another place would totally agree. However, I am sure that, where necessary, the Royal Parks Agency will liaise with the neighbouring boroughs and Transport for London over matters on their roads that could affect the movement of vehicles and pedestrians on the surrounding network, and vice versa.

May I respond to—

5 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

Before the Minister moves off that point, if that is the case—it must be if he says that it is—how does he account for the fact that the relevant bodies do not do what he says they do at the moment? Some 18 months ago the Mall was closed and Constitution Hill is frequently closed. When the Mall was closed and Trafalgar Square was being rebuilt the ensuing chaos was absolutely horrendous. It was my understanding that Transport for London was not informed of what was going on. If the relevant mechanism is in place, as the Minister says that it is, why is it not being put into operation?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

We are talking about what will happen when this Bill passes into law. I think that all Members of the Committee could produce horrendous examples of the lack of co-operation and integration between agencies in London. Practically everything that I said emphasised, re-emphasised and underlined the need for agencies to co-operate and co-ordinate with each other so that the awful situation to which the noble Lord referred will never happen again. That is brave talk. Perhaps I should have said, it should never happen again too often.

My noble friend Lord Faulkner made two points to which I wish to respond. The strategic borough roads are being considered by a working group. In a few moments I shall talk about the working groups that play a central role in this Bill. They will inform the designation of the strategic roads as referred to in Part 5 of the Bill. This group has not yet completed its definition of the network. While the groups recognise the importance of TfL's network of interest, it does not follow that this level of network will be designated as strategic.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred to bus routes going through multiple boroughs which may have different policies towards transport. However, Clause 16(1)(b) requires them to facilitate the, movement of traffic on road networks for which another authority is the traffic authority", and will cover that point. We shall expand on that matter in the London section of the network management duty guidance.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that bus routes are important. Undoubtedly they are, but the extent of the strategic borough roads under Part 5 of the Bill is still under discussion. However, we absolutely take that point on board.

Given that and the work already in hand to cover the specific circumstances in London through the guidance, I hope that these amendments will be withdrawn.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley for their support for my amendment. I should have said when I spoke earlier how strongly I supported the amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley in relation to the Royal Parks.

I also very much welcome what my noble friend the Minister said. I wrote down the words, "in total sympathy with the spirit of the amendment". I am slightly surprised that my co-signatory on the amendment was clearly not in total sympathy with its spirit or, indeed, with any part of it. Clearly, he has been got at not only by his political friends from the London borough of Barnet but also, I fear, by the Association of London Government, the quality of whose briefing for this debate, I have to say, is less than adequate and less than entirely convincing. For example, it contains the sentence, Transport for London has not consulted the Association of London Government nor the London boroughs on this proposed amendment". I am advised that a meeting took place under the auspices of government a full week before the ALG published its briefing at which they were told all about the amendment that Transport for London sought to introduce.

On the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made about road humps in Barnet, there is no possibility that local roads in Barnet, whether they have road humps or not, will ever be designated as strategic roads. This amendment has nothing at all to do with local roads and local road safety needs but with the strategic roads to which my noble friend referred.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I referred to Barnet not just in connection with road humps but also in connection with bus lanes. That seemed to me to be relevant. I have sympathy with the reasons for introducing a strategic road network. However, having looked at the amendment carefully, I question whether it would make a difference. I must say I tend to agree with the Government on the matter. I am with the noble Lord in spirit, but the question is, does the amendment work? The matter concerns bus and cycle lanes which could, indeed, be classified by Transport for London as being within the strategic network.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

I seem to remember that my noble friend the Minister referred to bus lanes specifically in the context, I believe, of Clause 16 where there is provision for bus lanes and bus provision to be taken into account. If Barnet chooses to sabotage bus lane policy, it will surely not be able to do that when the bus lanes are on strategic routes that serve other boroughs as well.

I am heartened by what my noble friend said. I shall read it very carefully. I am sure that there will be a number of discussions before Report. I shall briefly give way to my noble friend Lord Berkeley before I withdraw the amendment.

Lord Berkeley

I am very grateful to my noble friend. One thing we have not covered is what happens to Highways Agency roads in London. Is TfL able to give guidance to the odd Highways Agency motorway in London? It would be nice if it could because otherwise one wonders about the communication in that regard. I am not sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport would be very interested in taking advice from Mr Livingstone, or his Liberal Democrat successor if that unlikely event occurs in June, on the roads in the Royal Parks. I wonder why the Secretary of State really wants to hold on to these beastly roads. Perhaps we could talk about that outside the Committee and bring forward some amendments at the next stage.

Lord Bradshaw

There is to be some guidance published about roads in London. However, we are being asked to take quite a lot on trust. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, watched a programme yesterday in which traffic officers appeared to be commencing their work on the M62. However, we have not gone through the relevant legislative process for that. Apparently, those people were interviewed on the "Today" programme yesterday.

Lord Berkeley

Who were they employed by?

Lord Bradshaw

I do not know. However, as I say, we are taking a lot on trust. When we consider this amendment again at another stage, I hope that we shall have sight of the guidance. We are being asked to take things on trust in the absence of the guidance which would set our minds at rest, if it were available.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

I, too, saw the "Today" programme and asked what was happening. The people in the programme are simply going out with the police. They have no powers. Under the provisions in the Bill they will be able to proceed on their own without being accompanied by the police whereas at the moment the traffic control officers have to be accompanied by a policeman or woman. We have not put the provisions of the Bill into action before it has passed through the Palace of Westminster.

Viscount Simon

As my noble friend used the term "traffic control officers", is this a suitable time to table a further amendment?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

I was simply trying to be helpful in explaining what I saw on television. If I used the incorrect title, I apologise.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

I am sure that the Grand Committee is very grateful for the Minister's help while going down a little bit of a side road, having been encouraged to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I had almost finished what I had to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 76: Page 8, line 30, at end insert— () The guidance shall cover, among other matters, the respective responsibility of a local traffic authority, the police and the fire service to attend to spillages of diesel fuel and render the road safe again for the passage of motorcycles and other vehicles.

The noble Lord said: As I pointed out at Second Reading, the provisions for motorcyclists and bicyclists within the management of our road network mean that police conducting traffic duties owe no duty of care to protect road users from hazards of which the police officers have been made aware.

Contact with diesel fuel, even a very small amount, hit at low speeds has devastating effects on motorcyclists and bicyclists alike. I myself have suffered two terrifying incidents when coming into contact with spilt diesel on my powered two-wheeler. The first incident occurred a number of years ago while going round Shepherd's Bush roundabout. I had no warning as I did not see what I was about to hit. I found myself sliding sideways on the road. Fortunately, the traffic was congested, was travelling slowly and everyone stopped. The second incident was even more alarming. On turning right at a junction at traffic lights, I hit what turned out to be spilt diesel. I parted company from my motorcycle and slid into a petrol station. It came to rest at a petrol pump. I am glad to say that no vehicle was in its path. I am even more glad that no pedestrian was in its path; otherwise, someone could have suffered serious injury. I came away with only a few scratches.

However, I would not want the Committee to think that this amendment is tabled purely from self-interest. It would constitute an addition that I believe would reflect the Government's desire to improve the safety of all two-wheelers. The recently published three-year review, Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone, devotes a chapter to safer motorcycling. That, the creation of the advisory group on motorcycling and the steps to improve rider training and testing are all to be applauded. However, much more needs to be done. As the review itself acknowledges, Despite the improved KSI—

that is, killed and seriously injured— and slight casualty rates, there is a concern that motorcyclists continue to be disproportionately represented in casualty numbers".

Indeed, the review showed that motorcyclists, accounted for 18% of fatalities in 2002 and statistics show that motorcyclists are 30 times more likely to be killed than car users and four times more likely to be killed than cyclists".

If I had been in a car when I hit the diesel patch, the worst that could have happened was that another car could have run into the back of mine. However, a motorcyclist or a cyclist lying prone on the tarmac is liable to be squashed. That is a real concern.

I give an example of that. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Ancell and Another v McDermott and Others in 1993 shows that police officers are currently not required to remain at the scene of a diesel spillage. The case arose in the wake of a fatal accident on a roundabout at Airport Way in Luton where a fuel tank had ruptured and spilt its diesel fuel all over the road. Shortly after the spillage a Hertfordshire police vehicle drove past the spillage, notified the Bedfordshire police of the hazard but did not return to the roundabout. Bedfordshire police reported the matter to the Highways Agency. But, sadly and tragically, minutes later Mrs Ancell skidded on the fuel, lost control of her car and collided with a lorry. She died from the injuries that she sustained in the accident.

There are legitimate concerns that such a duty of care would impose on the police force a potential liability with too wide a scope. However, it is possible to draw a parallel between the duty of care as put forward in this amendment and that of the Highways Agency in England and Wales outlined in Section 111 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 which states, to ensure, so far as it is reasonably practicable, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice".

One has great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who slipped on snow and ice while riding his bicycle. I tend not to use my bicycle or motorcycle when there is snow or ice on the road as one cannot control such vehicles in such conditions. It is also difficult to see ice before one is on top of it.

If the Minister were minded to oppose the amendment, I would ask him nevertheless to consider asking the police or other emergency services and the local authorities to recommend guidelines to the Secretary of State that would in some other way give effect to such provision in the Bill. The British Motorcyclists Federation, the UK's largest riders' organisation, has been looking for many years for a way to tackle the hazard of spilt diesel fuel. It believes that this amendment is an appropriate and workable solution to the problem. Here is a golden opportunity for the Government to address the vulnerability of cyclists and motorcyclists. I beg to move.

