Lords Sitting of 6 December 1990

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Import and Export Control Act.

Airports: European Slot Allocations
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards resolving the problem of slot allocations at busy European airports and whether the initial report from the European Commission, expected at the end of November, has been received.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I understand that the Commission has now agreed a proposal, and that it intends to send it to the Council very soon.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that Answer is certainly better than I had expected. I imagine that the Minister is also agreeably surprised. Can he translate "very soon" for the House and can we be told the date of the next Council? Am I correct in thinking that at the beginning of October the Minister asked for a study into the IATA system of slot allocation? If that is correct, and he has received a copy of the study, can he tell the House what has come out of it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the next meeting of the Council will be on 17th and 18th December. This issue is not on the agenda as yet, and it may be a little soon to discuss it as we have not seen the proposals. The following meetings are scheduled for 27th March and 20th and 21st June next year. As regards the consultants' report that we commissioned, they have completed stage one of the work and we and the Civil Aviation Authority are now studying it. We shall soon be considering whether to proceed to stage two.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am surprised that the noble Baroness was so surprised that the Commission has done its duty? Is it not a fact that the Commission has given emphasis in its proposal to the issue of transparency? Is it not absolutely right that some of the cosy arrangements that have taken place in the past should be exposed and that people should know exactly what is happening about slot allocation? Is not the Minister at least in agreement in principle with the proposition
268
made on behalf of the Commission in its press statement that some rights must be surrendered by the major carriers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, transparency is one of the issues but by no means the only issue which must be looked at in the proposal. The subject is complicated and we must think not only of the EC but of the rest of the world. We must take that into account in the EC's proposals. We certainly support the EC's objective of making slots available to new entrants. New entrants are not an end in themselves and we are looking for a means of promoting strong and fair competition.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend join me in wishing many happy returns to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and wish him many years of happy activity on the Opposition Front Bench? Will my noble friend indicate how Her Majesty's Government view the slot allocation programme in the context of international traffic particularly over the Atlantic?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I had not realised that it is his birthday today. I have no hesitation in agreeing with all that my noble friend said. I touched on my noble friend's second point in my earlier reply. At present, approximately 30 per cent. of traffic is non-EC and that must be taken into account when the proposals are considered.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that there is a difficulty about the definition of new entrants? While many people would support the proposition that the major airlines should be prepared to give up slots to smaller airlines which might be described as new entrants, they would be less sanguine if the slots were to go to major international carriers which might be defined as new entrants because they had only a small number of slots. Can the Minister help with the definition of new entrants?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have not seen the proposals, which were agreed only yesterday. Perhaps I may refer back to the earlier proposals that were mentioned during our debate on the subject. As the noble Lord has pointed out, there is a problem because the proposals would have affected medium-size airlines such as British Midland which now provide the most effective competition for dominant carriers. It would not have qualified as a new entrant and might have been dispossessed of some slots. That is a problem and we shall wait to see what is in the new proposals.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I must put this in the form of a question. Is the Minister aware, as I am, that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has come from much higher pastures than we have? Is he also aware that if the noble Lord had been in the House during the past few years, he would not be at all astonished that I am surprised that the Commission came up with the answer?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, heard the second part of the noble Baroness's question. This afternoon I do not

269
wish to enter into the argument as to whether being a commissioner can be regarded as coming from higher pastures than your Lordships' House.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was referring to Hackney rather than the Commission! I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the Minister for their very kind birthday greetings. I look forward to receiving their presents in due course!
Will the Minister give consideration to promoting this issue at the next informal meeting of Transport Ministers so that it can be given an early airing? I believe that that would facilitate the possibility of progress being made at the June Council.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly. We wish to give this matter an early airing. I do not have a date for the informal Councils and, as I said, the next full meeting of the Council is too soon and the following meeting is on 27th March. If there is an informal Council meeting, I am sure that we shall study that aspect. We also wish to see the results of our own study into this matter in order to produce the best possible input into those discussions.

Psychiatric Patients: Aftercare
3.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the substantive statement of good practice on the discharge and after care of psychiatric patients, being developed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in concert with the other professions involved, is expected to be completed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Royal College of Psychiatrists is currently revising draft guidelines which I understand will be considered by its council in January 1991.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Do I understand that there is a possibility that the statement will be published shortly or is there difficulty in reaching a conclusion?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am not aware of any difficulties encountered in reaching a conclusion. There has been a remark that, in seeking a consensus of other professions, there have been some difficulties. However, I remind my noble friend that in the course of this year the department has published a code of practice on the Mental Health Act 1983 and the care programme circular which, to some extent, overlapped the requirement for guidelines prepared by the royal college.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as the Minister knows, from these Benches we warmly welcome the guidelines. Whether or not the royal college has produced its declaration or has difficulties, will the noble Baroness accept that there is now a major crisis in the provision of community care for those discharged from psychiatric hospitals? Will she bring
270
that crisis, which requires emphasis, action and resources at a nationally high level, to the attention of the new Minister and the new Prime Minister?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that, under arrangements proposed by the Government, by April 1991 all district health authorities will be required to initiate, in collaboration with local social services departments, explicit individually tailored care programmes for all people being discharged into the community in that way. That care programme approach, reinforced by the new specific mental illness revenue grant and increased authorisation for capital expenditure on mental illness projects, is designed to secure real improvements in community services to the mentally ill.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does consultation take place between the Departments of the Environment and Health? It is quite impossible to cope with those patients in the community without the provision of some form of housing for them.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend that there is such contact and co-ordination between the two government departments to which she referred.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while welcoming what the noble Baroness said about what will happen in April, can she tell us more about what is happening now? Does she not agree that it is inhumane to keep psychiatric patients in hospitals or institutions any longer than is strictly necessary and that it is even more inhumane to discharge them into the community before care is in place for them? Further, does she not agree that the whole concept of community care, which is very valuable and important, could be brought into disrepute if what is now happening continues to happen, even after April?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I agree that it is vitally important that the appropriate services should be available before patients are discharged to the community. The whole thrust of the Government's policies is in that direction.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, through voluntary organisations and hospitals, a great number of ex-patients are being housed within the community and local boroughs through housing associations? That is proving to be of great benefit because the patients then live in their own homes and have their own latchkeys. A great deal has already been achieved.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to acknowledge the very important contribution being made by the voluntary sector. I also remind your Lordships that my honourable friend in another place announced in July a specific programme, likely to cost more than £5 million in the first two years, to help among other things to fund centrally the development of short-term hostel places and to provide people with the kind of short-term accommodation and services they need in order to progress to ordinary or supported housing.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, would the noble Baroness also accept that while paying proper tribute to voluntary organisations, local authorities are facing serious financial problems? The sum referred to is very small if it is to meet the desperate needs of local authorities and the voluntary organisations.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are wandering rather far from the Question on the Order Paper. In so far as good practice is important in this area, I agree that vie should take the maximum care to ensure that housing and accommodation is available for patients when they are discharged.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, in addition to the care and concern provided for discharged psychiatric patients, and in order to help them feel more like members of the community, could they not be given a really smart set of clothes? Perhaps the women could also be given a smashing new hairdo.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I feel sure that those who need to take note of that suggestion will do so.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we welcome all the measures mentioned? However, the good practice should include some follow-up to help prevent the large number of ex-psychiatric patients we find ending up in cardboard boxes on the Embankment. Where was the good practice when those people left the psychiatric hospitals? Should they not have been followed up?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is important to look to the future and ensure that some of the mistakes that we recognise occurred in the past do not continue. I believe the care programme approach to which I referred is an important step forward.

The Capercaillie
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have decided not to introduce the ban on the shooting of capercaillie which was due to be implemented in October 1990.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for the Environment consulted interested parties on 23rd March regarding the desirability of introducing a shooting ban to conserve capercaillie. The responses confirmed that shooting is not a major pressure and that further research is needed. My honourable friend therefore announced on 2nd September that a shooting ban would not be imposed, and that the Nature Conservancy Council is to follow up the consultation. I shall gladly supply a copy of the announcement and place it in the Library.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he not agree that as the numbers of capercaillie are now down to slightly fewer than 2,000, as far as can be judged, and as they are not good to eat and not even good sport, even the loss of a few by shooting is a waste of time? Will the Minister therefore rethink the question of a shooting ban, at least for the next season?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not dispute that the capercaillie is neither good sport nor good to eat; I have neither sported with them nor eaten them. No doubt the noble Baroness speaks from experience. It is a well known fact that the cause of the decline of the capercaillie has been due to loss of habitat. It is also well known that sporting estates are interested in maintaining habitat. That is why we asked for a voluntary ban on shooting rather than a statutory one.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the last point he made regarding the preservation of habitats is one of the most important features in this matter? Sportsmen have already taken a number of steps by imposing voluntary bans on the shooting of capercaillie and in preserving many of the remains of the pine forests which are the natural habitat for these birds. Will the Minister agree to look at the question of whether predation is an important feature when it comes to the research activities to which he referred?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct in everything that he says. Certainly the research being carried out will look at all aspects of habitat and predation concerning the capercaillie.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the word "predation" is new to me. Does it mean the work of predatory birds? What does it mean?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the greatest predatory threats to the capercaillie are the ground vermin such as foxes.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, following my Question earlier this year on this subject, are the Government entirely satisfied that the future is safe, at least for several years, for this remarkable bird? It became extinct in Scotland and was reintroduced only in the last century.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that was very much the basis of the consultation. Nobody wishes to see the extinction of this bird. My noble friend is quite correct in saying that it was extinct in the early part of the 19th century. We are sure that this is the right way to go ahead and shall look carefully at the results of the research when they come out.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, although I appreciate the Minister saying that there will be a voluntary ban on shooting the capercaillie and that most shooters will accept the ban, the Minister may remember the Question tabled by his noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in April. It was made quite clear then that the feeling of the House was that one of the few things we could do immediately to help preserve the capercaillie was to ban shooting. Is he sure that the shooting ban will be acknowledged not only by the responsible shooters but also by the irresponsible shooters in the world? Phychologically, would it not be better to say that we will prohibit the shooting of these birds?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course there are irresponsible shooters around. Those are not the people with whom we are dealing. We discovered that the threat to the capercaillie does not come from the

273
sportsmen; it comes from the loss of habitat. It is in that area that we are conducting research to improve the habitat and therefore the long-term natural prospects for this fine bird.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in the interests of accuracy, is the noble Lord aware that the capercaillie is almost impossible to shoot due to its high wing loading? One may think it is travelling at 15 miles an hour and it is actually travelling at 70 miles an hour. Will he also inform the noble Baroness that they are quite edible? I understand that if the cock birds are buried for three months they can be eaten by very brave people.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the House is delighted by the additional information brought forward by the noble Lord.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the shortage of natural habitat of the capercaillie is a very good argument for encouraging afforestation?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lady is correct. We should and we do encourage afforestation. It is also the right kind of forest that is important. The Forestry Commission is very forward in developing the Scots Pine forest, which is the main natural habitat of the capercaillie.
Lord Brain: My Lords, will the Minister agree that there is perhaps a need for a limited amount of culling of the older capercaillie? That would enable the younger and more productive birds to breed; therefore there is good reason for suitable controls.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right. Unfortunately we are delving into technical expertise, of which I have virtually none. That is the reason we have organisations like the NCC, which is leading the research.

Football Grounds: Toilets
3.28 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany Lord Wallace of Coslany asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to ensure that toilets at football grounds comply with standards of public health and decency.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, local environmental health authorities have powers to ensure that adequate provision of sanitary facilities is made at places where sporting events are held. It is for them to judge what is appropriate in the light of local circumstances.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that conditions for visiting supporters at Chelsea football ground are very bad indeed? Similar conditions apply at the grounds of Wimbledon and Queen's Park Rangers. That apart, does he not agree that with the high prices charged for admission and for programmes it is time that toilets in football grounds were of decent modern standard for those who visit them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I must agree with the noble Lord. Football clubs can apply for grants for such purposes. The Football Trust, chaired by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, makes available grants for up to 70 per cent. of the approved expenditure on the installation of new toilet facilities at football grounds, to a maximum of £50,000.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, as a Queen's Park Rangers supporter, perhaps I may say that although the toilet facilities at the ground are not exactly luxurious they are not in the decadent state suggested by the Minister.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord just said, can he tell us whether he uses the executive boxes?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I should intervene at this point and say that facilities vary throughout the country.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last Budget made available funds for football in general? Is he also aware that increasing sums of money are being found by the Football Trust for the improvement of football grounds? Will the Minister urge the new sports Minister to stress to the football grounds that they should give priority to providing modern toilets of an acceptable standard, bearing in mind that even at some First Division grounds the toilets are an absolute disgrace?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I will certainly make sure that my honourable friend the Minister for Sport is aware of what the noble Lord said. Members of the public can complain to environmental health authorities if they feel that facilities are not up to standard. Local authorities have power to serve a notice on the owners or occupiers of any place occasionally or normally used for sport to upgrade facilities.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, having regard to the vast sums of money—amounting to millions—that are spent by the clubs on the purchase of a single player, can they not provide decent toilets as well?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend has a point. As I said, a large amount of money—over £100 million—will be available from the Football Trust over the next five years for the improvement of football grounds.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some clubs have received substantial sums of money from the Football Trust for ground improvements but have not spent one penny of that money on improving their toilets? Surely that is wrong.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is for the football clubs to decide how they spend their money. As I said previously, if members of the public are not satisfied with facilities they can complain to the local environmental health authority.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am referring not only to male toilets but also to female toilets? I cannot visit them but I have had good information that they need attention.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it would be advisable if I kepi out of female toilets as well.

Business
3.33 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4 p.m. my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Gulf hostages.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the New Roads and Street Works Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1990 will be taken.

Business of the House: Debate, 12th December
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Elton set down for 12th December shall be limited to 5 hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to the debate with the substitution of "5 hours" for "2½ hours" and "25 minutes" for "20 minutes".—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Cawley, L.

Grey, E.

Jacques, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Renton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Thurlow, L.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to ask a simple question. The Motion has in thick type the preface, "Standing Orders (Private Bills)". However, the Motion itself is not confined to Private Bills but is in respect of a Select Committee on the Standing Orders. What is the true position? Naturally I am interested because I am surprised —I
276
do not complain about the surprise—to find that my name is included among the members of the Select Committee.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Select Committee deals with Standing Orders on Private Bills and has nothing to do with other Standing Orders. I apologise if the noble Lord was not aware that he was on the Select Committee, but perhaps I may have some words with him later.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Hybrid Instruments:—

Cawley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thurlow, L.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I wonder whether I may make a short statement concerning the Opposition's view on amendments to Parts III and IV. We are concentrating on Part III rather than Part IV but the expectation is that any successful amendments would be followed by consequential amendments to Part IV. I believe the Minister accepts that, but perhaps it would be of assistance to clarify the position.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I quite understand the position. The noble Lord will see that the government amendments cover both the English and the Scottish provisions, and should anything further arise from this afternoon's debate naturally we would expect that to cover the other part.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 42 [Streets, street works and undertakers]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 23, leave out lines 4 to 9 and insert ("In this Part a street includes any highway and any road, lane, footpath, square, court, alley or passage, whether a thoroughfare or not, and includes any part of a street.").
The noble Lord said: I draw the Committee's attention to the words used in the amendment. They are exactly the same as the interpretation of the word "street" in Section 329 of the Highways Act 1980. Why is that definition not used in this Bill? As the Bill is closely connected to the 1980 Act, surely a uniform approach is desirable. If there is a reason for changing the interpretation what do the Government propose to do about the 1980 Act? There seems to be some confusion between the 1980 Act and the wording in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can explain the position very briefly. The words in the Bill follow the street works Act of 1950 which contains a rather wider definition than the narrower definition used in the Highways Act 1980. The effect of the amendment would be to exclude from the provisions of this part of the Bill all street works carried out in land laid out as a way, whether or not it is for the time being formed as a way, and which is not either a highway, road, lane, footway, alley, passage, square or court. For example, utility works on the route of a proposed road on an estate which is still being built would not be regulated by the provisions of the Bill.
We believe that it is preferable to keep the definition of "street" which derives from the 1950 Act and is drawn sufficiently wide to cover all places of that kind where undertakers have statutory rights to carry out work. No good would come of disapplying the provisions of the Bill to works in ways over land and it might result in a loss to do so. I hope that explanation answers the noble Lord's concerns.
Lord Underhill: I understand the Minister's reply, but do we not now have a definition in this Bill based on the 1950 Act and a definition of the word "street" in the Highways Act 1980? Surely there will be some confusion for people who refer to those Acts.
Lord Tordoff: Will the Minister check on the position? There are references in this Bill to the 1980 Act and one wonders whether there may be an overlap of definition between the two Acts and this Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hope that there is not. I shall check the position. I have already explained why we prefer the definition in the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 rather than that contained in the Highways Act.
Lord Underhill: It is best to sort these matters out before one replies in case one gives a wrong answer. I shall look carefully at what the Minister has said. I hope that he will bear in mind the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We do not wish to find ourselves with two definitions in the same Act. In the light of what the Minister has said, I shall look carefully at the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Roads, road works and undertakers]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 52, line 13, at end insert ("or with permission granted under section (Permission to execute road works)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 53, 56, 61 and 62. This amendment is intended to introduce in Scotland provisions broadly similar to those included in Clause 44 for England and Wales. However, in doing so we have had regard to the differences which already exist in the provisions applying north and south of the Border to persons wishing to place apparatus in a road. Our intention is to bring within the framework of this Bill the great majority of cases where apparatus is being placed in a road and to cease to rely exclusively on the provisions contained in Section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
So far as we are aware, no difficulties have been experienced in the operation of Section 61 of the 1984 Act which allows roads authorities to grant permission, subject to conditions, to persons to place apparatus in a road. However, we took the view that increasingly it was likely that cases would arise of persons, companies or other institutions seeking to lay cables, pipes or other such equipment in circumstances very similar to those of the statutory undertakers. Therefore, it would make good sense to have these operations controlled by the legislation that we are now considering and to have the other undertakers subject to the duties and conditions set out in Part IV of the Bill. In that respect what would be achieved by this amendment corresponds to the situation provided by Clause 44 for England and Wales.
I shall now briefly refer to the consequential amendments. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 ensure that the meaning of "roadworks" and "undertaker" are extended to cover the cases being brought in by the new clause. Amendment No. 61 extends the offence of carrying out unauthorised works to those who do not carry out the work in accordance with the terms on which permission is given under the new clause. Amendment No. 62 is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I appreciate the amendments which the Minister has tabled. It is obviously desirable that the English and Scottish parts of the Bill should be aligned so that there is parity of treatment for all parties carrying out road works in connection with apparatus. That is important in relation to having uniform application across the UK of the other common aspects which are allied to this legislation. There are in particular the computerised street works register, national specification and intervention limits, inspection fees, restriction on openings following road works and application of any prescribed fees for occupation of road space.
I ask the Minister two questions in order to ensure that the two regimes are aligned as closely as possible. The Minister may not have the answers to hand. We have more time with this Bill and these matters can be dealt with later if necessary. Can the Minister say what types of work are likely to be prescribed in subsection (2) (b) and (c) of the new clause in Amendment No. 56? Can he also say how the issues to be dealt with for England and Wales in Schedule 3 to the Bill are to be

279
covered by the Scottish legislation? As I say, the Minister may not have the information available, but I shall be happy to receive it before the Report stage.
Lord Strathclyde: Schedule 3 is based on the provisions of the Highways Act which currently applies to street work licences in England and Wales. No similar provision was introduced by the Roads (Scotland) Act in relation to permission to place apparatus. There have been no representations that detailed provision on the lines of Schedule 3 was required. The authorities in Scotland will be free to set conditions when granting permission. These could include the kind of matters covered by Schedule 3 if that is desired. Experience in Scotland suggests that it is unnecessary to specify these matters in the same detail. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said, and if I have omitted anything I shall write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 52, line 23, at end insert ("or a person having permission under section (Permission to execute road works) to execute road works, as the case may be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 43 [The street authority and other relevant authorities]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 23, line 39, leave out from first ("authority") to second ("the") in line 40.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment designed to ascertain the Government's plans for implementing the provisions of this part of the Bill in areas where the local highway authorities do not act as agents for the Department of Transport in relation to trunk roads. As drafted, subsection (2) of the clause means that where a local authority acts as an agent for the Department of Transport on trunk roads, that authority will act for the Secretary of State as the highway authority in relation to Clauses 47 to 53 of the Bill. That is an extremely sensible arrangement and undoubtedly represents a most economic, efficient and effective way of dealing with trunk roads.
Unfortunately, the future of the arrangements where local authorities act as the agents for the Department of Transport on trunk roads is very much in doubt. In September this year the Secretary of State informed seven London boroughs that he was terminating their agency arrangements despite a consultants' report commissioned by the department itself which recommended that the first stage of any bid to improve the performance of the London highway agents should be the establishment of clearer arrangements between the department and the London boroughs.
The local authority associations have argued that the ability of local highway authorities to co-ordinate developments, such as street works, on both the trunk and local road networks, is central to the justification for the continuation of the agency arrangements. Clause 42(2) represents a clear example of the benefits
280
of the existence of the agencies. However, the Bill does not address itself to the way in which matters are to be handled in areas where the agency arrangements have been terminated. How can the key co-ordinating function be undertaken effectively if a small part of the highway network—that is to say, the trunk roads—is the responsibility of one organisation, which will almost certainly be private consultants, while the local highway authority is responsible for the majority of the network?
How are the interests of local residents to be protected? Can the Minister assure the Committee that this is unlikely to be a more widespread problem? I await with great interest the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, explained, the effect of this amendment would be to make each local highway authority responsible for the registration and co-ordination of undertakers' street works on trunk roads in their area regardless of whether or not the Secretary of State had appointed them as his agent for the maintenance of those roads. That would make no sense. Where the local highway authority does not act as the Secretary of State's agent for the maintenance of trunk roads, such as the eight London boroughs which the noble Lord mentioned and which from next year will not exercise that function, undertakers of street works will be required to deal with the Secretary of State or his appointed agent for the purpose of the Bill. In practice, satisfactory arrangements will be made with the consultants who have been or will be appointed as agents for the day-to-day management of trunk roads in those areas.
Naturally they will have to co-ordinate with the other highway authorities in the same way as two adjoining highway authorities would under the Bill as it stands. Local residents will be no more affected by this arrangement than they would be if the highway authority was remaining the Secretary of State's agent. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Underhill: I appreciate the Minister's reply. I put this down as a probing amendment. I shall read his explanation and comments and then decide whether we should come forward with a definite amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Local authorities: supply of services for carrying out of street works, etc
.A local authority shall be entitled to offer to supply services for the carrying-out in its area of street works, and reinstatement, on behalf of an undertaker, and may supply such services if such an offer is accepted.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak at the same time to Government Amendments Nos. 179 and 180. It was my intention to deal with this matter at some length but I am pleased to note that Amendments Nos. 179 and 180 are designed to write on the face of the Bill the right of highway authority direct labour organisations to tender for utility work.

281
They appear to conform with the requirements of the local authority associations and the right is defined in broad terms as requested by the local authority associations. It is therefore my intention, after hearing the Government's explanation of their amendments, to withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 179 and 180. The amendments fulfil an undertaking I gave at Second Reading to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I said then that highway authority direct services organisations would be allowed to tender for work. Doubts had been expressed, although we were clear in our own mind that they would be able to do so. However, as doubts had been expressed, we tabled these amendments. They should meet the noble Lord's concern.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming what I thought was the intention of the amendments. I appreciate the fact that the Government have looked carefully at what was said at Second Reading. I shall withdraw my amendment and support the government amendments when we reach them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98 agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 98, insert the following new clause:

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]

  Permission to execute road works
  (" .—(1) A road works authority may grant permission in writing, subject to such reasonable conditions as they consider appropriate, to persons to whom this section applies—

  (a) to place, or to retain, apparatus in a road, and

  (b) thereafter to inspect, maintain, adjust, repair, alter or renew the apparatus, change its position or remove it,

  and to execute for those purposes any works required for or incidental to such works (including, in particular, breaking up or opening the road, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or tunnelling or boring under the road).
  (2) This section applies to persons who are described in one or more of the following paragraphs—

  (a) persons of a prescribed class,

  (b) persons carrying out works of a prescribed class,

  (c) persons carrying out works in a prescribed area.

