|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may gently remind all noble Lords that the time is extremely tight and that if they overrun they will make a huge hole in the Minister's time to reply to their concerns.
The irritation which the problem has caused has led to Questions being asked in the House, but this is the first time we have had an opportunity to debate the issue at length. We are therefore most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
The subject appears to be a music hall joke. We do not want that; we want it to become the serious issue that it is. Holes in the road not only cause great anger; they cost us a great deal of money. Anger is also aroused by the lack of government action in respect of the digging of the holes. I hope that the Minister will offer some solutions.
I want to refer to some of the arguments we constantly hear. Some repairs are undertaken in areas where there are private residences. It is most irritating to discover that no one is working at, say, half past four. I am sure that contractors could be told to work until seven or eight o'clock in the evening and that if that costs more they should have to deal with it. We cannot have holes just left in the middle of the road.
The frequency of digging up the same stretch of road has been mentioned. The Strand is a great example: it was dug up continuously over a period of two years. There appears to be no contact between the different contractors involved.
Another frequent complaint relates to announcements that work will be completed by a certain date. What happens if it is not? Can the utility or contractor be fined, or fined enough? Recently, the road between St James's Street and Albemarle Street was dug up and a notice indicated that the work would be finished by a certain date. It went on for at least another week. But there was no notice of explanation, or of an apology, or of a fine. Can the Minister say whether fines can be levied and, if so, whether they are sufficiently high? Contractors do not seem to realise the cost to the country of longer journeys. They should be involved in some of that cost.
Finally, can the Minister assure the House that the Government are taking the matter seriously and that legislation will soon be brought forward in order to overcome an increasingly irritating problem?
Lord Levene of Portsoken: My Lords, I was pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, had initiated today's debate on an issue with which we are all confronted on an all too regular basis, whether we like it or not.
Last year, during my term of office as Lord Mayor of the City of London, the topic caused increasing concern and led us to address the issue in the City in a manner which I believe should commend itself to wider usage.
I was very much aware of the proposed Streetworks Bill, which was under discussion in another place, but recognised the difficulties which such legislation might and did produce. My concern with the Bill was that in so far as it imposed costs on the utilities--that has been further suggested today--I did not believe that that would have any impact on reducing the problem, other than that the costs involved would be passed on to the consumers.
Furthermore, motorists or other passengers in transit, stuck in inevitable jams caused by such roadworks, would certainly find very little comfort in learning that the contractor was having to pay for the privilege of holding them up. They would far rather not be held up at all, or at least, far less frequently.
In the City, our intention was to try to address the problem with the co-operation of the various utilities involved, with a view to reducing significantly the incidence of disruption, but on a voluntary basis. I was very interested, but not entirely surprised, to learn last year that the Square Mile represents 20 per cent of the entire UK market for the telecommunications services by value. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the incidence of digging in the streets to lay new cables can, at times, become overwhelming.
Having done a certain amount of investigation into the subject, it became clear that the vast bulk of the cost relating to streetworks was involved in digging up the road and then filling it in again and resurfacing it, rather than in the cables and pipes in the holes. Many noble Lords will have seen all too often the ludicrous
My aim was, through voluntary consultation, to persuade the utilities to co-operate with each other and with the local authority so that a busy stretch of highway would be dug up only once during a period of, say, a year or two, but that during the time the trench was open all the utilities would use the facility to lay or re-lay their own services. That has the enormous advantage to the utilities that they would save a huge amount of money.
I wrote to the chairmen of all the utilities which operate in the City of London and held a meeting with them to discuss the matter. It was recognised that emergencies occur which cannot be pre-planned and that some requirements, particularly in telecommunications, are necessary at relatively short notice. None the less, we succeeded in the City of London in a number of areas.
First, we published a voluntary code of practice for the co-ordination of streetworks in the City of London. All the 20 statutory undertakings which work in the City have agreed to it and adopted it. We have listed the 56 main streets in the City which are included in the voluntary code of practice. In addition, we have given the statutory undertakings our plans up to the year 2020, indicating which works will be undertaken in which streets, on which dates and, in particular, where the local authority--in this case, the City--has to resurface the streets in question. That has an even bigger advantage to the utilities. We dig the hole and provide the trench; they fill it in with pipes; and then we resurface it. They pay nothing and it is work which the City would have to undertake in any event.
In addition, the utilities have agreed to submit their own proposals to the Corporation for co-ordination and that, following the completion of the works in question, a 12-month moratorium on the particular street being broken up will be firmly enforced.
The voluntary code of practice has been in operation in the City since the beginning of the year and there is every indication that it is working well. Indeed, I am told that the practice of sharing holes or trenches is a great success in the City.
