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

HL Deb 06 December 1990 vol 524 cc340-78

House again in Committee.

Clause 65 [Powers of street authority in relation to reinstatement]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 135: Page 35, line 18, leave out ("is causing") and insert ("may cause").

The noble Lord said: Clause 65 deals with powers of street authorities with regard to reinstatement. Subsection (4) as drafted will allow only a highway authority to reinstate on its own initiative where an actual danger exists. The amendment seeks to extend the provisions to potential dangers. If accepted, the amendment would mean that a highway inspector could deal with a piece of shoddy work without the necessity of waiting for a disaster or being able to prove that there is a danger. That is of great importance as the Bill does not define a danger for the purpose of decision-making without resort to legal interpretation and its attendant delays.

I know that there is a difference of opinion on this matter but we are trying to avoid the necessity of waiting for an accident which may have serious consequences. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Clause 64 of the Bill places the primary responsibility on the undertakers to ensure that their reinstatements continuously meet the prescribed performance standard. It is important that the highway authority's general responsibilities for maintaining its roads should not detract from that. The procedure for remedying defective reinstatements under this clause gives street authorities a role in influencing the extent and timing of necessary works but places the financial and physical responsibility for putting the defects right on the undertaker concerned. In cases where a reinstatement is actually causing danger to road users, the street authority may clearly need to act immediately, and the provision as drafted allows for that.

A street authority must make a judgment as to whether a reinstatement is dangerous or not before acting in that way. To widen the condition to circumstances in which a reinstatement simply may cause danger to users of the street at some time would allow too wide a discretion to the street authority. I submit that that would lead to some of the legal complications which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, outlined when moving the amendment. The amendment is not considered necessary to allow satisfactory arrangements to operate in practice to protect road users from danger caused by undertakers' reinstatements. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Underhill

I thank the Minister for his comments to explain why he cannot accept the amendment. I was pleased to note that he said that there are provisions whereby immediate action could be taken, because that was the purpose of the amendment. I shall look very carefully at what the Minister said and at the provisions to which he referred because one needs immediate action and not a few days' notice in order to deal with the matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 65 agreed to.

Clause 119 [Powers of road works authority in relation to reinstatement]:

The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 136: Page 63, line 30, leave out ("street") and insert ("road works").

The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting amendment to correct an incorrect reference to the street authority. The reference should be to the road works authority. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 66 [Reinstatement affected by subsequent works]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 137: Page 35, line 43, after second ("the") insert ("subsequent").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 138, 139 and 140. These are drafting amendments which clarify the provisions of Clause 66(4) concerning an undertaker's responsibility for a reinstatement which is affected by remedial works carried out by the street authority. The amendments provide that the reinstatement carried out by the authority is referred to in subsection (4) as the subsequent reinstatement, as in subsection (2). The amendments to Clause 120 do that for Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 138: Page 35, line 45, at end insert ("subsequent").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 120 [Reinstatement affected by subsequent works]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 139: Page 64, line 27, after second ("the") insert ("subsequent").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 140: Page 64, line 29, at end insert ("subsequent").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 [Fee for occupation of the highway]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 141: Page 36, line 45, leave out subsection (6) and insert: ("(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

1. (a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and
2. (b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3), (4) or (5) or the works take longer or are more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 142. The amendment makes important further provision concerning the Secretary of State's powers to require highway authorities to introduce a scheme for the charging of the occupation of road space by undertakers and brings the clause into line with the department's original intentions.

As presently drafted, it might have the unfortunate effect of encouraging undertakers to underestimate the length and extent of their works, while at the same time failing to provide an incentive to complete works ahead of schedule.

The amendment therefore empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for repayments of fees, and also for requiring undertakers to pay additional fees when works overrun or are more extensive than was originally estimated. The power also extends to laying down how the amount of any repayment or additional fee is to be calculated. The amendment to Clause 121 does that for Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 67, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Tordoff

Members of the Committee will remember that this was a subject on which we dwelt on Second Reading. At that stage I remember asking the Minister whether it was necessary to charge for the occupation of road space and whether the department felt that to impose a financial penalty was a way of ensuring that people digging holes in the road may be encouraged to do so more quickly. I remember that he nodded at the time, about which I remarked. Clearly that is part of the philosophy.

I still wonder whether it is entirely wise. There are two views on this matter, one from the utilities and one from the local authority associations. The utilities, not unnaturally, feel that it is an unnecessary imposition on them, particularly in the light of their having to put down money in advance. There may be some relief from the fact that the noble Lord has just moved Amendment No. 141. However, that does not go the whole way.

When we look back to the Horne Report it reviewed the possibility of making charges in this way. It concluded that they would be of doubtful practicality, and I sympathise with that view. The report suggested that traffic-sensitive routes should be designated and special requirements be agreed for road works to take place within them.

If the scheme operates alongside the codes of practice it will inevitably be a tax on consumers, as I endeavoured to suggest at Second Reading. In a sense it is robbing Peter to pay Paul due to the structure of local government finance. All that happens in the end is that the Exchequer has to put less money into the local authority as a result of the local authority taking money from the users of the utilities. That is a curiously bureaucratic way of doing things. On the other hand, local authorities feel that it would be a useful way of disciplining the utilities when they come to dig holes in the road.

I wonder whether it is necessary for the provision to be in the Bill in this form or whether it would be possible for the Secretary of State to devise a scheme where he can deal with what I suspect are the rare occasions when people offend against the implicit intention of the Bill. It seems to be unduly bureaucratic to have a situation where all the utilities will pay money in advance of opening up the road. The Minister said that if they succeed in filling it in before the appointed time they may be rewarded in some way. However, it seems to be an unnecessarily bureaucratic way of dealing with the matter. I simply wish to take the opportunity of clause stand part to open up a general debate on Clause 67.

Lord Underhill

I should like to say a few words on this matter. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, gave notice that there would be a debate on clause stand part. Part of the difficulty which has arisen is the history of the matter. As compared with practically everything else in the Bill, this proposal was not the subject of proper consultation between local authority associations and the utilities. In fact the proposal was floated by the Department of Transport in a consultation document issued completely separately from its consultation on the package as a whole. Throughout the Bill, we have talked of the package being a whole package. It is one that has been agreed by both the highway authorities and the utilities. Unlike other provisions in Part III of the Bill, there was no informal consultation between the department and the utilities or the highway authorities on this proposal. The first that the association of which I am president knew of the publication of the consultation document was as a result of press inquiries. That caused a considerable amount of difficulty.

During our Second Reading debate we were pleased to note that the Minister stated, The Secretary of State would only prescribe a charging scheme if he were satisfied that such a financial incentive was necessary to reduce the amount of disruption caused by utility works on the most traffic-sensitive streets".—[Official Report, 20/11/90; col. 671.] I am informed that the local authority associations welcome that assurance. However, they wonder whether a provision could be introduced into the Bill to make that a definite requirement. They are not opposed to the principle as such. We hope that the provision will never be called upon unless things are breaking down. We should like to see some means of putting the assurance given by the Minister into the Bill so that everybody is aware that it is a reserve power which the Government presume is necessary.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

We covered this clause at Second Reading and I am only too pleased to be able to expand on the Government's views on it. The clause was introduced because the Government want to reduce traffic congestion by every means at their disposal. I hope that that is an aim shared all around the Chamber.

Utility street works are a major cause of delays, at least some of which can be avoided. Charging would act as a powerful incentive to utilities and others to plan their works so as to take up less road space or to last less long. Even on the conservative estimates in the Horne Report, the minimum cost of delays to motorists imposed by utility works in the carriageway of roads is estimated to exceed £55 million per year. Experience with the Department of Transport's lane rental scheme has shown that savings in delay costs of about one-third were achievable, despite initial scepticism.

The wording of Clause 67 does not mean that a fee will be payable by undertakers in every case. The Secretary of State may not prescribe a scheme, or may prescribe different rates of fee, which could include free periods for different works. The power to charge would be used where it was considered most likely to achieve reductions in the amount of delay and inconvenience. A scheme could be structured so that the great majority of works not causing any more obstruction than was reasonably necessary would escape charges altogether.