  (3) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) may include conditions as to—

  (a) the payment of fees,

  (b) the future cessation or withdrawal of the permission, and

  (c) indemnification of the authority against claims arising out of what is permitted.

  (4) Before granting permission under subsection (1), the authority shall give not less than 10 working days' notice of their intention to do so to any other person whose apparatus is, or plans for the installation of apparatus are, likely to be affected by the works which would be authorised by that permission.
  (5) Where permission has been granted under section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 in respect of apparatus and the road works authority consider that permission could be granted under this section in respect of that apparatus, they may cancel the permission granted under section 61 of the 1984 Act and, if they cancel that permission, they shall substitute for it permission granted in accordance with subsection (1) above.
  (6) The works referred to in subsection (1) above do not include works for road purposes.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 44 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Street works licences]:
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 57:
  Page 87, line 25, after ("persons") insert ("in particular blind and disabled persons").
  The noble Lord said: I shall speak at the same time to my Amendment No. 59. Grouped with these amendments are Government Amendments Nos. 58, 89, 95, 105, 110, 150, 153, 184, 186, 187 and 190.
  Amendment No. 57 would impose a general duty in the conditions attached to a street works licence to minimise inconvenience to blind and disabled people. I prefer my amendments to those tabled by the Government, although I do in fact welcome them, because they emphasise the disability of blindness which so often goes unnoticed. Sighted people do not seem to realise what the blind or those with bad sight do not notice.
  Schedule 3 sets out the conditions which may be attached to a licence. These include general safety conditions and a general duty to minimise the inconvenience to persons using the street. I believe that this must be accompanied by a particular duty to those who are blind and disabled. As the Horne Report stated:
  "We have received both written and oral evidence, which makes it abundantly clear that the standards which the utilities lay down are not always observed in practice… However, the impression we have is that even in these cases the excavations rarely pose a real danger to pedestrians who are sighted and sober. But they do undoubtedly pose a real hazard to the blind. We heard of cases in which blind people had fallen into openings that were inadequately guarded".
  Utility works that block or partially block the footway can be a serious hazard for a disabled person, particularly one in a wheelchair. Wherever works obstruct the footway so that less than one metre's width remains, an alternative route for pedestrians should be provided on the edge of the carriageway. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, put down this amendment, though I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on taking up this position at an early stage of the Bill. With respect, I think that the Government's amendment encompasses blind people. That is a matter of definition as concerns the law, but in the course of debate it is absolutely right that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, should give specific emphasis to this disability.
  It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could disclose the incidence of accidents affecting blind people in the situations described by the noble Lord. The Committee could then get a measure of the problem. The invaluable briefing material provided by RADAR makes a general reference to this situation. It is only a general reference, so it would be helpful if some statistical information could be provided by the Government, not necessarily immediately but perhaps in reply to a Question for Written Answer. If the

  283
  Minister could indicate that he would be in a position to respond within the reasonable future it would be of interest not simply to the Committee but to the nation as a whole. We could then see the extent of the problem.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I welcome the amendment put down by the Government. I was glad that my noble friend on the Front Bench indicated his assent when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the reference to disability encompassed the blind. I have had the privilege of watching guide dogs being trained with their owners. I recognise that the fortunate few who have a guide dog have a means of avoiding traps and dangers. Guide dog owners amount to only about 4,000 of the 150,000 registered blind in this country. For the vast majority of blind people who have to use our streets the dangers remain very substantial. It is absolutely right and very much to be welcomed that there should be a specific duty on the licence holder to take the necessary precautions to minimise those risks. The accidents that occur make one realise the hazards that blind people have to negotiate in the streets when works are not carried out properly. I very much welcome the amendment.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Tordoff: As my name is also attached to this amendment, I too welcome the fact that the Government have taken the issue under their wing. I speak as one who is not desperately well informed on the matter. My daughter has recently trained as a rehabilitation officer for the blind and I therefore receive little snippets of information from her about the practical difficulties faced by blind people.
  I certainly accept for the moment the "nod" given by the Minister—and trust that it will shortly be translated into words—as confirmation that the wording in his amendments includes all forms of disability, including blindness. However, there is an aspect in Amendment No. 106, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, myself and others, which needs to be underlined. While I understand that the amendment may cause the Government difficulties in relation to the provision of audible hazard indicators—because these can be a nuisance to neighbours —the reference to,
  "solid barriers of not less than 1 metre in height,"
  is important to people who are visually impaired, especially those, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred who do not have the benefit of guide dogs. People who use white sticks need barriers of a different height from that which applies to sighted people.
  Therefore, I hope that within the terms of the government amendment it will be possible to lay down a code of practice to ensure that these tactile signs and barriers are included in a proper form by which the undertakers can set their standards.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: As a supporter of these amendments, I should like to hear the Minister's explanation before considering the reasons why my noble friend Lord Swinfen thought it necessary to single out blind people and place particular emphasis
  284
  on them. I sought advice from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who has a blind daughter. He tells me that blind people are registered as disabled. Therefore, it seems that the government amendments may be satisfactory. However, as the amendments extend to cover Scotland, do they also cover Northern Ireland? I ask that question because I am sure that there are just as many such hazards, and perhaps even more, in Northern Ireland as there are in other parts of Britain.
  Baroness Phillips: I express my support for the amendment. We should emphasise to the Government the importance of ensuring that there are strong penalties applicable to those who contravene regulations or codes of practice. I recall the discussion we had about cars being parked on the pavement. I remember the tremendous correspondence I received because I referred especially to the problems of the disabled and the blind.
  However, what do we see today? We can walk down any street in London—indeed, any street in any town—and see cars and vans parked in very dangerous positions on the pavement. This means that all of us have to walk out into the road in order to be able to proceed. Further, one never sees anyone taking action to have the cars removed. They seem to remain there day after day and week after week. It is quite useless for us to sit here in this place producing various Acts of Parliament if we do not have appropriate officers to follow up the procedures in order to ensure that the legislation is actually put into effect.
  I am sure we have had the experience of falling down large holes in pavements where there has been no prior warning. You do not have to be blind or disabled to experience this; you merely have to walk along the road with your head held in a normal position. You may suddenly find yourself in a large hole. I have experienced this. I set up a kind of "indignation" meeting of citizens in the area. They agreed with me and said, "Yes, the council never does anything about it". We must ensure that the provisions of such legislation are carried out; otherwise, rather than improving the situation we shall merely add another hazard to those which are already faced by the blind and the disabled.
  Lord Shepherd: As the noble Baroness has taken the matter a little further than the issue contained in the amendment, perhaps I may be permitted to be a little more guilty in this respect. One of the increasing dangers, even for sighted people, is what is happening where the kerb has—quite rightly—been smoothed out and lowered in order to allow perambulators and wheelchairs to be moved more easily from the pavement across the road. However, there is no sign to indicate that this has been done. I have seen many people walking along the pavement who have not noticed the inclination and who have literally fallen into the road. This has happened because there is no warning sign stating that the kerbstones have been lowered. When local authorities are carrying out such alterations for very good reasons, I believe that there should be some kind of special colouring by the kerb, or a sign, to warn people that there has been an alteration and that there is a slope in the pavement. I

  285
  hope that the Minister will at some stage think about that aspect of the matter. In my view it is worthy of consideration.
  Earl Attlee: I support the amendment tabled in the name of the Minister. I believe that the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, does not take into account those people who are partially sighted. If a person's sight is really bad, the difficulty experienced can be just as bad as being blind.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: As Members of the Committee will be aware, the Bill provides that a street authority granting a street works licence to a person who does not have a statutory right to do works may attach certain conditions to the licence. These include such conditions as it considers appropriate in the interests of safety and to minimise the inconvenience to persons using the street. Such persons will clearly include blind and disabled people. We accept the importance of considering the needs of these groups of people at all stages in the planning of street works, including works carried out under street works licences. The government amendments to this provision will achieve that effect.
  The amendments make specific provision for the needs of the disabled throughout this part of the Bill. They have been tabled in response to requests made by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Swinfen, that specific reference be made in the Bill to the special needs of people with disabilities.
  Perhaps I may now briefly outline the government amendments. The amendments to Schedule 3 and to Clauses 53, 58 and 74 emphasise that the street authority or the undertakers, as is appropriate in each case, must have particular regard to the needs of people with disabilities in discharging their relevant duties. The first concerns the attachment by the street authority of corresponding conditions to street works licences; the second places a corresponding duty on street authorities in discharging their duty to co-ordinate works under Clause 53; the third amendment places corresponding requirements on undertakers in discharging their duty regarding the placing, maintenance or operation of traffic signs under Clause 58; and the fourth amendment places corresponding requirements on undertakers in discharging their duty to maintain their apparatus in accordance with the provisions of Clause 74.
  The amendment to Clause 95 contains a new provision which is necessary as a consequence of the new references to people with disabilities in the earlier clauses and in Schedule 3. It provides that Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 applies additionally to this part of the Bill. The effect of this is to empower the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations prescribing the types of disability to which the above references in this part of the Bill apply. I can assure my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the Committee that the definition provided by this amendment of people with a disability would allow blind people to be included within the definition of disabled people. In fact, I can go further and say that it will do so.
  286
  The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether I had any figures as regards accidents. I am afraid that we have no reliable figures relating to accidents caused by utility works, still less as regards those which affect particular groups of people such as blind persons. Therefore, I cannot undertake to provide an answer to that question.
  The purpose of the Bill is to improve matters for all pedestrians. I can say that to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I of course take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but, as I said, the whole purpose of the Bill is to improve matters for all users of the highway or pavement.
  I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for her kind words about the government amendments. She asked whether the Bill applied to Northern Ireland. No, Parts III and IV of the Bill apply to England, Wales and Scotland only. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will monitor the progress of the measures carefully and will decide whether similar regulations should apply in due course in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will come to the correct conclusion. I hope that with what I have said my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that the Committee will feel able to support the government amendments when we reach them.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before my noble friend sits down, is he aware of the National Federation of the Blind's current campaign which goes under the slogan "Give us back our pavements"? If he is not, is he prepared to find out about it and receive a deputation from that organisation? With the amount of clutter, apart from street works, that is now to be found on our pavements, the passage for blind people is becoming increasingly hazardous, and something needs to be done about it.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister replies, he may have heard on the radio this morning that a new device for hazard warnings for blind people has just been invented which seemed to be hopeful.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I take on board what my noble friend Lord Jenkin said. I have not heard of that campaign, and I shall inform myself of it. As I said earlier, the Bill should improve things, although the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was asking for more signs to be erected on the pavements. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I neglected to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, about tactile surfaces and hazard warnings. The noble Lord will find that we reach that point on a later amendment.
  Lord Swinfen: I do not want to prolong the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned ramps. We do not need signs. We need just to change the colour of the paving. That would be helpful for the vast majority of people with poor sight and those who are not so stable on their legs as others.
  I am concerned that there should be proper warning of road works. Most Members of the Committee will have been inconvenienced by road works about which there have been insufficient warnings. That happens more frequently to people in

  287
  motor vehicles who go around a corner, find that there is no warning and have to put on their brakes in a hurry.
  I welcome the Government's amendments on this aspect of the Bill. It is an important matter. I am grateful that the amendments have been tabled, and I shall of course support them. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 58:
  Page 87, line 25, after ("street") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 45 [Prohibition of unauthorised street works]:
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 60:
  Page 25, line 10, at end insert:
  ("(4) If a person commits an offence under this section, the street authority may—

  (a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1) (a), direct him to remove the apparatus in respect of which the offence was committed, and

  (b) in any case, direct him to take such steps as appear to them necessary to reinstate the street or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it.

  If he fails to comply with the direction, the authority may remove the apparatus or, as the case may be, carry out the necessary works and recover from him the costs reasonably incurred by them in doing so.").
  The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 63. The amendment gives the street authority power to give a direction to an undertaker who executes works in contravention of the provisions of Clause 45—the prohibition of unauthorised works—and to take appropriate measures if the undertaker fails to comply with that requirement. In such cases the street authority may recover from the undertaker the reasonable costs of those measures.
  As presently drafted, although making it an offence to place apparatus or carry out street works without a statutory right or a street works licence, Clause 45 does not empower the street authority to require the removal of the apparatus or the immediate reinstatement of the road. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: In the final line of Amendment No. 60 there is a reference to the recovery of "costs reasonably incurred". That of course is a common form of wording. The word "reasonably" is imprecise. Has that given rise to litigation on any scale in the past? For the sake of more rapid progress and the avoidance of litigation, might it not be an advantage to have some arbitration procedure to determine the reasonableness of costs? If there were a substantial difference of view, litigation might extend for a long time. Might it not be worth while considering at this stage, and perhaps coming back at a later stage, whether some form of arbitration in such circumstances might be preferable?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I must admit that I am unaware of instances where that has happened. I know that "reasonably incurred" is a fairly common expression. I shall study what the noble Lord has said. In the end, as he says, of course such issues might end up in the courts, and so it might well be worth exploring his proposition.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 99 [Prohibition of unauthorised road works]:
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 61:
  Page 53, line 22, at end insert ("or in accordance with a permission granted under section (Permission to execute road works)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 53, line 26, after ("consent") insert ("or permission").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 52. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 53, line 29, at end insert:
  ("(4) If a person commits an offence under this section, the road works authority may—

  (a) in the case of an offence under subsection (1) (a), direct him to remove the apparatus in respect of which the offence was committed, and

  (b) in any case, direct him to take such steps as appear to them necessary to reinstate the road or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it.

  If he fails to comply with the direction, the authority may remove the apparatus or, as the case may be, carry out the necessary works and recover from him the costs reasonably incurred by them in doing so.").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 60. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 46 [Emergency works]:
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 64:
  Page 25, line 14, after ("cause") insert ("(a)").
  The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 65, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has no objection to Amendments Nos. 66 and 80 being joined in the debate. My amendments have two purposes. The first is to find out from the Government what is their interpretation of danger; and, secondly, to prepare the ground for widening the clause. As drafted, Clause 46 defines emergency works only in terms of those works which might cause danger to persons or property. It is considerably narrower than the definition to which public utilities have become accustomed by virtue of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950.
  The problem is that urgent works may be necessary. One thinks of a failed electricity cable or a blocked water pipe servicing a block of flats, an old people's home or a hospital. While the works do not cause danger to the persons who live or work there or to

  289
  their property, they would be prevented from being carried out until the full statutory seven-day period of notice had expired. This seems a little unreasonable. The argument is that to exclude the scope for utilities of any kind to take urgent action does not make the case any less urgent. It merely means that the utility is denied the opportunity to deal with the works.
  Amendment No. 65 re-introduces that part of the Public Utilities Street Works Act which deals with substantial loss. One thinks—wildly perhaps but nevertheless there is this probability or possibility—of a contractual obligation to supply electricity to the Stock Exchange. If there is a failure but no great danger the utility would be unable to carry out the work. There may be a substantial law case against it for breach of its contractual obligation along the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned earlier. The utility would not be able to undertake that work. The purpose of these two amendments is to cover that, and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord opposite has to say about his two amendments before making further comments. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps not surprisingly I prefer the amendments that I have put down. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has a somewhat similar objective to the one I have sought to obtain in dealing with what we call "exempt works". However, the noble Lord's amendment dilutes the definition of emergency works in seeking to achieve that objective. With respect, that is not the aim that should be accomplished here. I believe that the concern of the utilities about restoring supply can be met by our definition of exempt works.
  One of the strongest criticisms made about the current system by the highway authorities has been the extent to which the utilities have allegedly abused the provision for emergency works. They have undertaken without prior notice works which could and should have been planned and co-ordinated sensibly. I know that the local authority associations place considerable importance on the definition of utility works in the Bill.
  Clause 46 confines the definition of emergency works to circumstances in which there is an,
  "existing or imminent … danger to persons or property".
  I respectfully suggest that that definition should be kept. I hope that the noble Lord will not insist on seeking to change it.
  When we debated the matter on Second Reading anxiety was expressed by a number of noble Lords on the utilities' concerns that the clause would mean that they could not respond rapidly, for example, to an interruption to a customer's supply. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, replied that the Government,
  "recognise the anxiety expressed by some utilities that the new definition of emergency works in Clause 46 could be so tightly drawn that the requirement to serve advance notice for other non-emergency works would result in a substantial loss to the utility or breach of a service obligation. Inevitably there will be some utility works where it will not be reasonable to expect that seven working days' notice [be] given before beginning works as required under Clause 49. It is proposed to deal with
  290
  cases which fall short of being immediate emergencies by prescribing appropriate lesser periods of advance notice or making exemptions from notice requirements and regulations".—[Official report, 20/11/90; col. 672.]
  With respect, I believe that that was the right way to go about the matter. I am informed that the local authority associations accept—inevitably they should accept it because logic leads in this direction—that there are certain circumstances which are short of an emergency as defined in the Bill in which a utility has to take action as quickly as possible.
  This category of works is defined in the draft of the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee code of practice on notification as exempt works. The definition of exempt works in the code of practice covers, for example, the interruption of a utility service or the avoidance of substantial loss to an undertaker.
  The key difference between "emergency works" and "exempt" works in the code of practice is that, while utilities would be able to undertake emergency works on any road at any time, a highway authority would be able to require that exempt works on a traffic sensitive street were not undertaken until, for example, the end of the rush hour. This is designed to ensure a fair balance of interests between the needs of the highway user and the utility customer.
  Thus to alleviate the natural concerns about the tight definition of emergency works that utilities have expressed, I encourage the Committee to see the principle of exempt works written onto the face of the Bill. However in order to ensure that the definition of emergency works is not diluted, the concept of exempt works should be introduced in a new clause rather than as an amendment to the definition of emergency works. We propose a new clause defining exempt works. The other part of the amendment makes it clear that, while the requirement in relation to advance notice does not apply to exempt works, the clauses dealing with directions as to the timing of work and traffic sensitive streets would apply.
  Lord Tordoff: I believe that we have to tread carefully and delicately in this area. We said at Second Reading that it was not our intention to tinker with the Bill any more than necessary because it is the result of fine balancing between the various interested parties: the utilities on the one hand and the highway authorities on the other. Therefore one is slightly reluctant to press amendments to the Bill.
  It seems to me that the Bill as it stands at the moment tilts against the utilities on emergency works rather more than is fair. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has made that case out very well. I suspect, however, that his amendment begins to tilt it too far in the other direction. Whether the amendment down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and myself, among others, is the right balance, I would not press to the limit.
  Will the Minister in his reply offer to come forward with a government amendment if the Government are not satisfied with our amendment in order to get the balance right? I hope that they will not maintain their position rigidly as the Bill stands at the moment. There

  291
  must be some adjustment in order to get the balance right. We are trying to achieve a balance in the Bill. Therefore I do not wish to press our amendments too strongly. I hope that there is some way out of the dilemma.
  Baroness Platt of Writtle: I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I must again declare my interest as a non-executive director of British Gas. In the Bill "emergency works" are narrowly defined, as other noble Lords have said. They are related only to a public emergency such as the escape of gas. Undertakers are also under statutory obligations to restore supplies to customers. Unless this amendment is agreed to, they could be in breach of those obligations; the customer could have to wait seven days for a statutory notice to run its course. That could mean considerable hardship in winter weather, especially for households that include elderly people or young babies, if they are reliant on their supplies for heating or cooking. On Second Reading my noble friend stated that he hoped to exempt certain cases from the emergency requirements and regulations. I hope that he will accept the amendment that is proposed. I support the amendment.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Nugent of Guildford: I wish to make a point in slightly the opposite direction. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, rightly said that the Bill appears to be slightly tilted against the utilities. That was inevitable because the 1950 Act did nothing in the interests of passing traffic. In view of the awful traffic problems that exist today, it is most desirable that we get the balance right this time. As has already been said by other Members of the Committee, the stretching of the word "emergency" in the past by the utilities rightly predisposed my noble friend the Minister to ensure that 'the new definition was more tightly drawn. I believe the definition is pretty satisfactory as it is now. It is, of course, a matter of absolute importance to get the balance right, but that balance involves leaving the utilities slightly less elbow room than they had before in taking advantage of what they regard as an emergency. I believe that step was necessary.
  Lord Tordoff: I do not disagree with the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, proposes. Those of us who have been very much involved in this area would agree that the balance needs to be tilted slightly away from the present situation of the utilities in favour of the road users. No one disagrees with that. We are merely saying that the case we are discussing is one of very few cases throughout the Bill where the balance has tilted a little too far and we are perhaps in danger of being slightly unjust to the utilities. That may be the result of the bad practices which have occurred in past years.
  Lord Nugent of Guildford: I thank the noble Lord for further explaining his point. I sympathise with his argument. However, I believe we have a nice balance. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say. I really wished to make sure that he understands that he has my firm support in
  292
  obtaining the correct balance in the interests of the road user. I want to see the right balance achieved between road users and the utilities.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have had a short but interesting debate on this subject. As has been explained, these amendments would have the effect of opening up the definition of "emergency works" for which an undertaker is relieved of his duty to serve advance notice by Clause 51. The 1950 Act provided a wide definition of "emergency works" which includes works likely to cause a substantial loss to the undertaker or breach of a service obligation. However, as my noble friend Lord Nugent and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, have said, the present "emergency works" procedures have been widely abused, with the result that highway authorities receive little or no advance notice of many utility works involving breaking up roads in their area. Although less wide than the 1950 Act definition, considerations of substantial loss or breach of service obligation could nonetheless cover many thousands of works which would not be regarded by road users as true emergencies. The new definition of emergency works in Clause 46 has been drawn deliberately tightly to include only works involving danger to persons or property.
  We do not accept that all works necessary to avoid substantial loss or a breach of an undertaker's service obligation should be treated in the same way as emergencies. Nor do we accept that all works necessary to restore a service should be treated in the same way. As I explained in my closing remarks during the debate on Second Reading, we recognise that there will be some utility works for which it will not be reasonable to expect seven working days' notice to be given before work is begun. In those cases, which could include certain works necessary to avoid substantial loss—my noble friend Lord Lucas referred to that kind of situation when moving the amendment —for breach of service obligation, lesser periods of advance notice or exemptions from notice requirements will be prescribed in regulations.
  These amendments recognise that special arrangements may have to be made for works on traffic sensitive streets or where it is necessary to direct the times of working to avoid serious disruption. I refer in this connection to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. That, too, is something for which appropriate provision can be made in the notice regulations.
  As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, a balance has to be found in this area. We believe that we have found that balance in the Bill as it stands at present, and in the regulations which will be made. I have given the assurance I am about to give before but it bears repeating. I assure the Committee that there will be full consultation between the department, the highway authorities and the utilities in drawing up the regulations. I met representatives of the utilities only a short while ago and this subject was discussed on that occasion. I hope that, in the light of my explanations and the assurance I have given, the amendments will not be pressed.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. We shall certainly consider carefully what he has said. I do not intend to press this matter at this point in time. However as a matter of principle, I would be prepared to offer a suggestion as regards a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The point about substantial loss to utilities could be incorporated in the thrust of Amendment No. 66, irrespective of whether it is to be included in the Bill or dealt with in regulations. However, that is a matter which we can discuss when the Minister considers this matter later. We have not reached Amendment No. 66 yet and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has to decide now what he wishes to do with his own amendment.
  Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, decides what to do with his amendment—I hope he decides to withdraw it—I wish to ask the Minister whether there is any chance of the draft regulations having reached the stage where some of us might be brought into the consultations before the Bill reaches its next stage. That would be a great help to us in deciding what we should do at that stage.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall certainly look into that matter. There are many regulations to be made under the Bill. Discussions have been continuing and will have to continue. However if it is possible to give some insight certainly into the present stage of our thinking, I shall inform the noble Lord of that.
  Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the Minister for those comments.
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth: This has been a useful debate. It is rather interesting to note that, after having appeared to be totally opposed to me in his initial remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has, certainly in one area, moved a little closer to my position during the course of the debate.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I was moved by the noble Lord's eloquence.
  Lord Lucas of Chilworth: It is very kind of the noble Lord to say that. I was of course aware of what my noble friend the Minister said on Second Reading. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, underlined, we always have some small misgivings when matters of some importance are taken away from the Bill, or perhaps not included in it, but are dealt with in regulations over which Parliament has so little influence. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle whose own knowledge from her particular interest was valuable and important.
  I hope that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford will forgive me for running across his line of drive on this occasion. While he and I normally agree that the road user should be somewhat hampered in a number of ways, the road user's rights and privilege to move along a roadway must be taken into account alongside the rights of those people whose services are connected with the roadway. I come back to the matter of balance on that point. I do not believe that the balance that appears in the Bill at the moment —I have no knowledge of what may appear in regulations—is absolutely right. The 1950 Act has stood a reasonable test of time. There have certainly
  294
  been abuses of that Act, as some Members of the Committee have said. Nevertheless, the general climate with regard to road usage has changed enormously. I have little doubt that all the utilities will have regard to that fact in any works that they undertake.
  I should like to study rather more carefully the exchange of views in the Committee to decide whether or not to take the matter further at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
  Lord Cavendish of Furness: This may be a convenient moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