The scheme is not perfect--no scheme of this type ever can be--but it has the considerable merit of costing nothing, requiring no legislation, saving costs to the utilities and therefore their customers, and reducing the number and frequency of the holes, which we all loathe.
I know that neighbouring local authorities in London are considering similar schemes. I would commend to the Government an early consideration of the scheme with a view to expanding its operation much more widely throughout the country.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, what we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Levene, promises the most hopeful solution that I, for one, have heard on this subject for a very long time. I, too,
There appears to be no concern among those who have the statutory power to authorise a hole to be dug in the road for the effect that it will have on businesses. There appears to be no provision for the service of reasonable and sensible notice on those who will be affected. There appears to be no requirement to give an estimate of the length of time that the road will be dug up and, sometimes, closed. There appears to be no provision for monitoring by, in one instance, the DTI. I have given notice to the Minister of a horror story that I wish to raise in which the DTI was the authorising body. There is no provision for monitoring progress and no provision for a penalty to be imposed in the event of an overrun of the estimate. Finally, there is no provision for compensation. Those are major shortcomings in a field where one, of course, recognises that electronic advance will lead to trenches being dug for cables to be laid for whatever reason.
I want to regale the House, if I may, with a horror story that arises in the villages of Matfield, Brenchley and Horsmonden near where I live. As I said, I have given the noble Lord an account of what took place there in February and March this year. I am sure that not many noble Lords will be aware of those villages, but a road connects them. On a Saturday afternoon in February a letter arrived at the village shop, kept by Mr Michael Keyhoe, which said that on the following Monday morning the road between Matfield, Brenchley and Horsmonden was to be not only dug up but closed. There were to be no traffic lights; the road was to be closed. Of course, there was no estimate of how long the work was to take. Naturally, there was no compensation of any kind. There was no consultation; nothing. It was simply going to happen. And so it duly did.
The road was closed for four weeks. Who was responsible? I understand that it was a business called Level 3 acting through sub-contractors called Fujitsu. They did not have the courtesy to explain how long they were going to take. However, apparently they explained that it was necessary to close the road because they were digging a trench to enable a fibre-optic cable to connect the City of London with Frankfurt via Folkestone. Not too many people in Horsmonden wish to make contact with Frankfurt other than by means of the ordinary telephone. At least, they did not when I represented them for 23 years as their Member of Parliament. Therefore, it was an added soreness that this major disruption would bring no benefit whatever to the people who suffered in terms of their business.
Having regard to his family background, I know that I do not need to instruct the Minister about the harm that is done to a village grocery, for example, or to a village bakery, a butcher's shop, or any other retail shop, when this kind of thing occurs. For four weeks the road was closed. I am not saying that those villages were cut off; of course, they were not. However, it was much more difficult, for example, for someone to reach the village butcher. In consequence, the butcher's trade suffered a considerable falling-off. I believe that that is true of all the four retail businesses located there, not to mention the pub, and the difficulties sustained by the primary school.
How did this come about in such an unjust way? I believe that it was entirely because those businesses--I refer to Level 3 and Fujitsu--behaved as people always do when they are granted power over other people with no accountability whatever. Considerable damage has been done and, even now, the event is not complete. Although the road is open, the workers will come back and continue with more digging.
Therefore, if there is no statutory provision for reasonable notice--Saturday afternoon until Monday morning in this instance--I should be most grateful if the Minister could explain why there is no provision for notice, for monitoring, for an estimate for the duration of the works, for a penalty clause, or for compensation? As I understand it, none of those things is provided for; at least none has been accorded to those unfortunate people. Therefore, although I gave the noble Lord only short notice, I hope very much that he can tell me why that was the case in the example I have given. If he cannot tell me today, perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me and publish his letter.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I draw attention to the fact that so far the debate has revolved significantly around road traffic expressed in terms of vehicles. Perhaps I may point out that the greatest danger of inadequate resurfacing of roads--that is, inattention to detail in making sure that the job is done properly--is to two-wheeled traffic. Motor cyclists and cyclists have constant problems with uneven roads. Perhaps I may add that pedestrians also come into the picture. It is certainly the case that the cabling companies disrupted the pavements of almost every town in the country, causing enormous difficulties to people who have to push prams and pushchairs around their districts. Such people have no sanction at all against companies which have an absolute right to dig trenches outside their homes.
Some people may believe that the worst is behind us because the particular cabling associated with television cable companies is over. However, of course, as has already been hinted at in the debate, a fresh wave is about to descend on the country. It has already been experienced in Kent in terms of the development of the new telecommunications digital frameworks,
I greatly applaud the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, who indicated the way in which the City of London was approaching this issue. However, he will recognise that the City of London carries a particular punch when it comes to bringing together those great utilities which often, of course, want to draw upon the facilities of the City of London in other terms as well.