The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that charging might in some way be an indirect tax on consumers. The maximum total of charges envisaged in the Department of Transport's consultation paper represented around 1 per cent. of the cost of utility street works. I do not have a totally accurate figure but I understand that the cost of utility works is around £1 billion a year. I do not know how that relates to the total cost of the various utilities supplied to the consumer; it must be only a small proportion. We are therefore speaking of 1 per cent. of something which is itself only a small proportion of the consumer's actual cost of purchasing the utilities, service or product concerned.

Utilities could avoid passing charges on to customers by entering into lane rental type contracts with their contractors. That is certainly an opportunity which I hope they will adopt. Furthermore, local authorities would not be left out of pocket by having to administer a charging scheme. Their reasonable costs of administration will be met out of any revenue from fees.

This is a provision worth having in reserve. As the Bill makes clear, the first of any regulations made under this section would need to be brought in by an affirmative resolution instrument. Therefore, noble Lords would have an opportunity to discuss the matter again. We shall of course continue consultations with those involved on that issue. I believe it is a useful measure to be included in the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will allow Clause 67 to stand part of the Bill.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

Before the Minister concludes, perhaps I may ask him two questions. First, is it really fair to draw a comparison between lane rentals and fees for the occupation of a highway? My understanding is that lane rental arrangements are both positive and negative, whereas as I read Clause 67(6) an estimate on the charge is made and there may be a deviation in so far as the positive is concerned—that is, that a local authority can charge more if the time used is greater than estimated—but there is no amount repayable if the work is executed in less time.

Lord Tordoff

With respect to the noble Lord, Amendment No. 141 just moved by the Minister deals with that situation; that there is the possibility of some recovery.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for reminding me of that. However, again unless I have misunderstood, when we discussed the disposition of fees the noble Lord and I were not at one as to where those fees were to go. I believe that he suggested that they were to offset the TSG. Therefore, it again appears to me that the Clause 67(6) charge is in fact more akin to an additional tax in that it does not attract any more money for improvements by the local highway authority but reduces the contribution that it receives by way of TSG.

It seemed to me on Second Reading, and still does, that while the principle may be absolutely right and there is a deterrent to utilities wasting time and taking up space when they should not, it bears over-harshly on them because there is no recourse from the other side. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can help me understand a little of that.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Yes, I suppose it is meant to be a deterrent precisely to stop utilities wasting time. When I made a comparison with the lane rental scheme I did not attempt to say that it was similar to the lane rental scheme in that there is not a positive and negative as there is in that scheme. All I said was that the department's experience with the lane rental scheme is that it has shown that considerable savings can be made. I then went on to say that utilities could also enter into lane rental type schemes with their contractors which would also help in this matter.

It would be inappropriate to use local authority funds to pay bonuses to utilities but, as I said, they could enter into lane rental type contracts with their contractors to help speed matters along.

As regards the treatment of receipts, we have yet to propose how funds should be used. They would not necessarily be fully offset against TSG. That is a matter we are still considering. When I originally replied to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I gave an idea, on the principle of the tax on consumers to which my noble friend referred, of how small an amount that would be for the consumer.

Lord Tordoff

I am grateful to the Minister. To reiterate what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, he may not have observed that Amendment No. 141 deletes the whole of subsection (6) and therefore takes out the words, No amount is repayable if the works are not executed or take less time or are less extensive than was estimated". I assume those words have been taken out deliberately by the Minister. Indeed, there is provision under the regulations in the new subsection (6) (a), for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed". The question that we must ask ourselves is whether that amendment goes as far as it might in terms of leaving within the hands of the Secretary of State the ability to be more flexible than the original clause.

We accept the Minister's reassurance but it would be unfortunate if on this clause the consensus which has operated throughout the whole of the rest of the Bill were to be put in some degree of jeopardy. All I wish to say at the moment is that we will read what the Minister said. I have no doubt that the various parties, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, were somewhat surprised at this matter coming forward at a secondary stage in consultation, and we must see whether they are satisfied with the position that we have now reached. However, I suspect that further reassurance will be required from the Government. In the meantime, I certainly do not intend to vote against the clause standing part of the Bill.

Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 121 [Fee for occupation of a road]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 142: Page 65, line 24, leave out subsection (5) and insert: ("(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

1. (a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and
2. (b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3) or (4) or the works take longer or are more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 121, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 68, 122, 69, 123, 70 and 124 agreed to.

Clause 71 [Contributions to costs of making good long-term damage]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 143: Page 38, line 27, leave out ("a street authority") and insert ("the street authority or, in the case of a road subject to a concession within the meaning of Part I of this Act, by the concessionaire,").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary in order to correct an earlier omission from the Bill and bring Clause 71 into line with the department's original intentions. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 125, 72 and 126 agreed to.

Clause 73 [Duty to inform undertakers of location of apparatus]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 144: Page 39, line 28, leave out from ("undertaker") to end of line 30.

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 145 to 149. These amendments are necessary in order to clarify the steps to be taken by persons carrying out works in the street if they discover unmapped or unidentifiable apparatus in the course of that work. Taken together the amendments produce a more workable procedure to be followed under Clause 73.

The first amendment removes a redundant provision contained in Clause 73(1) (b); namely, that an undertaker must inform the undertaker concerned when he finds apparatus in a location where the undertaker has no record of there being any apparatus. This provision merely repeats that contained in Clause 73(1) (a).

The second amendment makes provision for where an undertaker carrying out works in a street finds unidentifiable apparatus. In such cases he will be required to mark its location and put a general description of the apparatus on the records which he is required to keep under Clause 72. If anyone else finds unidentifiable apparatus while carrying out works in the street they will be required to inform the street authority. The effect of this will be to enable more complete records of apparatus in streets to be built up over time.

The final amendment consists of a minor drafting correction which is consequential to the second amendment. The other amendments deal with exactly the same situation in Scotland. I hope your Lordships will agree that these are sensible amendments. I beg to move.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Underhill

The Minister referred to Amendment No. 143. He dealt with the provisions of the clause concerning apparatus which is found and the necessity for that to be recorded. He also explained what action should be taken if apparatus is found by another organisation. It must tell the street authority. We have no objection to the amendment as such. However, there is one important question to be asked of the Minister. What do the Government envisage the street authority doing with the information when it is compiled? The Bill simply states that the information shall be recorded, but what should be done with it when it is recorded?

Lord Tordoff

I wish to refer back to the days when the Select Committee on Science and Technology was considering digital mapping and whether such provisions would encourage local authorities to extend the degree of that mapping for their areas.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the local authorities will merely put this information on their records. If someone comes along and claims a particular piece of apparatus they will know where it is. On the whole, I believe this provision applies to pieces of apparatus which no one knows much about. Digital mapping is an interesting subject. A scheme along the lines which we envisage for the register is already operating, using digital mapping. I believe it is operating in the West Midlands, and that is a pioneer area. I hope that scheme will be followed up around the country.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 145: Page 39, line 33, at end insert: ("(1A) Where a person executing works of any description in the street finds apparatus which does not belong to him and is unable, after taking such steps as are reasonably practicable, to ascertain to whom the apparatus belongs, he shall—

1. (a) if he is an undertaker, note on the records kept by him under section 72(1) (in such manner as may be prescribed) the location of the apparatus he has found and its general description; and
2. (b) in any other case, inform the street authority of the location and general description of the apparatus he has found.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 146: Page 39, line 34, after ("(1)") insert ("or (1A)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 127 [Duty to inform undertakers of location of apparatus]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 147 to 149: Page 68, line 8, leave out from ("undertaker") to end of line 10. Page 68, line 13, at end insert: ("(1A) Where a person executing works of any description in the road finds apparatus which does not belong to him and is unable, after taking such steps as are reasonably practicable, to ascertain whom the apparatus belongs to, he shall—

1. (a) if he is an undertaker, note on the records kept by him under section 126(1) (in such manner as may be prescribed) the location of the apparatus he has found and its general description; and
2. (b) in any other case, inform the road works authority of the location and general description of the apparatus he has found.").

Page 68, line 14, after ("(1)") insert ("or(1A)").

The noble Lord said

I spoke to these amendments just now. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 74 [Duty to maintain apparatus]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 150: Page 39, line 40, after first ("street") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 151: Page 40, line 5, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway").

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment in order to eliminate an inconsistency in Clause 74(2). It replaces the reference to major road works by major highway works, which is the term used elsewhere in this part of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brougham and Vaux moved Amendment No. 152: Leave out Clause 74 and insert the following new clause:

("Duty to maintain apparatus

74.—(1) An undertaker having apparatus in the street shall secure that all manholes or other surface boxes forming part of such apparatus are maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the street authority, as regards the safety of persons using the street and the structure of the street.

