The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Bone,
Mr. Peter
(Wellingborough)
(Con)
Cox,
Mr. Geoffrey
(Torridge and West Devon)
(Con)
Dorries,
Mrs. Nadine
(Mid-Bedfordshire)
(Con)
Efford,
Clive
(Eltham)
(Lab)
Flello,
Mr. Robert
(Stoke-on-Trent, South)
(Lab)
Goodwill,
Mr. Robert
(Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
Kidney,
Mr. David
(Stafford)
(Lab)
Kramer,
Susan
(Richmond Park)
(LD)
Leech,
Mr. John
(Manchester, Withington)
(LD)
Linton,
Martin
(Battersea)
(Lab)
Mahmood,
Mr. Khalid
(Birmingham, Perry Barr)
(Lab)
Spellar,
Mr. John
(Warley)
(Lab)
Stewart,
Ian
(Eccles)
(Lab)
Tami,
Mark
(Alyn and Deeside)
(Lab)
Taylor,
Ms Dari
(Stockton, South)
(Lab)
Winterton,
Ms Rosie
(Minister of State, Department for
Transport)
Wright,
Jeremy
(Rugby and Kenilworth)
(Con)
Annette
Toft, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
First
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 15
October
2007
[Hywel
Williams
in the
Chair]
Draft Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007
4.30
pm
The
Minister of State, Department for Transport (Ms Rosie
Winterton):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Traffic Management Permit Scheme
(England) Regulations
2007.
May I say what a
pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr.
Williams, particularly after my experience discussing the Mental Health
Bill in
Committee?
The
regulations introduce a new way for local authorities in England to
manage works on the public highway. They have been subject to extensive
consultation, resulting in a number of changes that have been
incorporated in the draft before the Committee. As Members of
Parliament, we all recognise the importance of our roads for businesses
and communities, and for moving people and goods around towns and
cities and throughout the country. It is a key part of the
Governments transport policy that roads should be managed
effectively and efficiently so that we can make the best use of the
road network for the benefit of all road
users.
The
responsibility for managing the network lies with highway authorities,
but they need the tools with which to carry out that role. Permit
schemes will provide highway authorities with a new and more powerful
tool to help them to manage their roads. We are all familiar with works
that create hold-ups on the network, whether those works are carried
out by utility companies or the highway authorities themselves. I am
sure that, as hard-working Members of Parliament, we have all heard
complaints from our constituents about why roads are being dug up again
and why it takes them so long to get to work or the shops. The
regulations will make a welcome difference. While a lot of the works
are necessary, we understand that how they are planned and
co-ordinatedand carried outcan make a great difference
to their impact. Permit schemes are designed to tackle such matters and
to reduce the delay and congestion caused by works and other activities
on the road
network.
Permit
schemes were introduced under part 3 of the Traffic Management Act
2004, which included a provision under section 39(4) that the first
regulations about permit schemes
shall
not be made
... unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a
resolution of each House of
Parliament,
and I hope
that that is what we are here to do
today.
The
policy objective behind permit schemes is to give highway authorities
greater control over those activities in the street that might cause
disruption. The intention is that a highway authority should be
proactive in co-ordinating both its work and that of other promoters,
thus enabling authorities to have better managed local road networks and
reduced local congestion. For example, under a permit scheme, gas and
water companies wanting to maintain pipes on the same street would have
an incentive to work together and perhaps co-ordinate their work with
the highway authoritys street maintenance programme. Even if it
were not physically possible for the works promoters to combine their
activities, local authorities would be better able to manage and
co-ordinate all works to minimise overall impact, and to reduce
disruption and congestion for the
public.
The
regulations provide a detailed framework for applications for permit
schemes, their content and operation. Highway authorities may prepare
and administer individual permit schemes only within that framework.
Permit schemes prepared by local highway authorities will take effect
only when they are approved by the Secretary of State following
extensive local consultation. Schemes will apply to specified types of
works in specified streets within specified areas. They must include
both utility and highway authority works, but authorities can choose
whether they cover all or only some of their roads, and all or some of
their
area.