There is at least one other authority in Britain which is significantly successful in that way. I received a letter from Councillor Mike Olley of the City of Birmingham in which he says that we operate what we call a "FOG"--"fear of God"--scheme with regard to contractors and the people who commission them. We regularly monitor and follow through the monitoring, and we continually harry those who fail to meet their obligations. However, just as the City of London has particular power in terms of its financial dimension, the City of Birmingham is the second biggest authority in the country. I am not at all amazed that the City of Birmingham is able to wield such clout. However, the position for far too many of our local highways authorities is quite clear: they are denuded of resources and have limited ability to insist upon the consultation that is meant to take place before their roads are dug up. They know that there are more kicks than halfpence in chasing up those institutions. To be involved with the issue brings opprobrium upon the local authorities' heads when they have very little power to do anything about it.
That is why we should look at the way in which we can increase regulation. I agree entirely with the contribution by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. Action is necessary in this area. Of course, it is possible to make the obstructer pay but that will require regulation and Acts of this Parliament in order to ensure that that is in force. That is what we are asking from the Minister today. From the process of consultation which has been going on and the responses that he has received, does he not have a case for early implementation of legislation which will empower our local authorities to safeguard their environment?
At present, enormous frustrations build up because of the blockage of roads. Britain's roads are congested to an extraordinary degree under normal circumstances. But this blight of a greatly extended number of roadworks by a whole plethora of authorities and utilities surely means that we must look at the way in which we can insist that those utilities fit into a common scheme of consultation; of
I have no doubt at all that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has done a public service in introducing this debate. It greatly concerns the nation at the present time. It behoves the Minister to make a positive and constructive response on the way ahead.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence in this debate since I can claim no great expertise in the matter of digging holes in roads; but perhaps that is not necessary. My viewpoint--the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, will be pleased to hear this--is that of the innocent passer-by. I am a pedestrian to my last toe. Therefore, I am well aware of the difficulties experienced in crossing roads; in smelling the fumes caused by the semi-stationary traffic; and, indeed, in my capacity as a local taxpayer, in terms of the cost caused by that seemingly extremely inefficient system.
I may also be considered to be the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus because I use public transport whenever I cannot walk to my destination. The stress and strain on the drivers of public transport--buses and taxis--is considerable. But I am also a local resident and I have to drive my car from time to time and pay for residents' parking, which also may be disrupted as a result of those works. Therefore, as a pedestrian, public transport user, car driver and local resident and taxpayer, I must say that the current scene in London is just too much.
It is not so much the principle of the work as the extent of the digging up. Travelling along Piccadilly has become torture. Whitehall and Parliament Square have been a mess for as long as I can remember. That picture is replicated throughout the City and the various boroughs of London.
I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Levene, said on this matter and I look forward with interest to hearing the results of the application of the voluntary code. But nobody so far has mentioned the reason why, at this time of year, there always seems to be a considerable amount of digging up. That is something to do with the funding of local authorities and the fact that local authorities realise that the year-end is close and they must spend all their money or give it back. It may be also that the elections for the mayor of London are a spur to the boroughs to do things before a new mayor comes in and attempts to do something else.
So clearly, it seems to me that there is a need for co-ordination or, at all events, more co-ordination among undertakers. That is not just between the public utilities and themselves or between themselves and the
I know that there has been legislation in the past but the exceptions or exemptions for emergencies which are used as an excuse for avoiding the requirements of legislation do not help at all. I should be interested to know what sort of monitoring is carried out to see to what extent the existing rules and regulations are being observed.
There is also a clear need for better signs and explanations, times and dates of when work is taking place. My noble friend Lord Peyton said that clearly in his final remarks. But only at lunch time today, I heard a story from somebody who lives in a small village where all the roads were suddenly dug up but because there was a large sign saying that that was all in aid of a better water supply for the village, people relaxed and realised that they would have to put up with it and that it was worth the "aggro".
There is also the question of cost. I believe that my noble friend Lord Peyton gave an example of one street being dug up nine times in one year. The cost of that would be quite ridiculous. Oceans of money are poured out on painting red lines on roads to make red routes and as soon as that has been done, the roads are dug up. What a waste of time and money.
Last year, my honourable friend Christopher Fraser introduced his Streetworks Bill as a Private Member's Bill in the other place. That was the Bill referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, in his comments. It proposed to place new statutory responsibilities on companies carrying out streetworks. Specifically, they would be required to take measures at their own expense to alleviate obstruction or to improve traffic flow; to put up signs giving information on the name and contact number of the undertaker, and the purpose and date of completion of the work.
