| Traffic Management Bill
|
|
Mr. Miller: I want briefly to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend. I remind the Minister of the exchange earlier this month between the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and the Secretary of State for Transport in which the hon. Gentleman asked a question on that precise subject. The Secretary of State replied:
We need a practical mechanism that distinguishes between short-term slit trenches, which might be there for a couple of hours, and major roadworks that may require a whole road to be dug up—perhaps to replace a sewer. Getting the balance right is difficult. We do not want an overly bureaucratic system, as it could create the competitive disadvantages mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. I know that the Minister has received representations from the technology companies, who recognise the need for such a mechanism and know that they must take part in the process. However, the general plea is that it should not affect the country's competitive interests. I realise that the Minister has a difficult balancing act to perform, but it is important that he puts his thoughts on that point on the record. Mr. Chope: We have had two excellent contributions to the debate. In supporting what has been said, I also commend to the Minister my amendment No. 34, which addresses the same point. Emergency works will need to be carried out for the foreseeable future, particularly given the state both of our water infrastructure, which will take years to get right, and of our gas infrastructure—people are talking about another 25 years before that is sorted out. Given that, there are going to be many emergencies. Action needs to be taken straight away in an emergency, so why cannot the Government say in primary legislation that permit schemes will not be required for, or in connection with, works that are required because of an emergency? That is what amendment No. 34 asks for. I hope that the Minister will recognise my proposal as a way of restricting the ambit of permit schemes and gaining the confidence of those who deal with the permit regime. Entrepreneurs and the utility companies greatly suspect and fear that, as a result of the Government's proposals, they will be burdened with an enormous amount of additional bureaucracy, which will be damaging to them and the UK economy. Mr. McNulty: The best way to ensure the confidence of those who are most directly involved, whether they be from local government or the utilities, is to consult them and thrash out exactly what the definitions will be in regulations. It is terribly easy to Column Number: 158 ask, ''What is a minor work?'', but it is enormously difficult to answer that. A minor work on a little side road, even in the middle of the street, may be fairly non-disruptive; yet a minor work in the middle of Victoria street may be minor by any definition of size, but will cause God knows what sort of disruption. I fear that the same may be true of ''emergency''. What is an emergency? Where does the definition start and stop?The Bill says clearly that there is scope to define in the permit scheme what specified works will not require permits. Although that is broad, it is the hook on which we, along with the utilities and local government, will hang definitions of minor works and emergency works. That is a far more appropriate, confidence-building approach than seeking to include things in the Bill in an overly specific fashion—I was going to say ''anally retentive fashion'', but I should not say that. Things do not have a greater import just because they are included in the Bill. It is the hook in the Bill, rather than a certain level of detail, that will give the regulations their teeth. I take the importance of broadband and other infrastructural connections to our economy as seriously as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did on 5 January. We are not putting obstacles and traps in the way of people going about their lawful business. Much of this work is what the utilities already do, and many of the powers are those that local councils already have. The provisions draw together the powers relating to permit schemes, and those that will apply to street works, and put some co-ordination and liaison into the equation. The notion that the nasty Government are wielding a big stick, and trammelling contractors and the utilities with one arm behind their backs so that they cannot get on with their work, is absolute and abject nonsense. The proposals are designed to allow everyone who needs to get at or under the roads to do so more efficiently than prevailing conditions allow, even though the relevant provisions can be found in many existing laws. The key point is that whether we are talking about an emergency, minor works or, as was mentioned, traffic-sensitive streets, the specifics are better fleshed out in detail through regulations. That is best done with the very people in local government and the utilities who are directly involved, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said, rather than in Committee, no matter how glorious our collective expertise. In that spirit I ask that the amendment be withdrawn. Brian White: The Minister mentioned utilities, but he did not mention the telcos. Given their interest, would they be included in his consultation? Mr. McNulty: We shall seek to involve those who are or will be most directly involved in street works, permit schemes and utilising services underneath our streets. I use ''utilities'' as a shorthand term, which of course includes telecommunications, broadband, and so on. Brian White: On the basis of the Minister's helpful response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Column Number: 159 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Chope: May I take this opportunity to put one question to the Minister? In the debate on amendment No. 167, he said that a permit scheme could be the subject of an experiment. Does he have it mind for the permit scheme to be piloted before it is introduced nationally? It is clear from the regulatory impact assessment how empty the scheme is of detail. On the basis that we have had a pilot on the lane rental proposals, and the studies have produced interesting and perhaps unexpected results, does the Minister agree that it would be better to pilot such a permit regime in particular areas rather than draw up a scheme for a national roll out? Mr. McNulty: Let me turn that round, because we are not drawing up a scheme for national roll out. We are providing permissive powers to allow local authorities to apply for permit schemes should they want to. The Bill is not providing for a universal roll out or a centrally imposed scheme, as the hon. Gentleman suggested 10 minutes ago. Will we encourage authorities to work actively with the first one or two authorities that implement such a scheme to see how it can work? I suspect that the answer is yes, but not in the context of a national pilot or centrally imposed scheme. The hon. Gentleman should unpick his ideology, his objections to the Labour Government and what he thinks we will do from what is in the Bill and what we are actually going to do. Question put and agreed to. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 29 January 2004 |