Under
a permit scheme, anyone wanting to carry out works in the street would
need to obtain a permit before the relevant works began. A local
authority may choose to attach conditions to a permit, such as
specifying the days or times when work may or may not be done. For
example, a local authority may say that it does not want work to be
carried out during the rush hour. Local authorities will also be able
to make exceptions to permit requirements in certain circumstances,
which will obviously enable emergency works to be done promptly.
Utility companies will pay a fee for a permit that will cover the cost
of the administration relating to their works.
The draft regulations have been
drawn up following extensive consultation, particularly with the
permits working group, which consists of representatives from local
authorities and utility companies. We have also issued statutory
guidance and a code of practice, which I hope that my officials have
helpfully brought along today for members of the Committee.
It will not be mandatory for
highway authorities to run permit schemes, and we do not expect that
they will all necessarily hope to do so. When an authority chooses to
operate a scheme, and the Secretary of State approves it, the authority
will be able to do so. There will also be a review of the scheme to
ensure that it is working appropriately. For each permit scheme we will
expect the benefitsa reduction of delays and
disruptionto outweigh the costs.
The benefits of successful
schemes would be substantial. Reduced occupation of the roads will help
to reduce congestion and to maximise the efficiency of the existing
highway network, thus improving reliability and making journeys more
predictable and faster. That will make journeys easier to plan and
reduce amounts of wasted and unproductive time. With reduced congestion
comes reduced local pollution and benefits for air quality and other
aspects of the environment. Public transport will be able to operate
more reliably, to provide a better service and, potentially, to attract
motorists to use them, thus further relieving congestion.
I hope that
the regulations will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the
Committee. I think that they will play a part in reducing the many
complaints that I am sure that all of us have about roads being dug up
over and over again when our constituents cannot see a particular
reason for that. The measure will help to co-ordinate the process, to
reduce congestion on the roads and to improve the environment. For
those reasons, I hope that the Committee will approve the
regulations.
4.38
pm
Mr.
Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): May I also
say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Williams, and thank the Minister for laying out the
implications of the scheme clearly and demonstrating the advantages
that could come as a
result?
In the 1960s,
there were only three utilities: water, gas and electricity. Many
people had to wait many months to get a telephone line. In fact, I have
a letter relating to my own business, which was established in 1850,
which stated that there were no telephone lines available and suggested
applying in a years timehow things have changed. Given
the recent expansion in cable TV and broadband, we now have 200 utility
companies, all wanting to dig up our roads and footpaths from time to
time. Of course, in recent months and years we have had big programmes
to replace our Victorian gas and water mains, and, following droughts
in Yorkshire and hosepipe bans in the south-east, an impetus to reduce
leaks has built up.
According to
the Automobile Association, at any one time there are 4 million dug
holes in this countrythat does not include potholes, which are
not dug, but exist anyway. That leads to congestion and frustration,
particularly when the same bit of road seems to be dug up repeatedly by
local highway authorities or other utility providers. Roughly half
those holes are dug by highway authorities.
Previous
attempts by the Government to address that problem have not led to
great improvements. Town halls were given the power to charge for
overruns, but it has been alleged that utility companies deliberately
overestimate the time required when giving notice of proposed works.
The official Opposition welcome the regulations, given that they will
lead to better co-ordination among the various bodies seeking to
excavate.
Using a
system of fees to pay for the administration is an improvement on the
current system, under which the poor old hard-pressed council tax payer
picks up the tab. As the Minister said, it will not be compulsory for
the 115 local highways authorities to adopt a permit scheme. Some might
stay with the existing notice scheme and use the electronic
transmission of noticesETONsystem, which was, in theory
at least, designed to streamline the
process.
We are told
that the system will be revenue-neutral. However, a report for Kent
highway services that was produced on 9 January said that the income
from the system in Kent will amount to about £2 million a year.