Undertakers who fail to comply with the requirements would be liable for charges payable to the highways authority. The Bill also proposed the introduction, within six months of its enactment, of regulations provided in Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 which allows charges to be levied for occupation of the highway when works are unreasonably prolonged.
The Bill also provided for guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State on the calculation of the charges payable, depending on the length of time involved and the degree of obstruction and inconvenience. The Government blocked the Bill. Why did they do that?
To sum up, we have had legislation and proposed legislation and it has not worked or it has been blocked. What does the Minister suggest can be done to make effective any future legislation? We clearly need a financial incentive. What form do the Government suggest such an incentive should take,
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I should like to add my support and gratitude to that expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for raising the subject this afternoon and for enabling us to have this debate.
I was particularly interested in the contribution of my noble friend Lord Levene, who has been in a position where he could do something about the problem and did so effectively. I hope that his example may be repeated and copied elsewhere. I should like to draw attention to two aspects of the nuisance to which these Keynesian holes in the road give rise. First, a case in London recently came to my notice where a hole in the road was made, the work which had to be done appeared to be carried out extremely quickly within the day, but the contractors' impedimenta remained on the pavement for many days thereafter: the barriers which they had put around the hole in the road and the little pile of spoil for which there did not appear to be room in the hole when they had finished. Those impedimenta clogged up the pavement and were a nuisance to those using the pavement for many days. I suggest that if there are to be financial penalties for lack of proper performance, that is one of the aspects which should be considered.
Secondly, I invite the Minister to comment on the need for some advance notice when there are roadworks caused by statutory undertakers--or indeed, anyone else--on trunk roads where there is only a single carriageway. I have certainly experienced during recent weeks a delay of up to one hour on a track of single carriageway trunk road in Wiltshire where some work was being carried out. It was not clear who was carrying it out as there was no notice, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has suggested there should be. It did not appear to be work on the road itself, but there was a lot of quite heavy machinery which had to be cordoned off. There was single way working. Lines of traffic in both directions were held up for the best part of an hour.
That situation could have been avoided at least in part if notices had been put up well clear of the actual obstruction before the junctions either side of it so that drivers who wished to do so could take diversionary action and divert down other roads to avoid the obstruction. That would have reduced the amount of traffic held up in the traffic jams, reduced the frustration, reduced the cost of petrol being needlessly burned as engines were kept ticking over and would have enabled people to reach their destinations more quickly. I hope that the Minister will address that matter in his reply.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I too express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil and to the noble Lord, Lord Levene. He made a number of good points on the feasibility of the way in which we must approach the matter. I shall direct my remarks to central London only.
My noble friend Lord Peyton said that there were some 20,000 applications for roadworks throughout the country at a given time. I submit that all 20,000 are in central London at the moment. My main concern is not that holes are being dug. Let us face it: our roads are old, traffic is increasing and the need to dig up the roads, quite apart from maintenance, is increasing all the time. That is understandable and I have a good deal of sympathy with those involved. But I have no sympathy with the fact that there is no co-ordination whatever about the roadworks in any local authority or any highway authority. We are not talking about little holes; large areas are cordoned off. You come to one and then just around the corner there is another one; and just around that corner there is another, so there is a triple whammy of traffic congestion because obviously no thought of co-ordination has taken place with regard to setting up the roadworks.
Furthermore, as I am sure that many noble Lords will have observed, there is no one working on a great many of the cordoned-off roadworks. I have passed them several times because of the debate and have taken careful note of areas where for periods of 24 and 36 hours there has been no work whatever. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Levene, that it may be easier to control the City of London because a great deal of work in the City of London could be carried out at night. That is not always practical in the rest of London, but I certainly support the Conservative candidate for mayor of London, Steven Norris, who proposes that, wherever practical, roadworks should take place at night. I fully understand that many considerations and practicalities are involved, but where it is possible and feasible I do not see why that should not happen.
The other point which one has to consider with such horrifying crisis diversions in London is the amount of environmental damage done by the unnecessary pollution. As has been mentioned previously, the position of pedestrians is also affected. They often have to climb over mounds of earth which have spilled over from the roadworks at pedestrian crossings. They have to make their way around barriers where there is no proper crossing and often where motorists cannot see them.
We know that the Government hold the motorist in contempt. I believe that we have the most expensive petrol in the world. We certainly pay the highest parking fees in central London. I am not sure about car tax; but it must be high in the world league. We are given no consideration whatever by local authorities, the highways authorities and by everyone who already has it in his power to co-ordinate roadworks. I beg the Minister, when he comes to wind up, to give us at least an indication that the Government take the matter
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for bringing this important debate before us. The quality of the speeches and the concerns expressed clearly demonstrate the seriousness with which the Government need to take the issues that he raised. I thank him also because, as has been indicated, he has given us a rare opportunity in this House. Normally debates in this House are--shall I say?--low-key, a little learned, detailed and reflective. If sonorous, they do not have the knockabout rowdiness of the other place but perhaps a sonority reflecting the worldly-wise experience of noble Lords. There have been few opportunities during the two years that I have been in this House for anyone to have a political rant, but the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has given us the opportunity today.
