Streetworks: Operations Control (Hansard, 1 November 1999)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)
My Lords, streetworks operations are governed by the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991. The Government seek to achieve a balance between the need for the utilities to install and access equipment from time to time and minimising the disruption caused. On 13th October, my department published a consultation document on incentives to minimise disruption and improve streetworks co-ordination in England. It proposed that utilities should be charged for occupying sites for longer than necessary.

§ The Earl of Kinnoull
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that somewhat disappointing reply. Is he aware that the chaos caused by utility companies digging up our streets and pavements with uncoordinated plans and uncoordinated management is well known and well documented and that it has become a public disgrace? Is he further aware that local authorities clearly do not have satisfactory statutory powers of control over the many utility companies—there are some 26 of them—that they 560 could have if the Minister implemented powers given to him under the 1991 Act? When, as has happened in one case, a London street has been dug up 30 times in one year, does that not call for firm action rather than dithering delay with yet more consultation?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I note the noble Earl's concern. Indeed, many others have expressed concern about the degree of disruption. But there are conflicting priorities here. The utilities must have access to their own facilities. The important thing is that we improve co-ordination. There is already a fairly substantial code of practice on co-ordination. However, it is also true, as the noble Earl indicates, that the final sections of the 1991 Act have yet to be triggered. We had hoped, as had the previous administration, that there would have been agreement on proceeding. There has not been that agreement. The consultation document to which I referred offers two options on charging utilities. We hope for feedback on that consultation by January, after which those powers will either be triggered, or powers will be introduced in new legislation.

§ Lord Berkeley
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that when the utilities cause problems on our streets, half the problem is that they do not know where their pipes or cables are? Does my noble friend agree that about 10 years ago there was a plan for all the utilities to be required to map exactly where their pipes and cables were, and that that plan was cancelled by the previous government?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the 1991 Act includes the possibility of such powers but, as with the charging elements, they were never triggered by the previous administration. We, like the previous government, have tried to seek agreement on them. However, if those clauses were enacted, I am not entirely sure that they would achieve rapidly what my noble friend requires. They would require the utilities merely to keep a record of newly placed or located facilities. There are a large number of historic facilities under our highways which, I regret to say, are not effectively mapped. A full inventory could be built up over time by the use of those powers, and that is one of the approaches that we are examining. But that would not instantly give us a total picture of the network.

§ Lord Hankey
My Lords, what is the Minister's attitude towards GIs and the ability to plan services on one integrated computer system, as other countries are doing? It is surely an approach that we, with our high population densities, ought to be able to take.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the present code of practice requires co-ordinated notification which should be capable of translation into an electronic-based system of planning. At the moment we are short of that. One of the matters that we are looking at in the 561 consultation is how to move more rapidly in that direction. However, it requires powers over and above those already in the 1991 Act.

§ Baroness Sharples
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how many trees have been damaged by the digging of so many holes?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I can comment on the precise number of trees affected. Clearly, there is a problem here in that the only powers of local authorities relate to reaching agreement on timing and insisting on that only on the basis of traffic disruption. There are some powers related to noise, but local authorities have no general powers to deal with environmental considerations. Once we have the basic system right perhaps that should also be considered.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while many people are annoyed about their roads being dug up, they are even more annoyed to see hobs being left for days, weeks, months and even longer without anyone working on them? What can he do to ensure that once a road is dug up some action follows?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, either of the proposals that we have put in consultation paper would charge utilities and others who dig up the roads on a per day or overstay basis. Clearly, either would be a disincentive to remaining there for longer than needed.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm or not that the additional powers that it is common ground are needed should be devolved to the local authorities? Does he agree that, although one accepts that the priority lies with the public utilities—always in the case of an emergency—the situation is now wholly out of control and residents should be given some notice, consideration and a chance to cope with it?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, while there are national provisions related to notice and consultation, the powers to which I refer and the charging procedures under the consultation would accrue to local authorities. Local authorities would have the ability to apply those powers or not in particular cases.

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Street Works Bill which was a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole? Is he also aware that my honourable friend originally hoped that that Bill, which would have gone a long way to solving the problem, would receive government support which, following a sudden change of mind, was withdrawn? Can the Minister say why that support was withdrawn?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, support in principle for the Fraser Bill was not withdrawn. However, we believed 562 that to enact the Bill in its then form, which effectively adopted only one of the options, would pre-empt the consultation in which we are now engaged.

§ Lord Hayhoe
My Lords, the Minister indicated that charges would be levied if a contractor occupied a site for longer than necessary. Who will decide the necessary length of time?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, if we take that option the agreement would be, as now, between the local authority and the utility, cable company or whatever as to the length of time the hole would be in the road. There would be a prior agreement. If that time was exceeded penalty charges would accrue.

§ Lord Swinfen
My Lords, when road repairs break down shortly after they have been undertaken who is responsible for ensuring that the work is redone to a proper standard, particularly in rural areas where this situation seems to occur on a number of roads?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord refers to the repair of the road rather than the utility facility, which is clearly covered by the utility's responsibility to its customers. As to the road, it is required to return the road to an adequate standard. From time to time in order to avoid traffic disruption the utility must do a makeshift job and then return. Clearly, it is desirable that that second digging up of the road should be avoided wherever possible, but it is even more important that the road is returned to an adequate standard.