(2) If an undertaker fails to comply with any reasonable requirement of the street authority in relation to its obligations under subsection (1) the street authority may, after not less than seven days' notice to the undertakers, execute any works rendered necessary by such failure and recover from the undertaker the costs reasonably incurred in so doing.

(3) A street authority executing any works for road purposes, or in pursuance of this section, shall exercise due care to avoid damage to any undertakers' apparatus or interference with access to such apparatus and shall indemnify the undertakers against any costs or expenses incurred by the undertaker in making good any damage or interference caused in contravention of this subsection.

(4) Any dispute arising as to the compliance of the undertaker or the street authority with their obligations under this section or with any requirements of the street authority under subsection (2), the reasonableness of those requirements and the reasonableness of the costs and expenses referred to in subsections (2) and (3) shall be settled by arbitration.").

The noble Lord said: When I tabled this amendment I had not taken into account the concern of British Telecom about the Bill. My understanding is that the purpose of this clause is to require the undertaker to maintain manholes and other surface boxes at street level, such as valve covers and so forth, in a safe manner and to empower the street authority to ensure that that is done.

However, the clause as drafted suggests that the power of the highway authority may be extended to the inspection and, if necessary, the repair of both underground apparatus belonging to the undertaker and also above-ground work such as British Telecom connection boxes and cabinets. While employees of the street authority may be adequately qualified to deal with any situation arising from poor maintenance of a manhole which causes damage to the road surface, they will patently not be similarly qualified to work on the undertaker's pipes and cables. Such a power used wrongly in this way could easily lead to the loss of supplies to customers and in some cases to injury or even death for the street authority employees concerned.

The purpose of the amendment is purely to find out the Government's views. I shall not press the matter. We wish the Government to state more clearly the intention of the clause and at the same time to place a duty of care on the street authority not to damage manholes and surface boxes when it is carrying out the works for road purposes. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

The utilities have taken the initiative in that they consider that Clause 74 has been drafted too widely. According to them it would enable a street authority, for example, to dig up a highway in order to check the standard of maintenance of a gas main. The local authority associations have said that Clause 74 covers the needs of the highway authorities —that is to say, the ability to take action concerning, for example, a defective manhole cover which could present a road safety hazard. The authorities are further interested in ensuring that aspects of utility work like ducting are in a satisfactory state. If it is neglected or is inadequate, in certain cases it could cause the road or footway to be in a state of collapse.

The highway authorities have no interest, no locus and no competence in testing the adequacy of utility service apparatus such as pipes or cables. Clause 75 clarifies the law to ensure that the utilities are responsible for the cost of any damage that may be caused by a pipe burst or an explosion. In principle the local authority associations would not oppose an amendment to Clause 74 which endeavoured to define the street authority's areas of legitimate concern more tightly.

The local authority associations have a couple of reservations concerning the first part of the amendment which defines the authority's interest too tightly and would have the effect of excluding the ducting example to which I referred earlier. According to the amendment, the authority is required to allow the utility seven days to undertake any repairs. That is unacceptable where there is a road safety hazard. In such circumstances the highway authority should have the right to act instantly.

The second part of the amendment is unnecessary and it even goes outside the scope of the Bill. Highway authorities take a good deal of care to avoid damaging the apparatus belonging to the utilities when they undertake road works, but mistakes occur and damage results. In those circumstances highway authorities undertake any remedial work themselves at their own cost or alternatively reimburse the utility for any work that it undertakes. The Bill is concerned with the regulation of utility work rather than highway authority work. In any case, custom and practice already allow for what the amendment is designed to achieve.

As regards subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause, the word "reasonable" in relation to costs has not been introduced. That is a matter to which we adverted earlier. The next point is of some interest. We are not quite sure what is the source of the reference to arbitration. That is a point I raised concerning an earlier amendment. I suspect that the utilities have identified that from other legislation. I believe that on balance the position is right, though I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

The present Clause 74 affords important protection to highway authorities, transport authorities, bridge authorities and sewer authorities. These authorities must be able to satisfy themselves on behalf of members of the public that any undertakers' apparatus is properly maintained to secure safety, the convenience of road users, the integrity of the apparatus and of the street, land or structure concerned. If an undertaker fails to maintain his apparatus to the reasonable satisfaction of a relevant authority, it is right that the authority should he able to protect its interests by carrying out inspections or emergency works itself.

The effect of this amendment would be to remove altogether the protection from bridge authorities, transport authorities and sewer authorities. It would confine the interest of the street authority to the maintenance of manholes or other surface boxes. That is unacceptably narrow, since highway authorities also have a clear interest in the proper maintenance of buried apparatus in so far as it effects road users, safety and the structure of the street. That point was made clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. An undertaker who maintains his apparatus properly need only afford reasonable facilities for the street authority to ascertain that he does so. That does not seem an onerous or unreasonable requirement.

The amendment also seeks to deal with responsibilities of the street authority executing works for road purposes. Works for road purposes are not the subject of this clause or this part of the Bill since they are mainly regulated by other highways legislation. However, the government amendment to insert a new clause before Clause 76 dealing with works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus in the street should afford undertakers additional protection. That provision requires street authorities to give the owner of apparatus reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works for road purposes, and to comply with reasonable requirements for the protection of the apparatus.

I hope that I have explained the Government's position with reasonable clarity. As there has been a short debate on this subject between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I shall read most carefully what has been said. If there is anything that needs to be done I shall come back to my noble friend. Having said that, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Kinnoull

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the question of arbitration and sought elucidation on that point. Can my noble friend say anything further?

Lord Clinton-Davis

Perhaps I can help the noble Earl before the Minister replies. I raised the matter only because it had arisen in relation to an earlier debate. The Minister said that he would look at the matter. I was only expressing interest in the fact that the utilities had raised precisely that issue.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

Far be it from me to comment on something in my noble friend's amendment, but I mentioned arbitration earlier in a different context. It is for my noble friend to say what he means by arbitration, not me.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

I thank my noble friend for his reply. The debate has been useful in clarifying the Government's views, as have all the debates on this part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 128 [Duty to maintain apparatus]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 153: Page 68, line 20, after first ("road") insert ("(having regard, in particular, to the needs of people with a disability)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 75 [Liability for damage or toss caused]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 154: Page 40, line 23, leave out second ("or") and insert ("and").

The noble Lord said: I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 155. These are drafting amendments which are proposed in order to make clear that an undertaker's liability for loss or damage under Clause 75 includes that suffered by both the street authority and any other relevant authority, and also any other person who has apparatus in the street in question. Amendment No. 155 applies the same provision to Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.45 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 75, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Tordoff

I am sorry to intervene at this stage without having given the Minister notice of my intention to do so. This morning a number of noble Lords will have received a briefing from the Cable Authority. If the authority is paying someone to lobby Parliament, it ought to look at the fee he is charging. To consider such a briefing on the day the Bill starts its second day in Committee is beyond the call of duty. Nevertheless, the authority raises a number of matters on which minor clarification from the Minister would be helpful. The authority says that Clause 75 is worrying. It realises that care must be taken when carrying out work in the street but it is concerned that it may be liable even in situations where there is no fault on its part.

Clause 75(3) states: The liability of an undertaker under this section arises —(a) whether or not the damage or loss is attributable to negligence on his part or on the part of any person for whom he is responsible". I can understand why the Cable Authority has some minor worries. I wonder whether the Minister can assist the cable companies in their difficulty by explaining how far they will be held responsible for matters for which they do not think they are responsible.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I received a letter from one of the cable companies only the day before yesterday. Mine was slightly in advance of that sent to other noble Lords. The cable companies have obviously just woken up to this piece of legislation. They will be treated as licensed undertakers rather than as statutory undertakers. I have offered a meeting with my officials to clarify any points the cable companies may have. I have not heard whether they wish to take up that offer. I hope they will, and I hope that we shall be able at least to explain to them what this is all about.

Lord Tordoff

I am most grateful to the Minister.

Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 129 [Liability for damage or loss caused]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 155: Page 69, line 2, leave out second ("or") and insert ("and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 156: Page 69, line 3, leave out ("street") and insert ("road").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 157: Before Clause 76, insert the following new clause:

Works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus in the street

(".—(1) Where works for road purposes are likely to affect apparatus in the street, the authority executing the works shall—

1. (a) give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and
2. (b) comply with any requirement made by him which is—
1. (i) reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to it, and
2. (ii) reasonably practicable having regard to the time when the requirement is made.