Like the previous speaker, I should like as a Londoner to concentrate my remarks on what has been happening in London over the past few years and what is happening today. If any noble Lord is not aware of the problem, I suggest that tomorrow he brings in his car, parks it in the car park outside and begins by attempting to go down Whitehall at any hour of the day. He probably will not be able to go down Whitehall, because he will find it significantly blocked at the Trafalgar Square end and he will probably have to go around Horse Guards. Having made it around Horse Guards and into Trafalgar Square, he will find that he is stuck also in Trafalgar Square because it is being dug up. If he negotiates that and then moves along Pall Mall, he will then find an enormous tailback of traffic coming from the blockage at the top of St James's Street in Piccadilly outside the Ritz hotel. Indeed, one might say that the blockage outside the Ritz hotel gives a new meaning to the expression, "The Ritz is open to everyone". One might think that there would be some respite, but I am told that the blockage at the top of Piccadilly will not be cleared until November this year, so we shall have intolerable delay in that area until then.
If tomorrow noble Lords try to drive past Victoria Station, they will find that that route is no better because Buckingham Palace Road is being dug up and that road will not be free of roadworks until early in 2001. I believe that Westminster Cable Television Company is responsible for that digging.
I agree with the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. One solution to the problem could be for the work to be carried out after five o'clock. In the course of the normal working day, one can often see holes where no one is working at all. I believe that a prize should be given to any noble Lord who catches someone working in the holes, certainly around Trafalgar Square, which I travel past three or four times a day.
Several years ago the question used to be, why is the Embankment being dug up at the same time as the Strand? In order for there to be an escape route, why is not the Strand finished before the Embankment is dug up and vice versa? That question is now irrelevant. The whole of London is being dug up simultaneously.
How has that happened? Many people believe that the fault originated with privatisation. Under the privatisation Acts and regulations, British Telecom, Thames Water and the cable companies have the right to dig up any road after merely informing the relevant local authority. Leaving aside the matter of the gas and electricity companies, I understand that currently 86 telecommunications companies have the right to dig up roads without permission.
London poses a particular problem because after 1991 those with the power to dig up roads without permission had no obligation to inform the local council. Since 1991 the obligation has been to inform central government because there was a suggestion that between the privatisation measures being enacted and 1991, local councils were delaying, attempting to co-ordinate and slowing up the process. Central government now controls by fax. I believe that all noble Lords would agree that if there is co-ordination we cannot see it, and if it being done by fax, the fax machine was long ago taken off the hook.
No government, whether Tory or Labour, have anything to be proud of in this regard. Of course, the Tories introduced the privatisation legislation that set in train those matters. John Gummer, when Minister for London, once boasted that there was no need for accountable separate government in London because he knew what was best. After three years, are the present Government any better? With bated breath we waited for the recommendations and the new policy that John Prescott was to unveil. A month or so ago he came up with a marvellous solution: contractors may no longer fax their intention to dig up London, but they must do so by e-mail.
As regards holes in the roads, I believe that the people of London have now had enough. Can the Minister, who is not from the DETR--I am not sure why he is being used as the fall guy in this debate--tell us, to use a phrase of Simon Jenkins, when the scorched earth policy of the DETR on London will stop? If the Government are not prepared to do anything about it, will they give the relevant powers to the new mayor of London? I doubt it. There is an old
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. It is a timely debate as anybody who steps outside this House will see within a few yards of the door.
I come to this debate with a longstanding interest in these matters. I was the Minister of State in the Department of Transport who introduced the New Roads and Street Works Bill in this House in 1990. That became the 1991 Act which reformed the law on utilities' streetworks. It implemented the recommendations of the Horne report on the review of the wholly unsatisfactory system put in place by the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950. In doing so, the Act replaced an exceptionally out-of-date statute with a flexible, modern one.
To the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I say that the old gas companies, the old water boards and the old Post Office were allowed to dig up the roads long before privatisation. Privatisation has made no difference to that whatever.
The Act introduced new standards for the reinstatement of the road surface, with utility companies being fully responsible for reinstatement following their streetworks. That ended the previously confused divisions of responsibility between authorities and utilities. I believe that that part of the Act has been at least a moderate success. The Act also provided better control over the timing and co-ordination of streetworks.