The non-refundable cost of managing the councils own works will
be £850,000. Given that that makes up about 70,000 notices a
year, or about 40 per cent. of the total, it seems that, for Kent at
least, the revenue-neutral claim will be correct.
I have one or two questions for
the Minister. My first relates to emergency work. I note that there is
provision for emergency work in the regulations and that anyone
excavating the road as an emergencyCentrica, for example, in
the event of someone saying that they can smell gasmust give
notice electronically within two hours of that work commencing.
However, I can envisage a number of practical problems. For example,
large areas in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby do not have a
mobile phone signal. Have the Government looked at the practicalities
of having to give notice in areas in which there is no signal, or
at 2 am on Boxing day when no one is in the office to receive
the electronic communication? When such circumstances arise, I hope
that local authorities will not prosecute too severely people who do
not meet this strict two-hour rule.
I am pleased that the maximum
time for major and programmed works has been reduced from six months to
three. Although there is provision for emergency work, does the
Minister accept that the regulations, which might require up to three
months notice, could delay connecting businesses to telecoms
and other services? Things have improved since privatisation. Will the
Minister reassure me that people will not face increased connection
delays because of the notice time that is
required?
There are
practical problems with utility providers sharing holes. For example,
different depths might be required by electricity and water providers.
It might not be safe or practical to put the services in the same hole.
Although I hope that there will be a degree of piggy-backing, with
different utility providers using the same hole or the same
permit
Mr.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab): But those problems are not
unique to this country. How does the hon. Gentleman think that New
York, which runs an extremely effective system on which this provision
is based, deals with such a situation? Breaking up the surface always
damages the road. Why do we want to see the surface broken up and
people digging down several times a year? That means extra cost to the
local authority and huge amounts of disruption. The problem is not
unique and it is well catered for.
Mr.
Goodwill:
I absolutely agree with the right hon.
Gentleman that whenever practical, it is desirable for utilities to
share the same hole in the ground. What proportion of
piggy-backingif that is the right phraseof a permit by
another utility would the Minister consider to be necessary for this
laudable aspect of the scheme to be deemed a success? Would 20 per
cent., 5 per cent., or 50 per cent. be deemed successful? What figure
have the Government in mind for this laudable improvement? It would
help us to measure the success of the scheme if we knew the figure that
the Government had in
mind.
Highway
authorities themselves are exempt from fees. Will the Minister confirm
whether discounts for second promoters will still apply if the initial
application is from a highway authority and thus free? How many of the
150 highways authorities does the Minister expect to participate in the
scheme, and how realistic is it to expect some authorities to
co-operate? I assume that the remainder that do not participate in the
scheme will concentrate on enhancing the existing
notice regime using the ETON computer system. What level of uptake
during the six-month application window would the Minister regard as a
success, and does she rule out extending the period if there are not
enough
applications?
The
scheme is meant to be revenue-neutral, although the cost of processing
the highway authorities own permits will be met, in the main,
by utilities. Will the Minister review the fee structure in the light
of experience, if it turns out that the fees collected more than
compensate the local authority for costs? There is likely to be some
variation in highway authorities success in implementing
permits. Does the Department envisage a role in setting out best
practice and encouraging communication among highway authorities that
adopt the scheme?
I
give the Minister and local authoritiesmany of which are, of
course, under Conservative controlthe best wishes of the
official Opposition in implementing the scheme, which I hope will
successfully meet the objectives that the Minister set
out.
4.46
pm
Mr.
Spellar:
I shall be brief, if only out of deference to
Committee colleagues and to the Committee Whip, who roped me in and
would not welcome a particularly long
speech.