(2) In the case of emergency works the above requirements shall be taken to have been complied with if the authority take such steps towards satisfying them as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances.

(3) An authority who fail to comply with subsection (1) commit an offence in respect of each failure and are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4) In proceedings against an authority for such an offence it is a defence for them to show that the failure was attributable—

1. (a) to their not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of a person's apparatus, or
2. (b) to their not knowing the identity or address of the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that their ignorance was not due to any negligence on their part or to any failure to make inquiries which they ought reasonably to have made.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 157 inserts a new clause before Clause 76 and corrects an earlier omission from this part of the Bill. It makes provision where works for road purposes are likely to affect apparatus in the street.

The new clause is similar to Clause 62, as amended, which deals with undertakers' works likely to affect other apparatus in the street, but applies to works for roads purposes. It places similar requirements on authorities carrying out such works to give the person to whom any apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the works, and to comply with any reasonable requirement which that person may impose. Subject to similar defence provisions to those in Clause 62, failure to comply with the duties laid down in subsection (1) of the new clause is a criminal offence. The second amendment does the same for Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 76 [Duties as to taking of necessary measures]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 158: Page 41, line 9, leave out ("promoting authority") and insert ("highway, bridge or transport authority concerned").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 159, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167 and 168. These amendments are necessary to delete the undefined term "promoting authority" and references to it in this part of the Bill. The first two are drafting amendments. They are necessary in order to clarify to whom the provisions of Clause 76 ("diversionary works") apply. The first replaces the previously undefined term "promoting authority" with a list of the types of authority to which the clause applies, that is; the highway, bridge or transport authority concerned. The second deletes the subsequent reference to "promoting authority" in Clause 76.

The third is a drafting amendment to Clause 77, made necessary as a result of the first two amendments. It deletes the reference to "promoting authority", and also makes clearer the provisions of subsection (3). It empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring an undertaker whose apparatus has been altered to give credit for any betterment to his apparatus due to the alteration, against the costs which the authority concerned would otherwise have to bear. The fourth is a consequential drafting amendment to the arbitration provision of Clause 77, and also replaces the term "promoting authority". The amendments to Clause 130, and the second and third amendments to Clause 131, do the same for Scotland. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My only concern in this connection is whether in fact the term, highway, bridge or transport authority", is sufficiently comprehensive. What would be the position of a developer? Further, are there any other possibilities which ought to be caught by this amendment? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to my queries.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I hope that there are no other possibilities; but I shall certainly look into the matter. If we have missed something out, I shall return to the matter at a later stage and put forward another amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 159: Page 41, line 22, leave out ("promoting").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 160: Before Clause 130, insert the following new clause:

Works for road purposes likely to affect apparatus in the road

(".—(1) Where works for road purposes are likely to affect apparatus in the road, the authority executing the works shall

1. (a) give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and
2. (b) comply with any requirement made by him which is—
1. (i) reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to it, and
2. (ii) reasonably practicable having regard to the time when the requirement is made.

(2) In the case of emergency works the above requirements shall be taken to have been complied with if the authority take such steps towards satisfying them as are reasonably practicable in the circumstances.

(3) An authority who fail to comply with subsection (1) commit an offence in respect of each failure and are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4) In proceedings against an authority for such an offence it is a defence for them to show that the failure was attributable—

1. (a) to their not knowing the position, or not knowing of the existence, of a person's apparatus, or
2. (b) to their not knowing the identity or address of the person to whom any apparatus belongs,

and that their ignorance was not due to any negligence on their part or to any failure to make inquiries which they ought reasonably to have made.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 130 [Duties as to taking of necessary measures]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 161 and 162: Page 69, line 35, leave out ("promoting authority") and insert ("roads, bridge or transport authority concerned"). Page 70, line 3, leave out ("promoting").

The noble Lord said

I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 77 [Sharing of cost of necessary measures]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 163: Page 41, leave out lines 34 to 37 and insert ("allowable costs of the measures needing to be taken in relation to the apparatus in consequence of the works, or in order to facilitate their execution, shall be borne by the highway, bridge or transport authority concerned and the undertaker in such proportions as may be prescribed. Different proportions may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 166 which applies to Scotland. This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the provisions of Clause 77(1) regarding the sharing of the costs of diversionary works. The clause as presently drafted is expressed in terms of payment by the highway, bridge or transport authority concerned to the undertaker. However, in practice payment may be due in either direction, depending on who actually carries out the works to the undertaker's apparatus.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 164 and 165: Page 42, line 1, leave out from ("The") to ("from") in line 4 and insert ("Secretary of State may by regulations require the undertaker to give credit for any financial benefit to him"). Page 42, line 6, leave out from ("payable") to ("be") in line 8 and insert ("by virtue of this section shall, in default of agreement between the parties,").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 158. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 131 [Sharing of cost of necessary measures]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 166 to 168: Page 70, line 15, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 18 and insert ("allowable costs of the measures needing to be taken in relation to the apparatus in consequence of the works, or in order to facilitate their execution, shall be borne by the roads, bridge or transport authority concerned and the undertaker in such proportions as may be prescribed. Different proportions may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case."). Page 70, line 27, leave out from ("The") to ("from") in line 30 and insert ("Secretary of State may by regulations require the undertaker to give credit for any financial benefit to him"). Page 70, line 32, leave out from ("payable") to ("be") in line 34 and insert ("by virtue of this section shall, in default of agreement between the parties,").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 78 [Highway authorities, highways and related matters]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 169: Page 42, line 39, leave out ("maintenance").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 170. These are minor amendments which exclude works for the maintenance of a road hump from the definition of "major highway works" under Clause 78(3) (e), which applies for the purposes of Clauses 76 and 77. Such works will still be classed as "works for road purposes" under subsection (2) (b) of that clause, being carried out under powers conferred by Part V of the Highways Act 1980. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 132: [Roads authorities, roads and related matters]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 170: Page 71, line 14, leave out ("maintenance").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 79, 133, 80 and 134 agreed to.

Clause 81 [Public sewers and sewer authorities]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 171: Page 44, line 15, leave out ("such requirements") and insert ("any requirement").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 172 to 174. These are drafting amendments which bring the opening words of Clause 81(3) into line with the wording of Clause 62(1) (b) as amended, and with Clause 81(3) (b) (ii), where the references are to "the requirement" in the singular. Similar amendments apply to Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 172: Page 44, line 15, leave out ("as are") and insert ("which is").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 135 [Sewers]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 173 and 174: Page 72, line 31, leave out ("such requirements") and insert ("any requirement"). Page 72, line 31, leave out ("as are") and insert ("which is").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 82, 136, 83, 137, 84 and 138 agreed to.

Clause 85 [Works affecting level crossings or tram-lines]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 175: Page 46, line 2, leave out ("tram-lines") and insert ("a tramway").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak to Amendments Nos. 176 to 178. These amendments replace the references to "tram-lines" in Clause 85 by the wider and more appropriate reference to a tramway. The word "tramway" is defined in Clause 95 of the Bill and includes tram-lines, and also trolley vehicle lines.

The first amendment replaces the reference to tram-lines in Clause 85(1) ("works affecting level crossings or tram-lines"). That has the effect of extending the protection afforded to tramway undertakings to include not just the tramlines themselves but any overhead cables, wires or any other apparatus.

The second amendment is necessary as a consequence of the first. It removes the now redundant Clause 85(6). The other amendments do the same for Scotland. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate the importance of the amendments. I beg to move.

9 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I have a brief question for the Minister: does the amendment comprehend guided busways?

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am not entirely sure what a guided busway is. If it has rails, I suppose that it is a tramway; if it is overhead, it will be a trolley vehicle.

Lord Tordoff

Perhaps—

Lord Brabazon of Tara

We have included a trolley vehicle. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is about to explain.

Lord Tordoff

I do not profess to be an expert on this matter, but there is new technology where electrical or electronic devices are laid beneath the road surface. That will allow buses to be guided down a certain track. It is not technology that is widely used in this country at the moment. It is something that could well come in the future. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right and that it would not be covered by the present provisions.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

If it is a provision which requires the road to be dug up in order to put something underneath, I can assure the noble Lord that it will somehow get into the Bill.