The Gulf: Hostages
4.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the hostages in Iraq and Kuwait.
"President Saddam Hussein has today addressed a letter to the Iraqi National Assembly requesting that the assembly 'allow all foreigners on whom restrictions were placed to enjoy the freedom of travel and to lift these restrictions'. This appears to mean that all foreign hostages in both Iraq annd Kuwait will, once the assembly has given its approval, be free to leave.
"The Government welcome this implementation of one of the UN Security Council's requirements. We have throughout been pressing for the release of all hostages. We are delighted for all the hostages and their families. They have suffered with great dignity and courage over the past weeks and months. We are in close contact with our embassy in Baghdad over the practical arrangements for the departure of all British citizens trapped in Iraq and Kuwait. The ambassador is actively seeking early clarification from the Iraqi authorities. We will then do everything in our power to help those concerned get home as soon as practicable.
"Saddam Hussein should now implement in full the UN resolutions, withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait and allow the legitimate government to return to that country".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I am sure that we all welcome the news about the hostages and the tremendous relief that it will bring to them and their families after four months of worry and apprehension. It is presumably a gesture by the Iraqi Government in response to the offer of meetings by President Bush. It may also be evidence that sanctions are taking effect.
The Statement says that the Government are in close touch with the embassy in Baghdad. Can the noble Earl say whether any details are available concerning, for example, the rate at which hostages may be released and the dates on which they may be released? Is it the case that the Government will be expected to make transport arrangements to bring the hostages back to this country? Can the Minister say how many British hostages are left both in Iraq and in Kuwait?
We recognise that Saddam Hussein is merely complying with international law on human rights. However, there is a certain vagueness in the Statement, which uses the phrase "This appears to mean". Can the noble Earl clarify that point?
There is another point to be considered. As the noble Earl is aware, the Government have been presented with a bill for the upkeep of our hostages in Iraq. Is the Foreign Office prepared to meet that bill and will there be an offset in respect of the fees that Iraqi students in this country have been unable to pay to universities and colleges? While the Iraqis say that we owe money to them, they certainly owe money to us. Furthermore, what will be the position of the Kuwaitis who are being held in Iraq? They also are hostages. Will they now be entitled to return to their homes?
While again welcoming this belated development, we must recognise and emphasise that the treatment of the hostages in Iraq during the past four months has been contrary to international law.
Finally, we must bear in mind that this is only a start and only one of the conditions laid down in one of the United Nations resolutions—Resolution 664. We must therefore continue to support and sustain the United Nations in all these matters.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Earl for the Statement that he has just read to us and for telling us the good news about the British hostages. It is good news for them and for their lamilies. I too hope that he will let us know how soon he hopes to be able to bring those people back. I should also like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said regarding the Kuwaiti hostages, who do not appear to be covered by the Iraqi proposal.
I should like to add that on the basis of the Statement there are no grounds for congratulating President Saddam Hussein for ceasing to behave unlawfully and in a wholly uncivilised fashion. There may be grounds for relief, but there are certainly no grounds for congratulation.
296
I note that President Bush has said that he welcomes the move as a hopeful sign. That is an unobjectionable statement. I do not know to what extent, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, it is connected with the withdrawal by the United States of its objections to a Middle East peace conference. It would seem that the two events, coming so close together, may well be connected.
I should also like to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in saying that this is merely one step and that there are a great many other conditions which have to be fulfilled before we can say that real progress has been made.
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the Leader of the Opposition, and to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for welcoming the Statement. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that Saddam Hussein is merely rectifying the crime that he committed in breaking international law. The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that that is not a ground for congratulation. It is a ground for relief and for thankfulness on the part of the hostages and their families but not for congratulation to Saddam Hussein.
We believe that the decision to release foreign hostages must be a sign that the pressure on Saddam Hussein is beginning to tell. I echo what both noble Lords said that this is but a start in the procedure. There are other conditions of the Security Council resolutions which Saddam Hussein has yet to fulfil.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked for details of the rate of release of the hostages and the date of their release. I do not have much detailed in Formation at the moment and I understand that the matter is being discussed in the Iraqi National Assembly at the moment. However, we are in contact with the airlines and we shall make all the necessary arrangements as soon as it is clear that the detainees are able to leave and that they have exit visas in their passports.
We believe that there are about 440 British nationals in hiding in Kuwait. A further six are detained in Kuwait. Approximately 355 British nationals are at liberty in Iraq, although not free to leave the country, and a further 342 are detained by the Iraqis at strategic sites.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked for further clarification of the words in the Statement "This appears to mean". I cannot give him further clarification because the position is not clear at the moment. As I said, we are in touch with our embassy in Baghdad awaiting clarification from the Iraqis. I can assure the House, and in particular the noble Lord who asked the question, that I shall let it be known as soon as we have further details so that the information can be included in the Official Report.
Both noble Lords raised the question of the position of the Kuwaitis. We believe that Saddam Hussein must allow all foreigners, including the Kuwaitis, to leave. We do not accept at all the Iraqi

297
claim that Kuwait is part of Iraq. The letter that Saddam Hussein addressed referred to allowing all foreigners to leave. Let us hope that he fulfils that obligation as well. Both noble Lords summed up the position. We must continue with the firm stance that the United Nations is taking. We must give full support to the further implementation of all Security Council resolutions.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend able to answer the question, which I think was put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as to whether it was proposed, somewhat impudently, to demand a charge for the maintenance of the hostages while they have been detained? Is that a fact? If so, would it make more sense and be better international law if a payment were made to them by Saddam Hussein by way of compensation for his wholly unlawful act in detaining them, in many cases under conditions of great discomfort for a considerable period and without the slightest justification?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for not having answered that question. For people who are in financial difficulties in Iraq, we are paying the hotel, food and living expenses and providing some cash for emergencies to buy essential comforts. We can also help some of those in hiding in Kuwait. However, as my noble friend will understand, getting funds to them is difficult.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I am sure that if he were in the Chamber my friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury would also wish to express a welcome for the Statement that has been made. He and other Church leaders throughout the country have been exhorting their congregations and the nation in general to pray for the release of the hostages. I feel certain that this coming weekend he will wish to exhort the Churches to give thanks for this Statement.
I am in a unique position because of my work to encourage moderate Moslem leadership throughout the country and particularly in Bradford. There are 43 mosques in Bradford. I can assure the House that the moderate leadership in that city will also wish to welcome the Statement and give thanks for it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful for the words of the right reverend Prelate. I am sure that the whole House appreciated them too.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although this has been an extremely encouraging development, none of it could have happened unless the free world—the Americans and the British in particular—had not decided to take a military stand against Saddam Hussein? Despite what others may think, that military stance was the first and most successful step toward getting the hostages released. There must be full-scale discussions to try to resolve the problem without a war.
Does the noble Earl agree that military forces in Saudi Arabia must remain there until Saddam
298
Hussein leaves Kuwait and resolves that he will release all the hostages that he now holds? The key has always been our determination to meet his vulgar force with a better, civilised force.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord reaffirmed what I am sure is the wish of the House; namely, fully to support the United Nations. The Government would echo that sentiment. There exist a number of Security Council resolutions and the military option is there to be used if necessary. The noble Lord said that the first step was the reaction of the Americans and the British. I would say that that was the second step. The first step was the invasion by a fellow UN country—Iraq—which had already agreed the borders of Kuwait under United Nations' auspices in 1962.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can assist me in relation to foreign nationals other than Europeans or Americans who may come within the ambit of this release. Does he know whether there are many other nationals involved, particularly from the East? Could there be a consequent refugee problem? If so, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to do everything in their power to assist those people in getting them back to their rightful homes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that there are a considerable number of people involved from other countries, particularly the Far East, the Middle East and the sub-continent—that is to say, Indians and Pakistanis. A number of them have been able to leave but some have not. We hope that there will not be a refugee problem. The letter from President Saddam Hussein to the National Assembly asked "to allow all foreigners". We hope therefore that they will be free to go as well.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in an aside, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, raised an issue which seems to me to be crucial to the future development of this situation. He referred to the fact that last night there were reports from the United Nations that the United States is now offering the possibility of an international peace conference on the Middle East. That is something new. The noble Earl did not reply to that point, which I do not think was put in the form of a question. However, can he tell the House what is the information in the Foreign Office regarding the attitude of the United States towards an international peace conference as reported last night? Has the United States changed its mind? If so, what is the attitude of the British Government to the new proposition, which brings a totally new dimension into the situation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there has been a proposal for a Security Council resolution on the Middle East and negotiations are under way at the moment about the wording and the timing, particularly so far as concerns the Occupied Territories. We should welcome such a discussion, as we have said before. There is no change in government policy on that point. What is clear and remains government policy is that first of all Saddam Hussein must get out of Kuwait.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble kinsman a brief question which has not been put so far today. Does he agree with me that it must be very sad for the families who have lost relatives owing to the stress of being a hostage? Will there be any compensation from the Iraqi Government for those families?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we sympathise very much with the families which have suffered in whatever way from the invasion of an innocent country by a very powerful aggressor, and particularly those which have suffered loss of life. We have always said that we must seek every means to make sure that Saddam Hussein does not benefit in any way from his aggression.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl clarify what he said in his reply to me? He spoke of a new United Nations' Security Council resolution. Does he refer to a new resolution which includes the proposal for an international peace conference? If not, will he say whether he knows if the United States has changed its policy towards having an international peace conference? On the face of it, it would seem that last night's report—not today's but last night's—has had sc me bearing on the attitude of the Iraqis towards hostages.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I answered the question that the noble Lord first put to me. I said that negotiations were under way at the moment. Until we have the result of those negotiations it would be wrong for me to say anything which might mislead the House.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government and the Minister agree that, in the words reported from President Bush and the White House staff who are in South America at the moment, this is a hopeful sign?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is but a first step. Yes, we are pleased for the hostages and their families. There are no grounds for patting Saddam Hussein on the back and saying, "Well done". All he is doing is to rectify a grievous crime, breaking international law. He has a lot more to do yet.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, with respect, I did not ask whether Saddam Hussein should be patted on the back. I asked whether the Government agreed that this was a hopeful sign.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the National Assembly agrees and, when we find out the full details, all these foreigners who want to go are permitted to have exit visas and are allowed out, that is hopeful.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, can my noble friend explain further the answer that he gave to the question of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter? I am not absolutely clear whether he meant that Her Majesty's Government expect people to pay for the privilege of being imprisoned by Saddam Hussein, that the Government will pay on their behalf or that, at some future date when the hostages have been safely brought back to this country, Her Majesty's Government will make sure that they are reimbursed by the Iraqi Government. As the noble Lord, Lord
300
Boyd-Carpenter, stated, it is absurd that the British taxpayers should have to pay out of their own pockets in order to allow Saddam Hussein to imprison people against their will.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is important that those who are in financial difficulties should be given help. We have sought to allow financial and other help to be given where it is urgently needed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself again into a Committee on the Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
5 p.m.
Clauses 46 and 100 agreed to.
Clause 47 [The street works register]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 67
Page 25, line 37, leave out from ("in") to ("the") in line 38.
The noble Lord said: it may be convenient to the Committee if I speak also to government Amendments Nos. 68 and 69. The purpose of the deletion that is proposed in Amendment No. 67 is to cover the point made at Second Reading that provision of a street works register is of considerable importance to the street works proposals. In addition, at Second Reading it was stressed that the part of subsection (5) which refers only to the street authorities being required to contribute towards the cost of the register arrangements should be removed. Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 seek to meet the concern of the local authority associations that the Bill refers only to the highway authorities contributing towards the cost of the register.
The government amendments enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify the information that is to be lodged on the register and set out a fee system. Those amendments go only part of the way to meeting the concerns of the local authority associations. Why have the Government not deleted the specific references in lines 37 and 38 to the highway authorities or street authorities contributing towards the costs? Amendment No. 67 is essential in order to meet the local authorities' concerns. I hope that the Government will appreciate the reason for proposing Amendment No. 67.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Amendment No. 67 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to require street authorities to make contributions towards the cost of any arrangements which may be made for the keeping of a central street works register. We cannot accept that local highway authorities, who are beneficiaries of the new management tool represented by a central computerised register, should not contribute towards its cost. The Department of Transport is already funding the development of a computerised street works register in acknowledgement of its central importance to the proposals in the

301
Bill. However, the costs of establishing and running the system must properly be met by those who use it and benefit from its use.
The government amendments provide for regulations to require the payment of fees for the registration of information. This will allow the undertakers and other users of the register to be required to contribute towards its cost. There will be full consultation with the local authorities on any arrangements for a central register that may be prescribed, and the Government will seek to ensure that they bear a fair share of its cost.
The Bill, including Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, provides a fair balance between those who will pay for the register. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will understand that we cannot accept his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am very disappointed to hear the Minister's reply. For the benefit of the Committee, I should like to read out subsection (5) of Clause 47.
"If such arrangements are made the Secretary of State may require the street authorities to participate in and make contributions towards the cost of the arrangements."
As was stated at Second Reading, no one has any objection to the Government endeavouring to meet the cost of the arrangements. The street works register is regarded as very important. However, why is there reference only to the highway authorities meeting the cost? I agree with the Minister that those who use the Register should meet the costs. In that event, why is the reference in subsection 5 only to street authorities? The government amendment merely states:
"a person liable to pay the fee".
The liability to pay remains only on the highway authority. The Government can surely see the commonsense of removing the words:
"and make contributions towards the cost of the arrangements".
The Government could seek to amend their amendment by stating that the street authorities or the utilities will be liable to meet the cost of the arrangements. The Government have not seen the point. The utilities and the highway authorities should be included.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The government amendments make it clear that undertakers and other users of the register may be required to contribute towards the cost. We propose therefore that the cost should be shared between the users of the facility, whether they be the highway authority or whether they be the utilities. Having said that, the department has already put considerable funds into the scheme, and I think that that is a fair situation all round.
Lord Underhill: I thought that I had made it clear at Second Reading that no one is objecting to the Government seeking to recover the cost of the arrangements for setting up the street works register. However, I must come back to the point. If the Government intend that either the highway authorities or the utilities should contribute to the scheme, they should amend the words that I am seeking to take
302
out in subsection (5). I cannot see anything in the government amendment which cancels out what is said in subsection (5).
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not think that I can take the matter any further except to say that I will look again at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. When the noble Lord is able to read what I have stated, he will see the intention of the Government. I will look at his remarks.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister. I am certain that if he discusses the matter carefully with department officials who have been taking part in discussions with both the utilities and the highway authorities, the force of my argument will be quite clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 25, line 38, at end insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to any register kept in pursuance of this section—

(a) requiring the registration of such information as may be prescribed, and

(b) requiring the payment of such fee as may be prescribed in respect of the registration of information of any prescribed description;

and the regulations may contain provision as to the person responsible for securing the registration of the information and the person liable to pay the fee.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 101 [The road works register]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 54, line 11, at end insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to any register kept in pursuance of this section—

(a) requiring the registration of such information as may be prescribed, and

(b) requiring the payment of such fee as may be prescribed in respect of the registration of information of any prescribed description;

and the regulations may contain provision as to the person responsible for securing the registration of the information and the person liable to pay the fee.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Advance notice of certain works]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 26, line 8, at end insert:
("(6) Requirements under this section shall prescribe that advance information, including information on the start date, expected duration and safety measures taken for blind and disabled persons is made available to local organisations of and for disabled people, including organisations of and for blind people.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would impose a duty to give advance notice of street works to local disability organisations including organisations of blind people. The Home Report on which the Bill is based specifically recommended that utilities and highway authorities should assist local organisations of blind or disabled people providing to their

303
members advance information about street works. The new computerised street works register established by the Bill will make it straightforward for authorities to fulfil that obligation. A service such as talking newspapers for the blind could effectively disseminate the information.
In 1986 their response to the Horne Report the Government accepted that recommendation—No. 50 —but have not yet implemented it in the Bill. Can the Minister tell the Committee why not? It should be noted that the amendment requires only advance notification of the more significant street works and does not include emergency works. Information provided to local organisations should include the expected duration of the works and any measures for disabled or blind people such as widths of passages for wheelchair users and audible or tactile indicators for blind people.
Following our discussion in relation to Amendment No. 57 I realise that this amendment is defective. It contains the word "blind" which is included in the definition of disability. Therefore, I shall not press the amendment but I warn the Government that if we do not have a satisfactory response I am likely to bring it back at a later stage in an in proved form. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: On the face of it, the case that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, requires a positive answer from the Government. The Home Report made a specific recommendation in relation to the matters to which he has adverted this afternoon. In 1986 the Government positively responded to that and I can imagine only that the omission on the face of the Bill is due to the fact that the Government propose to deal with the matter by regulation. However, we must wait to hear what the Minister says in that regard. There would be considerable advantage in including the matter on the face of the Bill. I wait with interest to hear what the Minister says and I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for having raised this extremely important issue.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should like to extend the amendment further than the requirement that information should be,
"made available to local organisations of and for disabled people, including organisations of and for blind people".
Many parts of the country are not covered by such organisations. I should like to see local radio stations being alerted by the firms involved, and there may be other useful avenues for passing on information which can be explored.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We recognise the importance of improving the availability of information to members of the public who may be most at risk from utility street works. That includes those people defined in my noble friend's amendment. The proposals in this Bill will both improve the safety measures associated with works in progress for the better protection of blind and disabled people and improve the availability of advance information on
304
planned works. As the Government pointed out in their response to the Home Report, the computerised street works register will provide a helpful source of information about street works for interested organisations.
We do not believe, however, that a mandatory requirement on undertakers of works to supply advance notice of all or even most of their works to particular local organisations would be an effective method of getting the information to those people who need it. What matters most is that information on the starting date and likely duration of those works most likely to affect blind and disabled people reaches them at the right time. In each of the big urban local authorities street works run into tens of thousands each year, with each work subject tc several notice requirements at different stages.
We would propose instead that the highway authorities and utilities nationally should discuss the most effective way of using the computerised street works register and the regular liaison meetings proposed between local highway authorities and undertakers to make information on the nature and timing of street works in their area available to the relevant local organisations representing blind and disabled people. Suitable guidance on chat would then be included in the code of practice to be approved by the Secretary of State under Clause 53 giving practical guidance to local authorities on the discharge of their duty to co-ordinate works.
I hope that that answer is sufficiently positive to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and to convince my noble friend that the provision provides a positive way forward.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not sure that that fully answers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. At a later stage we should like to hear more from the Minister about the form of the guidance. If highway authorities and utilities do not carry out this function pursuant to the guidance would they be guilty of a misfeasance? If a matter was placed in the hands of the local government ombudsman would the authority, for example, be able to say, "It is only a guideline; it is not a duty that is imposed upon us"?
I believe that we should go further than the Minister's proposal today. However, I do not recommend that the matter is pressed now. The Minister has given indications of the Government's thinking, albeit in our view inadequate indications. I urge him to make a fuller statement on Report because I suspect that the amendment will be tabled again. I do not recommend that it is pressed tonight.
I wish to draw another matter to the Minister's attention. The Home Report could not have been more specific. The Minister has widened the argument to the benefits that would be available in terms of the safety of street works and so forth subsequent to the Bill becoming law. We have a specific recommendation but I am afraid that I do not have in front of me the Government's response to the report. A specific recommendation was made in the Horne Report and I understood that the Government had made a specific

305
response. I believe that the Government need to go considerably further than the Minister has indicated today.
Lord Swinfen: I gained the impression from my noble friend that it would be up to organisations of disabled people to find out the information from the register for themselves. Many of them are not very wealthy and would be in considerable difficulties over that. I have listened to what my noble friend said. For the reasons which I gave earlier, I shall not press the amendment this evening. I feel like an individual to whom the Minister has given a glass of milk, only to find that it is very sour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Notice of starting date of works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 26, line 14, after ("give") insert ("not less than").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 74. These are drafting amendments which bring the notice period under Clause 49 into line with other similar notice-giving provisions in this part of the Bill. It requires that an undertaker shall give notice no fewer than seven working days before works have begun. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 26, line 19, leave out from ("works") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of moving Amendment No. 72 is to ascertain the Government's thinking with regard to Clause 49(2). Clause 48(1) sets out the basic requirement that seven days' notice is to be given on any street works. The clause goes on to define the types of works which will be subject to the notice requirement.
The first part of Clause 49(2) allows for different periods of notice to be specified for particular types of work. The HAUC—the Highway Authority and Utility Committee's working party—in looking at that area, recommended, for example, that there should be three days' notice for minor footways work and one months' notice for major utility projects. Subsection (2) states:
"cases may be prescribed in which no notice is required".
Given the background to which I have referred and the definition of works contained in Clause 49(1), the associations are unclear as to which circumstances are likely to be prescribed as not requiring a notice to be served. I hope that in his response to this amendment, the Minister can spell out the precise circumstances envisaged by the Government in including that provision in subsection (2). I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This amendment would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations cases in which undertakers are not required to give any notice to the relevant
306
authorities before starting certain street works. That would be an unwelcome limitation. It has been estimated that between 3 and 4 million street works involving breaking up the street take place each year, although when those involving only "opening" the street are included—for example, the lifting of a manhole cover to allow access for an inspection of apparatus—the figure may be even higher. We would not want the system of notification required by the Bill to become so burdensome in practice for very minor works that it ceased to fulfil its primary purpose of allowing the co-ordination of all works. Experience of the 1950 Act shows what can happen when a notice system becomes unworkable.
Therefore, although there is no specific proposal to make exemptions from the proposed notice requirements, the ability to do so by regulations is regarded as an important practical consideration. I hope that that explains this provision.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps my noble friend will give the Committee some idea of the class of case in which it is contemplated that it may be prescribed that no notice is required. I take my noble friend's point that it would be quite ridiculous to insist upon notice for cases in which streets are quite mildly interfered with. On the other hand, where the line is to be drawn between cases in which notice must or must not be given is quite important. It will be very helpful to me if my noble friend can tell the Committee the broad category of case in which it is intended to make exemptions as regards the necessity of a notice.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am very happy to give one example; namely, lifting a manhole cover. There may be others. At present we have no specific proposals for exemptions, but I believe that my noble friend will agree that the example I have given is one where there should not be a necessity to give notice.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for giving the Government's thinking behind this clause. I shall endeavour to take advice from the HAUC working party, which has gone into this matter, in order to ascertain whether or not to pursue the matter further. This was a probing amendment. I have been given the Government's reasons, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 26, line 29, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("(6) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the contravention was attributable—

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—

(i) a relevant authority, or

(ii) the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 79 and 83. Those amendments replace the provisions which give an undertaker a possible defence for failure to give

307
notice of the starting date of works under Clauses 49 and 51 and the equivalent Scottish clauses. That is in order to cover all legitimate reasons for an undertaker's failure to notify an authority or a person affected by works. As presently drafted, the provisions apply only to failure by an undertaker to notify a person with apparatus in the street where he did not know the position or existence of that apparatus. The amendments extend the grounds for a defence to include, in addition, circumstances in which an undertaker has failed to notify a relevant authority or person to whom the apparatus belongs because he was unaware of the identity or address of the authority or person in question. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this amendment because there was an obvious lacuna in the Bill as originally drafted which would have represented possible prejudice of a considerable degree to a person in a position to put up the defence which is now represented by paragraph (b). That would not have been available without the inclusion of that paragraph. I believe that the Minister and his advisers have been very perceptive about that and deserve the appreciation of the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 [Notice of starting date of works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:
Page 54, line 32, after ("give") insert ("not less than").
Page 55, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("(6) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the contravention was attributable—