Most importantly to this debate, Section 74 of the Act gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations requiring an undertaker who executes works to pay a charge to the highway authority if the work is not completed within a reasonable period of time, and it is that part, to which other noble Lords have referred, that has never been brought into force.
The problems caused by utility companies digging holes in the roads are a longstanding annoyance to road users, especially in London. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained to this House last month, there are now many companies that are entitled to dig holes in the roads in London alone. That explains the difficulties incurred around Piccadilly, to which many noble Lords have referred. Recently, the Evening Standard reported three major sets of roadworks managing to,
It is the case that the sheer quantity of companies who need to dig holes in the road has led to a proliferation of the problem. Gas, electric, water and telecommunications companies all need, at some stage, to lay new pipes and repair old or damaged ones. That means that they all need to dig holes in the road. In addition, the onset of cable television has created a new need for companies to dig holes.
Although the Conservative Party welcomes the new innovations in all these technologies and the competition that they bring, it believes that disruption should be kept to a minimum and that roads should be left in a good state of repair. To those ends, the local authorities should use more foresight at the onset of major roadworks, in regard to both the works of utilities and their own works. I agree with my noble friend Lady Hooper that some of these problems are not caused by the utilities, but by local authorities.
Simple procedures, such as banning right turns when a carriageway is reduced to one lane, and slight adjustments to the timing of signals, can make a great difference to the length of delays. I came across an example only two or three days ago. The inside lane of a busy two-lane road crossing the South Circular road was blocked with roadworks. Consequently, all the traffic was in the outside lane and one car wanting to turn right could bring all the traffic to a complete halt. The resolution should have been simple. Right-hand turns should have been banned while those roadworks were in place. But, of course, nothing was done. Little adjustments of that kind can make an immense difference and resolve some of these problems.
The Government conducted a consultation exercise on this issue, which ended in January. In the course of that they cited Section 74 of the 1991 Act as a power that is already available. The consultation paper stated that,
Press speculation has suggested that the Government are planning to take action to introduce a daily charge on utility companies for digging holes in the street and to impose heavy fines if they delay the completion of roadworks beyond the stated deadline. To those ends, the 1991 Act is vital.
The Government announcement, if it is to be believed--although I see no reason not to believe it because we find out about so many policies through the media these days-- strikes me as somewhat hypocritical. That is because a little over a year ago the Government blocked a sensible Private Member's Bill introduced by my honourable friend Mr Christopher Fraser in another place. A number of noble Lords have already referred to that measure. The Bill proposed to allow charges to be levied on undertakers of roadworks. If such roadworks were unreasonably prolonged, it suggested the enactment of Section 74 of the 1991 Act.
The Bill also proposed to place new statutory responsibilities on companies carrying out streetworks. Specifically, it required them to take measures to alleviate obstruction or to improve traffic flow at their own expense and to put up signs giving information about the name and contact number of the undertaker, as well as the purpose and completion date of the works. Undertakers who failed to comply with the requirements would be liable for charges payable to the highway authority. Indeed, some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Levene, could have been discussed if the Government had allowed the Bill to have a Committee stage rather than blocking it at Second Reading.
It is not only the road user who is affected by such works. Pedestrians also face a hazardous journey to and from work or leisure in the capital and elsewhere. Pavements are dug up, then patched haphazardly, providing dangerously uneven walking conditions. Cycle paths that get in the way of the utilities are also left damaged by the patchwork of repair. I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, referred to the problems facing both pedestrians and cyclists.
If the Government are to be believed when they state that they want to reduce the number of people who travel by car, pavements and cycle paths must be improved and the onus to clear them up must be put on the utility companies which create the problems.
In the July 1999 policy document, A Fair Deal for the Motorist, the Conservative Party made three pledges to improve the state of our roads and to reduce the impact of roadworks on Britain's motorists. First, we said that we shall improve road maintenance, and the visual and noise impact of roads on the environment. Secondly, we shall publish league tables of local authority performance on road maintenance so that councils which neglect roads are exposed. Thirdly, we shall penalise water, electricity, gas and telephone companies for excessive delays caused by their roadworks and use the money for local authority road maintenance. We shall place new statutory responsibilities on companies carrying out streetworks so that, at their own expense, they take measures to alleviate obstruction or improve traffic flow. Undertakers which fail to comply with their responsibilities will be liable for charges payable to the highway authority.
Finally, I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. Is the speculation in the press correct; namely, that the Government are going to act on this matter? If so, can the Minister be more specific as regards the arrangements for charging rent and charging for work that runs over a specified programme? What was the reasoning behind blocking the proposed Bill in the other place last year? Will the Government now support such a Bill if it is introduced in this House, or would they support, for example, measures introduced into the Transport Bill when that comes before this House?