Lord Clinton-Davis

The Minister is confident that the Bill is that comprehensive? Will he write to us on the point? That might be the best way of dealing with the matter.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 176: Page 46, line 38, leave out subsection (6).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 139 [Works affecting level crossings or tram-lines]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 177: Page 74, line 20, leave out ("tram-lines") and insert ("a tramway").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 178: Page 75, line 10, leave out subsection (6).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 179: Before Clause 86, insert the following new clause:

Power of street authority to undertake street works

(".—(1) A street authority may enter into an agreement with an undertaker for the execution by the authority on behalf of the undertaker of any street works.

(2) The agreement may contain such terms as to payment and otherwise as the parties consider appropriate.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from any powers exercisable by the street authority apart from this section.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 86 agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 180: Before Clause 140, insert the following new clause:

Power of road works authority to undertake road works

(".—(1) A road works authority may enter into an agreement with an undertaker for the execution by the authority on behalf of the undertaker of any road works.

(2) The agreement may contain such terms as to payment and otherwise as the parties consider appropriate.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from any powers exercisable by the road works authority apart from this section.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clauses 140, 87, 141, 88, 142, 89, 143 and 90 agreed to.

Clause 144 [Arbitration]:

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 181: Page 76, line 34, leave out from ("be") to ("a") in line 35 and insert ("settled by arbitration shall be referred for determination by").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 91, 145 and 92 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 146 agreed to.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clauses 93 and 147 agreed to.

Clause 94 [Meaning of "prescribed" and regulations generally]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 182: Page 50, line 18, at end insert: ("(4) Before making any regulations under this Part the Secretary of State shall consult with persons representative of highway authorities and utilities.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment will be clearly seen from the wording set out on the Marshalled List.

The Committee will recall that on Second Reading a number of noble Lords expressed appreciation of the work carried out by the local authority associations and the National Joint Utility Group in preparing proposals for legislation arising from the recommend-dations of the Home Report. That was done through the auspices of the HAUC. In his response to those comments the Minister gave an assurance that there will be the fullest consultation with representatives of the utilities and the highway authorities before any regulations on council practice are made or approved.

That assurance is welcome, but there is concern that once the Bill is on the statute book the Government could proceed to make the regulations and publish codes of practice without fully involving the HAUC in the process. Ministers and government policies change. In fact there has been a change of Secretary of State since the Bill was published. There could easily be a change of government shortly. It will be appreciated that the enacting of the Bill will not mean that the HAUC can give up its work. Indeed, it will be necessary to keep in being the working parties which have done such splendid work until now so as they can frame further items in connection with the legislation.

We want to ensure that on the face of the Bill will be the assurances of consultation with representatives of the highway authorities and the public utilities to reassure members of the HAUC who devote their time and resources to this valuable work; in other words, we want the work to continue, but we want the provision written onto the face of the Bill, much as we appreciate the assurance the Minister gave. As is often said, an assurance given by a Minister does not necessarily mean that it will always be carried out if there are changes of Government or policy.

Lord Tordoff

I put my name to the amendment. I do not suppose that the Government are prepared to accept it for the fairly good and sufficient reason that to put into an Act an organisation which may not continue for perpetuity is perhaps tempting fate. Nevertheless, it is an opportunity to pay tribute to the work that has been done by the utilities, the highway authorities and the local authorities in bringing the Bill to fruition. We shall have further occasion to come back to it. I was glad to put my name to the amendment because it is an opportunity to show how well these groups of people with conflicting interests have come together to work on the legislation. If it is possible to put the provision on the face of the Bill, I should welcome it.

Reverting to an earlier remark this evening on whether the Bill referred to Northern Ireland, how good it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on the Front Bench. I hope that in due course he will bring legislation before your Lordships' House to cover similar situations in Northern Ireland.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

Although I did not put my name to the amendment, I brought the subject up in my Second Reading speech. We hope that the HAUC recommendations will be out before the Bill goes on the statute book so that the utilities may have the opportunity to put safeguards into the Bill in case they are not fully satisfied with the requirements. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that this party will be in government after the next election.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

We could go on arguing about that for a little while but now is perhaps not the time to do it, at the end of a long day. Of course I wish to join noble Lords who have paid tribute to all those in the highway authorities and utilities on the work they have done so far in developing the detailed standards for utility street works. The Department of Transport has also been closely involved and I pay tribute to its officials who worked as hard as the others.

It is the Secretary of State's normal practice to consult interested parties before making regulations which may affect them. In the case of the various regulations which may be prescribed under this part of the Bill, representatives of the highway authorities, utilities and other undertakers of street works would be consulted before regulations were made. I can certainly give that absolute categorical assurance for this Government, whoever happens to be Secretary of State or Minister of State. I can give no assurance on behalf of a future government were it not of this colour. However, I do not anticipate that eventuality.

It would be wrong to single out the particular people, as the amendment does. Therefore I cannot accept it. Nevertheless I give the assurance once more that consultations will continue.

Lord Underhill

As I have already said, we appreciate the assurances given by the Minister; I am pleased that he has reiterated them tonight. I cannot understand why the Government are shy of including this reference in the Bill. Many Bills have gone through your Lordships' House which referred to consultations with particular organisations and local authority associations. As we have been waiting five years for the Horne Report to be put into legislation, we wish to make certain that the matter is dealt with correctly and nothing is missed. That is why it is so important that consultations should take place. Although we have the assurance from the Minister, I wish to see it in the legislation.

It is not a matter of space and time. We have had to devote a vast amount of time to deal with amendments to sections of the Bill referring to Scotland when the whole matter could have been dealt with in three or four clauses covering the differences between Scotland and England and Wales. It is not a question of adding more to the Bill. A simple amendment such as mine would hearten the utilities and the highway authorities. If the Minister could see his way to including that in the Bill, everybody would be greatly encouraged.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

The point that I was trying to make is that the noble Lord singles out two organisations which should be consulted. That is quite right, they will be, but there are other people who might need to be consulted as well. If one puts on the face of the Bill only those two organisations, if others are not consulted they will complain. I cannot go much further than to continue giving the assurance that of course we will consult. That should be good enough.

Lord Underhill

While that assurance is not good enough, it is satisfactory; therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 94 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)

I apologise to the Committee. I inadvertently included Schedule 6 in a group of clauses which I invited the Committee to allow to stand part of the Bill. I should have said Schedule 7.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 148 agreed to.

Clause 95 [Minor definitions]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 183 and 184: Page 50, line 40, at end insert: (""traffic" includes pedestrians and animals;"). Page 51, line 8, at end insert: ("(4) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define "disability" and other expressions) applies in relation to the provisions of this Part as to the provisions of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 183 and 184.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.

9.15 p.m.

Clause 149 [Minor definitions]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 185 and 186: Page 79, line 18, at end insert: (""traffic" includes pedestrians and animals;"). Page 79, line 33, at end insert: ("(4) Section 28 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (power to define "disability" and other expressions) applies in relation to the provisions of this Part as to the provisions of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 135 and 186.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 96 [Index of defined expressions]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 187: Page 51, line 17, at end insert:

("disability

(see section 95(4))")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 188: Page 51, leave out line 35.

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 189: Page 51, line 51, at end insert:

("traffic

section 95(4)")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 150 [Index of defined expressions]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 190: Page 79, line 42, at end insert:

("disability

(see section 95(4))")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.15 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 191 and 192: Page 80, leave out line 7. Page 80, line 20, at end insert:

(" statutory right	section 149(1)
traffic	section 149(1)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 150, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 151 [Offences by bodies corporate or Scottish partnerships]:

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 193: Page 80, line 45, at end insert: ("(3) For the purpose of this section it shall be the duty of all undertakers to have available for inspection free of charge at all reasonable times by any person making inquiry, a list of all persons mentioned in subsection (1) above and their duties and responsibilities in relation to the management and control of the undertaking and in relation to any street works and to retain that information for a period of ten years and to keep those records up to date. (4) Failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (3) shall render the undertaker concerned liable to a fine not exceeding Level 3 on the standard scale and to the withdrawal of any street works licence or licences held by them following summary conviction in the magistrates court.").