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—

(i) a relevant authority, or

(ii) the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Power to give directions as to timing of street works]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 26, line 44, after ("traffic") insert ("or pedestrians").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 104, 183, 185, 189 and 192. Members of the Committee will recall that when the Bill was debated on Second Reading, I raised the question of the position of pedestrians because the Bill referred only to "traffic". At that time the Minister said that "traffic" included pedestrians. I am pleased that he has had discussions with the department because I note that Amendments Nos. 183 and 135 give the definition:
"'traffic' includes pedestrians and animals".
308
We had overlooked the question of animals in putting forward "pedestrians". I am delighted with the government amendments. I moved this amendment to obtain the Government's reasoning—which I fully accept—and intend later to withdraw it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps I may join in the thanks to the Government for taking this on board. There is a tendency in highways and road traffic Bills to forget about pedestrians. I am glad that your Lordships' Committee has not overlooked them this time. I am also glad that in drafting the Bill the Government have not fallen back on the assumption that pedestrians are animals.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Government Amendments Nos. 183, 185, 189 and 192 are self-explanatory. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made his point and also mine. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 76 and hope that we can agree the government amendments when we reach them.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies perhaps I could reverse my question. Would not the Government consider that pedestrians are animals so the word "animals" could be used rather than "pedestrians"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall not respond to that. Of course we cover ourselves by using both words.
Lord Underhill: In the light of the discussion on the Government's amendments I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 76.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Notice of emergency works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 27, line 14, after ("works") insert ("shall, if the works are").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 77, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78, 81 and 82. These are minor drafting amendments. Together they correct any lack of clarity concerning the notice provisions of subsection (2) of this clause. They make clear that the requirement to give notice of emergency works applies to all works in respect of which notice would otherwise be required under Clause 49. The first and second amendments do the same for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 78 and 79:
Page 27, line 15, leave out ("shall").
Page 27, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the contravention was attributable—

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—

(i) a relevant authority, or

(ii) the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

309
and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. With the leave of the Committee I shall move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 105 [Notice of emergency works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 83:
Page 55, line 30, after ("works") insert ("shall, if the works are").
Page 55, line 31, leave out ("shall").
Page 55, line 41, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the contravention was attributable—

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—

(i) a relevant authority, or

(ii) the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: All the amendments to this clause have been spoken to. With the leave of the Committee I beg to move Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [Restriction on works following substantial road works]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 28, leave out lines 12 and 13.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 84, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 85. The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the circumstances in which a utility would be able to carry out street works following substantial road works.
Clause 52 prevents a utility from digging up a street which has been subject to substantial road works provided that the highway authority gave the utilities adequate notice of its plans. The ban, if I may use that word, lasts for 12 months following completion of the work. In many ways this clause goes to the heart of the public's perception of the holes in the road problem—the widespread criticism generated when a recently resurfaced road is dug up by a utility. It is important in terms of the credibility of the new legislation.
At Second Reading a number of noble Lords referred to the utilities' concern that this clause could, for example, unfairly penalise a householder who wished to have a new service connection. In response to that argument the Minister said that,
310
"provision can be made either with the agreement of the highway authority or by regulations to allow suitable exemptions to be made. Customers will not have to wait months for supplies".
The highway authorities believe that this is a very important clause. They would not wish to see its impact diluted. However, the authorities share the utilities' concern that emergency works and service connections which genuinely could not have been planned before the road works were undertaken should not be caught by the ban on street works.
Clause 52(5) makes clear that a highway authority should not unreasonably withhold its consent for works to be undertaken. However, it is unfortunate that subsection (4) contains the words "substantially begun". Amendment No. 84 in effect removes that ambiguous phrase. Amendment No. 85 attempts to meet the utilities' concern by making clear that one of the cases in which consent should not be withheld is in order to restore or provide a service connection which could not reasonably have been executed before the expiry of the notice period.
These amendments are supported not only by the highway authorities but by the National Joint Utilities Group and the Automobile Association. I hope that the Minister will find it possible on behalf of the Government to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: These amendments would introduce further restrictions on the ability of highway authorities to prevent undertakers digging up roads which have been recently resurfaced or closed for substantial road works. That represents an unwelcome and, as I shall explain, unnecessary weakening of the present clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, this goes to the heart of the public perception of the problem. There is nothing more irritating to the public than finding that a newly resurfaced road within a matter of weeks or months is being dug up again.
Amendment No. 84 would remove the requirement that the highway authority's works have to be "substantially" begun no later than one month from the starting date specified in its advance notice before a 12-month restriction can come into force. The present provision derives from Section 156 of the Highways Act 1980, which it replaces. Notices cease to be effective unless the road works are substantially begun on or within one month of the date specified in the original notice. This amendment would allow the notice period to be further drawn out if, for example, the highway authority had begun minor works in preparation for its resurfacing work which itself would not substantially begin for several weeks or months. That seems unnecessarily open-ended, and the formulation in Clause 52 represents a fair balance between the planning needs of the highway authority and the undertakers which we would not wish to alter.
Amendment No. 85 effectively provides that undertakers will be allowed to break open recently resurfaced roads or roads which have been subject to major road works in order to do works to restore or provide a new supply. A general dispensation of this

311
sort is not appropriate in a provision which seeks to strike a balance between the reasonable needs of utility customers and the need to avoid poorly planned and damaging works following substantial road works. In practice, the provision in subsection (5) should be quite sufficient, as it exempts from the 12-month restriction emergency works, other cases which may be prescribed in regulations and also works executed with the consent of the highway authority, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
We are still consulting the utilities and highway authorities on this matter. Therefore, I hope that the sort of situation outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not be a problem. However, I must add that we would prefer to leave the Bill as it stands and I hope the noble Lord will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I had intended to refer to some of the remarks made by the Minister in his opening statement but his subsequent reply is far more acceptable in that joint consultations are still taking place, presumably with HAUC—or is it with the highway authorities and the joint utilities group separately?
Can the Minister give some indication that these consultations will be held and that the results will be known before we reach the next stage of the Bill? I am happy to see consultations because the whole of this Bill in regard to the utilities group and the highway authorities is a package arrangement in which the utilities and highway authorities are generally in complete agreement. They are in agreement on the two amendments I have tabled. If the Minister can give an assurance that these consultations will proceed and that we might know the results before the next stage of the Bill, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: Before my noble friend replies, I emphasise that if the Bill emerges without achieving a substantial measure of co-ordination it will be heavily criticised by the general public. The public are very alive to this aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as usual makes a reasonable case. Once again it is a matter of balance, but this is a matter on which the utilities must give a little.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. As I said earlier, the sight of a newly-laid road being dug up immediately it has been laid is a cause of more irritation to the public than anything else.
I cannot give the undertaking that the result of the consultations will be available before the next stage of the Bill. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on an earlier amendment, these consultations are continuing. I shall certainly bear that point very much in mind and I hope to have something to say before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Underhill: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. It is possible that after consultation we may wish to bring forward amendments at the next stage of the Bill because we should not like to miss the opportunity. In the meantime, we may have
312
consultations ourselves to ascertain the various viewpoints, even if they are not joint consultations. The Minister's statement is encouraging and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 28, line 24, leave out ("made").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 87. These are drafting amendments in order to bring the last paragraph of Clause 52(6) into line with the drafting elsewhere in the Bill. The amended sentence makes reference to a "claim for payment" in place of the reference to a "claim made for payment". The same applies to the Scottish provision in Clause 106. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 [Restriction on works following substantial works carried out for roads purposes]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 56, line 40, leave out ("made").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 53 [General duty of street authority to co-ordinate works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 28, line 30, after ("kinds") insert ("(including works for road purposes)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 89. These are drafting amendments the purpose of which is to emphasise that the general duty of street authorities to co-ordinate works under Clause 53 includes works for road purposes. As presently drafted, the clause simply refers to works of all kinds.
It became evident during the debate on Second Reading that it would not be sufficiently clear that the duty of co-ordination extends to works carried out by the street authority as well as to undertakers' street works. I hope that this amendment will be welcomed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in particular. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I welcome Amendment No. 89 to which my noble friend also spoke.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No.
Lord Swinfen: I am sorry, I thought that was the case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 28, line 33, after ("street") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to my noble friend if I coupled Amendment No. 89 with Amendment No. 88. I should have referred to Amendment No. 94, which is the Scottish equivalent to Amendment No. 88. I have already spoken to Amendment No. 89. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I apologise to the Committee for the misunderstanding which was probably my mistake. I thank my noble friend for Amendment No. 89. I shall not be moving Amendment No. 90, but can my noble friend confirm that organisations for disabled people will be consulted when drawing up the codes of practice under this clause? If so, I shall not need to move Amendment No. 92.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We are speaking to Amendment No. 89 and perhaps we can conclude that amendment before my noble friend makes his point on Amendment No. 90.
Lord Swinfen: I said that I did not intend to move Amendment No. 90.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 28, line 38, at end insert:
("(2A) An undertaker shall co-operate with a street authority in the pursuance of the authority's duties under this section.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which speaks for itself. I should have thought that it represents the thrust behind this Bill, which is to promote maximum co-operation, and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before I reply to Amendment No. 91, perhaps I may first say to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that, yes, we will consult. I hope that that clarifies the point he raised.
In regard to Amendment No. 91, it is already inherent in the new procedures provided in this part of the Bill that undertakers must co-operate with street authorities to achieve the co-ordination of street works. Little would be achieved by adding a simple requirement to co-operate as the amendment proposes. The street authority will have a range of powers at its disposal to ensure that undertakers' works are properly co-ordinated. These include the advance notice arrangements, the street works' register and the street authorities' ability to direct times of working and to restrict working on recently closed or resurfaced roads. In each case the undertaker is under an obligation, the breach of which is a criminal offence.
However, we accept that the street authorities' duty of co-ordination can be discharged effectively only if the undertakers concerned co-operate by participating in liaison meetings, giving adequate advance notice of their plans and so on. The code of practice to be issued or approved under subsection (3) may be used to give practical guidance to all interested parties on how co-ordination is to work in practice. We do not believe that further statutory obligations are necessary to achieve that. I hope that that explanation gives the noble Lord a clear insight into our thinking.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Not entirely. The co-ordination function which lies behind this amendment is designed to achieve a number of very important objectives. For example, it is designed to ensure that the same street is not dug up in successive months and that work intended to take place in the same street is
314
planned sensibly and combined, where appropriate, with resurfacing of the road. The co-ordination function is designed to reduce congestion caused by street works and to ensure that the diversionary route to avoid one excavation is not blocked by another.
In tabling this amendment we were anxious to test the way in which the co-ordination function can be facilitated by imposing a very clear duty on the utilities to co-operate with the street authority in that co-ordination function. The Minister has indicated that he does not think that is necessary. I ask him to address himself in his response to these questions: does the Bill require the public utilities to use their best endeavours to ensure that the street authority can fulfil its duty? If it appears to a street authority that in the interests of co-ordination a particular authority's work should be delayed or advanced, can the Minister say what powers may be introduced to enable that objective to be fulfilled?
If there are a number of utilities having works planned in a particular street which might be programmed for resurfacing, what powers will be available to the street authority to ensure that the works are timed to coincide with the resurfacing programme? In such circumstances would the highway authority be able to ensure that the utilities reinstate to an interim level prior to resurfacing? Does the Minister believe that there is scope either for the utility or for the street authority to request, for example, resurfacing or reinstatement, to be done by the other party on a rechargeable basis? Might it not be advantageous for the highway authority to do the reinstatement, or other civil engineering work, for the utility while the authority is carrying out other works in the street? Alternatively, the highway authority may wish the utility to carry out some minor repair work adjacent to the reinstatement.
Those are questions which go to the heart of co-ordination and it is a matter which has exercised the minds of a number of noble Lords in the course of this debate. It was referred to previously by my noble friend. I ask the Minister to address specifically the points I have made. If he cannot do so immediately it may be better if we come back to them at a later stage. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend answers the specific questions, will he deal with the issue which I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has appreciated; namely, that which arises under the normal rules about the construction of statutes? This Bill is full of examples of activities which require to be co-ordinated as a result of co-operation between the various authorities. According to all the rules dealing with the construction of statutes, if in a specific case you put in a statutory obligation to co-operate the courts are apt to interpret other examples where that statutory obligation does not apply as suggesting that there is no such need to co-operate. Therefore there is a very real danger, in enacting statutory co-operation in one

315
place, that you may undermine the pressure towards co-operation elsewhere. For that reason I shall be very unhappy if this amendment is put into the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord has touched on a pertinent point. If we have omitted to include certain words by way of proviso to ensure that these provisions are not regarded as comprehensive—which is the point made by the noble Lord—but are matters, among others, that need to be contemplated, I believe that meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that completely meets the problem. It is an attempt to meet the issue. However, you still come up against the difficulty. If you provide by statute that there shall be co-operation on a particular matter between certain bodies, then, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, the courts are apt to interpret other parts of the Bill as not containing such an obligation because there is no statutory duty to comply.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I think that that objection, which is a formidable one as the amendment stands, can nonetheless be met in the way that I have suggested without causing the mischief to which the noble Lord has rightly referred. That is a matter I need to consider again when reverting to this issue at a later stage.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I refer to the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about undertakers using their best endeavours. I have in my hand a copy of the draft code of practice. It is very comprehensive. If something like it is to be the final code of practice it will not leave much scope for any party involved to avoid its proper obligations. In Clause 53(4) my noble friend the Minister is going to arm himself with the necessary authority to see that co-ordination is achieved as a general duty. It seems to me that he is already fairly well equipped in this clause.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My noble friend is quite right. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that this was intended to be a probing amendment to understand better how the Bill works. The whole Bill is about co-operation and co-ordination. As I said in reply to the noble Lord's amendment, the advance notice arrangements, the street works register and the street authority's ability to direct times of working and to restrict working on recently closed or resurfaced roads are all matters which will lead to the resolution of the points the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised.
He asked me a number of more detailed questions; for example, about the interim level of reinstatement and about minor repair work to be carried out by a different utility. I shall have to look at those questions and perhaps write to the noble Lord. The whole purpose of the Bill is to achieve co-ordination and that is exactly what it does.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Lord for what he said. He is right. It is not impossible that certain gaps may appear in the Bill. It is to avoid that
316
situation that I have sought to probe the Government's position by tabling this amendment. I did not expect the Minister to be in a position today to reply to those specific questions but they should be on the record. The Minister indicated that he is inclined to write to me. I hope that he will do that before Report stage so that the position of the Government is clear.
We are bent on the same objective. We want to see a good, tight Bill and one in which there are no gaps. Consequently, because these are matters which the local authorities have specifically alluded to and expressed concern about, I thought it right to exercise the attention of the Committee with them this afternoon. I do not want to press the matter now. I am grateful to the noble Lord. Before withdrawing the amendment I ask that he reply to those points before we come back to the Bill at Report stage. He has indicated his assent, which is good enough for me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 29, line 2, at end insert:
("() In discharging their duties under subsection (1) (d) above, the street authority shall, particularly when coordinating the reinstatement of streets, take all reasonable steps to provide dropped curbs, appropriate tactile markings and where practicable a minimum passage width of two metres.").
The noble Lord said: Due to the agreement of the Committee to Amendment No. 89 in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon, if the Committee accepts this amendment I shall have to bring forward at a later stage an amendment to alter the wording in the first line from "subsection (1) (d)" to "subsection (1) (b)". I am happy to give that undertaking at this stage.
The amendment would produce a duty to improve provision when streets are reinstated. The Bill provides an excellent opportunity to improve street access for disabled people. Dropped kerbs and tactile markings are still few and far between, leaving disabled people no option but to bump down kerbs and blind people having to guess where the end of the pavement is. When streets are being, reinstated the opportunity should be used to improve matters. Similarly, resurfacing provides an opportunity to get the cross-fall gradient right. That, I understand, is the sideways gradient on the road, what I would probably call a camber. It can be most inconvenient for wheelchair users. At the same time the opportunity could be taken to improve the road for all users, not just disabled people. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can reply only briefly to this amendment. We would prefer to deal with matters such as a minimum passage to be allowed at street works and the reinstatement of special features of the road under the relevant provisions covering safety measures in Clause 58 and the standards of reinstatement respectively in Clause 64. The requirements in question will apply to the undertaker responsible for carrying out the works rather than the

317
street authority, whose role in future will be limited to the co-ordination and inspection of works. I believe that requirements acceptable to the people concerned can be included in the appropriate regulations and codes of practice. I hope that my reply will at least partly satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Swinfen: It goes quite a long way to satisfying me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 107 [General duty of road works authority to co-ordinate works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 94 and 95:
Page 57, line 2, after ("kinds") insert ("(including works for road purposes)").
Page 57, line 5, after ("road") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have both been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 108 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Supplementary provisions as to designation of protected streets]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 30, line 13, leave out ("require") and insert ("direct").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 97. These are purely drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Supplementary provisions as to designation of protected roads]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 58, line 30, leave out ("require") and insert ("direct").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 [Streets with special engineering difficulties]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 98
Page 30, line 46, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 98, which is a paving amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 99. The purpose of the amendment is to ascertain the Government's thinking in relation to how features creating special engineering difficulties which are not the responsibility of either the highway authority or a transport undertaking will be dealt with.
Clause 56 is extremely important. It provides a basis for ensuring that utilities are aware of streets with special engineering difficulties—for example, bridges—and take due care when undertaking street works in them. The detailed procedures to be adopted in these cases have been discussed in some detail by the
318
Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee notices working party. The working party has identified one major area of difficulty which it has not yet been able to resolve and which is not addressed either on the face of the Bill or in Schedule 4.
The Bill and the working party have established a regime which is perfectly capable of dealing with circumstances where the special engineering difficulty arises from a structure which is the responsibility of either the highway authority or a transport authority, such as British Rail, London Underground or British Waterways Board. It is clear in these circumstances where the statutory responsibilities, liabilities and duties lie.
However, in many cases the special engineering difficulty can result from, for example, a private cellar which extends below the highway. The highway authority has no statutory responsibilities in relation to the protection or safeguarding of the cellar and it is unclear how the Government envisage the interests of both the utilities and the owner of the property with the cellar being handled in relation to this clause. That is only one example of the kind of situation that this amendment is designed to cover. I should like to hear the Government's thoughts on this matter. That is the purpose of moving the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: This amendment would provide a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision of a local highway authority for a person whose property fronts a highway and who has requested the street to be designated as having special engineering difficulties. It is not considered appropriate to introduce frontagers into this part of the Bill in this way. There may indeed be cases where by reason of cellars or other structures extending beneath a street the street authority will want to designate it as having special engineering difficulties. A responsible highway authority would of course investigate any engineering features of this kind that were brought to its attention from whatever source. It is appropriate, however, that the final decision on whether to designate the street, and so to require the submission of plans and sections by undertakers before works are executed in it, should in these cases rest with the local highway authority. I hope that I have explained the Government's position.
Lord Underhill: The Minister has explained the Government's thinking but it is still not clear in my mind whether the amendment is desirable. The position of frontagers is of some importance. I know that the highway authorities and the utilities are concerned about the matter. They have not yet been able to come to a common position. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the department has further discussions with the working party on this matter? It is important that we should reach agreement between utilities and highway authorities before we proceed further.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am happy to give that undertaking.
Lord Underhill: I am pleased to receive that undertaking, and I beg leave to withdraw that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 31, line 7, leave out from ("made") to end of line 9.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 102. These amendments to the procedure for the designation by street authorities of streets with special engineering difficulties are put forward in order to remove a redundant provision which could constitute a possible source of confusion. I could explain at greater length but I hope that that will be sufficient for this evening. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Streets with special engineering difficulties]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 91, line 11, after ("paragraph") insert:
(—electric line" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Electricity Act 1989;").
The noble Lord said: I believe that this amendment is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Roads with special engineering difficulties]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 59, line 27, leave out from ("made") to end of line 29.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Roads with special engineering difficulties]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 95, line 40, after ("paragraph") insert:
(""electric line" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Electricity Act 1989;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 [Traffic-sensitive streets]:
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Safety measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 31, line 35, at end insert ("having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 31, line 35, at end insert (" and

(c) that wherever possible street works positioned close to corners or junctions should be avoided, or if deemed necessary, that the repair be given priority for completion;

(d) the avoidance where possible of overbanding on corners.").