5.15 p.m.

Viscount Simon

I support the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, on this amendment. I was speaking to a traffic officer friend of mine—I suppose that for the purposes of the Bill I should say that he is a police traffic officer—of many years' experience. He said that in the past he had always considered the fact that people came off their cycles or motorcycles on a diesel spillage as totally incomprehensible; he could not understand it. He then went on holiday to France on his motorcycle with a number of other police traffic officers and on two occasions he came off his motorcycle. Only then did he realise that one can do absolutely nothing. You just fall off—bang; it is over. I therefore believe that this amendment is very important and highly relevant.

The noble Lord draws attention also to the KSI figures which are also relevant for motorcyclists. Those figures have been increasing in recent years. Unless something is done they will continue to increase.

Viscount Goschen

My noble friend Lord Rotherwick has done the Grand Committee a service by drawing our attention to the perils of spilt diesel. Although my noble friend undoubtedly has fallen off more horses than motorcycles, he raises this important issue. I should declare an interest as a sometime motorcyclist.

I suspect that the Minister might argue that Clause 18 is not necessarily the place for this provision; I look forward to hearing from him. None the less, we need clarification of the duty of the police and the highways authorities to protect motorcyclists and other road users from diesel spillages and to ensure that those are dealt with promptly and safely. I would certainly appreciate it if the Minister could clarify the situation and draw the Committee's attention to any measures the Government might have in mind to improve the situation.

This is not an imaginary difficulty and we are not asking the Government to prevent diesel being spilt—of course that cannot happen. However, when it does occur, the police should make every effort to ensure that motorcyclists and other road users are protected. Serious accidents can result.

Lord Berkeley

I rise briefly to support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said, it applies to cycles as well as motor bicycles. I look upon a diesel spill as more like an obstruction in the road, such as those caused by digging up services or resurfacing, except that it is a real emergency. Regardless of whether the police or the traffic officers—or whatever they are going to be called— should attend in the first instance, clearly someone needs to be there to stop vehicles going too fast and running into or over those who have fallen off. As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said, once you have fallen off your bike or motorbike you are lying in the road and you are very vulnerable. That is why the accident figures are higher. In a car you are in a nice cocooned space and, as long as you stay in the car, you will probably be all right. I think that this is a good role for traffic officers. Such spillages should be regarded as an emergency obstruction on the road.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

May I start by saying that we have every sympathy with everything that has been said? The amendment gives me an opportunity to explain how various groups of stakeholders are helping the Government to develop guidance. One of the groups is working very hard on this very area.

As I will be mentioning working groups in relation to a number of other amendments, let me say here that a working group and an advisory group have been set up by the DfT to help develop both the guidance documents in Part 2—the network management duty guidance in Clause 18 and the guidance on criteria for intervention in Clause 27. There are separate groups working on other parts of the Bill which I will touch on when we reach the relevant provisions.

The group working on the matters we are discussing today consists of local authority practitioners and includes representatives of organisations such as the LGA and the Association of London Government, CSS—formerly the County Surveyors' Society—and the Technical Advisory Group. The advisory group is made up of representatives of all the major road users' groups and includes wider organisations such as the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and the CBI. There will also be public consultation. I wish to assure noble Lords that the issues we are talking about are fully understood and we recognise that they have to be dealt with.

We understand the concern of road users and cyclists and motor cyclists, in particular, about diesel spillages. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, on only one thing, when he compared diesel spillages with snow and ice. The situation is very different. In general, authorities know when it has snowed or when the temperature means the possibility of ice; diesel spillages, graphically described in all their horror, are not predictable in any way.

Local authorities already have a responsibility for the safety of highways. While dealing with such spillages and working with the emergency services would be part of the contingency planning that would he discussed in the guidance, it would not be appropriate to include a requirement on the face of the Bill.

Given the absolute assurance that we understand precisely the problems that have been raised this afternoon and the need to deal with them, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Rotherwick

I am very grateful for all the support I have had, especially from my noble friend Lord Goschen, although he was not quite so helpful when mentioning my famous past on horses. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Faulkner.

I am grateful for the Minister's sympathy and for saying that this matter has to be dealt with. However, if we remember what has happened in the past with ice and snow on our roads—snow, in particular—perhaps I am not wrong in saying that when it snows we are always told that it was not expected. That is why we have these great traffic jams, with people unable to go to work. So perhaps the situation is not so dissimilar to that of diesel spillages.

Perhaps the Minister could give us some insight into the timing of the consultation. Might we also have an insight into the guidance before we reach Third Reading?

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Before the noble Lord sits down, I think, in the interests of accuracy and credit, it was not I who supported the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, but my noble friend Lord Simon. Had I spoken, I would have been delighted to do so.

Lord Rotherwick

I beg the noble Lord's pardon.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

Noble Lords have the guidance that has been circulated. We hope that it will go out to consultation within the next month.

Lord Rotherwick

I thank the Minister. I shall cogitate that as I "power-wheel" my way home tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Power to require information relating to network management]:

On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?

Viscount Astor

I have a number of questions about Clause 19. Clause 19(1) states: The appropriate national authority may direct a local traffic authority to provide it … with specified information". Will the noble Lord give me some clarification? Does "appropriate national authority" mean the Department for Transport or the Highways Agency?

Overall, the clause would have been unnecessary if the Minister had accepted my earlier amendment, which would have required local authorities to publish their plans. If they were to publish their plans, the Secretary of State might not require all that information. The Minister spoke about reducing the burden on local government, but Clause 19 could be used to increase it.

Will the Minister confirm that the power given by Clause 19 will be used only to establish whether the criteria for making intervention orders under Clause 27 are being followed? I assume that the power to require information relates purely to possible intervention notices rather than to any general traffic duties. It would be helpful if the Minister were to confirm that or to tell me that I am wrong.

Clause 19(4) states that a direction given to a London authority must be copied to the Mayor. Under this clause can a direction be given to Transport for London or is there any part of the Bill where TfL can be included? I presume that if a London borough were given an intervention order, circumstances could arise where its local transport plan is affected by a strategic road operated by Transport for London that goes through it. In considering whether to make an intervention order, will the Secretary of State have the power to acquire similar information from TfL to enable him to decide whether it would be necessary or not?

Wide powers are being given in terms of direction, so it is important that we establish that they will be used only by the Secretary of State to ascertain whether an intervention order or notice is necessary.

The Earl of Erroll

I return to a point that I made earlier. What is the point of gathering all the information in Clause 19(1) if it is not to be used in a useful way? Otherwise, a lot of people's time will be wasted. That point has just been made. We have a chance to enable government services to make life much more efficient for people. If there is a website that enables all the disrupters of traffic—be they private companies, local authorities or government bodies--to co-operate, that will be a good and successful model which could easily be copied. Such a model is used in my native country, Scotland. As I have mentioned previously, the Scottish Executive has appointed Susiephone Limited as the "Keeper of the Scottish Road Works Register". People can visit that website, register and find out what is going on. I was asked earlier who Susie was. It appears to be Robert Scotson.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

This clause provides a power to collect specified information relating to the performance of the duty. The DfT will look to existing monitoring arrangements wherever possible. However, with such a complex issue it would be unfair to judge authorities on the basis of, say, one source of data. Without a transport inspectorate, a full picture would be available only with the judicious use of an information-gathering power.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked about the appropriate national authorities. They are the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales. The prime purpose of Clause 19 is to find out information before initiating formal interventions—I hope that the noble Viscount is reassured by that. He also asked whether subsection (4), which refers to directions given to London boroughs being copied to TfL, rules out directives issued to TfL. The answer is, no, as a whole, it does not allow a direction to be given to TfL. I hope that that answers the question.

I have just been given some information on the matter raised by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, in his intervention. We would use the power in this clause only if necessary and if the authority has web-based information—and the department could obtain the information from that source.

The Earl of Erroll

Before the Minister sits down, I wish to say that I was not proposing an amendment to that particular matter, but was trying to make a plea for modern technology to be used constructively by the department to do something along the lines of Susiephone in Scotland. Do not worry about the detail.

Viscount Astor

I thank the Minister for his explanation, which was helpful. Would he take away and consider two points? I do not require an answer now, but will he write to me before our next meeting? Is there anywhere in the Bill for the Secretary of State to exercise a power over TfL similar to that relating to local authorities if he felt it necessary to require information from it that related to other information that he required from a borough?

The final part of subsection (4) says, must be copied to the Mayor". Would the words "Transport for London" not be better than "the Mayor"? Perhaps the department would consider that, but, meanwhile, I am grateful for the Minister's response.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 76A: After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—

"TRAFFIC LIGHTS (1) In exercising their network management duty. a local traffic authority (or, in London, the Transport Operational Command Unit) shall be required to monitor all traffic lights in operation in their area and shall—

1. (a) ensure all traffic lights operate on a sensitive basis during non-rush hour periods;
2. (b) require that traffic lights are set to achieve the most expedious flow of traffic and pedestrians at all times they are operational;
3. (c) require that unless there are good reasons for not doing so that traffic lights at junctions with low traffic volumes operate in amber warning mode in all directions during non-rush hour periods."

The noble Viscount said: This is a traffic light amendment. It seeks to be helpful and to introduce traffic lights that are responsive to the flow of traffic on our roads. Traditional traffic lights are responsible for reducing the flow of traffic in many cases, causing congestion, driver irritation, pollution and damaging competitiveness.