The noble Lord said: The situation in the Bill at the present time merely provides that various company officers shall share liability with the company but there is no requirement for them to be identified or identifiable. This amendment seeks to remedy that gap and to place the onus on undertakers to keep adequate records and to disclose them on demand. The amendment seeks to impose a fine for non-compliance. The associated provision for revocation of street works licences is also necessary.

Placing things in, on or under the highway is a privilege and not a right. The fact that an organisation fails to keep proper records would indicate that this privilege should be withdrawn. However, there is a wider implication to all this. There have been a number of cases which have shown either the indifference of management, the pressures imposed on management or the complacency of management. On a number of occasions matters of this kind have been revealed. I refer to catastrophes such as Zeebrugge and Clapham. One simply cannot shrug aside these factors. More and more emphasis is placed by head office managements on greater efficiency. There is also the risk of on-site corner cutting because of the economic pressures that are imposed. That can easily reduce the quality of site operations. Middle and senior management should be required to demon-strate clearly that works under their control are planned, properly managed and operated safely, and that the whole undertaking is carried out efficiently. If there is a failure in that regard, our submission is that a prosecution should ensue. I beg to move.

The Earl of Kinnoull

I listened with great care to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He referred to the Zeebrugge case. However, I believe it is way over the top to refer to such a case in connection with what we are dealing with in the Bill. It seems a little unfair for a junior manager to have to identify himself specifically in such works, when it is the company that is responsible for them. If such a manager has to identify himself, could an individual claim be made against him subsequently? What cover would such a manager have within the company?

Further, I question the need to retain a record for 10 years. Ten years is a very long time and much happens during that period. I wonder whether the noble Lord is able to justify that period.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has raised a point to which the utilities are totally opposed. Clause 151 is similar in terms to Section 45 of the Gas Act 1986, Section 102 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, Section 177 of the Water Act 1989 and Section 108 of the Electricity Act 1989. All of those provisions are similar to the general provisions contained in Section 733 of the Companies Act 1985. None of those statutes contains a provision of the type proposed in the amendment. The amendment is unnecessary. The effective enforcement of Clause 151 would place a greater burden on the main statutory undertakers than that already imposed upon them by the specific legislation that I have cited.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

One of the main objectives of Parts III and IV of the Bill is to make undertakers, including the major utility companies, fully and clearly responsible for the effects of their street works. That is what we have been discussing all afternoon and evening. It would not improve that accountability to require the publication of comprehensive lists of individuals and their responsibilities as proposed in the amendment. I believe that that would be an extremely bureaucratic proposal.

However, numerous criminal sanctions are provided against an undertaker who fails to comply with his duties under the Bill. The clause makes clear that where an offence by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance or through the neglect of certain individuals, the individual as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and may be proceeded against. Surely that should be enough to ensure individual accountability. I do not believe that we need to go to the lengths proposed by the noble Lord in the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I do not really accept that. The amendment seeks to require all undertakers to keep good personal records. That must be an advantage. If they do not do so a small fine might be imposed.

I believe that listing and identifying officers and directors is a critical element in bringing home a prosecution against them as individuals, avoiding all the problems which accompany prosecuting a company. The fact that they may find themselves unable to undertake any road works may encourage some compliance. Finally, it gives an ordinary plaintiff who is injured or suffers loss an opportunity to find the guilty party. It will also assist the proper authorities to prepare a prosecution.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said that invoking the examples of Zeebrugge and Clapham was disproportionate. In those cases it was demonstrated very vividly and tragically that accountability was notably absent.

Road works are very dangerous places for both road users and road workers. We should not fail to recognise the significance of that. Of course road users are also responsible. There is a great deal of stupidity on their part. However, there can be no doubt that bad signing, poor planning and negligence by those responsible are significant causes of accidents at road works.

I have heard what the Minister had to say and noted the criticisms of two noble Lords. I do not want to detain the Committee at this stage. Therefore I shall study with care what they have said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I shall probably bring the matter back.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 151 agreed to.

Clauses 152 and 153 agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 194: Page 99, line 4, at end insert: (" . In section 139 of the Highways Act 1980 (control of builders' skips), in subsection (11) (definition of "builder's skip" and "owner")) for "and section 140" substitute ", section 140 and section 140A".

. After section 140 of the Highways Act 1980, insert—

"Builders' skips: fee for occupation of the highway.

140A.—(1) The owner of a builder's skip deposited on a highway maintainable at the public expense shall pay to the highway authority the prescribed fee for occupation of the highway.

(2) The fee payable shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the duration and extent of the occupation.

Different rates of fee may be prescribed according to the place and time at which the skip is deposited and such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.

(3) A person applying to the highway authority for permission under section 139 above shall submit together with his application an estimate of the likely duration and extent of the occupation of the highway; and the appropriate fee on the basis of that information must be paid before the authority grant permission.

(4) The Minister may by regulations provide—

1. (a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and
2. (b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3) or the occupation of the highway lasts longer or is more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.

(5) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations.".").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 196 and 197. This is a quite interesting group of amendments. This measure takes the form of three additions to be inserted in the Highways Act 1980. The amendments enable the introduction of schemes to charge owners of skips, scaffolding and builders' materials for the road space they occupy.

The amendments would give effect to the Government's proposal in their consultation document, published in September 1989, to apply any charging scheme to owners of skips, scaffolding and builders' materials. In that document, the Government recognised that such activities often cause serious disruption to traffic. It is believed that the introduction of charges would act as a powerful incentive to builders, developers and others to reduce the impact on traffic of their works.

The first two amendments consist of new sections which contain enabling powers by which the Secretary of State could require local highway authorities to introduce such schemes. They closely resemble the amended provisions in the Bill for charging undertakers for the occupation of road space during street works, which we have already debated under Clause 67.

The, third amendment consists of an amendment to Section 325 of the Highways Act 1980. It provides that the first set of regulations made under the provisions of these amendments should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. So again it is similar to the other clause, Clause 67.

I hope that the Committee will agree that this is a useful measure to put into the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

In principle we support these new sections. I believe that there is a convincing case for them. However, I want to raise a few points with the Minister. I know that the local authority associations fully support this matter. The sections should be capable of being implemented separately from the regime for charging utilities. They should not be caught by the requirement that other anti-congestion provisions of the Act should be shown not to have worked. I ask the Minister to confirm that that is the case.

Will he also confirm that before these decisions are implemented discussions will be held with the associations on the details of the mechanisms by which the charging regime is to be implemented and on the financial arrangements? That point is of particular significance because the consultation document underlined the fact that the Department of Transport would set a fee and the Government would deduct the income likely to come from the authority's revenue support grant less an element for administration of the charge, and the Government would set an element for administration. In effect, that means that the charge will resemble something like back-door taxation and there is no likelihood that it will result in any extra investment for transport. Indeed, against the backcloth of, for example, the community charge, if one assumes that the Government underestimate the cost of administering the charge, it will lead to a cut in the resources available.

In that regard therefore I ask the Government to give an undertaking that any revenue generated by the charge will be made available for additional investment in transport and also to undertake to agree any administration costs under the LAAs.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

I should like to ask my noble friend a very simple question. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and I do not think that he covered my point. It occurs to me that under the provisions of these amendments a utility contracting for certain works with a civil contractor who deposits a skip, scaffolding, piles of bricks or whatever will be charged a certain amount and at the same time the utility, having given notice of its intention to do certain works and agreed to certain fees, will have the first charge represented to it from the sub-contractor and in other words pay twice.

I am quite sure that it is not the intention of the Government that a utility should have a double charge imposed upon it under Clause 67 and under the charges to which the amendment refers. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the situation.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Clearly, double indemnity would be an unfortunate outcome.

In general I welcome the amendments, particularly in relation to building works in London. Every morning I pass a site in Great Peter Street. The pavement has a construction built over it. Theoretically there is still a way through for pedestrians until the workers park their motorcycles under the cover that is provided. Outside on this narrowed road there are a series of skips deposited on the pavement. Forklift trucks rush up and down, moving the skips, and various other large motorised units shift the bigger skips. On the other side of the road, where the meters have been covered so that motorists cannot park, we find large lorries parked. I wonder who is paying for this. As a community charge payer in the City of Westminster, I suspect that it may be me. Therefore, I welcome the idea that these people should pay a reasonable price for taking up land that ought to belong to the motorist.