This
is a welcome development, albeit a trifle delayed. The relevance of
that comment is in the title, which is to implement regulations under
the legislation from 2004; it is undesirable that it has been delayed
that long. It is absolutely right that there should be consultation,
but when there clearly will be some differences of interest and
opinion, they must be resolved. The Department has waited too long to
implement the legislation. It does, however, come on a particularly
pertinent day, when, if we are to believe Her Majestys Daily
Telegraph, the Government are moving back from national road
pricing. That is welcome news, as is the legislation. I believe that
there is a link, as I think the Department has been diverted on to blue
sky thinking on road pricingthe big idea, the grand
projectrather than focusing on the nuts-and-bolts issues that
will have a real impact on roads, on motorists and on freight traffic,
which is so vital for our
industry.
It
is the same with hard-shoulder running, introduced on the M42 over a
year ago. The Department is still dithering as to whether to implement
it further, even though it has been an excellent success in the west
midlands. It would be much better, if the Government are doing the
sensible thing and moving back from national road-user charging, to
focus on those issues where, as I indicated in my intervention, there
is real life experience. We do not have to invent the wheel on
hard-shoulder running. It has been working in Holland for the past 10
or 15 years. We do not have to reinvent the wheel with regard to the
implementation of street works; there is an immensely successful system
in New York city, which runs in real time, backed up with a tough
permit system. Indeed, I think that the Minister mentioned not
working during peak hours. In New York city, if the time limit is 4
oclock, then as that time approaches, metal plates are being
put down, workmen and materials are brought back, and the whole road is
open rather than a section being coned off.
The
Minister has made a particularly good start in the Department by
actually doing something about wheel clamping, an issue that has been
waiting around for about 15 years. Last week I urged the Home Office to
follow her excellent example. I hope that the regulations are a further
stage in that process, but I urge the Minister again, given the
inordinate delay that has taken place, to ensure that, once they are
through, implementation follows quickly. Everyone has known what will
happen and we do not need any further delays at the behest of the
utilities. The public are utterly frustrated with the way they have
been behaving. I therefore urge the Minister to get a move on and wish
her
success.
4.50
pm
Mr.
John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): I add my support
to the proposals, which I hope will lead to much better co-ordination
of work, much quicker repairs and less disruption for the general
public. I would like to put four questions to the
Minister.
First, in
the consultation period, local authorities complained that the maximum
charging level was too low. Is there any evidence from local
authorities to suggest that some will not go ahead with the permit
scheme based just on cost? Also in the consultation period, the number
of work categories was simplified and programmed works merged with
major works with a three-month notice period rather than a six-month
period. Will the Minister say why she decided that it was necessary to
reduce the notice period from six months to three months? Thirdly, in
relation to the proposed fixed penalty notices, does the Minister feel
that £500 for working without a permit or £120 for
breaching a condition of a permit is high enough? Will that be enough
of a disincentive to stop companies breaching the conditions of permits
or not getting them in the first
place?
Finally,
what will happen when one local authority decides to go for a permit
scheme and the local authority next door chooses not to do so? There is
the potential for more problems and more delays in situations where a
single road goes from a permit authority area to a non-permit authority
area or where one side of a road is in one authority area and the other
side is in another. May we have some reassurance that work will be done
to ensure a smooth transition between work being carried out in an area
covered by permits and work being carried out in an area not
covered?
4.53
pm
Ian
Stewart (Eccles) (Lab): My constituents and the residents
of the city of Salford will welcome the regulations. Recently, I have
been thinking of tabling a private Members Bill about these
very issues. I am pleased to see that the Government have anticipated
that and taken
action.
The
regulations will clearly address the chaossome would say
anarchythat has been created where utility companies and others
have been able to dig the roads up without reference to the highway
authoritys planned roadworks. In many incidents, planned work
has been carried out on arterial and major roads leading into our city
and the less planned approach of the utility companies has exacerbated
the problem. The regulations will go some way towards solving that
problem.