The London Chamber of Commerce says that congestion is costing business over £3 million a day and conditions are getting worse. Business analysts in London have pointed out that the jams are not being caused by more vehicles coming into London, because the AA's figures suggest that there are fewer cars in central London than there were 20 years ago. However, there has been a sharp increase in the number of traffic lights and in some parts of central London they are now only 80 yards apart. In addition, the timing of some of the traffic lights has been altered to slow the traffic even further.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who is not in his place, would of course say that that was to allow pedestrians the ease to cross the road. But in some cases one can wait quite a long time when there do not seem to be any pedestrians. So the amendment says that wherever new traffic lights are installed or old ones refurbished, there should be a requirement on those responsible to install traffic lights that can operate on a traffic-sensitive basis.

Paragraph (c) of my amendment follows the suggestion made in another place that traffic lights which control low-density traffic could be set to a flashing amber in all directions at non-rush hour periods, signalling to motorists from all directions to cross the junction with care. That has been tried and tested in America and works quite well in certain places, although not many people walk in America, so the case remains to be proved. When the matter was debated in Standing Committee, my honourable friend in another place asked whether the Government would consider introducing a pilot scheme. The Minister, Mr McNulty, said that the Government were not particularly interested in doing that, but added: We would not dismiss such a scheme out of hand if local authorities reflected on it, decided that they might want to entertain it, and worked up a scheme that we could seriously entertain".

Further on, he said, but if local authorities decide to proceed with the proposal, work it up, and reflect on it. we will consider it subsequently—but without any promise of endorsing it, running a pilot on an experimental basis or otherwise".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 10/2/04; cols.341–42.]

That was a helpful answer. So when the Minister deals with paragraph (c), will he help by saying that if a local authority wished to try a pilot—and none of us knows how well that would work in this country—would it have the power to do so, or would additional powers be required? If that was the case, paragraph (c) of my amendment would be unnecessary. The important part of my amendment is to ensure that traffic lights operate on a sensitive basis so that they improve the flow of traffic and allow for pedestrians to cross the road without creating further jams. I beg to move.

The Earl of Erroll

My point is not quite covered by the amendment but I find it dangerous, when traffic lights for temporary road works are removed, that the signs for them are left out. I find that that happens more often than it should. One eventually comes to disregard such signs, as one knows that around the corner there are no traffic lights. That is dangerous and it should be a basic principle that people should be fined if they leave warning signs out when there is no longer a hazard because motorists will start ignoring hazard signs.

Lord Rotherwick

I rise, perhaps rudely, to remind noble Lords about traffic-sensitive lights. I do not know whether anyone else has had the misfortune to travel down the road past the Albert Hall on the left-hand side. As one approaches the junction with Queensgate the traffic lights there are some of the worst in London. They allow bicycles to come out of the park—and that is right—but the park is closed, depending on the season, at, say, 6 p.m. So, every time one approaches the lights after that time no bicycles come out, but all the traffic is stopped, while the green light is lit to let non-existent bicycles cross. If this amendment were passed those sort of errors would be eliminated and I am sure that traffic would move much faster.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

As the Committee has heard, Amendment No. 76A would extend the network management duty of local traffic authorities to monitor all traffic lights. In London, traffic lights are the responsibility of TfL and not of the "Transport Operational Command Unit" as the amendment states—a minor correction.

One strand of a local traffic authority's activities relevant to the network management duty in Clause 16 will be to ensure that traffic light settings are working correctly in order to achieve the expeditious movement of all traffic. "Traffic" explicitly includes pedestrians. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

The proposed new clause would require traffic authorities to ensure that all traffic lights were set to the optimum settings at all times they are operational. We agree with that general objective, but not with the means. The majority of traffic lights in the UK allocate green times in proportion to the flow of vehicles and the needs of pedestrians. They are set to be responsive to changes in traffic flow. To achieve the most expeditious and safe passage of vehicles and pedestrian traffic, the lights can also have different settings to cater for both rush hour and non-rush hour periods. We will include advice on that, in practice covering the aims of proposed subsections (a) and (b), in the section of network management duty guidance which is entitled "Good Practice Advice On Techniques And Approach". There is therefore no need to include the requirement in the Bill.

However, as the Committee has heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, the proposed new clause would further require traffic lights during non-rush hour times to operate on flashing amber warning mode at junctions with low traffic volumes. The proposal would seriously compromise vehicular and pedestrian safety. Flashing amber already has a specific meaning on pelican crossings; that is, that a driver may proceed if no pedestrians are crossing. The amendment would mean that flashing amber would be used not only at pelican crossings but also at approaches to junctions controlled by traffic lights. That would cause danger and confusion.

The long-established practice in the UK is to signal pedestrians to cross at junctions only when there are no conflicting vehicle movements. If flashing amber signals are used at junctions, it will not be possible to ensure that conflicting movements are stopped. Pedestrian signals would therefore have to be turned off. That would be a problem particularly for blind and partially sighted pedestrians who rely on audible and tactile signals to indicate when it is safe to cross at many junctions. Therefore, pedestrians—especially the most vulnerable— would have no crossing facilities and they would find crossing the road neither convenient nor safe at non-rush hour times. In addition, flashing amber would not in any case be suitable at many junctions where buildings or road lay-out prevents drivers seeing whether other vehicles are approaching the junction.

A better solution would be to ensure that signals operate, wherever possible, in a responsive way; for example, drivers would be stopped only when there is a conflict with other vehicle or pedestrian movements. Furthermore, at quiet times, a signal need only stop traffic if a pedestrian has activated it. With the advance of new technology, the way in which traffic lights are operated will become more and more sophisticated.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

I thank my noble friend for giving way. He might find it helpful to know that on our visit to the London Traffic Control Centre we saw that 2,800 of the 4,800 sets of traffic lights in London can now be operated by intervention from the centre. They are now under computer control. The advance in technology to which my noble friend referred is happening apace.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

I am extremely grateful for that very helpful intervention. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked whether it was possible for a local authority to experiment or have a pilot scheme with flashing amber lights. I have made the Government's position clear but the local authority would have to obtain permission from the department before proceeding. No new primary power would be needed for flashing amber, although regulations would need to be revised.

Of course, we agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that tidying up signs is very good practice and just the kind of thing that will be encouraged by the guidance that we shall publish on network management.

The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, mentioned the signals at Hyde Park.

Lord Rotherwick

Queensgate.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

I am sorry about that—I was close but not close enough. This is a matter for TfL, and the noble Lord may wish to take it up with TfL direct. Given that, and the assurances that the network management duty and associated guidance will cover traffic light operation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Viscount Astor

I did not think that subsection (c) in my amendment stood much of a chance, and it was run over fairly quickly. However, I am grateful for the noble Lord's explanation of why that would be the case.

The Minister talked about guidance and made helpful comments about the main body of my amendment. It means that paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) of my amendment are not necessary and I am grateful for his assurances on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 [Intervention notices]:

Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 77: Page 9, line 10, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— () give detailed particulars of the grounds for giving the notice, including the specific activities which it feels the local traffic authority has failed to deliver. in the context of wider local transport strategies, and the period over which it considers the failure has occurred;

The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 77, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. Before I do so, I thank the Minister for his advice about writing to TfL. I am glad to say that I do not think his remark has fallen on deaf ears because I understand that there has been some communication in that direction already.

The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the independence and local accountability of traffic authorities are not overlooked. Clause 20 refers to the timetable for intervention notices. As it stands, it is contrary to central and local government agreements to give local authorities more local freedom and flexibilities. The Local Government Association has articulated its desire for clarification over the exact circumstances in which intervention would take place and for how long the intervention would be maintained.

A basic tenet of local authority accountability is surely that matters of local traffic management are the remit of the electors and their elected councillors. Much more substantive evidence must be specified for an authority to have been declared a failure. Timetables will need to be written into any primary legislation to ensure that authorities are treated evenly and fairly and that they are given time to comply and submit evidence.

In the other place, a recent Select Committee report on the Bill made it emphatically clear that the Government's intentions should be plainly set out in draft guidance prior to the Bill progressing through both Houses. It also urged that considerably more information than is currently given in the Bill be sought on how the intervention powers will be operated.

The Select Committee report expressed its hope that intervention would take place only in extreme cases. In spite of ministerial assurances on that, clear expressions of this sentiment on the face of the Bill are noticeably absent. Will the Minister comment particularly on that?

In order to reassure the many concerned parties, will the Minister, who is spokesman for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, confirm that the intervention mechanisms in the Bill are in line with the protocol on interventions agreed between the ODPM and the LGA? The amendments would demand a detailed minimum timetable before any intervention notice can be issued and an external director can be imposed. The notion of -reasonable notice", as stated in Clause 21(4)(a), is insufficient,

As it stands, Clause 21 gives the Secretary of State open ended powers to intervene whenever he thinks it is reasonable to do so. In the Transport Act 2000 local authorities were given powers to intervene in bus operations, a key element of local transport plans. But this Bill sets out a precise minimum timetable before intervention can take place. Also contained in the legislation is an appeal mechanism so that the rationality of interventions can be tested. I beg to move.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

I support the amendment, both in spirit and detail, because this is, in principle, one of the most worrying parts of the Bill for two reasons. First—and I declare an interest as chair of the Local Government Association Transport Executive—it seems to local authorities that there is a disconnection between the work that is coming out of the ODPM, which is about allowing local authorities much more freedom and flexibility in what they choose to do. and the work of the Department for Transport, which proposes another intervention power. That is a principle which we breach at our peril.