I accept the qualifications that have been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Lucas, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

I am grateful for the general reception that has been given to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has given a good example of the type of problem that the amendments are intended to help resolve. I am not saying that we can cure every single problem, but contractors will be given an incentive, to move their skips off the road and on to the site if possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether the amendment would have to be implement-ed together with Clause 67. I see no reason why it should be. The two provisions could be implemented separately and probably will be in the case of different sites. I can assure the noble Lord that consultations will take place with local authorities. I do not know whether additional revenues will be generated by the charges that are being put into transport. I will look at that matter and come back to the noble Lord.

My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth asked me to make sure that the utilities would not have to pay twice. I take that point on board and I will reflect on the matter. I hope that the Committee will agree to the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 195: Page 99, line 8, at end insert: ("1A. In Section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), in subsection (1) omit the words "in Greater London other than a metropolitan road. 1B. In section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), for subsection (2) substitute "(2) If, in the case of any highway, it appears to the highway authority that any of the following persons, namely—

1. (a) any person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above, or
369
2. (b) where the highway is not a metropolitan road, the highway authority acting in the exercise of a statutory power to break up or open the highway, has caused any unnecessary obstruction for the purposes of this section, the highway authority may proceed as provided by subsection (4) below."

1C. In section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), for subsection (4) substitute "(4) In the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) or (2) above, the highway authority may by notice require the person causing the obstruction to take such steps as may appear to the highway authority to be necessary, and are specified in the notice, to mitigate or discontinue the obstruction. 1D. In section 160 of the Highways Act 1980 (powers as respects certain unnecessary obstructions of highways in Greater London), delete from "and the Greater London Council" to the end of the subsection.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment represents what we believe to be a logical step in bringing the national position into line with what occurs inside London. There is a case for having uniform provisions throughout the country in relation to roads and the control of works and objects which are placed on roads. The fact is that a traffic jam in Manchester is as objectionable as one that occurs in London. In making representations to my noble friend and to me, the Automobile Association pointed out that, as the police are usually the first to know of obstructions which are placed on roads, it follows that they should notify the highway authorities to have them removed. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

The procedure by which street authorities can require undertakers to avoid unnecessary obstructions in the street is provided in Clauses 59 and 113. They are based closely on the provision in Section 160 of the Highways Act 1980, which is to be repealed by the Bill. They have the same effect as the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. If he examines those clauses in the Bill he will find that there is no problem.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I listened with care to the Minister's comments. They will not satisfy the Automobile Association because it was aware of those provisions. However, I shall examine the matter further, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 196 and 197: Page 99, line 15, at end insert: (" . After section 171 of the Highways Act 1980 (control of deposit of building materials, &c.) insert—

"Works under s. 169 or s. 171: fee for occupation of the highway.

171A.—(1) A person who executes any of the following works in a highway maintainable at the public expense—

1. (a) erecting a relevant structure within the meaning of section 169(1) above, or
2. (b) making any such deposit or excavation as is mentioned in section 171(1) above,

shall pay to the highway authority the prescribed fee for occupation of the highway.

(2) The fee payable shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the duration of the works and the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by them.

Different rates of fee may he prescribed according to the description of works, the place and time at which they are executed and such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.

(3) A person applying to the highway authority for a licence under section 169 or consent under section 171 shall submit together with his application an estimate of the likely duration and extent of the works; and the appropriate fee on the basis of that information must be paid before the authority issue the licence or give their consent.

(4) The Minister may by regulations provide—

1. (a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and
2. (b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (3) or the works take longer or are more extensive than was estimated.

The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.

(5) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations.").

Page 100, line 19, at end insert: (" . In section 325 of the Highways Act 1980 (provisions as to regulations, schemes and orders), in subsection (2) (a) (regulations subject to annulment) after "section 257(4) above" insert "or such regulations as are mentioned in subsection (2A) below"; and after that subsection insert— (2A) A statutory instrument containing the first regulations prescribing fees for the purposes of section 140A, or section 171A(1) (a) or (b), shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197A: Page 101, line 17, after ("A") insert ("local").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 197B, 197C, 197M, 197N, 198B, 198D, 198E, 203C, 203E, 203F and 203G. This is a group of technical drafting amendments. As Part II of Schedule 8 is complicated and technical a word of explanation may be in order. The provisions in Parts I and II of the Bill mean that a number of minor changes are needed to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The schedule has been drafted so as to apply equally to England and Wales on the one hand and to Scotland on the other. The amendments in this group are all minor. They correct a few errors in the schedule as drafted and add some further amendments for the same purpose to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I hope that they do not call for further comment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 197B and 197C: Page 101, line 37, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)"). Page 103, line 28, at end insert: ("(3A) In subsection (3A) (power to make order or issue notice for purposes of clearing litter or cleaning)—

371
1. (a) for "highway or roads authority" substitute "traffic authority", and
2. (b) for "highway or road" substitute "road".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 197D to 197F: Page 104, line 16, after ("apply") insert ("in relation to a road, or part of a road,"). Page 104, line 18, leave out from first ("the") to ("is") and insert ("road or part"). Page 104, line 19, at end insert: ("This does not prevent the making of regulations under subsection (2) above before that date, so as to come into force in relation to that road or part on that date.").

The noble Lord said: These are drafting amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197G: Page 104, line 21, at end insert: ("24A. After section 17 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 insert—

"Further provisions as to special roads.

17A.—(1) On the date declared by the traffic authority, by notice published in the prescribed manner, to be the date on which a special road, or a part of a special road, is open for use as a special road, any existing order under section 1, 6, 9 or 84 of this Act, and any direction under section 82(2) of this Act, relating to that road or part shall cease to have effect.

(2) This is without prejudice to the power to make orders or directions under those provisions in relation to the road or part as a special road; and any such power may he exercised before the date referred to above, so as to take effect on that date.

(3) The procedure for making an order applies in such a case with such modifications as may be prescribed.".").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 198A. Amendment No. 197G effectively preserves the present rule that if an existing road is made a special road by an order under the Highways Act 1980 or the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, the traffic and speed limit orders in force will cease to apply. We shall need this provision as a general rule even though it will now be possible to make new orders of that kind applying to special roads.

Amendment No. 198A, taken with Amendment No. 197G, removes a possible doubt as to whether a 30 mph speed limit can be imposed on a special road. It may, on occasion, be appropriate to impose a 30 mph limit on a special road provided under this Bill —for example, a tunnel—and we want it placed beyond doubt that this can be done. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197H: Page 104, line 41, leave out ("applies") and insert ("shall be made or apply").

The noble Lord said: This is another small drafting amendment upon which I need not elaborate. It merely continues the effect of the existing provisions rather more accurately than is achieved by the present drafting of paragraph 27 of the schedule. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197J: Page 106, leave out lines 7 to 11.

The noble Lord said: This amendment removes an added subsection which on further examination proved unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has a power to make procedure regulations applying to Section 29 orders in Part IV of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197K: Page 107, line 16, at end insert: ("(2A) In subsection (3) (c) (matters to be taken into account in making orders), for the words from "parking accommodation" to "roads" substitute "off-street parking accommodation, whether in the open or under cover,".").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment for consistency with other changes in this schedule. Section 43(3)(c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 refers to "highways" in the text for England and Wales and to "roads" in the text for Scotland. This amendment substitutes wording which applies throughout Great Britain. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 197L: Page 107, line 19, leave out paragraph 40.

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 203D. These amendments remove an unintended repeal of a power in Section 49 of the 1984 Act. The power concerns the removal of parked vehicles by local authorities in an emergency. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 197M and 197N: Page 107, line 20, at end insert: ("40A. In section 53(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, for "highways" or, in Scotland, "roads" substitute "highways or, in Scotland, roads"."). Page 108, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 23 and insert: ("46.—(1) Section 68 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (placing of traffic signs in connection with exercise of other powers) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1) (a), omit the reference to section 30. (3) In subsections (2) and (3)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 198: Page 109, line 16, leave out ("street") and insert ("carriageway").

