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

HL Deb 06 December 1990 vol 524 cc300-35

House again in Committee.

5 p.m.

Clauses 46 and 100 agreed to.

Clause 47 [The street works register]:

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 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 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—

1. (a) requiring the registration of such information as may be prescribed, and
2. (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 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—

1. (a) requiring the registration of such information as may be prescribed, and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or
2. (b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—
1. (i) a relevant authority, or
2. (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 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 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—

1. (a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or
2. (b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—
1. (i) a relevant authority, or
2. (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 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". 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 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 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—

1. (a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or
2. (b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—
1. (i) a relevant authority, or
2. (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: 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 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—

1. (a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or
2. (b) to his not knowing the identity or address of—
1. (i) a relevant authority, or
2. (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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 107: Page 31, line 35, at end insert (" and

1. (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;
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) breaking up the street, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or
2. (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—

1. (a) breaking up or opening the street, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or
2. (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 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?

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 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 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—

1. (a) breaking up the road, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or
2. (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—

1. (a) breaking up or opening the road, or any sewer, drain or tunnel under it, or
2. (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 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 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 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 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
1. (a) to his not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of another person's apparatus, or
2. (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 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—

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

I 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 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.