The second difficulty that I have, which follows on from that. is that if the Government intend to do something as draconian as intervening in the work of a local highways authority, the circumstances in which they feel they should do that must be more clearly laid out than on the face of the Bill. In other areas, for example social services, where government intervenes when an authority is not performing properly, the circumstances in which that happens are clear and well defined. The Bill contains simply one paragraph and uses words such as "considers", "may be failing" and "is of the opinion that". Those are woolly terms for something as dramatic as imposing an intervention order on a local authority.

I have now had an opportunity since we last met to look at the brief guidance issued by the department on the criteria for intervention. In a sense, it has left me even more perplexed because it covers a list of the types of matters that the guidance on the criteria will cover. I shall not delay the Committee by listing them, but these are issues that are covered either through the local transport planning process, which is an already fairly well developed bureaucracy, or that are so strategic in nature that they are well covered for the local authorities by the comprehensive performance assessment, to which my noble friend Lord Bradshaw referred.

So, not only is there a potential intervention, but this clearly works against the spirit that the Minister mentioned at the start of today's proceedings about reducing the regulatory and inspection burden on local authorities. An extra level of that is now to be imposed on them. All in all, I am extremely concerned about Clause 20, both in principle and as it appears on the face of the Bill.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

Amendment No. 77 seeks to change the requirement upon the appropriate national authority when issuing an intervention notice. Clause 20(2)(a) currently provides that a notice must include brief particulars of the grounds for giving the notice—a point picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

The amendment would require detailed particulars of the grounds for issuing the intervention notice in terms of both the nature and the duration of failure in the context of local transport strategies. We consider that to be inappropriate. The intervention notice process is intended to allow the appropriate national authority formally to bring to the attention of an LTA any concerns that there may be about performance against any of the network management duties. At that stage, the Secretary of State would not have prejudged the question of whether the authority was failing. Therefore, it is only right and proper that it has the opportunity to put its side of the case.

To achieve roost benefit from the process. it is clearly in the interest of the appropriate national authority to set out the reasons for issuing the notice. However, as full details would not necessarily be available at that stage, it would be unsuitable to make that a requirement in every case.

Amendment No. 78 would add the requirement that the specified period that the authority would have to respond to the notice could be no shorter than one year. Amendment No. 79 is intended to prevent the appropriate national authority proceeding with intervention unless it has published information relating to the specific activities in which the local traffic authority has failed to meet the duty and provided the authority has been given no less than a year in order to give it time to improve. We believe that these amendments would prevent the option of taking prompt action in the event of failure.

Clause 21 already requires the appropriate national authority to set out a number of matters in the intervention order, including that the national authority should be satisfied that the local authority is failing properly to perform any duty under Clauses 16 and 17. Clause 21 also requires the order to set out brief particulars of the grounds for appointing a traffic director. As that would effectively be in the public domain, I see no added benefit in publishing it.

In practice, the Government are committed to giving local authorities every opportunity to take responsibility for their own problems and to implement the necessary solutions. Throughout the parliamentary process, we have repeated that intervention is very much a method of last resort. However, in cases where it was unavoidable, it would make no sense to apply arbitrary limits. That would prevent prompt action being taken to address the problems in an authority that was failing local road users.

The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, asked about the protocol relating to the LGA and the ODPM. The protocol on intervention allows for intervention without minimum periods passing, if warranted. The process in the Bill is consistent with the protocol. I hope that I have managed to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, that we are aware of the concerns that she has, and I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn following the explanation that I have given.

Lord Rotherwick

First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for her support. I am very happy with some of the answers given by the Minister, especially as he has confirmed that the intervention mechanisms in the Bill are in line with the protocols to which he referred. I am less satisfied with the fact that he does not believe that detailed particulars should be required, as proposed in Amendment No. 77. I understand the argument that, if one wishes to do something promptly, one year is a little longer than being prompt. We should like to go away and read all the Minister's comments, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Intervention orders]:

[Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 21 shall stand part of the Bill?

6 p.m.

Viscount Astor

I have a number of questions relating to Clause 21, which makes provision for the appointment of a traffic director. There is new terminology: first, traffic managers, and now a traffic director. In effect, the clause gives the Secretary of State an open-ended power to intervene whenever he considers it reasonable to do so.

I wonder whether the Minister has considered one aspect of this issue. Other legislation—for example, the Transport Act 2000—gives local authorities the power to intervene in bus operations, which is another key element of the local transport plan. It sets out a precise minimum timetable before an intervention can take place, and an appeal mechanism is included so that the reasonableness of the interventions can be tested.

Clause 20(2)(b) provides the opportunity for representations to be made. However, my real question is: under Clause 21, is there any process for an appeals mechanism when the Secretary of State has decided that a traffic director should be appointed under the clause?

I also presume that once the traffic director is appointed—as we can see, he will have considerable powers—he can intervene in the activities of a local traffic authority. I should like an assurance, which I am sure the Minister will give me, that he must operate within the national guidance because presumably he will come from either the Highways Agency or the Department for Transport. I wonder whether the Minister has considered what type of person the traffic director could be. He will have substantial powers. Clause 21(7)(b) states that the order may, confer ancillary powers on the traffic director", and that is further described in subsection (8). It would be helpful if the Minister could give a little comfort on those points.

I fully accept that the powers are those of last resort and that the Government do not intend to use them very often. However, if they are used, it is important that they are used in an equitable manner. I wonder whether the Minister can help me, particularly on the point about appeals to intervention orders.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

Clause 21 allows intervention through the appointment of a traffic director. That is achieved by making an intervention order which sets out the grounds for intervention and the objectives of the traffic director and allows any powers considered appropriate by the appropriate national authority to secure the duty to be conferred upon him. I believe that that answers one of the noble Viscount's points in that the national authority determines the scope of activity of the traffic director. The traffic director does not have powers that he or she can pluck out of the air when at work.

The power to intervene if an authority is failing is vital if we are to ensure that all authorities meet their duty. The Bill deliberately allows a flexible, proportionate approach in seeking to confer only the powers needed in any given circumstance. Different levels of intervention will be possible: at one level, monitoring and intervening only when necessary; and. at the other extreme, taking over some of an authority's functions or powers. It has the safeguard of preventing intervention unless an intervention notice has been given and the specified period set by that document has passed.

It is only prudent for the national authority to take the power to intervene if an authority is failing. This clause provides the means for the national authority to take prompt and proportionate action in cases where an authority is neglecting its duty.

As I said in response to the previous debate, the principle of prompt intervention is not unprecedented. On the question of appeal, the process set out under Clause 20 gives the local authority the opportunity to put its side of the case prior to intervention. With those explanations, I hope that we can agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Bradshaw

I have listened with some incredulity. This provision strikes me as being the real sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut. If a local authority is failing in its duty to manage its highway network properly, and it is so obvious that that is the case that it comes to the notice of the national authority—that will not happen very quickly—I should have thought that, by then, it might have come to the notice of the local electorate, who have it in their hands to take effective steps by stopping the local authority managing the traffic. That is the kind of power that I personally do not wish to see given to the national authority.

There are means of examining the traffic management plans of an authority, and the Government have the opportunity to comment on them. The Government are the source of funds for a large part of a local authority's expenditure. It seems that they have adequate tools to bring the recalcitrant to book without recourse to this kind of process, which strikes me as being almost Stalinesque in its nature. I am sorry but if, on Report, the noble Viscount cares to move an amendment, I shall be very inclined to support him.

Lord Berkeley

Perhaps I may quickly ask my noble friend a question. Under what circumstances could intervention orders be made? Let us suppose that Barnet, for example, was a traffic authority and that it had removed its bus lanes on a road which came within the ambit of its responsibilities. A political football-type situation could easily arise because Barnet is a Conservative authority and our present Government are Labour. The Government could say, "You are not complying with our rules and therefore we are going to remove your traffic responsibilities". Can my noble friend give one or two examples of how that could happen?

I also share some of the concerns voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. If we ever have regional government in this country, responsibilities will be devolved. Personally I would consider that to be a good thing, having spent part of last week in Scotland where the transport policies seem to be excellent. However, this measure seems to be going in the other direction, with more centralist control. I am not sure what the benefits of that are, but I am sure that my noble friend can persuade me.

Viscount Astor

Before the Minister replies, I shall give him the chance to consider with care the information which is no doubt about to arrive over his right shoulder. Perhaps I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. If he cares to draft an amendment, I shall view it very carefully.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is important. This is a very centralising Bill—it centralises traffic management. In some cases, that is a good thing; in others, it is bad. We are giving the Secretary of State very large powers here. When I asked the Minister about appeals, he said, rightly, that under Clause 20 local traffic authorities can make representations about an intervention notice. But my point was that, so far as I can see, it cannot appeal against an intervention order. Presumably, it can do so only through the use of judicial review, which, as we know, is time-consuming, lengthy, difficult and expensive and, indeed, when the Secretary of State's powers are so wide, there may not be a very good chance of success.

Therefore, it seems to me that—perhaps the Minister will confirm that I have this right—once an order is given, there is no power for a local authority to appeal the order. I should like clarification on that matter while the Minister answers the other points raised by the noble Lord.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

I shall attempt to answer the questions raised. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, we want to work with authorities to improve their performance rather than having to intervene and. to borrow the noble Lord's phrase, use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However, if everything else fails, we need the ability to intervene and that is why the power is in the Bill. This is not a Stalinseque Bill or a great centralising document.

Before the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, rises, perhaps I may finish my comments. Throughout the Bill we talk about consultation. We have consulted on the very thing that the noble Lord described as Stalinesque. The LGA has accepted the wider principle that intervention is necessary in the event of failure. That is why it has signed up to the ODPM/LGA protocol. These arrangements are absolutely consistent.