The noble Lord said: This amendment corrects a minor drafting error. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 198A and 198B: Page 109, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert: ("(4) Omit subsection (3) (which prevents a special road from being a restricted road)."). Page 111, line 34, at end insert: ("64A. In section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exercise of functions by local authorities), in subsection (1) for "the highway" or, in Scotland, "the road" substitute "the highway or, in Scotland, the road". 64B. In section 124(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (orders exercisable by statutory instrument), omit the reference to section 30. 64C. In section 125(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exercise of powers in relation to boundary roads), omit the reference to section 30(1).").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 198C: Page 112, line 7, at end insert: ("67A. In section 134(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (regulations excepted from obligation to consult), for "82(1)," substitute "82(1) (b),".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is purely consequential on paragraph 54(2) of the schedule which amends Section 82(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 198D and 198E: Page 112, line 36, at end insert: ("(2A) In paragraph 20(1) (consultation before orders are made), omit the reference to section 30. (2B) In paragraphs 21 and 23(1) (a) (procedure regulations), omit the words "other than section 30 of this Act". (2C) In paragraph 27(1) (variation or revocation of orders), omit the reference to section 30."). Page 112, line 38, at end insert: ("(4) In paragraph 25 (power to make different provision in each case and as to posting notices)—

1. (a) for "highway authority" or, in Scotland, "roads authority" substitute "traffic authority", and
2. (b) for the word "highway" in the two other places where it appears substitute the word "road".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

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

1. (a) at the end of subsection (1) insert "; and such permission shall be in writing",
2. (b) in subsection (4) for the words from "undertakers"' to the end substitute "road works within the meaning of section 97 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1990", and
3. (c) at the end of subsection (5) insert ("nor does it apply to apparatus in respect of which permission has been granted under section [Permission to execute road works] of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1990 to execute road works"").

The noble Lord said: This amendment makes consequential amendments to Section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 200: Page 113, line 27, at end insert: (" . After section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—

"Fee for occupation of road

61A.—(1) A person who occupies a public road by doing anything which would require the consent or permission of a roads authority under any of the following provisions of this Act—

• section 56 (works executed in or excavations under a public road);
• section 58 (occupation of road for deposit of building materials and erection of scaffolding),
• section 59 (placing or depositing anything in a road),
• section 61 (placing, leaving, retaining, maintaining, repairing and reinstating apparatus in or under a public road), or
• section 85 (depositing a builders' skip),

shall pay to the roads authority a fee for that occupation of the road.

(2) The fee payable under subsection (1) above shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations by reference to the duration and extent of the occupation.

(3) Different rates of fee may be prescribed according to the manner, place and duration of that occupation and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.

(4) A person applying to the roads authority for consent or permission under the provisions of this Act referred to in subsection (1) above shall submit together with his application an estimate of the likely duration and extent of the occupation of the road; and the fee must be paid before the authority gives consent or grants permission.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

1. (a) for the making of repayments in such cases as may be prescribed, and
2. (b) for payment of an additional fee in cases where a fee is not paid in accordance with subsection (4) or the occupation of the road lasts longer or is more extensive than was estimated.

(6) The regulations may provide for determining the amount of the repayment or additional fee by reference to the amount of the fee paid or, as the case may be, to the total fee otherwise payable, and to such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment follows the principle of Clause 121 which allows the introduction of a scheme to charge fees to undertakers for their occupation of public roads during road works by also allowing the introduction of a scheme to charge fees to persons who occupy a public road by doing anything which would require the consent or permission of the local authority under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 201: Page 113, line 27, at end insert: (" . In section 85 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (control of builders' skips on road), in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) after the word "the" where it first occurs insert "written".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment makes it clear that the permission granted under Section 85 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 requires to be in writing. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 202: Page 113, line 36, at end insert: (" . In subsection (2) of section 143 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (provisions as to regulations and orders)—

1. (a) in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) (orders subject to negative resolution) after the word "section" insert ""8 or",
2. (b) in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) (orders subject to affirmative resolution) after the word "Act" insert "or regulations made for the first time under section 61A of this Act", and
3. (c) in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b), omit the words "8 or" .").

The noble Lord said: This amendment amends Section 143(2) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 to provide that orders made under Section 8 of that Act will now only require a negative resolution. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 202A and 202B: Page 115, line 16, after ("streets") insert ("or roads"). Page 116, line 27, after ("streets") insert ("or roads").

The noble Lord said: These are small drafting amendments to apply the Scottish term alongside the one used in England and Wales. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 203: Page 117, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("(interpretation)") and insert: (" .—(1) The Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 is amended as follow. (2) In section 41 (breaking open of roads) for the words "Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950" substitute "Part IV of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1990". (3) In section 59(1)").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 203A: Page 119, line 39, at end insert:

("Local Government Act 1985 (c.51)

95A.—(1) In Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1985, paragraph 6 (guidance as to exercise of traffic powers in London and metropolitan counties) is amended as follows.

(2) In subparagraph (1) for "other than trunk roads" substitute "other than those for which he is the traffic authority".

(3) In subparagraph (3)—

1. (a) in paragraph (b) (i) for "trunk road" substitute "road for which the Secretary of State is the traffic authority", and
2. (b) in paragraph (c) for the words "trunk road" substitute the words "road for which he is the traffic authority".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment and the others are small technical amendments consequential on Clause 18 of the Bill. That clause enables the Secretary of State to construct special roads which will not become trunk roads, and other provisions of this schedule constitute him as "traffic authority" for all roads for which he is highway authority. So the amendment deletes references to trunk roads and substitutes references to roads for which he is the traffic authority. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 203B: Page 120, line 1, leave out ("(twice) and (3)") and insert ("(three times)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 9 [Repeals]:

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 203C to 203G:

Page 123, line 24, column 3, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(6)").

Page 123, line 37, column 3, leave out lines 37 and 38.

Page 123, line 39, column 3, at end insert:
	("In section 68(1) (a), the reference to section 30. Section 82(3).").
Page 123, line 41, column 3, at end insert:
	("In section 124(2), the reference to section 30. In section 125(3), the reference to section 30(1).").
Page 123, line 42, column 3, at end insert:
	("In Schedule 9— (a) in paragraph 20(1), the reference to section 30;
	(b) in paragraphs 21 and 23(1) (a), the words "other than section 30 of this Act";
	(c) in paragraph 27(1), the reference to section 30.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments and beg to move them en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 204 and 205:

Page 123, line 46, column 3, at end insert:
	("In section 143(2) (b) (ii), the words "8 or". In Schedule 7, para-graphs 2, 3(a) and (b) and 4 ")
Page 123, line 52, column 3, at end insert:
	("(d) paragraph 93(2) to (22), (23) (a), (24) to (38), (40), (42), (44) (a),(b),(d) and (e) and (45) (b).")

The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 en bloc and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 206. These are minor drafting amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 205A: Page 124, line 2, column 3, after "(2)" insert:

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

The noble Lord said: This amendment repeals amending provisions in the Local Government Act 1985 which are overtaken by further amendments in the Bill. They are consequential on Schedule 8. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 205B:

Page 124, line 18, column 3, at end insert:
	("In Schedule 4, paragraph 3(2), (6) and (11).").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is another minor repeal in consequence of the repeals of the provisions of the Highways Act 1980. I commend it to your Lordships' Committee. In doing so I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee stage today. There have been some interesting moments; there have also been moments of great tedium in a rather excessive number of government amendments. I should particularly like to thank the Chairmen of the Committee who have dealt with the somewhat complicated way the Bill has been scheduled. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Perhaps I may join with the noble Lord, and I thank also his colleague. I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy throughout the passage of the Committee stage, which is characteristic of him and we have come to expect it. However, I must end on a note of controversy. I found every minute absolutely exhilarating. I thank my own noble friends and in particular my noble friend Lord Underhill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, with whom we have had the pleasure of working on this Committee stage. We look forward with equal exhilaration to the prospect of the Report stage.

Lord Tordoff

I join in the congratulations, which sound more like those we have on the Bill do now pass debate. It is right and proper to have these thanks as we have had a complicated series of amendments to deal with.

I know that those noble Lords who have sat in the Chair have had more difficulty with the layout of the Bill than we have had on the Floor of the Committee. I still believe that it was right to have this layout for the Committee stage once the Bill had been drafted in the way it was, but we recognise that it must have put an extra strain on noble Lords in the Chair. We are extremely grateful for the way in which they handled the procedures.

We welcome the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to the transport club, which, as I have said before, is a very exclusive group of people, as can be seen at this time of night. I thank the Minister for his assistance and courtesy and I hope that we may now all go home.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 154 to 156 agreed to.

In the Title:

Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 206: Line 3, after ("works") insert ("and, in Scotland, road works").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend on the way in which he has dealt with this Committee stage. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at seven minutes before ten o'clock.