The noble Viscount said: Although this amendment concerns all kinds of wheeled traffic, it especially concerns two-wheeled vehicles which have also been provided for in other amendments. In the first part of the amendment, I seek to include in the Bill a provision covering works which are positioned close to corners or junctions which would ensure that they are either given priority for completion or that they are only carried out when necessary.
The second part of the amendment deals with the kind of repair known as overbanding which is a level of surface placed upon the road. When this work is carried out near corners, it gives rise to the possibility of skidding and loss of grip for vehicles which pass over it. Most statistics on road accidents these days show that the great majority of accidents take place—certainly in built-up areas—at roundabouts, at junctions, at traffic lights or at pedestrian crossings. Indeed, the report of the specification working party of the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee stated quite clearly that the final 50 metres approaching these junctions are considered to be sites of extremely high risk.
The positioning of holes of any kind is of particular concern to those people using two-wheeled vehicles, whether or not they are motorised. This applies especially to motorcycles and mopeds. In inner-city areas, the manhole covers are often placed very close to corners. With use they become extremely worn and shiny and can prove lethal to the rider of a two-wheeled vehicle if he approaches them at an excessive speed or if he is unaware of them. The covers are often placed in very dangerous positions from the point of view of the motorcyclist.
Another characteristic of manholes is that often when repairs are carried out the old covers are not replaced, even though they have become worn over a period of time. In other words, they are not replaced in conjunction with the surrounding repairs. This can be extremely hazardous, especially in wet weather. This is equally threatening to four-wheeled vehicles, although these days cars are much safer by virtue of new technology which is only just beginning to be incorporated on the more expensive kinds of motorcycles. I refer, for example, to anti-lock braking systems, and so on. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, no matter how good the tyres of the vehicle are, and even if such additional equipment has been fitted, you are still subject to the possibility of an accident if such covers are badly positioned. In some cases, if work has not been carried cut properly, the tarmac sinks below the level of the cover thus creating an additional hazard.
A further point I wish to make as regards repair work taking place near to corners concerns the location of rubbish skips. The positioning of some skips is badly thought through by the contractors. They are often placed on blind corners without adequate warning being given to oncoming traffic.
Banding is also a repair which is lethal for motorcyclists and pedal cyclists. The surface of the repair spreads and the traffic polishes it with use. It can become extremely slippery and take on all the characteristics associated with icy conditions. For those reasons, it would be desirable to have a provision in the Bill to cover such repair works. I hope that I have been able to describe the hazards which arise, especially in connection with two-wheeled vehicles. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the Minister replies, I must say that the noble Viscount has done the Committee a great service by referring to these extremely important matters. Nevertheless, I cannot help thinking that in this particular instance such details ought to be made the subject of guidance or regulation rather than being incorporated in the Bill. However, I suspect that the amendment was tabled in order to probe the Government's intentions in this regard.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is quite correct in his thinking and I shall attempt to explain why in my reply. I very much agree with the noble Viscount that street works which take place near road junctions, especially on heavily trafficked roads, can be particularly disruptive. Guidance on the safety measures to be adopted at such sites will be included in the code of practice to be issued under subsection (3) of this clause. The new version of Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual, on which it is intended to base the code of practice, will include special advice on traffic control measures required for road works at junctions. This general advice to undertakers can be supplemented by directions from the traffic authority on traffic management measures to be adopted at particular sites.
The local highway authority will have power under Clause 57 to designate a street or part of a street as traffic-sensitive so that special requirements as to the advance notice of undertakers' works will apply to it. They are also to have power under Clause 50 to give directions to undertakers as to the time when works may or may not be carried out if to do so would avoid or reduce serious disruption to traffic. It would be open to a highway authority to use those powers in cases where undertakers' works take place close to junctions on certain roads. I hope that that helps the noble Viscount with the first part of his amendment.
I turn now to overbanding. So far as overbanding is concerned, detailed practical guidance on the required standards of reinstatement by undertakers is to be prescribed by the Secretary of State under Clause 64. We recognise that the practice of applying wide bands of sealing compound to repair cracks or joints in the road can pose hazards to road users, especially
322
motorcyclists, because of the material's low skidding resistance in the wet. The requirements to be prescribed under Clause 64 will cover permissible methods of edge and crack sealing and impose standards on the skidding resistance to be achieved with different street works.
Skips are not relevant to this part of the Bill. I hope that the noble Viscount will welcome a new clause regarding skips that I shall be moving towards the end of the Bill. Skips should not be placed close to road corners. I was under the impression—I shall have to confirm this to the noble Viscount—that that was an offence, but I shall have to look into that point.
In view of all the proposed safeguards, I hope that the noble Viscount will agree that it is not necessary to specify on the face of the Bill provisions in respect of street works close to corners or junctions, or the other points raised in the amendment.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Many of those concerned will draw comfort from what he says and look forward to seeing how the Government's approach will affect the future position. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his intervention.
I agree with what the Minister said about banding. It can be a perilous repair. It is a question of the width, which I do not believe I mentioned in my opening remarks. A satisfactory and acceptable width is laid down, but the repairs sometimes extend beyond that width. I take it from the Minister's remarks that that point will be examined carefully. I thank the Minister for his remarks, which we shall obviously examine carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 32, line 2, at end insert:
("(c) shall consult persons representative of blind and disabled people when drawing up that code of practice.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Will my noble friend confirm that organisations representing disabled people will be consulted when the code of practice is drawn up under the clause? I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes. I readily give my noble friend the assurance that groups representing blind and disabled people will be consulted further before any code of practice is issued or approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose of the clause.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 112 [Safety measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 60, line 18, at end insert:
("and in accordance with section 120 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (duty to have regard to the needs of people with a disability).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Avoidance of unnecessary delay or obstruction]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 32, line 29, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment, as is Amendment No. 112. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not sure that this is entirely a drafting amendment, although it is a simple amendment. I wonder what the word "reasonable" in this context involves. Why did not the Minister put the word down in the first place? He appeared to be satisfied with the drafting of the Bill, the wording being:
"take such steps as are specified in the notice".
It is inconceivable that the steps taken would be unreasonable. I do not know what the Minister has in mind. It would be helpful if he could illustrate what he means and why the introduction of the word "reasonable" in this context is appropriate. He may well be right and convince me of it. I had thought that the provision did not require qualification in that way; nonetheless, if the Minister has positive reasons for including it I shall listen with interest. It is unlikely that I shall divide the Committee, especially as the television cameras are masked. I cannot understand why that should be the position. I should have thought that this was an exhilarating debate upon which the public would have been concentrating with undue attention.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord makes a good point. I am surprised that there is not more public interest in the debate, especially on this amendment, which is of course of earth shattering importance. As I said, it is a drafting amendment which makes it clear that, where a street authority requires an undertaker to lessen the extent of or remove an obstruction caused by street works, any steps which the authority requires the undertaker to take in respect of a notice given under Clause 59(3) must be reasonable. The amendment is for the avoidance of doubt. It gives utilities the assurance that highway authorities can require only reasonable steps to be taken. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will accept that it is a reasonable amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am always reasonable, as the Minister is aware. If I were not so reasonable I should be asking him to cite illustrations of what is reasonable, what may be reasonable and what may be unreasonable. I am not convinced that the amendment is required. However, the Committee will be relieved to know, as I have indicated, that I do not propose to divide the Committee. I agree that the amendment is earth shattering.
Lord Tordoff: At the end of that interesting dialogue, I wonder whether it is necessary to put a definition of "earth shattering" into the Bill. Does it come within the terms of breaking into the highway?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Avoidance of unnecessary delay or obstruction]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 61, line 13, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Qualifications of supervisors and operatives]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I should point out that if Amendment No. 113 is agreed to it pre-empts Amendment No. 114.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 32, line 34, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
("(1) It is the duty of an undertaker executing street works involving—

(a) breaking up the street, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or

(b) tunnelling or boring under the street,

to secure that, except in such cases as may be prescribed, the execution of the works is supervised by a person having a prescribed qualification as a supervisor.
(2) It is the duty of an undertaker executing street works involving—

(a) breaking up or opening the street, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or

(b) tunnelling or boring under the street,

to secure that, except in such cases as may he prescribed, there is on site at all times when any such works are in progress at least one person having a prescribed qualification as a trained operative.").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 115, 117 and 118.
The amendment has two purposes. First, it reorders the wording of Clause 60 such that the requirement on an undertaker to have certain street works supervised by a qualified supervisor is contained in a separate subsection to the requirement to have a qualified operative on site at all times when certain street works are being carried out. That will allow the requirements to be brought into effect more easily at different times. The Horne Report recommended that the requirement to have qualified supervisors should come into effect first.
Secondly, the amendment exempts some minor works which involve opening the street only from the requirement in respect of supervision. That is achieved by referring in subsection (1) only to "breaking up" and not "breaking up or opening" the street. As presently drafted, Clause 60 requires that an undertaker ensures that all street works involving the breaking up or opening of the street are carried out with at least one trained operative present at all times and supervised by a qualified supervisor. It is considered that the latter requirement is unnecessary for works of that nature which may well be limited to the opening of a manhole cover. That will of course in no way affect an undertaker's duties under this part of

325
the Bill to which we have already referred in a previous amendment. A trained operative is still required in all such cases.
The second amendment to this clause is a minor drafting amendment which is necessary as a consequence of the first. It relates the offence provision contained in Clause 60(3) —qualifications of supervisors and operatives—to the undertakers' duties under the new subsections (1) and (2) of that clause. The other two amendments do exactly the same for Scotland. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I believe that I have the key to our little debate a few moments ago which concerned boring under the streets. I believe that it was boring in this street that caused the television cameras to be masked.
I thank the noble Lord for his comments on Amendment No. 113 and the others that we are considering. I wish to take the opportunity to reflect on why we sought to put down Amendments Nos. 114 and 116. It was to probe the intentions underlying the drafting of Clause 60, which we are considering in the context of this amendment. Clause 60 is a key element in the Horne package: the requirement that each utility work should be supervised by a qualified person; that there should be a qualified operative on the site at all times. As I understand it, the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee working party is developing proposals to implement those requirements.
The first amendment was designed to probe the cases in which the Government envisaged that the requirements in relation to the qualified supervisor and operative would not apply. I therefore ask the Minister, when he responds to the debate, to answer this specific question: what circumstances do the Government envisage might be prescribed under the provisions of the final line of Clause 60(1)?
The second amendment involves a rather more important point. When the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee working party began its work it adhered strictly to the recommendation made by Horne to the effect that there should be a prescribed accreditation and training package. It rapidly became apparent to the working party that its proposals would have to be acceptable to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. One of its requirements is that all assessments should be open to anyone, whether or not they should have followed an approved training course. In consequence, the working party has concentrated on developing assessment procedures and measures of competence rather than detailed training packages.
However, the Bill reverts to the Horne formula and imposes training requirements. That is why it is important that we should clarify the position at this stage. Is it the Government's intention that the proposed regulations will specify both the assessment of the competence of operatives and supervisors and the training necessary to develop those competences?
326
If that is the case, how can this approach be reconciled with the policy of the NCVQ—that is to say, that it is invalid to require that a person presenting himself or herself for assessment should have undertaken a particular form of training?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hope that I can deal with those two points to the noble Lord's satisfaction. The government amendment to this clause which I have just moved will change the order of requirements at present in subsection (1), but the ability of the Secretary of State to prescribe exceptions in regulations is to be preserved. That is considered necessary to allow arrangements to be made by regulations, so, for example, it may not necessarily be a statutory requirement to have the most minor utility street works supervised by a qualified supervisor. I gave an example when I spoke on the government amendment.
There is no intention to use this power to derogate from the basic requirements that undertakers' works should in future be supervised by a properly qualified supervisor and that at least one qualified operative should be on site while works are being carried out. The Government have accepted these recommendations from the Horne Report, which will come into full effect after a suitable transitional period to allow qualifications to be conferred on the tens of thousands of people involved in street works.
Turning to those qualifications, similarly, the provision to allow the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations the training to be undergone before a qualification is conferred is designed to allow practicable arrangements to be made. It envisaged that each individual would be assessed before gaining a qualification and that experience and past training would be taken into account. Further formal training will only be required as appropriate in individual cases. The advice of representatives of the highway authorities nationally will be taken before any requirements are prescribed. I hope that that explanation answers the points the noble Lord raised.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister has given a reasonably satisfactory explanation which covered the ground of the first amendment. I am not totally convinced that he has covered the points I raised in relation to the others. However, I shall read carefully what he said. I certainly do not wish to press to a Division any objections to the amendment moved by the Minister. Perhaps we will come back to the matter at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 33, line 2, leave out ("(1) (a) or (b)") and insert ("(1) or (2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114 [Qualifications of supervisors and operatives]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 61, line 18, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert:
("(1) It is the duty of an undertaker executing road works involving—

(a) breaking up the road, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or

(b) tunnelling or boring under the road,

to secure that, except in such cases as may be prescribed, the execution of the works is supervised by a person having a prescribed qualification as a supervisor.
(2) It is the duty of an undertaker executing road works involving—

(a) breaking up or opening the road, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or

(b) tunnelling or boring under the road,

to secure that, except in such cases as may be prescribed, there is on site at all times when any such works are in progress at least one person having a prescribed qualification as a trained operative.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 61, line 31, leave out ("(1) (a) or (b)") and insert ("(1) or (2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Works likely to affect other apparatus in the street]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 33, line 18, leave out ("supervising") and insert ("monitoring").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 119 and with the leave of the Committee I wish to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 122. These amendments clarify the role of a person whose apparatus is likely to be affected by street works as that of monitoring rather than supervising the execution of the works, as the Bill is now drafted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 33, line 19, leave out ("requirements made by him which are") and insert ("requirement made by him which is").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 120 and at the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 123. These are drafting amendments which bring the wording into line with that in Clause 62(1) (b) (ii), where the reference is to a requirement, in the singular. The second amendment applies to Scotland.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 33, line 31, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the failure was attributable—

328

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 121, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 124. This amendment is similar in its effect to the amendments to the defence provision in Clauses 49 and 51. It replaces the provision giving an undertaker a possible defence for failure to comply with the requirements in subsection (1) of this clause where his works are likely to affect another person's apparatus. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 116 [Works likely to affect other apparatus in the road]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 122 to 124:
Page 62, line 4, leave out ("supervising") and insert ("monitoring").
Page 62, line 5, leave out ("requirements made by him which are") and insert ("requirement made by him which is").
Page 62, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) In proceedings against a person for such an offence it is a defence for him to show that the failure was attributable—

(a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or

(b) to his not knowing the identity or address of the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that his ignorance was not due to any negligence on his part or to any failure to make inquiries which he ought reasonably to have made.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Duty of undertaker to reinstate]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 34, line 1, leave out from ("shall") to ("inform") and insert ("before the end of the next working day after the day on which the reinstatement is completed").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 125, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 126, 129 and 130. These amendments bring into line with other provisions in this part of the Bill the requirement to inform the street authority that a reinstatement has been completed. As presently drafted, Clause 63(3) places a duty on undertakers to do so within 24 hours of completing the reinstatement. In practice this could mean that the undertaker might have to inform the street authority on a Sunday or even on Christmas Day. Amendment No. 125 would require the undertaker to do so on the next working day, which better reflects the operational realities. Amendment No. 126 is a drafting amendment which is necessary as a consequence of Amendment No. 125. It makes clear that there is a duty on an undertaker to notify the street authority within the specified period that he has completed the reinstatement of the street. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 34, line 2, leave out ("done so") and insert ("has completed the reinstatement of the street").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 34, line 7, leave out ("initial") and insert ("interim").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 127 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 131. This is a drafting amendment which corrects an inconsistent reference to an initial reinstatement in Clause 63(4). The amendment replaces this with a reference to interim reinstatement. That is the term used elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 [Duty of undertaker to reinstate]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 62, line 28, leave out from ("practicable") to end of line 30.
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that it would be for the undertaker to prove that his failure to carry out the works timeously was because to do so would have hindered other works. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I must say that it is nice to see the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, again. Having made his pilgrimage to the Chamber, maybe the noble Lord can explain—perhaps it is for his noble friend Lord Brabazon to explain this matter—why these amendments are included in, as it were, the Scottish version of the Bill when there is no comparable amendment in the English part of the Bill. I am trying to understand why there appears to be this disparity. There may be some reason for it in Scottish law. However, I know nothing about Scottish law.
Lord Strathclyde: I thank the noble Lord for welcoming me back to the Dispatch Box.
I shall explain the position more fully. The amendment is designed to make it clear that in a prosecution the defender will need to prove that his failure to begin the works timeously was because to do so would hinder the execution of other parts of the works or other works to be carried out immediately or shortly thereafter.
The former wording would have required the prosecutor to prove that the carrying out of the works timeously would not have hindered other works. So far as it goes, that is quite plain. However, the reason why the measure comes into the Scottish part of the Bill is that things are different in Scotland. Under the provisions of the Bill, we have consulted thoroughly with Scottish local authorities and we have come up with a variety of schemes which are unique to Scotland, partly because there is a different situation in Scotland. There are only nine regional authorities in Scotland, whereas in England the situation is entirely
330
different. That is why we have proposed these amendments. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord's curiosity.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With the greatest respect, I must say that that does not satisfy me at all. The noble Lord has come from far away parts and he has told us that the situation in Scotland is different. He is quite right about that. There are only 10 Conservative Members of Parliament in Scotland, for instance, and there are likely to be fewer at the next election. Things may be different in Scotland but it would seem that these provisions could reasonably apply to the English part of the Bill. I am not disputing in any way what was said by the noble Lord. He said that it was important to have this measure in relation to Scottish law. However, I cannot see why it is not also important to have it in relation to English law. That is the essence of the matter. If the Ministers cannot reply to me today—I may have taken them by surprise and I apologise for that—I hope they will provide an explanation at some stage as I believe they owe it to the Committee.
Lord Strathclyde: I was not at all taken by surprise. As I have said, things are different in Scotland. If the noble Lord wishes to propose an amendment at a later stage to include this measure in the English provisions, he is entitled to do so. If he did so, he might receive a fuller explanation as to why such a measure would not be acceptable in England.
Lord Tordoff: The fact that things are different in Scotland is not a reason for establishing a totally different situation there in this case. The existence of regional councils in Scotland does not seem to bear on this matter at all, unless the Minister is saying that these matters should be dealt with in Scotland. If that is the case, I am sure that my honourable and right honourable friends in another place will be only too pleased to direct the Minister to the Scottish Convention where I am sure they will be delighted to deal with these matters and relieve this Chamber of many of its duties in relation to Scotland. If this is a good amendment in principle, I do not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, does not treat us to a similar amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I do not agree with the noble Lord's remarks on the Scottish Convention, but that is an entirely different argument which we can perhaps discuss on another day. However, in the event of a certain amount of support for these provisions in England, we would consider their applicability to England and Wales.
Lord Clinton-Davis: On the face of it, there appears to be the most dramatic lack of co-ordination—we are told that the Bill is all about co-ordination—between the Department of Transport and the Scottish Office. We have not been told today why this disparity exists. With respect, I must say that I should have thought it was for the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, to explain the position rather than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who was kind enough to introduce this invaluable amendment. As I have said, if the Government are not in a position to respond today, perhaps they will give us the clearest possible undertaking—the Minister

331
has, I believe, moved in that direction—that they will consider this matter with a view to introducing a similar amendment on Report.
Lord Tordoff: Can we take it that this is an example of the progress that we are to make in relationships between England, Wales and Scotland now that the former Secretary of State has been moved from the Scottish Office to transport? Not everyone would consider that move a promotion. I should not have thought the Scots would consider it a promotion, either. However, that is by the way.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is quite wrong. Almost 25 per cent. of the Cabinet is now essentially Scottish. We in Scotland regard that as a fantastic achievement. I have said that we shall consider the applicability of this amendment to England and Wales. That is as far as I can go at this stage. There is no commitment to bring forward amendments. I hope that will satisfy Members of the Committee opposite.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 129 and 130:
Page 62, line 31, leave out from ("shall") to ("inform") and insert ("before the end of the next working day after the day on which the reinstatement is completed").
Page 62, line 32, leave out ("done so") and insert ("has completed the reinstatement of the road").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 131 and 132:
Page 62, line 37, leave out ("initial") and insert ("interim"). Page 62, line 41, at end insert:
("(6) It shall be a defence to a charge of failing to comply with the duty under subsection (2) that reinstatement of the road following completion of part of the road works was delayed in order to avoid hindering the execution of other parts of those works or of other works to be undertaken immediately or shortly thereafter.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 [Materials, workmanship and standard of reinstatement]:
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 34, line 15, at end insert ("to ensure adequate road safety.").
The noble Viscount said: With the words "to ensure adequate road safety" the amendment seeks to emphasise the importance of prescribing the proper materials and standard of workmanship in repairs reinstating the surface of a road. The HAUC report, to which I referred earlier, recommended that the profile of the repair should be substantially at the same level as or flush with adjacent surfaces along the edges of the repair reinstating the road or highway and there should be no significant depression below the level of adjacent surfaces. It would seem to be obvious that that would be a necessary part of the duties of the contractor undertaking such repairs.
However, those who drive regularly in London cannot fail to have noticed that in a very short interval after repairs have been completed holes in the road
332
become bigger than the original holes which were repaired. A researcher in my office has had the wheels of two pedal cycles completely ruined by large holes in the road which had been repaired. It is common in London and probably in other cities around the country to find holes of a depth of six inches or more. That shows that at present either the materials or the workmanship, or both, are not satisfactory. The amendment seeks to add strength to the Bill to ensure that adequate road safety is paramount in all repairs. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: In prescribing the requirements under Clause 64 for materials, workmanship and the standards of reinstatement to be observed by undertakers, the Secretary of State will have the safety of road users as his key objective. Other considerations will include the protection of buried apparatus, the integrity of the road pavement and the durability of the reinstatement. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to limit the objectives to which the prescribed standards are directed to the single question of road safety.
Nevertheless, I can assure the noble Viscount that the safety of all road users will be a guiding principle when we come to prescribe the detailed requirements on undertakers in regulations and codes of practice.
The Viscount of Falkland: I thank the noble Lord for his assurances, which will be of comfort to road users. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 34, line 24, at end insert:
("() He shall ensure that when reinstatement take place, this includes any reinstatement of any existing measures for disabled persons and reasonable steps are taken to ensure the safe and convenient passage of blind and disabled persons.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to ensure that reinstatement of the street includes reinstatement of any existing special provisions for people with disabilities. As the Committee will realise, it is important to ensure that street works do not result in a deterioration in access to the street. The amendment simply states that where special provisions, such as dropped kerbs or textured pavements, have been provided the reinstatement should include reinstatement of those facilities, which are very important to the mobility of disabled people. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to endorse what has been said about the amendment. It is an important matter. I should also like to take the opportunity to give an illustration from our own parish, of which I am sure the Minister will be aware.
As noble Lords may recall, there was a stretch of textured pavement at the zebra crossing near to St. Stephen's Entrance to the Palace of Westminster. That crossing has recently been removed and is to be replaced with a pelican crossing. About 10 days ago I received a telephone call from a friend of mine who is a member of my party's disability working group. She is blind and is often to be seen around the Palace of

333
Westminster with her guide dog. In some alarm she informed me that the textured pavement at the crossing had been removed.
I took the trouble to go outside and speak to the people who were removing the pavement to try to ascertain whether it would be replaced in the new location. They did not know, so I got in touch with Westminster City Council and was told that the staff there did not know anything about the matter either. I then spoke to the noble Lord's department. His staff were most helpful. They understood the problem, particularly in view of the fact that that particular textured pavement had been laid at the expense of the Department of Transport in 1983. It was specifically designed as an example of what could be done with textured pavement so that Members of this Chamber and of another place could see it in operation. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, textured payment provides a means for blind people to establish where they are on the pavement and when they have come to a crossing and it is safe to cross the road.
When I received a copy of a letter—I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for sending me the correspondence—I was doubly disturbed to find that the Department of Transport Disability Unit (for which I have nothing but the highest praise for its work on behalf of the disabled in relation to transport) had been told by Westminster City Council that the council had no intention of having tactile paving in Westminster in the future. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is not in her place. I hope that we can draw her attention to this short debate because I am sure that she would support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
I hope that Westminster City Council will reconsider the position. If that was the leading stretch of tactile paving in the country it is very sad that it should be lost to blind people when street works take place. It is particularly dangerous for people who have been used to using the crossing to find that it has been removed.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has done so far. I hope that his disability unit will be able to make progress with Westminster City Council. If it is not, I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber will protest to Westminster City Council. I hope that in the light of that example the Committee will understand how important it is that an amendment such as this should be included on the face of the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in those extremely important observations. I am informed that the daughter of my noble friend Lord Carter, who is blind, has drawn his attention to the issue. Moreover, apparently the crossing is very much steeper than it was previously, affecting wheelchair users. Those are serious matters arising very close to this Chamber. We have a clear vested interest in ensuring that people who are disabled and blind are given reasonable access to this building. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that
334
the matters are pursued further, particularly with the Westminster City Council, which has the essential duty here.
What both noble Lords have said in their contributions to the debate is extremely pertinent. If we cannot ensure that matters so close to this building are put right what on earth can we do about other matters? People who have specific disabilities have made representations to us. The Minister has now heard about this and I hope that he will respond positively as to the action that he will take to remedy the defects.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am aware of the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred because, as he knows, I have written to him about it and promised to keep in touch and tell him how things go. That is all I can say on that particular issue at the moment.
I turn to the amendment. As has been stated, special features including dropped kerbs, tactile surfaces and markings are now, I am glad to say, becoming more commonly provided by highway authorities in their streets, although we should still like to see further progress in that direction.
It is clearly important that those should be properly restored by undertakers who break up the street, particularly where the features have been provided for the assistance of blind and disabled people. I can assure the Committee that, where undertakers break up a special surface, they will be required to put it back. This matter will be covered in the codes of practice to be issued or approved by the Secretary of State, giving practical guidance on the materials, workmanship and standards of reinstatement to be observed under this provision. Therefore it does not seem to be appropriate to provide for that on the face of the Bill.
I can assure my noble friend also that groups representing blind and disabled people will be consulted before any regulation or codes of practice on standards of reinstatement are prescribed by the Secretary of State. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Tordoff: Before the noble Lord speaks, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether at the moment there are any codes of practice in existence which would deal with the situation, or whether this is a totally new area in which codes of practice would be introduced. If there are codes of practice in existence, they are being infringed by the very example that I gave.
Lord Brabazon of TaraI am not entirely sure whether there are at the moment. I shall have to check up on that point and write to the noble Lord. It seems to me from the correspondence that we have had so far that there may not be.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Will the noble Earl be kind enough to ensure that all those who have participated in this debate receive copies of his letter?
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord will understand why I made that point. If codes of practice are in existence and have been seen to fail, we should wish, as I am