With regard to the final point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, the authority could go to judicial review on an intervention order if it did not like it. As we have explained, the appeal, or discussion, comes before an intervention order is issued.

Lord Bradshaw

It seems to me that a local authority which displeases a government significantly by failing to carry out any service is able to be brought to book by the hold which that government have on both its revenue and its capital expenditure. If my own local authority greatly displeased the Government by withholding both capital approval and revenue grant, the Government could bring us to our knees very quickly.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

If the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, does not mind my saying so, that really is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Is the noble Lord suggesting that if there are serious problems with traffic management, central government should freeze or withdraw the grant to that local authority?

Lord Bradshaw

I am saying that local authority expenditure is so finely balanced that if an authority consistently displeased the government in an) area— in education, social healthcare, traffic or anything else—simply by not funding a particular part of the work of the local authority, or by not funding it generously, the displeasure would be felt and would be taken notice of by the councillors and the chief executive. I believe that the powers sought here are completely unnecessary.

Lord Borrie

I hesitate to intervene in this discussion, but I should have thought that the Minister was right to say that the procedures suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, are more drastic than the very specific ones, ad hoc for a particular purpose, set out in the Bill. As all actions of government can be judicially challenged, I should have thought that interventions of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned might readily be found by the courts to be disproportionate to the problem that has arisen. I assume that the problem is that a local authority has fallen down on its specific job of traffic management. I should have thought that a specific remedy dealing with that, including the appointment of a traffic director by the national authority, would be better than the indirect. blunderbuss approach of depriving the local authority of its finances.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Bradshaw

That may be the lawyer's approach to this matter; it is not, in reality, the truth. In reality, every local authority is extremely mindful of the local government settlement, which is due at around Christmas time. The Government make their pleasure or displeasure very keenly felt simply by withholding capital approvals from schemes. I am sorry but I do not like the dirigiste system set down in the Bill. I believe that most of the time most local authorities try, to the best of their ability, to do what central government want.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Appointment of traffic director.. supplementary]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 81: Page 10. line 42, leave out "may be revoked by that national authority" and insert "shall be revoked not later than six months after commencement unless a new order is made in accordance with the provisions set out in section 20 and 21

The noble Viscount said: Clause 22 is called by the exciting title, "Appointment of traffic director: supplementary", and includes the words: Where by virtue of an intervention order a traffic director is to be appointed in relation to a local traffic authority … any person (including the national authority making the order, another local traffic authority, a Passenger Transport Executive or any other public authority) may be appointed … the appointment may be made on such terms as that national authority may consider appropriate; and … the appointment may be revoked by that national authority".

I think that I understand that but I am not entirely sure what it means. Therefore, I have tabled two brief amendments, which I hope will give the Minister a chance to explain what it means to a simple soul such as myself. My amendments also seek to ensure that the traffic director will have a duty to follow, or take account of, the wider transport and environmental policies of the relevant authority, as set out in the local transport plan.

Amendment No. 82 inserts a maximum period for intervention or for an object mechanism to renew the intervention. The clause appears to give the director powers to direct authorities to take a narrow traffic management approach to local integrated transport policies. The importance of these wider policies and duties must be acknowledged, and we believe that it might be helpful if they were written into the Bill.

The Bill gives the national authority open-ended powers to replace local traffic authorities with imposed directives. Therefore, there must be clear provisions in the Bill for ending any imposition and returning control to a local authority. I believe it is important that if we reach the stage where a traffic director is imposed on a local authority, we must have a clear understanding from the Government that, as well as simply carrying out pure traffic management, the director will take account of the wider problems that relate to traffic in that local area. That is the basis of my amendment.

To some extent, through the amendments I am also trying to gain a commitment from the Government that, if such an appointment takes place, it will be either for a specified period of time or to deal with particular problems, and that the Government will say, "This is the reason we are doing it. When we have solved that problem, we might be prepared to hand back control to the local authority". I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley

Very briefly, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has raised an interesting point. Clause 16(1) states that it is, the duty of a local traffic authority to manage the road network … so far as may be reasonably practicable having regard to their other obligations, policies and objectives". Those are the obligations, policies and objectives that we talked about during our first day in Grand Committee. Must the traffic director who is to be appointed by the Government still comply with the same obligations, policies and objectives of the authority as the original one who, presumably in the view of the Government, would have failed to have done so?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

As we have heard, Amendment No. 81 puts a time limit of six months on the appointment of a traffic director and, in effect, on the intervention in an authority. This would mean that the procedures set out in Clauses 20 and 21 would have to be followed if an appointment was to continue. Among other things, that would require formal information gathering in Clause 20 to be continually repeated. This would be despite the fact that the traffic director would already be in place and well positioned to provide or request that without the need for an intervention notice.

We believe that that would place a real burden on the authority and lead to an overly bureaucratic process of constant renewal. The process set out in the Bill of ongoing monitoring with a planned exit strategy at an appropriate time offers a more efficient solution. Clearly there is no benefit in the appropriate national authority retaining a traffic director any longer than is absolutely necessary. However, we would not wish to disengage before it was right to do so.

If circumstances meant that a longer period of time was necessary to reach the position where an authority could resume the network management role itself, we would not want to be constrained by an arbitrary time limit. Amendment No. 82 requires the traffic director to take account of the local authority's local transport plan and is also intended to prevent the traffic director acting in conflict with the plan. That answers one of the points raised in our brief discussion.

The network management duty already includes reference to the local traffic authority having regard to its other obligations, policies and objectives in Clause 16. The local transport plan will contain such policies. The powers that can be granted to the traffic director must relate to the objectives set out in the intervention order—no more, no less. By virtue of Clauses 21 and 22, the objectives are linked to the duty in Clause 16—that is, they are limited to things that would secure that the duty was properly performed. Again, I hope that that will reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.

Those objectives may or may not conflict with the objectives of the LTP. That does not mean that a traffic director would not take into account the policies in the decisions or actions that he took if they were relevant to his objectives.

Turning to a point made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the traffic director is covered by the same duty in Clause 16. Therefore, he would have to take account of the same duties and obligations as the authority. That reinforces the point that I have just made. I hope that, with that explanation, the amendment can be withdrawn.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I believe that he has, indeed, covered the point that I raised and I shall of course study carefully what has been said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 [Intervention in activities of local traffic authority]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 83: Page 11, line 30, leave out from "specify" to "authority)" in line 31 and insert "only those functions of the authority conferred in their capacity as a traffic, highway or transport

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 83 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 84 to 88.

These are probing amendments to ascertain the powers relating to the traffic director. Clauses 24 and 25 seem to imply that the director can intervene in the delivery of powers which are not traffic management and they give him powers of direction over wider council priorities. For example, he could direct that a light rail scheme could not be proceeded with because it would cause short-term traffic disruption, that school opening hours must be changed, or that environmental traffic bans should be overturned. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention. However, I wonder whether the clause does not need to be tightened up to ensure that that could not happen.

The House of Commons Transport Select Committee report on the Bill expresses concern that the Bill as drafted will give too much weight to traffic management duties when balanced against wider integrated transport policies and other non-transport duties of local authorities. For example, delivery of local bus strategies may require redirection of available road capacity, and the traffic director should not have unlimited powers to overrule the objectives of such a strategy.

The later amendments deal with provisions that seem to make the relevant local authority legally responsible for the actions of an imposed traffic director, even in circumstances where they are obliged by the terms of the Bill to implement policies with which they perhaps disagree. For example, if a traffic director were instructed, perhaps not unreasonably, to remove traffic-calming measures and a subsequent road traffic death occurred which led to legal action, the authority could suffer the penalties arising from an action over which it had no control. When a traffic director is imposed he or she must be legally responsible for his or her actions as an agent of the Secretary of State.

I wonder whether the Minister might consider those points as he addresses these clauses and amendments. There are some important issues here. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

Amendments Nos. 83 and 86 aim to limit the powers of intervention in the activities of a local traffic authority that may be granted to the traffic director to only those conferred on the local authority in its capacity as a traffic, highway or transport authority. The purpose of the network management duty is to make authorities consider all the elements that contribute to the operation of the road networks. Limiting it in the way that the amendment intends would be counterproductive.

There are plenty of things for which a local authority is responsible that could have a serious impact upon the network. Waste management, for example. may not readily spring to mind, but refuse vehicles regularly collecting from narrow busy streets in rush hour are just the sort of thing that road users would justifiably expect to be considered and, if at all possible, avoided. To meet the duty a local authority would need to adopt a coherent approach across the whole organisation. If an authority was failing to meet the duty, especially if that was due to individual departments working independently, then clearly the traffic director would need the powers to address it.

Amendments Nos. 84 and 87 would not allow the intervention order to confer powers on the traffic director to intervene or exercise functions if those took precedence over other statutory powers and duties of the authority.

In making decisions, the traffic director would need to take into account other duties of the authority as the network management duty requires in Clause 16. They would not be operating in a vacuum. Therefore, other duties and powers such as safety must be part of the considerations. Inevitably, the traffic director may take different decisions from the authority. The fact that he is there at all implies that the authority's previous decisions or actions were not enough. But this is a question of taking a different approach to the balance of duties and powers, not overriding them. Therefore, to pre-define precedence of one duty over another we believe would be unnecessarily constraining.

Amendments Nos. 85 and 88 would remove provisions which provide that things done by the traffic director are to be treated as having been done by the authority. These provisions are required so that any things done by the traffic director in pursuance of the powers conferred by the intervention order are treated and continue to be treated as a thing done by the traffic authority. The acts of the traffic director should not be subject to fruitless argument, either during or after intervention, as to whether persons are or were acting in accordance with the requirements imposed by the traffic director or the authority.