As politicians, we all sometimes
miss the obvious things. When our constituents open their front doors,
what they are interested in is their visual environment. Piggy-backing
will go some way towards stopping the plethora of roadworks and the
patchwork quilt of small pieces of roadworks, particularly on the
pavements. However, sometimes we forget that, because of the current
nature of such work, a relatively small hole may be dug and covered
with new tarmac. The problem is that dissimilar materials tend to lead
to further problems. The small piece of tarmac that a utility company,
for example, puts down may not sit well with the older tarmac. There
tends to be a fraying of the older tarmac on the edge of the new
tarmac. There is a plethora of different materials on our pavements
these days which may be dangerous: for example, a paving slab, a piece
of old tarmac and then a piece of new tarmacwith the older
tarmac fraying because the new tarmac is next to it. We do not pay
attention to the visual impact on our constituents
either.
Mr.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent, South) (Lab): Does my hon.
Friend agree that, because in-fill materials tend to settle against the
existing material of the road or the pavement, potholes are created,
which then get filled with water? In the winter the water freezes,
further disrupting and breaking up the pavement and the road surface
and exacerbating the
problems.
Ian
Stewart:
My hon. Friend is correct. That is exactly the
point that I am making.
Problems do not occur only at
that level, important though it is; there is also a visual impact on
our constituencies. In my city we have the oldest industrial roads in
the world and they are a mess: there are obviously hold-ups, congestion
and everything else, but they also are a mess to look at and
unsightly.
Mr.
Goodwill:
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that new technology
can be used to address this problem, whereby the road surface is heated
and the repair and the existing carriageway or pavement can weld
together? I recently had a demonstration in my part of the world, and I
hope that the Minister will look at that as a way of addressing this
particular problem.
Ian
Stewart:
The official Opposition spokesman anticipates my
final point. It is important to realise that the onus should be on the
organisation that is digging the holes. We all want the facilities that
they provide, but it strikes me that many of my constituents think that
there is an optimum areaa minimum areathat should be
covered. So instead of several little holes being filled in with
dissimilar materials, if there is a stretch of pavement it should all
be done at once. What militates against that, and actually what
militates against the pertinent point made by the hon. Member for
Scarborough and Whitby, is that utility companies and other companies
do not want to go to that expense. My constituents would like to see
highway authorities having more powers to address the issue that he
raised. If the Government were to come forward with such suggestions, I
would be fully
supportive.
4.58
pm
Ms
Winterton:
I thank all members of the Committee for their
genuine welcome of the regulations. I thank in particular my hon.
Friend the Member for Eccles, who vividly illustrated the problems
created for his constituents, and my hon. Friend the Member for
Stoke-on-Trent, South, who talked rightly about the effects of
different types of tarmac and the impact on the visual environment. I
hope that under some permit schemes it may be possible for a local
authority to take such issues into account. I certainly hope that our
review of the scheme, which I will discuss later, will also address
those issues. I will go through some of the points that the review will
raise, but it will be important to look at what difference the scheme
makes to the visual environment.
I pay special tribute to my
right hon. Friend the Member for Warley. It is always difficult to live
up to his reputation in the Department, but I know that when he was
there, he was keen to move these matters forward. I take his point that
once the regulations are passed, it is important to move on with
implementing them. I reassure my right hon. Friend that we are trying
to work with local authorities that are interested in implementing a
permit scheme so that we can see what works well, find out what
barriers they are up against, and work through those with them. I also
suggest that he should not believe everything that he reads in
The
Daily Telegraph
[Interruption.]
Tempting though that might be.
There is a slight
misunderstanding. As my right hon. Friend knows, the draft Local
Transport Bill covered local road pricing schemes and never touched on
national ones.
Clive
Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
rose
Ms
Winterton:
Perhaps I should give way to my hon. Friend
from the Transport Committee.
Clive
Efford:
I share the Ministers support for the
measure. However, local authorities have expressed concern about the
use of emergency powers to dig up roads to circumvent existing
regulations that co-ordinate the digging up of our main roads. Will the
Minister elaborate on those concerns and comment on how far the
legislation will go towards closing down that loophole, which has been
abused by many utilities that designate everything that they do as an
emergency? Such action would nullify the effects of this laudable
measure.