335
sure would the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to press the Minister at a later stage to put this on the face of the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for a very positive response to the amendment. I shall withdraw it but I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has just said and, if there is not adequate provision at the moment, I may have to come back to the matter later. I did not know of the serious omissions of the City of Westminster, one of the places most visited by tourists from all over the world and indeed from within this country. Quite obviously it is visited by those who are responsible for making certain that adequate provisions are made in their own parts of the country. Whether the Westminster authorities like it or not, they are in a position in which they should set not only a good but an excellent example to all other local authorities throughout the country and to those from other countries so that they can learn what to do there. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 118 agreed to.
Lord Reay: I beg to move that the House do now resume. At the same time, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee resumes its deliberations at 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1990
7.4 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 6 of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 provided that the Act would expire on 31st March 1990 unless continued in force for a further year by order laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House. Last year Parliament approved such an order. This extended the life of the Act until 31st March 1991. The order now before the House, which is also made under Section 6 of the Act, provides for the Act to continue in force for a further year, until 31st March 1992. This is necesary to enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in due course to give effect to the teachers' pay settlement for 1991–92, following the report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions and consultation on its recommendations.
Because of the consultations which have to be undertaken after the committee reports, the order to give effect to the Government's decisions on its recommendations cannot be made before May at the earliest. So if the life of the Act is not extended in the way proposed it will not be possible to deal with the 1991–92 pay settlement.
I should explain the background to this order. On 12th December last year my noble friend Lord Davidson, in moving the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 (Continuation) Order 1989, explained that an extension by one year of the arrangements whereby teachers' pay and conditions were determined by the Secretary of State on the advice of the interim advisory committee was necessary because of the continuing and fundamental differences of views between the relevant parties as to the nature of the permanent arrangements that should be put in place. But he also reported on the discussions which were taking place on the basis of three new options outlined by the then Secretary of State. He confirmed that it was the Government's aim to bring forward legislation to establish new permanent machinery in the next Session of Parliament.
That is precisely what the Government have done. The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill received its Second Reading in another place on 27th November. Your Lordships will have a full opportunity to discuss the provisions of the Bill in due course. When my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State announced the Government's proposals for new machinery on 26th April this year, he invited the local authority employers and the teacher unions to comment on how best to handle the 1991–92 pay settlement. He noted that the three broad options appeared to be: to deal with the settlement in the new machinery, retrospectively if necessary, once it had been put in place; to run the new machinery on a voluntary, shadow basis in anticipation of the passage of legislation; or to ask the interim advisory committee once more to make recommendations.
A number of different responses were received. There was no support for the option of dealing with the settlement retrospectively once the new arrangements were in place. But nor was there sufficient agreement about the desirability of running the new machinery on a shadow basis. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State therefore announced on 23rd July that he would seek the approval of Parliament to extend the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act for a further and final year, and to invite the IAC to make recommendations for a settlement to cover the year April 1991 to March 1992. The decision has been welcomed by many of the parties concerned.
The committee has been asked to report by 18th January. It is now well into its stride. In previous reports it has recommended far-reaching improvements to the teachers' pay structure. The committee has this year been asked, in particular, to consider what further modifications should be made to the system of selective payments to increase flexibility and to improve recruitment and retention.
This time next year the employers and the teacher unions should be hard at work negotiating the 1992–93 pay settlement. The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 will have been repealed. In the meantime, however, we need this order to extend the life of the

337
Act beyond 31st March 1991 so as to pay teachers an increase next year. I commend it to the House and ask that the order be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his very full and clear statement, which I found interesting, particularly in the sense that he clarified the problem that confronts us in what we hope is the last year for having a Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act continuation order. I shall not delay your Lordships by dwelling on the unhappiness that we have experienced for several years during which teachers have not been free to negotiate in the normal way. We have not been happy about their loss of negotiating rights. Indeed, we have always been concerned about the legality of that situation within the European framework.
I am willing to let bygones be bygones. This is the last year of the order. We look forward to the new Bill. I am willing to draw a line under the past. We shall approach the new Bill in a proper spirit of reform, hoping that it will provide a proper negotiating procedure.
I cannot refrain from pointing out that one idea that has been put forward as much by members of the political party opposite as by members on this side, is that, as we come to reform or abolish the poll tax, that situation might be dealt with by changing the system of meeting the costs of education, not least of which would be teachers' pay. There will be much to consider in the coming year. I look forward to what we may do in the future rather than repeating the criticisms of the past.
There is a final matter that we should reflect upon. We all accept that teachers are central if any of the education reforms that we have in mind are to succeed. There is not a lot that governments or opposition spokesmen can do in education: what teachers do, because they are not very different from the rest of us as ordinary people, to some extent depends upon how well they are paid in real terms. Therefore, I am bound to ask whether there is anything that the noble Lord can say at this stage about the likely path of real wages for teachers.
There is a related matter which is not unconnected with local government finance. Whatever award is made—and I hope that it will be a generous award—to encourage teachers to respond as positively as they can to the extra demands made upon them, one has to ask who will meet that cost. Is it to be expected that central Government will find a way of meeting more of the cost and taking some of the burden away from local authorities?
The past four years have been a most unhappy time as regards the approach to teachers' pay. I look forward to a new spirit in approaching the matter. We shall do the best we can by looking at the Bill and hoping to amend it in a way that will be satisfactory to all concerned.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the clear way in which he presented the reasons for the order. The Act which the order seeks to extend was due to last for three years at the most and in fact has lasted for five years. A temporary arrangement which lasts for that long seems to be a permanent definition of temporary. However, there is now light at the end of the tunnel since the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill is now in progress through Parliament, with the prospect of proper new arrangements for teachers in 1992. I join the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in the spirit of the hope that springs eternal. We on these Benches shall not oppose the order.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, quite obviously we must approve the draft order. However, we should never have been required to deal with an order of this kind at this time. In 1987 some noble Lords wanted to shorten the limit of time allowed to replace the ad hoc arrangements by more normal and satisfactory machinery. We thought that two years was long enough, but it seems that it was not.
When we come to consider the new Bill we can reasonably ask what everybody has been doing in the past three years to produce a scheme of more normal relationships in discussing pay and conditions.
I too should like to look forward. I have a good deal of past to look at as well. It is 16 years since I urged the teachers and the Government to get their act in order. There is an unhappy relationship and rivalry between the teacher organisations. They are divided by their history in some cases. Their trade union structure is an inheritance. Names have been changed but fundamental differences remain. It is a great pity. The other side of the problem is that there are always two employers. How does one get normal machinery—for example, on the model of the civil service —when there is a disconnected assortment of staff unions and twin monsters as employers? During one of the past disputes, one employer criticised the other employer and sided with the staff against the government, which held a different view.
What worries me is that there is no sign that the deep difficulties in regard to the machinery will be overcome. What is contained in the draft order is virtually to be written into the Bill in the event of failure of the new negotiation machinery to reach agreement. All those matters will have to be discussed when we see the Bill. It has started its progress in a standing committee in the House of Commons and we shall have to see what its final shape will be. We may still have many difficulties to face. I should like to see some signs of this new spirit, which I believe may be coming. It will greatly help the situation.
I firmly believe that the funding of our education service will have to be reviewed in connection with any other far-reaching investigation into the structure and funding of local authorities. The cost of education is the largest single item in the poll tax and it is likely to grow. Where is all the money to come to give teachers the new status to which the Prime Minister referred?

339
I realise that some of those issues are beyond the scope of the present debate, but this is a curtain-raiser to what is to follow. I hope that the Government and the unions will attach considerable importance to the proceedings on the Bill. I do not think that it would be fair for both sides to come back to Parliament to consider changes in the method of dealing with staff pay and conditions if the same old structure that led to the breakdown during the Burnham Committee's tenure of office remained in existence. It is a sad story. To one who was present at the beginnings of the Whitley Council system in the civil service from 1919 onwards seeing the contrast between what was done in the civil service for a much larger and a much more varied workforce than the teachers, emphasises how deplorable has been the set-up in the teaching profession. The fundamental defects exist now. I can only hope that we shall see some hope in the new Bill.
I have strayed beyond the bounds of the order but I cannot keep out of a debate on teachers' pay, however short it may be, nor can I get rid of the disappointments which have clouded my outlook in relation to the field of education over the past 16 years.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, this has been a brief debate and perhaps it is the better for that. I should like to thank the noble Lords who have taken part, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for refraining from getting involved in the Bill. It is helpful at this stage not to discuss the Bill which will shortly be before us.
I have noted the various comments made by your Lordships and I shall draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, this is the last occasion on which the Government will be asking the House to approve an extension of the 1987 Act. Legislation now being considered in another place will replace the interim advisory committee with new permanent machinery for negotiating teachers' pay and conditions. I believe that the proposals mark a significant step forward in restoring teachers' status and morale. I hope that they will be welcomed by the House when we have an opportunity to debate them in due course.
We should not forget, and I acknowledge, the admirable job which the IAC has done since 1987. It has produced three excellent reports which the Government have warmly welcomed and implemented in full. I have no doubt that the report which is due to be presented to my right honourable friend next month will be of an equally high standard.
It is a fundamental belief of the Government that flexible pay systems which allow the targeting of resources where they are most needed are the most effective way of tackling any local recruitment and retention difficulties. The teachers' pay structure should also be flexible enough to enable LEAs and governing bodies to reward good teachers and those who take on additional responsibilities. That is why the Government put in place the incentive allowance system in 1987 and that is why we have welcomed
340
successive reports from the IAC which have built on that base and further extended local flexibility each year.
I turn to the points raised by your Lordships. All noble Lords talked of the damaging effect of the delay in bringing forward legislation. In the spirit that has dominated this short debate I do not attribute blame. However, I tried to touch on the reasons for the failure to achieve a consensus which contributed to the delay.
It is said widely that teachers' pay has fallen behind during the lifetime of this Government and there is talk of differentials. However, the fact remains that since 1979 teachers' pay has risen on average by some 30 per cent. in real terms. It is considerably higher in real terms than it was immediately following the 1974 review presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. In cash terms, since 1986 it has risen by more than 50 per cent.
We look forward to the legislation arriving in this House. In the meantime, the order is needed to ensure that teachers receive a pay rise next year.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.22 to 8 p.m.]

New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 65 [Powers of street authority in relation to reinstatement]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 35, line 18, leave out ("is causing") and insert ("may cause").
The noble Lord said: Clause 65 deals with powers of street authorities with regard to reinstatement. Subsection (4) as drafted will allow only a highway authority to reinstate on its own initiative where an actual danger exists. The amendment seeks to extend the provisions to potential dangers. If accepted, the amendment would mean that a highway inspector could deal with a piece of shoddy work without the necessity of waiting for a disaster or being able to prove that there is a danger. That is of great importance as the Bill does not define a danger for the purpose of decision-making without resort to legal interpretation and its attendant delays.
I know that there is a difference of opinion on this matter but we are trying to avoid the necessity of waiting for an accident which may have serious consequences. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Clause 64 of the Bill places the primary responsibility on the undertakers to ensure that their reinstatements continuously meet the prescribed performance standard. It is important that the highway authority's general responsibilities for maintaining its roads should not detract from that. The procedure for remedying defective reinstatements

341
under this clause gives street authorities a role in influencing the extent and timing of necessary works but places the financial and physical responsibility for putting the defects right on the undertaker concerned. In cases where a reinstatement is actually causing danger to road users, the street authority may clearly need to act immediately, and the provision as drafted allows for that.
A street authority must make a judgment as to whether a reinstatement is dangerous or not before acting in that way. To widen the condition to circumstances in which a reinstatement simply may cause danger to users of the street at some time would allow too wide a discretion to the street authority. I submit that that would lead to some of the legal complications which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, outlined when moving the amendment. The amendment is not considered necessary to allow satisfactory arrangements to operate in practice to protect road users from danger caused by undertakers' reinstatements. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: I thank the Minister for his comments to explain why he cannot accept the amendment. I was pleased to note that he said that there are provisions whereby immediate action could be taken, because that was the purpose of the amendment. I shall look very carefully at what the Minister said and at the provisions to which he referred because one needs immediate action and not a few days' notice in order to deal with the matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 119 [Powers of road works authority in relation to reinstatement]:
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 63, line 30, leave out ("street") and insert ("road works").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting amendment to correct an incorrect reference to the street authority. The reference should be to the road works authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 66 [Reinstatement affected by subsequent works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 35, line 43, after second ("the") insert ("subsequent").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 138, 139 and 140. These are drafting amendments which clarify the provisions of Clause 66(4) concerning an undertaker's responsibility for a reinstatement which is affected by remedial works carried out by the street authority. The amendments provide that the reinstatement carried out by the authority is referred to in subsection
342
(4) as the subsequent reinstatement, as in subsection (2). The amendments to Clause 120 do that for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 35, line 45, at end insert ("subsequent").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 120 [Reinstatement affected by subsequent works]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 64, line 27, after second ("the") insert ("subsequent").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 64, line 29, at end insert ("subsequent").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 [Fee for occupation of the highway]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 36, line 45, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
("(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and

(b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3), (4) or (5) or the works take longer or are more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 142. The amendment makes important further provision concerning the Secretary of State's powers to require highway authorities to introduce a scheme for the charging of the occupation of road space by undertakers and brings the clause into line with the department's original intentions.
As presently drafted, it might have the unfortunate effect of encouraging undertakers to underestimate the length and extent of their works, while at the same time failing to provide an incentive to complete works ahead of schedule.
The amendment therefore empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for repayments of fees, and also for requiring undertakers to pay additional fees when works overrun or are more extensive than was originally estimated. The power also extends to laying down how the amount of any repayment or additional fee is to be calculated. The amendment to Clause 121 does that for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 67, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tordoff: Members of the Committee will remember that this was a subject on which we dwelt on Second Reading. At that stage I remember asking the Minister whether it was necessary to charge for the occupation of road space and whether the department felt that to impose a financial penalty was a way of ensuring that people digging holes in the road may be encouraged to do so more quickly. I remember that he nodded at the time, about which I remarked. Clearly that is part of the philosophy.
I still wonder whether it is entirely wise. There are two views on this matter, one from the utilities and one from the local authority associations. The utilities, not unnaturally, feel that it is an unnecessary imposition on them, particularly in the light of their having to put down money in advance. There may be some relief from the fact that the noble Lord has just moved Amendment No. 141. However, that does not go the whole way.
When we look back to the Horne Report it reviewed the possibility of making charges in this way. It concluded that they would be of doubtful practicality, and I sympathise with that view. The report suggested that traffic-sensitive routes should be designated and special requirements be agreed for road works to take place within them.
If the scheme operates alongside the codes of practice it will inevitably be a tax on consumers, as I endeavoured to suggest at Second Reading. In a sense it is robbing Peter to pay Paul due to the structure of local government finance. All that happens in the end is that the Exchequer has to put less money into the local authority as a result of the local authority taking money from the users of the utilities. That is a curiously bureaucratic way of doing things. On the other hand, local authorities feel that it would be a useful way of disciplining the utilities when they come to dig holes in the road.
I wonder whether it is necessary for the provision to be in the Bill in this form or whether it would be possible for the Secretary of State to devise a scheme where he can deal with what I suspect are the rare occasions when people offend against the implicit intention of the Bill. It seems to be unduly bureaucratic to have a situation where all the utilities will pay money in advance of opening up the road. The Minister said that if they succeed in filling it in before the appointed time they may be rewarded in some way. However, it seems to be an unnecessarily bureaucratic way of dealing with the matter. I simply wish to take the opportunity of clause stand part to open up a general debate on Clause 67.
Lord Underhill: I should like to say a few words on this matter. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, gave notice that there would be a debate on clause stand part. Part of the difficulty which has arisen is the history of the matter. As compared with practically everything else in the Bill, this proposal was not the subject of proper consultation between local authority associations and the utilities. In fact
344
the proposal was floated by the Department of Transport in a consultation document issued completely separately from its consultation on the package as a whole. Throughout the Bill, we have talked of the package being a whole package. It is one that has been agreed by both the highway authorities and the utilities. Unlike other provisions in Part III of the Bill, there was no informal consultation between the department and the utilities or the highway authorities on this proposal. The first that the association of which I am president knew of the publication of the consultation document was as a result of press inquiries. That caused a considerable amount of difficulty.
During our Second Reading debate we were pleased to note that the Minister stated,
"The Secretary of State would only prescribe a charging scheme if he were satisfied that such a financial incentive was necessary to reduce the amount of disruption caused by utility works on the most traffic-sensitive streets".—[Official Report, 20/11/90; col. 671.]
I am informed that the local authority associations welcome that assurance. However, they wonder whether a provision could be introduced into the Bill to make that a definite requirement. They are not opposed to the principle as such. We hope that the provision will never be called upon unless things are breaking down. We should like to see some means of putting the assurance given by the Minister into the Bill so that everybody is aware that it is a reserve power which the Government presume is necessary.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We covered this clause at Second Reading and I am only too pleased to be able to expand on the Government's views on it. The clause was introduced because the Government want to reduce traffic congestion by every means at their disposal. I hope that that is an aim shared all around the Chamber.
Utility street works are a major cause of delays, at least some of which can be avoided. Charging would act as a powerful incentive to utilities and others to plan their works so as to take up less road space or to last less long. Even on the conservative estimates in the Horne Report, the minimum cost of delays to motorists imposed by utility works in the carriageway of roads is estimated to exceed £55 million per year. Experience with the Department of Transport's lane rental scheme has shown that savings in delay costs of about one-third were achievable, despite initial scepticism.
The wording of Clause 67 does not mean that a fee will be payable by undertakers in every case. The Secretary of State may not prescribe a scheme, or may prescribe different rates of fee, which could include free periods for different works. The power to charge would be used where it was considered most likely to achieve reductions in the amount of delay and inconvenience. A scheme could be structured so that the great majority of works not causing any more obstruction than was reasonably necessary would escape charges altogether.

345
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that charging might in some way be an indirect tax on consumers. The maximum total of charges envisaged in the Department of Transport's consultation paper represented around 1 per cent. of the cost of utility street works. I do not have a totally accurate figure but I understand that the cost of utility works is around £1 billion a year. I do not know how that relates to the total cost of the various utilities supplied to the consumer; it must be only a small proportion. We are therefore speaking of 1 per cent. of something which is itself only a small proportion of the consumer's actual cost of purchasing the utilities, service or product concerned.
Utilities could avoid passing charges on to customers by entering into lane rental type contracts with their contractors. That is certainly an opportunity which I hope they will adopt. Furthermore, local authorities would not be left out of pocket by having to administer a charging scheme. Their reasonable costs of administration will be met out of any revenue from fees.
This is a provision worth having in reserve. As the Bill makes clear, the first of any regulations made under this section would need to be brought in by an affirmative resolution instrument. Therefore, noble Lords would have an opportunity to discuss the matter again. We shall of course continue consultations with those involved on that issue. I believe it is a useful measure to be included in the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will allow Clause 67 to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before the Minister concludes, perhaps I may ask him two questions. First, is it really fair to draw a comparison between lane rentals and fees for the occupation of a highway? My understanding is that lane rental arrangements are both positive and negative, whereas as I read Clause 67(6) an estimate on the charge is made and there may be a deviation in so far as the positive is concerned—that is, that a local authority can charge more if the time used is greater than estimated—but there is no amount repayable if the work is executed in less time.
Lord Tordoff: With respect to the noble Lord, Amendment No. 141 just moved by the Minister deals with that situation; that there is the possibility of some recovery.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for reminding me of that. However, again unless I have misunderstood, when we discussed the disposition of fees the noble Lord and I were not at one as to where those fees were to go. I believe that he suggested that they were to offset the TSG. Therefore, it again appears to me that the Clause 67(6) charge is in fact more akin to an additional tax in that it does not attract any more money for improvements by the local highway authority but reduces the contribution that it receives by way of TSG.
It seemed to me on Second Reading, and still does, that while the principle may be absolutely right and
346
there is a deterrent to utilities wasting time and taking up space when they should not, it bears over-harshly on them because there is no recourse from the other side. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can help me understand a little of that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, I suppose it is meant to be a deterrent precisely to stop utilities wasting time. When I made a comparison with the lane rental scheme I did not attempt to say that it was similar to the lane rental scheme in that there is not a positive and negative as there is in that scheme. All I said was that the department's experience with the lane rental scheme is that it has shown that considerable savings can be made. I then went on to say that utilities could also enter into lane rental type schemes with their contractors which would also help in this matter.
It would be inappropriate to use local authority funds to pay bonuses to utilities but, as I said, they could enter into lane rental type contracts with their contractors to help speed matters along.
As regards the treatment of receipts, we have yet to propose how funds should be used. They would not necessarily be fully offset against TSG. That is a matter we are still considering. When I originally replied to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I gave an idea, on the principle of the tax on consumers to which my noble friend referred, of how small an amount that would be for the consumer.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Minister. To reiterate what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, he may not have observed that Amendment No. 141 deletes the whole of subsection (6) and therefore takes out the words,
"No amount is repayable if the works are not executed or take less time or are less extensive than was estimated".
I assume those words have been taken out deliberately by the Minister. Indeed, there is provision under the regulations in the new subsection (6) (a),
"for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed".
The question that we must ask ourselves is whether that amendment goes as far as it might in terms of leaving within the hands of the Secretary of State the ability to be more flexible than the original clause.
We accept the Minister's reassurance but it would be unfortunate if on this clause the consensus which has operated throughout the whole of the rest of the Bill were to be put in some degree of jeopardy. All I wish to say at the moment is that we will read what the Minister said. I have no doubt that the various parties, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, were somewhat surprised at this matter coming forward at a secondary stage in consultation, and we must see whether they are satisfied with the position that we have now reached. However, I suspect that further reassurance will be required from the Government. In the meantime, I certainly do not intend to vote against the clause standing part of the Bill.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 121 [Fee for occupation of a road]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 142:

347
Page 65, line 24, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
("(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and

(b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3) or (4) or the works take longer or are more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 68, 122, 69, 123, 70 and 124 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Contributions to costs of making good long-term damage]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 38, line 27, leave out ("a street authority") and insert ("the street authority or, in the case of a road subject to a concession within the meaning of Part I of this Act, by the concessionaire,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary in order to correct an earlier omission from the Bill and bring Clause 71 into line with the department's original intentions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 125, 72 and 126 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Duty to inform undertakers of location of apparatus]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 39, line 28, leave out from ("undertaker") to end of line 30.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 145 to 149. These amendments are necessary in order to clarify the steps to be taken by persons carrying out works in the street if they discover unmapped or unidentifiable apparatus in the course of that work. Taken together the amendments produce a more workable procedure to be followed under Clause 73.
The first amendment removes a redundant provision contained in Clause 73(1) (b); namely, that an undertaker must inform the undertaker concerned when he finds apparatus in a location where the undertaker has no record of there being any apparatus. This provision merely repeats that contained in Clause 73(1) (a).
The second amendment makes provision for where an undertaker carrying out works in a street finds unidentifiable apparatus. In such cases he will be required to mark its location and put a general description of the apparatus on the records which he is required to keep under Clause 72. If anyone else finds unidentifiable apparatus while carrying out works in the street they will be required to inform the
348
street authority. The effect of this will be to enable more complete records of apparatus in streets to be built up over time.
The final amendment consists of a minor drafting correction which is consequential to the second amendment. The other amendments deal with exactly the same situation in Scotland. I hope your Lordships will agree that these are sensible amendments. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Underhill: The Minister referred to Amendment No. 143. He dealt with the provisions of the clause concerning apparatus which is found and the necessity for that to be recorded. He also explained what action should be taken if apparatus is found by another organisation. It must tell the street authority. We have no objection to the amendment as such. However, there is one important question to be asked of the Minister. What do the Government envisage the street authority doing with the information when it is compiled? The Bill simply states that the information shall be recorded, but what should be done with it when it is recorded?
Lord Tordoff: I wish to refer back to the days when the Select Committee on Science and Technology was considering digital mapping and whether such provisions would encourage local authorities to extend the degree of that mapping for their areas.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the local authorities will merely put this information on their records. If someone comes along and claims a particular piece of apparatus they will know where it is. On the whole, I believe this provision applies to pieces of apparatus which no one knows much about. Digital mapping is an interesting subject. A scheme along the lines which we envisage for the register is already operating, using digital mapping. I believe it is operating in the West Midlands, and that is a pioneer area. I hope that scheme will be followed up around the country.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 39, line 33, at end insert:
("(1A) Where a person executing works of any description in the street finds apparatus which does not belong to him and is unable, after taking such steps as are reasonably practicable, to ascertain to whom the apparatus belongs, he shall—

(a) if he is an undertaker, note on the records kept by him under section 72(1) (in such manner as may be prescribed) the location of the apparatus he has found and its general description; and

(b) in any other case, inform the street authority of the location and general description of the apparatus he has found.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 39, line 34, after ("(1)") insert ("or (1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 127 [Duty to inform undertakers of location of apparatus]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 147 to 149:
Page 68, line 8, leave out from ("undertaker") to end of line 10.
Page 68, line 13, at end insert:
("(1A) Where a person executing works of any description in the road finds apparatus which does not belong to him and is unable, after taking such steps as are reasonably practicable, to ascertain whom the apparatus belongs to, he shall—

(a) if he is an undertaker, note on the records kept by him under section 126(1) (in such manner as may be prescribed) the location of the apparatus he has found and its general description; and

(b) in any other case, inform the road works authority of the location and general description of the apparatus he has found.").