Fears that the traffic director would in some way not be accountable are completely unfounded. He would have to exercise the powers conferred on him with the aim of fulfilling the objectives in the intervention order, which relates back to ensuring that the local traffic authority discharges its network management duty.

Furthermore, accountability is secured as a principle as a traffic director could be subject to judicial review depending on the circumstances of the case. We believe, therefore, that important safeguards already exist. I very much hope, with the assurance I have been able to give, that the amendment will be withdrawn.

6.30 p.m.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. In terms of the powers and the remit I am satisfied with that reply. I am still somewhat concerned about the fact that the local authority will be legally responsible for the traffic director in the exercise of his duty. That is an issue that I shall want further to consider. However, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and, in the mean time, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.]

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 [Exercise of local traffic authority functions]:

[Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 not moved.]

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [Application of sections 20 to 25 to local traffic authorities exercising functions jointly]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 89: Page 12, line 21, leave out "to any extent" and insert "there is a formal and binding joint working agreement in place

The noble Viscount said: Again, this is a probing amendment to ascertain the Minister's and the Government's views on where two or more local authorities are affected by an intervention order. Where they may be working jointly, we want to ensure that should one of them not be working and require an intervention order, that does not automatically mean that the other is also included.

As the Bill is drafted, that could mean—I may be wrong and would be grateful for the information— that it could lead to the powers of a good authority in effect being given to an external director. That does not seem to be fair or intentional. The amendment states effectively that that would be possible jointly only where there is a formal, binding, working agreement in place. If that were the case, we think that it is acceptable for the traffic director to be able to intervene. But we need a little help on the arrangements for joint activities.

I understand that this may be an issue which is subject to guidance. If that is the case, I should welcome advice from the Government as to when we shall see it and, indeed, when consultations on the guidance will start. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

There will be some occasions, probably fairly limited, on which authorities will exercise functions jointly. Where that occurs, it is appropriate to allow the national authority to intervene where the exercise of those joint functions contributes to the failure of the authorities to meet their network management duties under Clauses 16 and 17.

The first part of Amendment No. 89, by leaving out "to any extent" in reference to the performance of the duty, would mean that intervention could take place only where each and every aspect affecting the duty was covered by the joint arrangements. That is a very unlikely situation, so the effect of the amendment could be to prevent intervention in circumstances where that was properly required. We believe that to be far too restrictive. For functions and duties to be jointly exercised, there would necessarily have to be a clearly ascertainable agreement between the authorities concerned.

Moving on to line 26, where part of the performance of the network management duty is exercised jointly with another authority, and that function—or functions—is clearly part of the reason for the failure of an authority in its duty, there needs to be scope for the national authority to intervene.

Amendment No. 90 seeks to limit intervention to where the authorities which were working jointly were all failing in their duty. If the joint functions were so critical to the duty, it is most likely that all the authorities will be similarly affected: they will succeed or fail together. But since, in the situations covered by this clause, authorities are jointly responsible, any intervention necessarily has to include all the authorities by virtue of the joint arrangements. However, intervention would be tailored to address the problems identified in the intervention process. It is not the Government's intention to be intervening in authorities that are performing their duties effectively. That refers to a point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.

Orders under this clause will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, so there will be a further opportunity for noble Lords to look at the detailed proposals. In answer to a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, it needs a statutory instrument, rather than guidance, to put Clause 26 into effect. So, there is parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that I have given the necessary reassurances for noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I believe that that answers the concerns I have and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Criteria for making intervention orders]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 90A: Page 12, line 28, leave out "publish" and insert "give, in accordance with subsection (2),

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 90A I shall speak also to Amendment No. 90B, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies.

The only comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on Part 2 of the Bill related to the intervention process for failing authorities. The committee acknowledged that Clause 21 enabled the national authority to make an intervention order which, while a statutory instrument, was not subject to a parliamentary procedure. However, it noted that there were procedural safeguards embedded in other clauses.

The committee did not take the view that it was inappropriate that the exercise of these powers of intervention in individual cases was a matter over which Parliament did not retain control. However, the committee recommended that the guidance on criteria for intervention in Clause 27 should be subject to parliamentary procedure.

The Department for Transport is currently working with key stakeholders from local government and road user representatives on the development of this guidance. As part of that work we shall also be putting the guidance on criteria out to public consultation within the next few months. With that process in place, I am confident that the guidance will prove to be both reasonable and effective. However, the Government recognise the significance of the committee's recommendation and have therefore tabled the amendment to meet its wishes.

This would require the guidance under Clause 27 to be appended to an order. In relation to England, the order would be subject to negative resolution in both Houses. In relation to Wales, the order would be subject to the Assembly's procedures. I beg to move.

Viscount Astor

I do not know whether this would be helpful to the Committee. I suggested earlier—I do not know whether the Minister got the message—that I would be happy to group my Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 with this amendment, so that the Minister can speak to them now. However, if not, I am happy to leave them as they are grouped.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

I shall be delighted to speak to Amendments Nos. 91 and 92.

Amendment No. 91 seeks to write on to the face of the Bill that the guidance on criteria for intervention shall specify minimum times over which the criteria will apply. I can agree with the principle that intervention should not be based on isolated incidents or short experience. As I have said many times today, intervention is intended as a last resort, as Ministers have made clear in another place, for situations where there is a systematic failure in an authority meeting its network management duty. So the need to obtain evidence over a period of time will be covered in the guidance on criteria.

However, that does not need to be on the face of the Bill. There may need to be some flexibility for different circumstances, which the amendment would unnecessarily constrain. Also, this would be the only aspect of the guidance to be specified in the Bill, which could raise a question as to the status of other aspects. That we believe would be unhelpful.

Amendment No. 92 would require guidance on the criteria for intervention to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament. As I have stated, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that the guidance under Clause 27 should be subject to a Parliamentary process. The Government have accepted that recommendation and, as we have just shown, have brought forward their own amendment that would provide for parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution procedure. We consider that to be appropriate for this guidance.

I hope that with the reassurance that the issue of obtaining evidence over time will be covered in the guidance, and taking into account the latter considerations about Amendment No. 92, the noble Viscount will not press his amendments.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the Minister. We welcome his amendment, but we do have some concerns. I accept what the Minister says about Amendment No. 91 because I think that that is a fair point. However, in doing so, that makes the guidance more important and therefore requires scrutiny and, indeed, debate by Parliament. The negative instrument does not normally do that in either House, but the affirmative instrument does. As the guidance is so important and, as we have seen, it gives considerable powers to the traffic director and places a considerable burden on local authorities, I shall want to come back to it on Report. The affirmative procedure is important in this clause and in this area. I welcome the Government's amendments as far as they go, but we shall press the Minister to go a little further on Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 90B: Page 12, line 30, at end insert— (2) The guidance shall be appended to an order made by the authority by statutory instrument. (3) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2) made by the Secretary of State is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 [Recovery of costs from local traffic authorities]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 93: Page 13, line 38, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Viscount said: The amendment would remove powers to recover costs in all cases. A local authority may feel that it cannot deliver an integrated transport management function because of revenue spending shortfalls. The LGA has argued consistently that there is a shortfall in revenue spending for transport. That seems to have been accepted in principle by the Government. However, Clause 30 would mean not only that local authorities would have to spend more in order to report to the traffic director, but also that they would lose some of their existing income to pay for part of the director's activities. That will hardly result in better delivery of the targets set out in the Bill. Will the Minister outline what criteria will be used to consider, such sum or sums as it may consider appropriate"?

While the clause specifies that the amount recovered must not exceed the total expenditure of the national authority, it seems to leave it open to exceed the expenditure of the local authority. What checks and balances will be in place to ensure that the right to recover sums considered appropriate will not be abused? Is any help available to local authorities with financial problems, particularly if they have difficulty meeting the bill for the traffic director as required by the Bill? The amendment is again a probing one. It seeks a clearer understanding of how, in the event of a traffic director being appointed, the recovery system would work. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw

This is another reason why this part of the Bill is objectionable. Local authorities are perpetually short of money. They are ground between the one millstone of the council tax and the other of the threat of capping. They do not often have a great deal of room to move. They also have to set priorities in their budget. Those priorities are usually education and healthcare in that order, with traffic becoming a low priority among their many obligations. Increasingly, we find that statutory duties are forced on local authorities and they have no option. That leads to non-statutory duties being even less well provided for.

Again, I find this piece of legislation almost oppressive. As the noble Viscount said, the authority is in no position to spend money. There are just two relevant objectives. We have an objective to increase bus usage by passengers as part of the transport plan, but the cost of running bus services is rising so significantly that in parts of the county they are having to be cut substantially. One part of Government is saying, "Don't spend money". The other part is saying, "Do meet the criteria which we lay down", and the wretched authority may find itself being fined for not doing so, which will make its ability to meet criteria even weaker.

I find this whole part of the Bill objectionable. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised several issues. I have not spoken on those because I think this part of the Bill is objectionable.

Lord Berkeley

I worry about this, but for slightly different reasons. Listening to the debate on the past 10 or so clauses, it seems to me that with Clause 30 we shall end up with a kind of public sector receivership with the government, for whatever reason, being judge, jury and probably gaoler. I recall when Railtrack went into receivership. In my view, it thoroughly deserved it, but that is not the point. I think that the receivers' bill for entertainment was in six figures. There was no limit, it appears, as to how much they should spend. No doubt, six of them travelled to York first class at premium fare.

If there is to be a recovery of the costs, it has to be reasonable. Given the way that the private sector becomes involved in some of these issues, who will control the costs? It seems to me that at present we have the Government imposing traffic directors, deciding how much those traffic directors will cost and getting it back from the local authorities even if they do not have the money, and, presumably, sending the members to gaol if they do not find the money. That worries me. If this has to be, and I do not like it very much, there will have to be limits on the rates and charges in this section.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

Amendment No. 93 would remove the power for the national authority to recover any of the costs of a traffic director from a local traffic authority in which it had such an appointment. Obviously, it would negate the clause completely.

We consider that it is reasonable for the national authority to recover costs from a local traffic authority where it has to intervene and appoint a traffic director. Clause 30(3) clearly places a cap on what the national authority could recover, including taking account of any costs met from other sources. But the exercise of the power in Clause 30 is a matter for the discretion of the national authority, which will have the flexibility to decide in each case whether it would be appropriate for the local traffic authority to bear some of the costs incurred by its failure to meet its network management duty.

That approach is consistent with the costs of intervention where that occurs in other areas, and we consider it right to make this provision here also. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, make the same point: how can we stop power being abused? The power to recover money will not be abused. It is not in the interests of the Secretary of State to stop authorities getting up to scratch by taking away funds that they need in order to do so. That is why we have made it a discretionary power.

In answer to a question raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, there are limits in the Bill on costs that can be recovered. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State is not required to recover costs. Given my assurances, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, which has been helpful. I have just one question. When we come to appoint a traffic director, that is tine, but when it comes to costs, will that traffic director arrive with an army of people—a large team that will have to be paid for—or will he be on his own? For all we know, he might arrive with his 40 mates from the department to come and sort it out. If that is the case, will they all have to be paid for? Are we talking about one man or can this be a body of people? It would be helpful if the Minister could answer that.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

I think it is fair to say that that depends very much on the circumstances. It depends on what manpower or womanpower is needed to solve the particular problem. There could be examples where that is just one person or a team—a group of men or women. However, I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that I fully understand the point that he makes. I am sure that the department will do precisely what is needed in the required circumstances.

Viscount Astor

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We shall all have to hope that, as soon as the summer holidays appear, the department will not find that an area in the Lake District is failing in its traffic management and requires a large contingent to go there. But I take the Minister's assurances, of course, that that will never happen and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 [Interpretation of Part 2]:

[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 [Meaning of "permit scheme"]:

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 95: Page 14, line 25, after second "specified" insert "traffic sensitive

The noble Viscount said: Having left traffic management and directors, we now move on to permit schemes in Part 3 of the Bill and enter an area just as complicated as the one that we have just left. My amendment is grouped with an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who will no doubt speak to that shortly.

Clause 32 is designed to ensure that permit schemes apply only to areas designated as "traffic sensitive" and that they are practical and balance the need to minimise congestion with the need to maintain and provide essential utility services.

My amendment focuses on areas where congestion is greatest. That would enable potentially greater impact without introducing an additional significant administrative burden on utilities and local authorities. If one were to apply permit schemes only to traffic-sensitive streets, that would have the advantage of avoiding unnecessary delays to work and would have a minimum impact on congestion by the virtue of being in a non-traffic-sensitive street. It would also minimise the administrative burden on both utilities and local authorities. It would enable there to be greater focus on managing areas where congestion is greatest. Indeed, it would alleviate fears that the permit system is designed to generate revenue rather than to improve co-ordination.

We welcome the Government's statement that it is not the intention of the permit scheme to raise revenue. The Minister in another place stated, We must ensure that there is sufficient ability to charge for permits to pay for the scheme".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 29/1/04; col. 163]

However, the way in which the permit scheme is introduced by the Bill remains of concern in relation to charges and to those who might be liable to such charges.

Perhaps I may take the matter further. If the permit scheme is not about raising revenue, why will the Government not impose a restriction on areas where permits will be required to undertake works, or limit the charges? Restricting the requirement for permits to traffic-sensitive streets would ensure that the scheme had maximum impact on congestion for the minimum amount of additional administration, again both for utilities and local authorities.

To require utilities to apply for a permit and local authorities to process a permit for works in back streets and other areas where there will be little or no impact on the flow of traffic will serve only to tie up all parties in red tape and bureaucracy, which will reduce the efficiency of the entire scheme. Focusing the permit scheme on traffic-sensitive areas would not only minimise the administration but would avoid unnecessary delays to vital work that does not impact on traffic. One should ensure that local authorities focus their efforts or there will be no benefit.

My second amendment, if it works, is consequential on my first amendment. I beg to move.

7 p.m.

Lord Borrie

It may be appropriate for me to speak on Amendments Nos. 96 and 97, which are grouped with the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount.

Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 stand in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. As the noble Viscount said, we have now reached Part 3, which deals with permit schemes. I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 32(2)(c) which provides, in general terms, for a permit scheme to enable specified works to be carried out without a permit, whatever those specified works are. They are not defined in the Bill.

Ministers are already committed, through discussions in another place, to talks with the utilities on the issues surrounding emergency and minor works at the regulations stage. However, as Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 clearly set out, we should consider exempting emergency and minor work in the Bill.

Even with the most efficiently-run permit scheme, administrative delays are, from time to time, bound to occur. It is wholly desirable that, for example, gas or water escapes and electrical faults—perhaps above all—should be exempt from any requirement for permits, because any delay in dealing with those matters could he dangerous. Of course, there is no point in the permit scheme being applicable to short-lived emergencies and works of short duration. If anyone thinks that retrospective permits might meet the bill, that would seem to me pointlessly to clog the system.

By their nature, minor works are very different from the substantial, highly visible road works that so irritate the travelling public in general and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, in particular. Ten years ago, cable companies were digging up the roads on a grand scale across the country to create the backbone networks that are now largely complete. Now, most of the digging up in respect of telecoms companies is to connect customers' houses. That is minor works causing minor disruption.

When this general area of emergency and minor works was discussed in another place, my honourable friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, Mr Andrew Miller, said that we need a practical mechanism that distinguishes between short-term slit trenches, which might be there for a couple of hours, and major road works that may require a whole road to be dug up, perhaps to replace a sewer.

In response to an amendment somewhat similar to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 before the Grand Committee, the Minister said that he preferred to flesh out the specifics in regulations.

The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, drew our attention to a few times earlier this afternoon, contains definitions in the Act itself. Perhaps the Government consider it undesirable for there to be definitions in the Act as to what are emergencies and minor works. The Government may want to have the greater flexibility that regulations permit in enabling wording to be changed more easily from time to time. That is fine. I can fully understand that. But, at least let us have in the Bill something a little clearer than the phrase "specific works" in Clause 32(2)(c), which I mentioned earlier. Let us have a greater commitment by Government to exemptions for emergency and minor works by a specific reference, as Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 would provide for, rather than the present one in the Bill.

Lord Berkeley

I should like to speak briefly to this group of amendments. I find Clause 32 a little circular. The permit scheme is designed to control the carrying out of specified works in specified streets in a specified area. However, 'specified' means specified, or of a description specified, in a permit scheme". I am a little confused as to what is and what is not specified.

The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, made a very good point about emergency works—however quick the permit scheme is, the gas will still be blowing out. We shall come to the issue later, but if the utilities are going to be fined somewhere between £500 and £1,000, which is the figure being talked about, if they do not have a permit, what will they do—let the gas blow up, let the water flood or whatever? It is reasonable that the utilities should inform the highway authority as soon as possible. However, in emergency situations, surely that could be done retrospectively.

My last point is that we need to get into more detail, as my noble friend Lord Borrie said, and have the appropriate level of permit difficulty, depending not just on the urgency of the works but on the type of street that it is in. I believe that many things could be done quite successfully without a permit.

Lord Bradshaw

I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that utilities frequently have recourse to say things are an emergency. It may be an emergency to shut off water supplies or gas, as has been mentioned. However, we are talking about strategic roads for the most part. To close them is a very serious inconvenience. The alternative available in most cases is plating the hole. After the hole has been dug and the services have been turned off, it is usually some time before replacement facilities are available. There is absolutely no reason, other than costs to the utility, why steel or other devices—plates—should not be placed over the top so that traffic can recommence circulating.

In considering the amendment, I hope that the fact the road need not remain closed, but can be reopened to traffic in the interim, is borne in mind.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

It may help if I set out in advance how we seek to progress some of the secondary legislation in Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill in parallel with the parliamentary process.

In these parts of the Bill there is a provision for approximately 12 sets of regulations. However, the Government do not intend to bring all of these in at the same time. The Department for Transport has set up three working groups made up of representatives from local authorities and utilities to look at some of the priority areas. The three groups are looking at regulations and guidance in the following areas: one group is looking at the provisions for permits under Part 3 of the Bill; a second group is looking at the various powers relating to noticing of street works under Part 4 of the Bill. These include changes to the powers for street authorities to make directions and restrictions. A third group is looking at the provisions for fixed penalties for noticing offences under the New Roads and Street Works Act which are covered under Part 4 of the Bill, and some additional offences under the Highways Act which are covered in Part 5 of the Bill.

The purpose of the groups is to consider the details of how we can implement the provisions in the Bill for secondary legislation. These groups will make recommendations to Ministers. We believe that consultation with interested stakeholders is very important. These groups have a role to play in terms of thinking through the practicalities of how some of the measures in the Bill could be implemented—a view that has been expressed in this short debate. Indeed, the Government have tabled amendments that we shall discuss later in relation to the work of the second group and powers to restrict further works from being carried out in a street where substantial road works have taken place.