Ms
Winterton:
My hon. Friend is right to mention the issue
raised by the local authorities. However, these regulations have a
great deal of support in the London area and Transport for London is
keen to ensure that they are implemented. We must find the right
balance between that issue and one raised by the hon. Member for
Scarborough and Whitby. We must enable local authorities to ensure that
emergency work can be carried out when necessary, although that should
not be used as an excuse to dig up the road and say that there was an
emergency.
We expect
local authorities to act reasonably and to know their areas. If there
is a gas leak or a burst water main somewhere, and it is obvious that
two hours notice cannot be given because there is no mobile
phone
signal, or it is 2 am on Boxing day, local
authorities must act reasonably. However, the use of a permit scheme
that operates clearly is a deterrent. That picks up a point made by my
right hon. Friend the Member for Warley: such a scheme operates in
other countries, and people will know when an emergency is an
emergency.
A breach
of the permit system not only leads to a £5,000 fine, but is a
criminal offence. That addresses a point made by the hon. Member for
Manchester, Withington: is that amount high enough to deter people from
undertaking work and ignoring a permit scheme? There would have to be
wilful ignoring of the scheme. The company could be taken to court, it
could be fined £5,000, and it would also have to cover legal
costs. My instinct is that it would not be good for a companys
reputation if it were to constantly ignore the scheme and try to get
round it.
Mr.
Goodwill:
I am sure, as the Minister says, that the
situation would be obvious. If water is running down the road or gas is
leaking, that is an emergency. However, if a telecommunications line
was cut off to a company that needed it to continue in business, would
that be an emergency? If the cable for a street was off and people
could not watch Coronation Street, would that be an
emergency? There are grey areas.
Ms
Winterton:
Coronation Street is indeed
wonderful, but I am not sure that being unable to watch it would count
as an emergency. I do not think that it is for the Committee to decide
every single instance of what counts as an emergency; we might find
ourselves in some trouble down the line if we
did.
As
my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley said, there are examples
from other countries. A lot of effort has been put into creating a code
of practice. We shall co-operate with local authorities that are
interested to ensure that the schemes are effective, and approval will
depend on the Secretary of States view that the relevant scheme
will work. It is true, however, that the schemes amount to a new way of
working. We want to ensure that benefits are realised, which is why the
first proposed permit schemes will be reviewed after a year. The review
will evaluate the performance of permit schemes against the current
baseline and compare that performance against that of highway
authorities that do not operate such a scheme. It will also compare
information about the benefits of schemes that operate across different
road categories. For instance, highway authorities might operate
schemes only on traffic-sensitive roads, and those schemes will be
compared with others that operate on all roads. The review will also
look closely at the appropriateness of permit fees. I think that that
answers some of the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester,
Withington.
Mr.
Flello:
If the permit arrangements are as successful as we
all hope, will the Minister consider changing the position so that
authorities that are reluctant to adopt the schemes are required to do
so in years to
come?
Ms
Winterton:
We would want to consider that carefully. We
want to make sure that there is proper devolution, which my hon. Friend
has said is the
general direction of travel. To address one of the other points that has
been made, if a local authority in one area decided to operate a permit
scheme, but another authority decided not to, we would consider whether
local area agreements or multi-area agreements would be a good idea. My
instinct is that local authorities will probably be quite interested in
the schemes.
I hope
that, when we have the benefit of best practice, we can show that the
schemes are good for our constituentsif so, they will obviously
be good for the constituents of elected members of local authorities,
too. I think that it is fairly unlikely that councillors will be
standing up to argue that the schemes are a really bad idea because
they quite like digging up the roads. It will be important to
demonstrate that the schemes work and for the Department to work
closely with local authorities to ensure that that
happens.