In conclusion, I should like once again to thank my noble friend Lord Peyton for introducing the debate. I hope that the Government have listened to some of the useful and practical points that have been made by other noble Lords this afternoon.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the DTI, the government department responsible for granting statutory powers to dig in the public highway to the electricity, gas and telecommunications utilities. Perhaps I may say at the start of my remarks that we accept that this is an extremely serious situation. Furthermore, in answer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, our ears are open and we are concerned about the issue.
In my response to the debate, I should like to focus mainly on the activities of the telecommunications operators. In recent years it has been the increase in their activities that has, indeed, changed the situation. The volume of construction activity by these companies has generated a high proportion of the
In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, local authorities do now receive three-year funding so that there is no need to rush through expenditure in March--or at least, only once in every three years. There has been considerable improvement in that respect.
Repeated and prolonged streetworks by telecoms operators have, I know, caused extensive disruption in certain parts of the country. In London, the disruption has been particularly severe as a number of operators install fibre optic networks to meet the growing demand from business for high-speed, broadband communication services. The south-west and Kent have also faced their share of problems from the construction of communications links up to London from cable landing sites on the Cornish and Kent coasts.
The Government are conscious of the disruption that the installation of telecoms cabling can cause and want to ensure that it is kept to a minimum. Before addressing what is being done to achieve this, it may be helpful if I explain what has led to the increase in the number of telecommunications operators and why they have been granted special rights as statutory undertakers.
The previous government set in train the process of introducing competition in the telecommunications market, in infrastructure as well as in services. This Government are strengthening and extending that competition. The results have been remarkable. The liberalisation has stimulated investment in a world-class communications infrastructure, to the benefit of business and residential consumers alike. Prices have fallen as services have been both improved and widened. The cable TV industry alone has invested some £12 billion in constructing new networks over the past decade. We have seen ever-increasing numbers of new companies entering the UK market. Levels of competition in the UK are as great as anywhere in the world with around 400 licences having been granted to a wide range of telecommunications operators.
Prices for international calls have fallen by 50 per cent in the past five years and we can now call the US for as little as 3p a minute. Competition is bringing UK Internet access prices down. UK Internet users have a wide choice of providers and an increasing choice of pricing packages. The UK was the first market to see subscription-free services develop and take off; and now we are the first in Europe to see services which eliminate call charges too.
The Government welcome continued investment in the UK's telecommunications infrastructure. The modern broadband networks now under construction are vital to meeting the Government's target of making the UK the best place in the world to do business electronically by 2002 and to ensuring the
Some of the new entrants in the UK telecoms market are granted special powers to assist in the installation of their systems. Those powers, known as Code powers, enable companies to lay cable in public streets without the need for separate licences from local highway authorities and give them access to accelerated planning procedures. With those rights come obligations. Telecoms operators, in common with all utilities, are subject to the New Roads and Street Works Act and its associated regulations. Operators' licences also contain a number of conditions designed to reduce the disruption resulting from streetworks activity. Those conditions are intended to reconcile concerns about protection of the environment with the overall benefit to consumers from increased competition and choice in telecommunications services. For example, their licence requires them to explore duct-sharing in order to reduce unnecessary digging; to install sufficient ducting for future growth in demand and so reduce the need for further streetworks; and to install ducting in footpaths rather than the road to minimise traffic disruption unless directed to do otherwise by highways authorities.
Many operators also pursue trench-sharing arrangements as a matter of course. It is in their interest to do so, not only to reduce the local impact of new construction, but also because of the cost benefits that duct trench-sharing affords. In Kent, for example, we understand that Level 3 Communications is sharing trench with at least one other operator on approximately 295 out of the 340 kilometres of duct being laid. In Parliament Square, as many noble Lords will testify, a number of operators have shared trenching.
Clearly, not all licensees can dig up the public highway. Code powers are granted to those installing extensive infrastructure, in recognition of the importance of the services their networks can deliver. More than 80 telecoms operators have been granted those rights and use their powers differently depending upon the markets they serve. The principal categories of operator are mobile and radio fixed-access operators; cable companies; other fixed network operators; and international facilities operators. Mobile operators and radio fixed-access operators use their Code powers primarily to install masts.
The cable companies' Code powers are used to meet obligations to install local access networks to television and telephony. Their networks now pass 12.3 million homes, or 51 per cent of the population. It is estimated that total franchise coverage will be in the region of 70 per cent of total homes.
The volume of telecoms activity tends to be greatest where demand for high-speed, broadband service is highest. At the moment London is out in front in the use of digital technologies--65 per cent of business have dedicated websites and 83 per cent use external e-mail. As demand for digital technologies increases throughout the country, so too will the need for new networks to meet that demand. This will not necessarily mean additional cabling activity; there will be the option in future for services to be delivered by radio. The Government intend to make available licences for radio spectrum later this year to provide broadband services.