Page 68, line 14, after ("(1)") insert ("or(1A)").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments just now. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 [Duty to maintain apparatus]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 39, line 40, after first ("street") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 40, line 5, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment in order to eliminate an inconsistency in Clause 74(2). It replaces the reference to major road works by major highway works, which is the term used elsewhere in this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 152:
Leave out Clause 74 and insert the following new clause:
("Duty to maintain apparatus
74.—(1) An undertaker having apparatus in the street shall secure that all manholes or other surface boxes forming part of such apparatus are maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the street authority, as regards the safety of persons using the street and the structure of the street.
(2) If an undertaker fails to comply with any reasonable requirement of the street authority in relation to its obligations under subsection (1) the street authority may, after not less than seven days' notice to the undertakers, execute any works rendered necessary by such failure and recover from the undertaker the costs reasonably incurred in so doing.
(3) A street authority executing any works for road purposes, or in pursuance of this section, shall exercise due care to avoid damage to any undertakers' apparatus or interference with access to such apparatus and shall indemnify the undertakers against any costs or expenses incurred by the undertaker in making good any damage or interference caused in contravention of this subsection.
(4) Any dispute arising as to the compliance of the undertaker or the street authority with their obligations under this section or with any requirements of the street authority under subsection (2), the reasonableness of those requirements and the reasonableness of the costs and expenses referred to in subsections (2) and (3) shall be settled by arbitration.").
The noble Lord said: When I tabled this amendment I had not taken into account the concern of British Telecom about the Bill. My understanding is that the purpose of this clause is to require the undertaker to maintain manholes and other surface boxes at street level, such as valve covers and so forth, in a safe manner and to empower the street authority to ensure that that is done.
However, the clause as drafted suggests that the power of the highway authority may be extended to the inspection and, if necessary, the repair of both underground apparatus belonging to the undertaker and also above-ground work such as British Telecom connection boxes and cabinets. While employees of the street authority may be adequately qualified to deal with any situation arising from poor maintenance of a manhole which causes damage to the road surface, they will patently not be similarly qualified to work on the undertaker's pipes and cables. Such a power used wrongly in this way could easily lead to the loss of supplies to customers and in some cases to injury or even death for the street authority employees concerned.
The purpose of the amendment is purely to find out the Government's views. I shall not press the matter. We wish the Government to state more clearly the intention of the clause and at the same time to place a duty of care on the street authority not to damage manholes and surface boxes when it is carrying out the works for road purposes. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The utilities have taken the initiative in that they consider that Clause 74 has been drafted too widely. According to them it would enable a street authority, for example, to dig up a highway in order to check the standard of maintenance of a gas main. The local authority associations have said that Clause 74 covers the needs of the highway authorities —that is to say, the ability to take action concerning, for example, a defective manhole cover which could present a road safety hazard. The authorities are further interested in ensuring that aspects of utility work like ducting are in a satisfactory state. If it is neglected or is inadequate, in certain cases it could cause the road or footway to be in a state of collapse.
The highway authorities have no interest, no locus and no competence in testing the adequacy of utility service apparatus such as pipes or cables. Clause 75 clarifies the law to ensure that the utilities are responsible for the cost of any damage that may be caused by a pipe burst or an explosion. In principle the local authority associations would not oppose an amendment to Clause 74 which endeavoured to define the street authority's areas of legitimate concern more tightly.
The local authority associations have a couple of reservations concerning the first part of the amendment which defines the authority's interest too

351
tightly and would have the effect of excluding the ducting example to which I referred earlier. According to the amendment, the authority is required to allow the utility seven days to undertake any repairs. That is unacceptable where there is a road safety hazard. In such circumstances the highway authority should have the right to act instantly.
The second part of the amendment is unnecessary and it even goes outside the scope of the Bill. Highway authorities take a good deal of care to avoid damaging the apparatus belonging to the utilities when they undertake road works, but mistakes occur and damage results. In those circumstances highway authorities undertake any remedial work themselves at their own cost or alternatively reimburse the utility for any work that it undertakes. The Bill is concerned with the regulation of utility work rather than highway authority work. In any case, custom and practice already allow for what the amendment is designed to achieve.
As regards subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause, the word "reasonable" in relation to costs has not been introduced. That is a matter to which we adverted earlier. The next point is of some interest. We are not quite sure what is the source of the reference to arbitration. That is a point I raised concerning an earlier amendment. I suspect that the utilities have identified that from other legislation. I believe that on balance the position is right, though I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The present Clause 74 affords important protection to highway authorities, transport authorities, bridge authorities and sewer authorities. These authorities must be able to satisfy themselves on behalf of members of the public that any undertakers' apparatus is properly maintained to secure safety, the convenience of road users, the integrity of the apparatus and of the street, land or structure concerned. If an undertaker fails to maintain his apparatus to the reasonable satisfaction of a relevant authority, it is right that the authority should he able to protect its interests by carrying out inspections or emergency works itself.
The effect of this amendment would be to remove altogether the protection from bridge authorities, transport authorities and sewer authorities. It would confine the interest of the street authority to the maintenance of manholes or other surface boxes. That is unacceptably narrow, since highway authorities also have a clear interest in the proper maintenance of buried apparatus in so far as it effects road users, safety and the structure of the street. That point was made clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. An undertaker who maintains his apparatus properly need only afford reasonable facilities for the street authority to ascertain that he does so. That does not seem an onerous or unreasonable requirement.
The amendment also seeks to deal with responsibilities of the street authority executing works for road purposes. Works for road purposes are not the subject of this clause or this part of the Bill since they are mainly regulated by other highways legislation. However, the government amendment to insert a new
352
clause before Clause 76 dealing with works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus in the street should afford undertakers additional protection. That provision requires street authorities to give the owner of apparatus reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works for road purposes, and to comply with reasonable requirements for the protection of the apparatus.
I hope that I have explained the Government's position with reasonable clarity. As there has been a short debate on this subject between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I shall read most carefully what has been said. If there is anything that needs to be done I shall come back to my noble friend. Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the question of arbitration and sought elucidation on that point. Can my noble friend say anything further?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I can help the noble Earl before the Minister replies. I raised the matter only because it had arisen in relation to an earlier debate. The Minister said that he would look at the matter. I was only expressing interest in the fact that the utilities had raised precisely that issue.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Far be it from me to comment on something in my noble friend's amendment, but I mentioned arbitration earlier in a different context. It is for my noble friend to say what he means by arbitration, not me.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I thank my noble friend for his reply. The debate has been useful in clarifying the Government's views, as have all the debates on this part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 128 [Duty to maintain apparatus]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 68, line 20, after first ("road") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 [Liability for damage or toss caused]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 40, line 23, leave out second ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 155. These are drafting amendments which are proposed in order to make clear that an undertaker's liability for loss or damage under Clause 75 includes that suffered by both the street authority and any other relevant authority, and also any other person who has apparatus in the street in question. Amendment No. 155 applies the same provision to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 75, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tordoff: I am sorry to intervene at this stage without having given the Minister notice of my intention to do so. This morning a number of noble Lords will have received a briefing from the Cable Authority. If the authority is paying someone to lobby Parliament, it ought to look at the fee he is charging. To consider such a briefing on the day the Bill starts its second day in Committee is beyond the call of duty. Nevertheless, the authority raises a number of matters on which minor clarification from the Minister would be helpful. The authority says that Clause 75 is worrying. It realises that care must be taken when carrying out work in the street but it is concerned that it may be liable even in situations where there is no fault on its part.
Clause 75(3) states:
"The liability of an undertaker under this section arises —(a) whether or not the damage or loss is attributable to negligence on his part or on the part of any person for whom he is responsible".
I can understand why the Cable Authority has some minor worries. I wonder whether the Minister can assist the cable companies in their difficulty by explaining how far they will be held responsible for matters for which they do not think they are responsible.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I received a letter from one of the cable companies only the day before yesterday. Mine was slightly in advance of that sent to other noble Lords. The cable companies have obviously just woken up to this piece of legislation. They will be treated as licensed undertakers rather than as statutory undertakers. I have offered a meeting with my officials to clarify any points the cable companies may have. I have not heard whether they wish to take up that offer. I hope they will, and I hope that we shall be able at least to explain to them what this is all about.
Lord Tordoff: I am most grateful to the Minister.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 129 [Liability for damage or loss caused]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 69, line 2, leave out second ("or") and insert ("and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 69, line 3, leave out ("street") and insert ("road").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 157:
Before Clause 76, insert the following new clause:
Works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus in the street
(".—(1) Where works for road purposes are likely to affect apparatus in the street, the authority executing the works shall—

(a) give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and

(b) comply with any requirement made by him which is—

(i) reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to it, and

(ii) reasonably practicable having regard to the time when the requirement is made.

(2) In the case of emergency works the above requirements shall be taken to have been complied with if the authority take such steps towards satisfying them as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
(3) An authority who fail to comply with subsection (1) commit an offence in respect of each failure and are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(4) In proceedings against an authority for such an offence it is a defence for them to show that the failure was attributable—

(a) to their not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of a person's apparatus, or

(b) to their not knowing the identity or address of the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that their ignorance was not due to any negligence on their part or to any failure to make inquiries which they ought reasonably to have made.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 157 inserts a new clause before Clause 76 and corrects an earlier omission from this part of the Bill. It makes provision where works for road purposes are likely to affect apparatus in the street.
The new clause is similar to Clause 62, as amended, which deals with undertakers' works likely to affect other apparatus in the street, but applies to works for roads purposes. It places similar requirements on authorities carrying out such works to give the person to whom any apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the works, and to comply with any reasonable requirement which that person may impose. Subject to similar defence provisions to those in Clause 62, failure to comply with the duties laid down in subsection (1) of the new clause is a criminal offence. The second amendment does the same for Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Duties as to taking of necessary measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 41, line 9, leave out ("promoting authority") and insert ("highway, bridge or transport authority concerned").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 159, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167 and 168. These amendments are necessary to delete the undefined term "promoting authority" and references to it in this part of the Bill. The first two are drafting amendments. They are necessary in order to clarify to whom the provisions of Clause 76 ("diversionary works") apply. The first replaces the previously

355
undefined term "promoting authority" with a list of the types of authority to which the clause applies, that is; the highway, bridge or transport authority concerned. The second deletes the subsequent reference to "promoting authority" in Clause 76.
The third is a drafting amendment to Clause 77, made necessary as a result of the first two amendments. It deletes the reference to "promoting authority", and also makes clearer the provisions of subsection (3). It empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring an undertaker whose apparatus has been altered to give credit for any betterment to his apparatus due to the alteration, against the costs which the authority concerned would otherwise have to bear. The fourth is a consequential drafting amendment to the arbitration provision of Clause 77, and also replaces the term "promoting authority". The amendments to Clause 130, and the second and third amendments to Clause 131, do the same for Scotland. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My only concern in this connection is whether in fact the term,
"highway, bridge or transport authority",
is sufficiently comprehensive. What would be the position of a developer? Further, are there any other possibilities which ought to be caught by this amendment? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to my queries.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hope that there are no other possibilities; but I shall certainly look into the matter. If we have missed something out, I shall return to the matter at a later stage and put forward another amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 41, line 22, leave out ("promoting").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 160:
Before Clause 130, insert the following new clause:
Works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus in the road
(".—(1) Where works for road purposes are likely to affect apparatus in the road, the authority executing the works shall

(a) give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and

(b) comply with any requirement made by him which is—

(i) reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to it, and

(ii) reasonably practicable having regard to the time when the requirement is made.

(2) In the case of emergency works the above requirements shall be taken to have been complied with if the authority take such steps towards satisfying them as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
(3) An authority who fail to comply with subsection (1) commit an offence in respect of each failure and are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(4) In proceedings against an authority for such an offence it is a defence for them to show that the failure was attributable—

(a) to their not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of a person's apparatus, or

(b) to their not knowing the identity or address of the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that their ignorance was not due to any negligence on their part or to any failure to make inquiries which they ought reasonably to have made.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 130 [Duties as to taking of necessary measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 161 and 162:
Page 69, line 35, leave out ("promoting authority") and insert ("roads, bridge or transport authority concerned").
Page 70, line 3, leave out ("promoting").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Sharing of cost of necessary measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 41, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert ("allowable costs of the measures needing to be taken in relation to the apparatus in consequence of the works, or in order to facilitate their execution, shall be borne by the highway, bridge or transport authority concerned and the undertaker in such proportions as may be prescribed.
Different proportions may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 166 which applies to Scotland. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the provisions of Clause 77(1) regarding the sharing of the costs of diversionary works. The clause as presently drafted is expressed in terms of payment by the highway, bridge or transport authority concerned to the undertaker. However, in practice payment may be due in either direction, depending on who actually carries out the works to the undertaker's apparatus.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 164 and 165:
Page 42, line 1, leave out from ("The") to ("from") in line 4 and insert ("Secretary of State may by regulations require the undertaker to give credit for any financial benefit to him").
Page 42, line 6, leave out from ("payable") to ("be") in line 8 and insert ("by virtue of this section shall, in default of agreement between the parties,").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 158. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 131 [Sharing of cost of necessary measures]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 166 to 168:
Page 70, line 15, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 18 and insert ("allowable costs of the measures needing to be taken in relation to the apparatus in consequence of the

357
works, or in order to facilitate their execution, shall be borne by the roads, bridge or transport authority concerned and the undertaker in such proportions as may be prescribed.
Different proportions may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.").
Page 70, line 27, leave out from ("The") to ("from") in line 30 and insert ("Secretary of State may by regulations require the undertaker to give credit for any financial benefit to him").
Page 70, line 32, leave out from ("payable") to ("be") in line 34 and insert ("by virtue of this section shall, in default of agreement between the parties,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [Highway authorities, highways and related matters]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 42, line 39, leave out ("maintenance").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 170. These are minor amendments which exclude works for the maintenance of a road hump from the definition of "major highway works" under Clause 78(3) (e), which applies for the purposes of Clauses 76 and 77. Such works will still be classed as "works for road purposes" under subsection (2) (b) of that clause, being carried out under powers conferred by Part V of the Highways Act 1980. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 132: [Roads authorities, roads and related matters]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 71, line 14, leave out ("maintenance").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 79, 133, 80 and 134 agreed to.
Clause 81 [Public sewers and sewer authorities]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 44, line 15, leave out ("such requirements") and insert ("any requirement").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 172 to 174. These are drafting amendments which bring the opening words of Clause 81(3) into line with the wording of Clause 62(1) (b) as amended, and with Clause 81(3) (b) (ii), where the references are to "the requirement" in the singular. Similar amendments apply to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 44, line 15, leave out ("as are") and insert ("which is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 135 [Sewers]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 173 and 174:
Page 72, line 31, leave out ("such requirements") and insert ("any requirement").
Page 72, line 31, leave out ("as are") and insert ("which is").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 82, 136, 83, 137, 84 and 138 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Works affecting level crossings or tram-lines]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 46, line 2, leave out ("tram-lines") and insert ("a tramway").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak to Amendments Nos. 176 to 178. These amendments replace the references to "tram-lines" in Clause 85 by the wider and more appropriate reference to a tramway. The word "tramway" is defined in Clause 95 of the Bill and includes tram-lines, and also trolley vehicle lines.
The first amendment replaces the reference to tram-lines in Clause 85(1) ("works affecting level crossings or tram-lines"). That has the effect of extending the protection afforded to tramway undertakings to include not just the tramlines themselves but any overhead cables, wires or any other apparatus.
The second amendment is necessary as a consequence of the first. It removes the now redundant Clause 85(6). The other amendments do the same for Scotland. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate the importance of the amendments. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have a brief question for the Minister: does the amendment comprehend guided busways?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not entirely sure what a guided busway is. If it has rails, I suppose that it is a tramway; if it is overhead, it will be a trolley vehicle.
Lord Tordoff: Perhaps—
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We have included a trolley vehicle. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is about to explain.
Lord Tordoff: I do not profess to be an expert on this matter, but there is new technology where electrical or electronic devices are laid beneath the road surface. That will allow buses to be guided down a certain track. It is not technology that is widely used in this country at the moment. It is something that could well come in the future. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right and that it would not be covered by the present provisions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: If it is a provision which requires the road to be dug up in order to put something underneath, I can assure the noble Lord that it will somehow get into the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister is confident that the Bill is that comprehensive? Will he write to us on the point? That might be the best way of dealing with the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 46, line 38, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 [Works affecting level crossings or tram-lines]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 74, line 20, leave out ("tram-lines") and insert ("a tramway").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 75, line 10, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 179:
Before Clause 86, insert the following new clause:
Power of street authority to undertake street works
(".—(1) A street authority may enter into an agreement with an undertaker for the execution by the authority on behalf of the undertaker of any street works.
(2) The agreement may contain such terms as to payment and otherwise as the parties consider appropriate.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from any powers exercisable by the street authority apart from this section.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 180:
Before Clause 140, insert the following new clause:
Power of road works authority to undertake road works
(".—(1) A road works authority may enter into an agreement with an undertaker for the execution by the authority on behalf of the undertaker of any road works.
(2) The agreement may contain such terms as to payment and otherwise as the parties consider appropriate.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from any powers exercisable by the road works authority apart from this section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 140, 87, 141, 88, 142, 89, 143 and 90 agreed to.
Clause 144 [Arbitration]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 76, line 34, leave out from ("be") to ("a") in line 35 and insert ("settled by arbitration shall be referred for determination by").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91, 145 and 92 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 146 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 93 and 147 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Meaning of "prescribed" and regulations generally]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 50, line 18, at end insert:
("(4) Before making any regulations under this Part the Secretary of State shall consult with persons representative of highway authorities and utilities.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment will be clearly seen from the wording set out on the Marshalled List.
The Committee will recall that on Second Reading a number of noble Lords expressed appreciation of the work carried out by the local authority associations and the National Joint Utility Group in preparing proposals for legislation arising from the recommend-dations of the Home Report. That was done through the auspices of the HAUC. In his response to those comments the Minister gave an assurance that there will be the fullest consultation with representatives of the utilities and the highway authorities before any regulations on council practice are made or approved.
That assurance is welcome, but there is concern that once the Bill is on the statute book the Government could proceed to make the regulations and publish codes of practice without fully involving the HAUC in the process. Ministers and government policies change. In fact there has been a change of Secretary of State since the Bill was published. There could easily be a change of government shortly. It will be appreciated that the enacting of the Bill will not mean that the HAUC can give up its work. Indeed, it will be necessary to keep in being the working parties which have done such splendid work until now so as they can frame further items in connection with the legislation.
We want to ensure that on the face of the Bill will be the assurances of consultation with representatives of the highway authorities and the public utilities to reassure members of the HAUC who devote their time and resources to this valuable work; in other words, we want the work to continue, but we want the provision written onto the face of the Bill, much as we appreciate the assurance the Minister gave. As is often said, an assurance given by a Minister does not necessarily mean that it will always be carried out if there are changes of Government or policy.
Lord Tordoff: I put my name to the amendment. I do not suppose that the Government are prepared to accept it for the fairly good and sufficient reason that to put into an Act an organisation which may not continue for perpetuity is perhaps tempting fate. Nevertheless, it is an opportunity to pay tribute to the work that has been done by the utilities, the highway authorities and the local authorities in bringing the Bill to fruition. We shall have further occasion to

361
come back to it. I was glad to put my name to the amendment because it is an opportunity to show how well these groups of people with conflicting interests have come together to work on the legislation. If it is possible to put the provision on the face of the Bill, I should welcome it.
Reverting to an earlier remark this evening on whether the Bill referred to Northern Ireland, how good it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on the Front Bench. I hope that in due course he will bring legislation before your Lordships' House to cover similar situations in Northern Ireland.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Although I did not put my name to the amendment, I brought the subject up in my Second Reading speech. We hope that the HAUC recommendations will be out before the Bill goes on the statute book so that the utilities may have the opportunity to put safeguards into the Bill in case they are not fully satisfied with the requirements. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that this party will be in government after the next election.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: We could go on arguing about that for a little while but now is perhaps not the time to do it, at the end of a long day. Of course I wish to join noble Lords who have paid tribute to all those in the highway authorities and utilities on the work they have done so far in developing the detailed standards for utility street works. The Department of Transport has also been closely involved and I pay tribute to its officials who worked as hard as the others.
It is the Secretary of State's normal practice to consult interested parties before making regulations which may affect them. In the case of the various regulations which may be prescribed under this part of the Bill, representatives of the highway authorities, utilities and other undertakers of street works would be consulted before regulations were made. I can certainly give that absolute categorical assurance for this Government, whoever happens to be Secretary of State or Minister of State. I can give no assurance on behalf of a future government were it not of this colour. However, I do not anticipate that eventuality.
It would be wrong to single out the particular people, as the amendment does. Therefore I cannot accept it. Nevertheless I give the assurance once more that consultations will continue.
Lord Underhill: As I have already said, we appreciate the assurances given by the Minister; I am pleased that he has reiterated them tonight. I cannot understand why the Government are shy of including this reference in the Bill. Many Bills have gone through your Lordships' House which referred to consultations with particular organisations and local authority associations. As we have been waiting five years for the Horne Report to be put into legislation, we wish to make certain that the matter is dealt with correctly and nothing is missed. That is why it is so important that consultations should take place. Although we have the assurance from the Minister, I wish to see it in the legislation.
362
It is not a matter of space and time. We have had to devote a vast amount of time to deal with amendments to sections of the Bill referring to Scotland when the whole matter could have been dealt with in three or four clauses covering the differences between Scotland and England and Wales. It is not a question of adding more to the Bill. A simple amendment such as mine would hearten the utilities and the highway authorities. If the Minister could see his way to including that in the Bill, everybody would be greatly encouraged.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The point that I was trying to make is that the noble Lord singles out two organisations which should be consulted. That is quite right, they will be, but there are other people who might need to be consulted as well. If one puts on the face of the Bill only those two organisations, if others are not consulted they will complain. I cannot go much further than to continue giving the assurance that of course we will consult. That should be good enough.
Lord Underhill: While that assurance is not good enough, it is satisfactory; therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I apologise to the Committee. I inadvertently included Schedule 6 in a group of clauses which I invited the Committee to allow to stand part of the Bill. I should have said Schedule 7.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 148 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Minor definitions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 183 and 184:
Page 50, line 40, at end insert:
(""traffic" includes pedestrians and animals;").
Page 51, line 8, at end insert:
("(4) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define "disability" and other expressions) applies in relation to the provisions of this Part as to the provisions of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 183 and 184.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Clause 149 [Minor definitions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 185 and 186:
Page 79, line 18, at end insert:
(""traffic" includes pedestrians and animals;").
Page 79, line 33, at end insert:
("(4) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define "disability" and other expressions) applies in relation to the provisions of this Part as to the provisions of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 135 and 186.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 51, line 17, at end insert:

("disability

(see section 95(4))")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 51, leave out line 35.
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 191. This is a drafting amendment which removes an unnecessary entry in the index of defined expressions. The term "prospectively maintainable highways" only appears in Clause 43(3). That provision refers directly to Clause 79, which sets out what streets are prospectively maintainable highways. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 51, line 51, at end insert:

("traffic

section 95(4)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 150 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 79, line 42, at end insert:

("disability

(see section 95(4))")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 191 and 192:
Page 80, leave out line 7.
Page 80, line 20, at end insert:

(" statutory right

section 149(1)

traffic

section 149(1)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 150, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 151 [Offences by bodies corporate or Scottish partnerships]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 80, line 45, at end insert:
("(3) For the purpose of this section it shall be the duty of all undertakers to have available for inspection free of charge at all reasonable times by any person making inquiry, a list of all persons mentioned in subsection (1) above and their duties and responsibilities in relation to the management and control of the undertaking and in relation to any street works and to retain that information for a period of ten years and to keep those records up to date.
(4) Failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (3) shall render the undertaker concerned liable to a fine not
364
exceeding Level 3 on the standard scale and to the withdrawal of any street works licence or licences held by them following summary conviction in the magistrates court.").
The noble Lord said: The situation in the Bill at the present time merely provides that various company officers shall share liability with the company but there is no requirement for them to be identified or identifiable. This amendment seeks to remedy that gap and to place the onus on undertakers to keep adequate records and to disclose them on demand. The amendment seeks to impose a fine for non-compliance. The associated provision for revocation of street works licences is also necessary.
Placing things in, on or under the highway is a privilege and not a right. The fact that an organisation fails to keep proper records would indicate that this privilege should be withdrawn. However, there is a wider implication to all this. There have been a number of cases which have shown either the indifference of management, the pressures imposed on management or the complacency of management. On a number of occasions matters of this kind have been revealed. I refer to catastrophes such as Zeebrugge and Clapham. One simply cannot shrug aside these factors. More and more emphasis is placed by head office managements on greater efficiency. There is also the risk of on-site corner cutting because of the economic pressures that are imposed. That can easily reduce the quality of site operations. Middle and senior management should be required to demon-strate clearly that works under their control are planned, properly managed and operated safely, and that the whole undertaking is carried out efficiently. If there is a failure in that regard, our submission is that a prosecution should ensue. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I listened with great care to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He referred to the Zeebrugge case. However, I believe it is way over the top to refer to such a case in connection with what we are dealing with in the Bill. It seems a little unfair for a junior manager to have to identify himself specifically in such works, when it is the company that is responsible for them. If such a manager has to identify himself, could an individual claim be made against him subsequently? What cover would such a manager have within the company?
Further, I question the need to retain a record for 10 years. Ten years is a very long time and much happens during that period. I wonder whether the noble Lord is able to justify that period.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has raised a point to which the utilities are totally opposed. Clause 151 is similar in terms to Section 45 of the Gas Act 1986, Section 102 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, Section 177 of the Water Act 1989 and Section 108 of the Electricity Act 1989. All of those provisions are similar to the general provisions contained in Section 733 of the Companies Act 1985. None of those statutes contains a provision of the type proposed in the amendment. The amendment is unnecessary. The effective enforcement

365
of Clause 151 would place a greater burden on the main statutory undertakers than that already imposed upon them by the specific legislation that I have cited.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: One of the main objectives of Parts III and IV of the Bill is to make undertakers, including the major utility companies, fully and clearly responsible for the effects of their street works. That is what we have been discussing all afternoon and evening. It would not improve that accountability to require the publication of comprehensive lists of individuals and their responsibilities as proposed in the amendment. I believe that that would be an extremely bureaucratic proposal.
However, numerous criminal sanctions are provided against an undertaker who fails to comply with his duties under the Bill. The clause makes clear that where an offence by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance or through the neglect of certain individuals, the individual as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and may be proceeded against. Surely that should be enough to ensure individual accountability. I do not believe that we need to go to the lengths proposed by the noble Lord in the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not really accept that. The amendment seeks to require all undertakers to keep good personal records. That must be an advantage. If they do not do so a small fine might be imposed.
I believe that listing and identifying officers and directors is a critical element in bringing home a prosecution against them as individuals, avoiding all the problems which accompany prosecuting a company. The fact that they may find themselves unable to undertake any road works may encourage some compliance. Finally, it gives an ordinary plaintiff who is injured or suffers loss an opportunity to find the guilty party. It will also assist the proper authorities to prepare a prosecution.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said that invoking the examples of Zeebrugge and Clapham was disproportionate. In those cases it was demonstrated very vividly and tragically that accountability was notably absent.
Road works are very dangerous places for both road users and road workers. We should not fail to recognise the significance of that. Of course road users are also responsible. There is a great deal of stupidity on their part. However, there can be no doubt that bad signing, poor planning and negligence by those responsible are significant causes of accidents at road works.
I have heard what the Minister had to say and noted the criticisms of two noble Lords. I do not want to detain the Committee at this stage. Therefore I shall study with care what they have said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I shall probably bring the matter back.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 151 agreed to.
Clauses 152 and 153 agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 99, line 4, at end insert:
(" . In section 139 of the Highways Act 1980 (control of builders' skips), in subsection (11) (definition of "builder's skip" and "owner")) for "and section 140" substitute ", section 140 and section 140A".
. After section 140 of the Highways Act 1980, insert—
"Builders' skips: fee for occupation of the highway.
140A.—(1) The owner of a builder's skip deposited on a highway maintainable at the public expense shall pay to the highway authority the prescribed fee for occupation of the highway.
(2) The fee payable shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the duration and extent of the occupation.
Different rates of fee may be prescribed according to the place and time at which the skip is deposited and such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.
(3) A person applying to the highway authority for permission under section 139 above shall submit together with his application an estimate of the likely duration and extent of the occupation of the highway; and the appropriate fee on the basis of that information must be paid before the authority grant permission.
(4) The Minister may by regulations provide—

(a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and

(b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3) or the occupation of the highway lasts longer or is more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.
(5) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations.".").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 196 and 197. This is a quite interesting group of amendments. This measure takes the form of three additions to be inserted in the Highways Act 1980. The amendments enable the introduction of schemes to charge owners of skips, scaffolding and builders' materials for the road space they occupy.
The amendments would give effect to the Government's proposal in their consultation document, published in September 1989, to apply any charging scheme to owners of skips, scaffolding and builders' materials. In that document, the Government recognised that such activities often cause serious disruption to traffic. It is believed that the introduction of charges would act as a powerful incentive to builders, developers and others to reduce the impact on traffic of their works.
The first two amendments consist of new sections which contain enabling powers by which the Secretary of State could require local highway authorities to introduce such schemes. They closely resemble the amended provisions in the Bill for charging undertakers for the occupation of road space during street works, which we have already debated under Clause 67.
The, third amendment consists of an amendment to Section 325 of the Highways Act 1980. It provides that the first set of regulations made under the provisions of these amendments should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. So again it is similar to the other clause, Clause 67.
I hope that the Committee will agree that this is a useful measure to put into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: In principle we support these new sections. I believe that there is a convincing case for them. However, I want to raise a few points with the Minister. I know that the local authority associations fully support this matter. The sections should be capable of being implemented separately from the regime for charging utilities. They should not be caught by the requirement that other anti-congestion provisions of the Act should be shown not to have worked. I ask the Minister to confirm that that is the case.
Will he also confirm that before these decisions are implemented discussions will be held with the associations on the details of the mechanisms by which the charging regime is to be implemented and on the financial arrangements? That point is of particular significance because the consultation document underlined the fact that the Department of Transport would set a fee and the Government would deduct the income likely to come from the authority's revenue support grant less an element for administration of the charge, and the Government would set an element for administration. In effect, that means that the charge will resemble something like back-door taxation and there is no likelihood that it will result in any extra investment for transport. Indeed, against the backcloth of, for example, the community charge, if one assumes that the Government underestimate the cost of administering the charge, it will lead to a cut in the resources available.
In that regard therefore I ask the Government to give an undertaking that any revenue generated by the charge will be made available for additional investment in transport and also to undertake to agree any administration costs under the LAAs.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I should like to ask my noble friend a very simple question. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and I do not think that he covered my point. It occurs to me that under the provisions of these amendments a utility contracting for certain works with a civil contractor who deposits a skip, scaffolding, piles of bricks or whatever will be charged a certain amount and at the same time the utility, having given notice of its intention to do certain works and agreed to certain fees, will have the first charge represented to it from the sub-contractor and in other words pay twice.
I am quite sure that it is not the intention of the Government that a utility should have a double charge imposed upon it under Clause 67 and under the charges to which the amendment refers. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the situation.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Clearly, double indemnity would be an unfortunate outcome.
In general I welcome the amendments, particularly in relation to building works in London. Every morning I pass a site in Great Peter Street. The pavement has a construction built over it. Theoretically there is still a way through for pedestrians until the workers park their motorcycles under the cover that is provided. Outside on this narrowed road there are a series of skips deposited on the pavement. Forklift trucks rush up and down, moving the skips, and various other large motorised units shift the bigger skips. On the other side of the road, where the meters have been covered so that motorists cannot park, we find large lorries parked. I wonder who is paying for this. As a community charge payer in the City of Westminster, I suspect that it may be me. Therefore, I welcome the idea that these people should pay a reasonable price for taking up land that ought to belong to the motorist.
I accept the qualifications that have been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Lucas, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful for the general reception that has been given to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has given a good example of the type of problem that the amendments are intended to help resolve. I am not saying that we can cure every single problem, but contractors will be given an incentive, to move their skips off the road and on to the site if possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether the amendment would have to be implement-ed together with Clause 67. I see no reason why it should be. The two provisions could be implemented separately and probably will be in the case of different sites. I can assure the noble Lord that consultations will take place with local authorities. I do not know whether additional revenues will be generated by the charges that are being put into transport. I will look at that matter and come back to the noble Lord.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth asked me to make sure that the utilities would not have to pay twice. I take that point on board and I will reflect on the matter. I hope that the Committee will agree to the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 99, line 8, at end insert:
("1A. In Section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), in subsection (1) omit the words "in Greater London other than a metropolitan road."
1B. In section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), for subsection (2) substitute "(2) If, in the case of any highway, it appears to the highway authority that any of the following persons, namely—

(a) any person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above, or

369

(b) where the highway is not a metropolitan road, the highway authority acting in the exercise of a statutory power to break up or open the highway, has caused any unnecessary obstruction for the purposes of this section, the highway authority may proceed as provided by subsection (4) below."

1C. In section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), for subsection (4) substitute "(4) In the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above, the highway authority may by notice require the person causing the obstruction to take such steps as may appear to the highway authority to be necessary, and are specified in the notice, to mitigate or discontinue the obstruction."
1D. In section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), delete from "and the Greater London Council" to the end of the subsection.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment represents what we believe to be a logical step in bringing the national position into line with what occurs inside London. There is a case for having uniform provisions throughout the country in relation to roads and the control of works and objects which are placed on roads. The fact is that a traffic jam in Manchester is as objectionable as one that occurs in London. In making representations to my noble friend and to me, the Automobile Association pointed out that, as the police are usually the first to know of obstructions which are placed on roads, it follows that they should notify the highway authorities to have them removed. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The procedure by which street authorities can require undertakers to avoid unnecessary obstructions in the street is provided in Clauses 59 and 113. They are based closely on the provision in Section 160 of the Highways Act 1980, which is to be repealed by the Bill. They have the same effect as the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. If he examines those clauses in the Bill he will find that there is no problem.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I listened with care to the Minister's comments. They will not satisfy the Automobile Association because it was aware of those provisions. However, I shall examine the matter further, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 196 and 197:
Page 99, line 15, at end insert:
(" . After section 171 of the Highways Act 1980 (control of deposit of building materials, &c.) insert—
"Works under s. 169 or s. 171: fee for occupation of the highway.
171A.—(1) A person who executes any of the following works in a highway maintainable at the public expense—

(a) erecting a relevant structure within the meaning of section 169(1) above, or

(b) making any such deposit or excavation as is mentioned in section 171(1) above,

shall pay to the highway authority the prescribed fee for occupation of the highway.
(2) The fee payable shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the duration of the works and the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by them.
Different rates of fee may he prescribed according to the description of works, the place and time at which they are executed and such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.
(3) A person applying to the highway authority for a licence under section 169 or consent under section 171 shall submit together with his application an estimate of the likely duration and extent of the works; and the appropriate fee on the basis of that information must be paid before the authority issue the licence or give their consent.
(4) The Minister may by regulations provide—

(a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and

(b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3) or the works take longer or are more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.
(5) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations.").
Page 100, line 19, at end insert:
(" . In section 325 of the Highways Act 1980 (provisions as to regulations, schemes and orders), in subsection (2) (a) (regulations subject to annulment) after "section 257(4) above" insert "or such regulations as are mentioned in subsection (2A) below"; and after that subsection insert—
"(2A) A statutory instrument containing the first regulations prescribing fees for the purposes of section 140A, or section 171A(1) (a) or (b), shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 101, line 17, after ("A") insert ("local").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 197B, 197C, 197M, 197N, 198B, 198D, 198E, 203C, 203E, 203F and 203G. This is a group of technical drafting amendments. As Part II of Schedule 8 is complicated and technical a word of explanation may be in order. The provisions in Parts I and II of the Bill mean that a number of minor changes are needed to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The schedule has been drafted so as to apply equally to England and Wales on the one hand and to Scotland on the other. The amendments in this group are all minor. They correct a few errors in the schedule as drafted and add some further amendments for the same purpose to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I hope that they do not call for further comment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 197B and 197C:
Page 101, line 37, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
Page 103, line 28, at end insert:
("(3A) In subsection (3A) (power to make order or issue notice for purposes of clearing litter or cleaning)—

371

(a) for "highway or roads authority" substitute "traffic authority", and

(b) for "highway or road" substitute "road".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 197D to 197F:
Page 104, line 16, after ("apply") insert ("in relation to a road, or part of a road,").
Page 104, line 18, leave out from first ("the") to ("is") and insert ("road or part").
Page 104, line 19, at end insert:
("This does not prevent the making of regulations under subsection (2) above before that date, so as to come into force in relation to that road or part on that date.").
The noble Lord said: These are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197G:
Page 104, line 21, at end insert:
("24A. After section 17 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 insert—
"Further provisions as to special roads.
17A.—(1) On the date declared by the traffic authority, by notice published in the prescribed manner, to be the date on which a special road, or a part of a special road, is open for use as a special road, any existing order under section 1, 6, 9 or 84 of this Act, and any direction under section 82(2) of this Act, relating to that road or part shall cease to have effect.
(2) This is without prejudice to the power to make orders or directions under those provisions in relation to the road or part as a special road; and any such power may he exercised before the date referred to above, so as to take effect on that date.
(3) The procedure for making an order applies in such a case with such modifications as may be prescribed.".").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 198A. Amendment No. 197G effectively preserves the present rule that if an existing road is made a special road by an order under the Highways Act 1980 or the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, the traffic and speed limit orders in force will cease to apply. We shall need this provision as a general rule even though it will now be possible to make new orders of that kind applying to special roads.
Amendment No. 198A, taken with Amendment No. 197G, removes a possible doubt as to whether a 30 mph speed limit can be imposed on a special road. It may, on occasion, be appropriate to impose a 30 mph limit on a special road provided under this Bill —for example, a tunnel—and we want it placed beyond doubt that this can be done. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197H:
Page 104, line 41, leave out ("applies") and insert ("shall be made or apply").
The noble Lord said: This is another small drafting amendment upon which I need not elaborate. It merely continues the effect of the existing provisions rather more accurately than is achieved by the present drafting of paragraph 27 of the schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197J:
Page 106, leave out lines 7 to 11.
The noble Lord said: This amendment removes an added subsection which on further examination proved unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has a power to make procedure regulations applying to Section 29 orders in Part IV of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197K:
Page 107, line 16, at end insert:
("(2A) In subsection (3) (c) (matters to be taken into account in making orders), for the words from "parking accommodation" to "roads" substitute "off-street parking accommodation, whether in the open or under cover,".").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment for consistency with other changes in this schedule. Section 43(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 refers to "highways" in the text for England and Wales and to "roads" in the text for Scotland. This amendment substitutes wording which applies throughout Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197L:
Page 107, line 19, leave out paragraph 40.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 203D. These amendments remove an unintended repeal of a power in Section 49 of the 1984 Act. The power concerns the removal of parked vehicles by local authorities in an emergency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 197M and 197N:
Page 107, line 20, at end insert:
("40A. In section 53(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for "highways" or, in Scotland, "roads" substitute "highways or, in Scotland, roads".").
Page 108, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 23 and insert:
("46.—(1) Section 68 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (placing of traffic signs in connection with exercise of other powers) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (a), omit the reference to section 30.
(3) In subsections (2) and (3)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 109, line 16, leave out ("street") and insert ("carriageway").
The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects a minor drafting error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 198A and 198B:
Page 109, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert:
("(4) Omit subsection (3) (which prevents a special road from being a restricted road).").

373
Page 111, line 34, at end insert:
("64A. In section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exercise of functions by local authorities), in subsection (1) for "the highway" or, in Scotland, "the road" substitute "the highway or, in Scotland, the road".
64B. In section 124(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (orders exercisable by statutory instrument), omit the reference to section 30.
64C. In section 125(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exercise of powers in relation to boundary roads), omit the reference to section 30(1).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 198C:
Page 112, line 7, at end insert:
("67A. In section 134(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (regulations excepted from obligation to consult), for "82(1)," substitute "82(1) (b),".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is purely consequential on paragraph 54(2) of the schedule which amends Section 82(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 198D and 198E:
Page 112, line 36, at end insert:
("(2A) In paragraph 20(1) (consultation before orders are made), omit the reference to section 30.
(2B) In paragraphs 21 and 23(1) (a) (procedure regulations), omit the words "other than section 30 of this Act".
(2C) In paragraph 27(1) (variation or revocation of orders), omit the reference to section 30.").
Page 112, line 38, at end insert:
("(4) In paragraph 25 (power to make different provision in each case and as to posting notices)—

(a) for "highway authority" or, in Scotland, "roads authority" substitute "traffic authority", and

(b) for the word "highway" in the two other places where it appears substitute the word "road".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 113, line 24, leave out paragraph 77 and insert:
(" . In section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (granting of permission to place and maintain etc. apparatus under a road)—

(a) at the end of subsection (1) insert "; and such permission shall be in writing",

(b) in subsection (4) for the words from "undertakers"' to the end substitute "road works within the meaning of section 97 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1990", and

(c) at the end of subsection (5) insert ("nor does it apply to apparatus in respect of which permission has been granted under section [Permission to execute road works] of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1990 to execute road works"").

The noble Lord said: This amendment makes consequential amendments to Section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 113, line 27, at end insert:
(" . After section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Fee for occupation of road
61A.—(1) A person who occupies a public road by doing anything which would require the consent or permission of a roads authority under any of the following provisions of this Act—

section 56 (works executed in or excavations under a public road);

section 58 (occupation of road for deposit of building materials and erection of scaffolding),

section 59 (placing or depositing anything in a road),

section 61 (placing, leaving, retaining, maintaining, repairing and reinstating apparatus in or under a public road), or

section 85 (depositing a builders' skip),

shall pay to the roads authority a fee for that occupation of the road.
(2) The fee payable under subsection (1) above shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations by reference to the duration and extent of the occupation.
(3) Different rates of fee may be prescribed according to the manner, place and duration of that occupation and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.
(4) A person applying to the roads authority for consent or permission under the provisions of this Act referred to in subsection (1) above shall submit together with his application an estimate of the likely duration and extent of the occupation of the road; and the fee must be paid before the authority gives consent or grants permission.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and

(b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (4) or the occupation of the road lasts longer or is more extensive than was estimated.

(6) The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment follows the principle of Clause 121 which allows the introduction of a scheme to charge fees to undertakers for their occupation of public roads during road works by also allowing the introduction of a scheme to charge fees to persons who occupy a public road by doing anything which would require the consent or permission of the local authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 113, line 27, at end insert:
(" . In section 85 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (control of builders' skips on road), in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) after the word "the" where it first occurs insert "written".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes it clear that the permission granted under Section 85 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 requires to be in writing. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 113, line 36, at end insert:
(" . In subsection (2) of section 143 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (provisions as to regulations and orders)—

(a) in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) (orders subject to negative resolution) after the word "section" insert ""8 or",

(b) in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) (orders subject to affirmative resolution) after the word "Act" insert "or regulations made for the first time under section 61A of this Act", and

(c) in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b), omit the words "8 or" .").

The noble Lord said: This amendment amends Section 143(2) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to provide that orders made under Section 8 of that Act will now only require a negative resolution. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 202A and 202B:
Page 115, line 16, after ("streets") insert ("or roads").
Page 116, line 27, after ("streets") insert ("or roads").
The noble Lord said: These are small drafting amendments to apply the Scottish term alongside the one used in England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 117, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("(interpretation)") and insert:
(" .—(1) The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 is amended as follow.
(2) In section 41 (breaking open of roads) for the words "Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950" substitute "Part IV of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1990".
(3) In section 59(1)").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 119, line 39, at end insert:
("Local Government Act 1985 (c.51)
95A.—(1) In Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985, paragraph 6 (guidance as to exercise of traffic powers in London and metropolitan counties) is amended as follows.
(2) In subparagraph (1) for "other than trunk roads" substitute "other than those for which he is the traffic authority".
(3) In subparagraph (3)—

(a) in paragraph (b) (i) for "trunk road" substitute "road for which the Secretary of State is the traffic authority", and

(b) in paragraph (c) for the words "trunk road" substitute the words "road for which he is the traffic authority".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment and the others are small technical amendments consequential on Clause 18 of the Bill. That clause enables the Secretary of State to construct special roads which will not become trunk roads, and other provisions of this schedule constitute him as "traffic authority" for all roads for which he is highway authority. So the
376
amendment deletes references to trunk roads and substitutes references to roads for which he is the traffic authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 203B:
Page 120, line 1, leave out ("(twice) and (3)") and insert ("(three times)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Repeals]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 203C to 203G:
Page 123, line 24, column 3, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").
Page 123, line 37, column 3, leave out lines 37 and 38.

Page 123, line 39, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 68(1) (a), the reference to section 30. Section 82(3).").

Page 123, line 41, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 124(2), the reference to section 30. In section 125(3), the reference to section 30(1).").

Page 123, line 42, column 3, at end insert:

("In Schedule 9— (a) in paragraph 20(1), the reference to section 30;

(b) in paragraphs 21 and 23(1) (a), the words "other than section 30 of this Act";

(c) in paragraph 27(1), the reference to section 30.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments and beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 204 and 205:

Page 123, line 46, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 143(2) (b) (ii), the words "8 or". In Schedule 7, para-graphs 2, 3(a) and (b) and 4 ")

Page 123, line 52, column 3, at end insert:

("(d) paragraph 93(2) to (22), (23) (a), (24) to (38), (40), (42), (44) (a),(b),(d) and (e) and (45) (b).")

The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 en bloc and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 206. These are minor drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 205A:
Page 124, line 2, column 3, after "(2)" insert:

(",(3) (a),(6)(b), (8),(9),(11),(12),(15), (19)(a),(29),(33) and (37)").

The noble Lord said: This amendment repeals amending provisions in the Local Government Act 1985 which are overtaken by further amendments in the Bill. They are consequential on Schedule 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 205B:

Page 124, line 18, column 3, at end insert:

("In Schedule 4, paragraph 3(2), (6) and (11).").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is another minor repeal in consequence of the repeals of the provisions of the Highways Act 1980. I commend it to your Lordships' Committee. In doing so I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee stage today. There have been some interesting moments; there have also been moments of great tedium in a rather excessive number of government amendments. I should particularly like to thank the Chairmen of the Committee who have dealt with the somewhat complicated way the Bill has been scheduled. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I may join with the noble Lord, and I thank also his colleague. I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy throughout the passage of the Committee stage, which is characteristic of him and we have come to expect it. However, I must end on a note of controversy. I found every minute absolutely exhilarating. I thank my own noble friends and in particular my noble friend Lord Underhill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, with whom we have had the pleasure of working on this Committee stage. We look forward with equal exhilaration to the prospect of the Report stage.
Lord Tordoff: I join in the congratulations, which sound more like those we have on the Bill do now pass debate. It is right and proper to have these thanks as we have had a complicated series of amendments to deal with.
I know that those noble Lords who have sat in the Chair have had more difficulty with the layout of the Bill than we have had on the Floor of the Committee. I still believe that it was right to have this layout for the Committee stage once the Bill had been drafted in the way it was, but we recognise that it must have put an extra strain on noble Lords in the Chair. We are extremely grateful for the way in which they handled the procedures.
We welcome the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to the transport club, which, as I have said before, is a very exclusive group of people, as can be seen at this time of night. I thank the Minister for his assistance and courtesy and I hope that we may now all go home.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 154 to 156 agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 206:
Line 3, after ("works") insert ("and, in Scotland, road works").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend on the way in which he has dealt with this Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock.