§ 11.20 a.m.
§ Baroness Gardner of ParkesMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for implementation of the recommendations of the Home Report on Roads and the Utilities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)My Lords, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for roads and traffic announced on 24th July in another place the action we propose on this report. A copy of the government's full response has been placed in the Library.
§ Baroness Gardner of ParkesMy Lords, I thank the noble Minister for his reply. Having had down an Unstarred Question on this topic for the whole year and now this Starred Question for the last four weeks, does he not think it fortuitous that he is able to give me such a happy and marvellous reply on this last day of term? I thank him.
§ Lord UnderhillMy Lords, is it not the case that all four local authority associations—and that includes the Scottish Convention—welcomed the recommendations of the Home review as a total package taking the rough with the smooth? Is he aware that by declining to support the recommendation regarding diversionary works and leaving the cost with local authorities, he has endangered the joint support for the package proposed in the Home review?
Why have the Government also ignored the agreement reached between the National Joint Utilities Group and the local authorities as to the type of body that should be set up to handle street works matters, and instead are proposing a street works advisory council with no direct representation from the utility organisations or from local authorities, and without any teeth?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, there were 73 recommendations in the Home Report and the Government have accepted 72 out of them, which I think is a satisfactory solution. My honourable friend is going to meet the local authorities in the near future to discuss the other recommendation over which they are a little concerned.
§ Lord UnderhillMy Lords, may I ask the Minister a question relating to my last point? Will they also discuss again the type of joint body? If the utilities group agree with the local authorities as to the type of body that should be set up, why should the Government throw that on one side?
The Earl of CaithnessMy Lords, if that matter is raised I am sure that my honourable friend will be happy to discuss it.
§ Baroness Gardner of ParkesMy Lords, can the Minister also confirm that if these recommendations have the effect that we expect, they will result in considerable saving of public inconvenience and public money?
The Earl of CaithnessIndeed, my Lords, and that will help the motorist and all those who use the roads.
§ Lord LeatherlandMy Lords, can the Minister tell us which is the one recommendation that the Government have not adopted?
§ Lord LeatherlandMy Lords, is he in a position to say, or does he not know, what recommendation 67 says? What is its object?
The Earl of CaithnessYes, indeed, my Lords, I do know. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has mentioned the specific point. The report is in the Library and I am sure that the noble Lord will be looking forward to reading it shortly.
§ Lord LeatherlandMy Lords, if my eyes are failing me and I cannot read it in the Library, what can the Minister do to explain it to us? Or does he not know?