In international communications traffic, the volume of streetworks is again a reflection of the UK's success. We were one of the first countries in the world to promote competition in telecoms infrastructure and we are the leading country in Europe in terms of ICT ownership and Internet use. The size of our telecoms market, and the telecoms expertise that is available here, has led many operators to choose London as the hub for their pan-European networks.
In a competitive world, pressures for more construction are inevitable. But the Government believe that we must take all the action we can to reduce the impact on people using our highways. The key to avoiding or minimising disruption from streetworks lies in a combination of measures, improving the existing controls and introducing new ones if there is a reasonable prospect of their being effective.
In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, in most cases undertakers must notify street authorities of proposed works. It is not correct to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, that there is no requirement to notify local authorities about streetworks post-1991. That is not accurate. The statutory undertakers have to notify highways authorities about impending works. The notice period varies according to the works and is longer when streets are traffic-sensitive. Authorities must keep a register of their own and the undertaker's works. This records notices, completed reinstatements and certain other information, and is increasingly reliant on electronic transmission via an Internet-based protocol.
Undertakers must reinstate the road to prescribed standards. Additionally, the authority carries out inspections of works, a proportion of them at the undertaker's expense. Where defects are found, further so-called "defect inspections" take place and are charged to the undertaker.
Undertakers must sign, guard and light their works in accordance with a statutory code of practice--the "safety code". In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, it is already a requirement on statutory undertakers to say who they are and to give a telephone number. We are consulting on what further information should be given. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, statutory undertakers are required to remove signing, guarding and lighting equipment no longer in use. If it is still there after the work is completed, it can be regarded as an obstruction of the highway and proceedings taken against the operator by the local authority.
Street authorities must co-ordinate works in their streets--their own, as well as those of the undertakers. Undertakers must co-operate with the authorities and with each other. Co-ordination and co-operation are general sorts of duty, but they are a starting point. They were an innovation of the 1991 Act and put on a statutory basis the principle of both sides getting together at a minimum of quarterly intervals to discuss planned works, bringing in other interested parties, including other utilities, the police and local businesses and residents, as necessary.
There are already specific constraints on traffic disruption available in the Act. Street authorities may lay down the timing of particular streetworks and they can intervene to restrain an undertaker from overstaying in the road.
The detailed requirements are in some cases undergoing revision in the light of experience and consultation. DETR colleagues are finalising a new edition of the safety code; consulting on a revised inspection scheme; and considering consultation responses on proposals for a new edition of the reinstatement specification.
The reason the Bill was blocked in the other place was that it occurred at the time of the consultation. As Government, we believe that if we are consulting people then we owe it to them to listen to their views before taking action.
The consultation document outlined two options which involve an element of charging as an incentive to efficient working, while not excluding other possibilities. These are, first, to activate unused powers in Section 74 of the 1991 Act to charge utilities for occupying the road for longer than an agreed period, and, secondly, to charge from the start of works. New legislation would be required to implement the latter
Analysis of the responses to the consultation has shown support for the Section 74 option to charge utilities for overstaying. The Government now intend to implement Section 74 and will work with the highway authorities and utilities to develop such a scheme.
I believe that this deals with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg. It is important to remember that the highway authorities have powers to direct companies as to their hours of work. It should be said, however, that there are often environmental and safety reasons--for example, reducing noise in residential areas--why local authorities do not want the work to continue in the evening.
The responses to the consultation also showed a widespread recognition that highway authorities' own works were part of the wider problem of disruption to traffic. We want to ensure that they operate to the same high standards that we expect of utilities and we will be working with them to achieve that.
There was also a widespread feeling that existing arrangements under the New Roads and Street Works Act could and should be made to work better. We know that there are initiatives in train to that end. The City of London code of practice, which my noble friend, Lord Levene, mentioned, and the Central London Partnership's proposals are examples of this. The aim of the Central London Partnership is to ensure that in central London, where principal routes are the subject of major roadworks, alternative routes will be kept clear of such works. This will require a considerable degree of co-ordination between London boroughs and between highway authorities and utilities. The schemes will begin in May, with the participation of a number of London boroughs. If these schemes are successful, the Government would very much like to see them extended.
We want to build on ideas like that and the Government intend to work with utilities and authorities to develop best practice in the co-ordination of streetworks activity and in the quality of work--making sure that it is done efficiently and properly first time--so that the standards of all are raised to those of the best.
Taken together, these initiatives should allow us to make real progress in reducing the disruption that streetworks cause, also seeking to reduce accidents--the very important point raised by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham--
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page