I am sure that most of the discussion that takes place here in the Committee will be very useful and will cover points that we can ask the three groups to consider. We believe that this is a very important process that will help us to get the secondary legislation right. All noble Lords will be able to convey their views to the working parties. Nothing will be done behind closed doors.

I turn to the amendments. Clause 32 defines the meaning of a permit scheme and allows the scheme to control specified types of work in specified streets. The detail of the types of streets that a scheme could cover may be set out in regulations. We are consulting both with utilities and local authorities as part of drawing up such regulations.

Amendment No. 95 would confine a permit scheme to traffic-sensitive streets and remove the flexibility that we currently provide for in the Bill. Traffic-sensitive streets are designated by an authority and, as a result, utilities must give authorities more advance notice that they intend to carry out works. The criteria for designating such streets are set out in regulations made under the New Roads and Street Works Act. Traffic sensitive streets have to satisfy certain criteria including being a trunk or principal road or having a high vehicle or pedestrian traffic flow. Other streets outside the criteria can be designated as traffic-sensitive but only with the agreement of utilities which have apparatus in that street.

Given the apparently broad criteria of streets that can be designated as traffic-sensitive, it may be thought reasonable to confine permit schemes to these streets. Indeed, there may well be cases in which an authority only wants the permit scheme to apply to these streets. However, other authorities might identify streets in their area where it is reasonable to apply a permit scheme and find that some do not fit into the existing parameters. They may be unable to get agreement from utilities that they should be designated as traffic-sensitive and hence they could not come under the control of permit schemes.

We think it is reasonable that regulations for permit schemes set out the details of the type of streets that can be covered. We are discussing the detail of these regulations with utilities and authorities and we also expect to issue guidance on permit schemes. What is more, any scheme can only come into effect once it has been approved by order by the Secretary of State or relevant national authority. There will, therefore, be safeguards against a local authority applying a scheme unreasonably to streets in its area.

Amendment No. 98 defines what is meant by a traffic-sensitive street. It refers to Section 64 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which allows the Secretary of State to prescribe the arrangements for a street authority designating a street as traffic-sensitive.

Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 would require permanent schemes to contain provision allowing for certain works to be carried out without permits. The former would mean that works for public safety would not require permits and would allow an authority operating a scheme to exempt other works which it considers to be emergencies or otherwise urgent. The latter would enable an authority to allow works which it considered were minor and which cause little or no disruption to be executed without a permit. In fact, Clause 36(2)(c) already allows for regulations to set out which works, such as emergencies, or very minor works, can be carried out without a permit. We are discussing with authorities and utilities what exemptions would be sensible as part of drawing up the regulations.

I hope that it will reassure noble Lords to know that we are very clear that no obstacles should be put in the way of dealing with dangerous or potentially dangerous situations such as gas leaks. That said, when a utility carries out emergency work, there can be delays in dealing with the works that follow on from the emergency. For example, once the immediate danger of a gas leak has been dealt with, the utility may not act as swiftly as it should to fill in the hole it has dug. Many noble Lords could give examples of this from their own experience. In these circumstances, a permit scheme would exempt works necessary to deal with the danger of the leak, but once the immediate danger had been dealt with, certain conditions could still be imposed on the follow-up work through a permit. By explicitly exempting emergency works on the face of the Bill, this type of distinction would be more difficult. The best way in which to deal with this problem, therefore, is not to define the cases where emergencies are exempt from permits in the Bill but to allow for regulations to cover exactly how an exemption applies and the relevant details.

In drawing up regulations, we may also consider other categories of exemption. However, we would need to discuss carefully how sensible it is to exempt minor works as these can cause significant disruption if they are in a busy street. For example, a small excavation in Victoria Street in the rush hour can have a great impact on traffic. Again, this is detail best left to regulations rather than on the face of the Bill.

I have given a rather lengthy answer, but I think it underlines the importance we attach to the points that noble Lords have raised. But on the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Borrie

I am very happy with the suggestion that I should not press the two amendments in my name. I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining his intentions at some length. Of course I will look closely at what he has said, but I do not intend to move the amendments.

Viscount Astor

I, too, am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I have two points. Any costs that the utilities have to pay are bound to be passed on to the consumer. The consumer will suffer if we introduce a scheme that suddenly makes utilities pay much larger costs than at present but does not, at the same time, allow the whole process to happen more easily, quickly and effectively, which is what we all want.

I shall study with care what the Minister said. My concern is that we should ensure that we have a focus so that utilities have a real incentive to deal with issues on major roads, as it were, that cause congestion, and that we do not have a permit scheme which does not differentiate regarding the importance of major and minor roads. After all, we want the major strategic arteries of our network to be dealt with as fast as possible. They should be dealt with first, not second.

The Minister made some important statements about emergency works and permits. That is a matter that we shall study carefully to see whether we need to return to it on Report, or, indeed, whether we want to discuss it with the Minister beforehand. The Minister says that there will be consultation. I am sure that that consultation will be open. He also said that nothing would be done behind closed doors, but of course nothing is decided behind closed doors except the final decision which is made by the Secretary of State, which is always made behind closed doors. However, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 95A: Page 14, line 42, at end insert— () for or in connection with time limits within which permits must be issued and effective for specified classes of works

The noble Lord said: I am sure that the Minister will be able to satisfy me very quickly. I did not see anything in the Bill that allowed the specifying of time limits or even objective times for the issuing of permits of particular classes. However, that may be a case of my failing to read carefully enough, in which case there is a very simple answer. It is a fairly skeletal Bill as it stands. I should be grateful for a bit of comfort on this matter. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would allow permit regulations to prescribe time limits by which permit authorities would have to issue permits and how long permits would be effective for.

In fact, Clause 36 provides wide powers to set out arrangements with respect to the, content, preparation, submission, approval, operation, variation or revocation of permit schemes", and already allows for these matters to be dealt with in regulations.

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that these are very important matters. That is why we want to deal with them all in regulations. In particular, it would clearly not be acceptable for a person seeking a permit to be made to wait a long time due to a permit authority's inefficiency in processing applications.

Having said that, Clause 36(1) already provides wide-ranging powers to deal with these matters in regulations, so this amendment is unnecessary. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Lucas

Yes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 96 to 98 not moved.]

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 [Preparation of permit schemes]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell)

I advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 99 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 100.

Lord Rotherwickmoved Amendment No. 99: Page 15. line 5, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: I rise to obtain further clarification on this clause and this whole section of the Bill, but specifically regarding measures allowing the national authority to direct compulsory application to set up a permit scheme.

A provision to require a local authority to apply to take on a new function appears to be at odds with the Government's commitment to ensure local freedoms and flexibilities. Obviously, some sort of co-ordination is necessary. We must be careful not needlessly to multiply the types of permit system in operation and thereby further increase the complexity and weight of the red tape that utility companies have to wade through. However, we must be mindful of the fact that imposed national arrangements are not usually the best solution to widely varying traffic enforcement problems.

Clause 33(1) generously permits local authorities to submit a permit scheme. However, Clause 33(2) states that this must be a scheme which, takes such form as he may direct".

According to Clause 33(5)(b), those preparing schemes, must have regard to any guidance which may be issued by the appropriate national authority".

I cannot be the only one unconvinced by the Minister's protestations in the other place that the Government were not trying to force a permit scheme on anybody. As it stands, Clause 33(2) moves too close towards doing just that; threatening to strait-jacket a permit scheme onto the circa 1.1 million individual street works a year. The LGA is quite right to be concerned for the Government's previous commitments to local freedoms and flexibilities.

I wonder whether the system will be flexible enough to allow the appropriate national authority to take note if specific local authorities are inundated with a particularly large volume of permit applications relating to urgent maintenance or high government priority projects like broadband roll-out or urban regeneration corridors?

How much room for manoeuvre can we expect for local authorities now we have seen the draft guidance mentioned in Clause 33(5)(b)? I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

Amendment No. 99 would remove the power for the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales to be able to direct one or more local highway authorities to prepare and submit a permit scheme to him.

I should make clear at the outset that this would be a reserve power and not one of which we would envisage making frequent use. We believe that in general it should be for individual local authorities to decide whether they wish to take advantage of the additional powers which a permit scheme would allow them to exercise on their streets.

That said, we think that it would be sensible to retain a reserve power of this sort. We would expect to give further details of the circumstances in which this power might be used in the guidance document, which we intend issuing alongside the regulations activating the permit powers. Once a draft of the guidance is available we shall listen to any views that noble Lords and others may wish to express.

However, in order to illustrate a possible scenario in which the power might be used, it might be that all but one or two London boroughs decide to operate a standard permit scheme. if that were to happen, there is an argument that it would allow for better management and co-ordination of works for a standard scheme to operate across the capital. Utilities and other persons who had to apply for permits will inevitably prefer to deal with a single set of arrangements. Having said that, we would want to consult with the authorities in question before deciding whether to make use of the power to direct.

I hope that in the light of this short explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Rotherwick

I thank the Minister for his explanations. Obviously, until we see the guidance we cannot fully understand the ability to use this reserve power. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us when he expects that the guidance will be issued.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

We expect the draft guidance to be ready in late summer—that is, July or August.

Lord Rotherwick

Perhaps we can press the noble Lord a little more on the guidance. Obviously it will be issued after we have completed the Bill, so we will not have a full understanding. I have considerable sympathies with his sensible suggestion that a standard scheme with a single arrangement for all authorities would be sensible, would simplify the position and cut the red tape. That said, and obviously until we have considered the matter more carefully, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday at 3.15 p.m.

The Committee adjourned at half past seven o'clock.