Let me answer
some of the specific points made by hon. Members. The hon. Member for
Manchester, Withington mentioned the simplification of categories and
the reduction of the notice period from six months to three months. The
objective of the change was to simplify the number of categories so
that the system could operate more easily with fewer options. However,
the guidance in the code of practice is that utilities and authorities
should register their planned works with the local authority as soon as
they know about thembefore the formal permit application is
made.
We need to be
clear that we are trying to change the culture so that people,
particularly in the utilities and the highway authorities, are thinking
ahead. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley said, it cannot be
that difficult to know when maintenance is likely to be
needed.
The hon.
Member for Scarborough and Whitby said rightly that dealing with water
leaks is important and has become even more so in the light of recent
events. Utility companies should be thinking about planning a proper
analysis of when action is likely to be needed and changing their
mindset so that they are not thinking that they should just go straight
in, give a bit of notice and not think too carefully about it. There
will be many benefits for the utility companies because if there is
banding together, surely there will be shared costs. This is a win-win
situation. There can be a win for all our constituents, if they do not
suffer from the disruption that we know can happen, and a win for the
utility companies and the highway authorities, if they think carefully
enough.
On adjacent
authorities, traffic managers have a network management duty across
their network, as well as in respect of adjacent networks. The permit
scheme will clearly specify, for all to see, what streets and roads are
within the scheme. That will produce an incentive for other authorities
to join schemes, because it will be clear that one local authority is
thinking carefully about the effect of disruption on the people living
locally.
On the other
point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, it is
important to remember that although a fixed penalty notice may be
issued, with a discount if it is paid quickly, there is also the option
of people being taken to court. That will be a
disincentive.
With regard to the points made
by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, we have not set a target
for numbers in respect of joint working. However, we would like to
change the culture and we would like people to think that this is a
good approach. Obviously, the more authorities that work together, the
better for the people in an area. This is about co-ordination in
forward planning.
The
hon. Gentleman asked how many authorities we envisage will show an
interest. Our feedback says that between six and eight local highway
authorities will want to go forward. We will consider each application
and each authority will have to justify the cost benefits. Again, we
want to see best practice
spread.
On the point
made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South about
authorities being required to run a permit scheme, we have to decide
between what is central Government imposition and what is local
decision making. There is a power in the 2004 Act and under the
regulations for the Secretary of State to require local authorities to
run a scheme, but only if that is appropriate. Perhaps that would be
appropriate if the actions of one local authority were preventing lots
of local authorities from having a scheme, or if it were clear that
there were some enormous problems. It is for local authorities to
decide whether they want to undertake a
scheme.
Mr.
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I am trying to work out
how appropriateness comes into this. If it is down to a local authority
to decide, how could its decision affect other decisions, leading to
the Government coming in and saying, Oi, youve got to
change.? I cannot see how that would happen, or
why.
Ms
Winterton:
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington gave
an example whereby if one area had a very good scheme that was working
on one section of a road, but, over the boundary, another local
authority was not running a scheme on that road, congestion would build
up. That could be an occasion on which such a thing might be
appropriate. As I have said, although there is a power, we feel very
strongly that this is a matter that local authorities should decide for
themselves. Perhaps that would be appropriate within local area
agreements.
I hope
that I have answered the questions that hon. Members have asked. I will
certainly ensure that we look at all the questions, and will come back
to right hon. and hon. Members if there is anything that we have left
out. As I have said, I think that the regulations will be widely
welcomed. The process has taken a lot of hard work. I pay tribute to my
officials, who have done a lot of careful balancing between the needs
of road users and the need for effective and well maintained
infrastructure. I also want to put on record how thankful we all are
for the contributions made by others during the consultation process.
The regulations will help to bring about a new culture of working in
partnership to achieve well managed streets and to reduce congestion.
They provide a fair and effective framework for the operation of permit
schemes, and I commend them to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the Draft Traffic Management Permit Scheme
(England) Regulations
2007.
Committee
rose at seventeen minutes past Five
oclock.