| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend is to be congratulated on having elicited from the Minister a better Answer than we have received for a long time on this subject. Will the Minister deploy his considerable intellect and eloquence to persuade the highways authorities—in which I include the Mayor of London and his team—that roads are for movement and that the duty of highways authorities and the rest of them is to facilitate movement, not to interrupt it or to make it impossible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I fear this Greek in particular when he comes bearing compliments of that kind. Yes, of course roads are for movement, but roads are also the conduits for water, gas, electricity and telecommunications. Whether or not they are dug up—but especially when they are—they have to be mended from time to time to be made
passable for everything from horse-drawn vehicles to motor cars. I am afraid that that means that there will continue to be disruption of the highways.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that there is time for both of us. Does the Minister agree that local authorities would be among the first to welcome any scheme that will reduce the disruption caused to the travelling public—I include those who travel by public transport as well as drivers? Do the Government have any proposals to extend the trials currently under way beyond their present areas? I am sure that the whole community, especially the business community, would welcome that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the problem is that the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 was not sufficiently specific. It did not provide incentives for co-ordination; it did not provide incentives for people to talk to each other when they plan to dig up the roads; it did not even provide disincentives for their not knowing where their cables, pipes and so on lay beneath the roads. So we have had to introduce additional regulations to try to make it work. In addition to trying to encourage co-ordination, we plan penalties for lack of co-ordination, and that is what over-running charges and lane rental are. I hope that every Member of the House will support that, because that is the only way that it will be made to work.
As for extensions beyond Camden and Middlesbrough, which are the two pilot areas, I agree that that is desirable. Seven local authorities expressed an interest in taking part in the pilot but, for various reasons, the other five were ineligible. But I am sure that the offer is still open.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the person responsible for increasing congestion during the past few weeks is the Mayor of London? He has so far changed the setting on 338 sets of traffic lights. Will the Minister condemn the proposal to extend that to another 51 sets of traffic lights, which will make traffic flow in London worse? Do the Government believe that the mayor's congestion charging plan for London will increase traffic flow or make it worse throughout Greater London?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I prefer to confine my answers to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, who was the Martian who took the decision a week ago to cordon off 300 acres of London because of a burst water main in front of the Rubens Hotel in Buckingham Palace Road and insisted that no work should be done on it over the weekend? The whole area—indeed, the whole
of London—is entirely fouled up because of this incident. Have the Government any idea of the cost to the national economy of that Martian's decision?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know any Martians so I am a little handicapped. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has a valid complaint. I shall make inquiries and write to him about it if it is the responsibility of the Government.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how much these consultants will cost the taxpayer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. It is a very significant piece of work. It will extend over a period until March 2004. It covers both over-running and lane rental experiments and involves a substantial exercise in estimating and assessing the extent of the cost of disruption. As the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, will know, that is not an easy question to resolve. I do not know the figure. I shall write to him about it.
Bermuda
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Hooper asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether it is their intention to convene a constitutional conference in order to consider the proposed reforms to Bermuda's electoral system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, there are no plans at the moment for a constitutional conference. As I stated in my written reply of 24th July last year to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, we do not propose to reach a judgment on the case for a further process until we have received the report of the Constituency Boundaries Commission, which is due in a few weeks.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's response that some action may be expected in the near future as a result of the report. In view of the United Kingdom Government's role as the guardian of the democratic rights of the people of Bermuda, can she give a further assurance that Bermuda will be treated in the same way as other Overseas Territories, notably Gibraltar, and other Commonwealth countries, notably New Zealand and the Bahamas, where constitutional changes were adopted only after referendums or other similar mechanisms were used?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope I made clear in my original Answer that a constitutional conference has not been ruled out. But neither has it been ruled in. We have said in relation to this process that after the boundaries commission has reported, and after there has been an opportunity to discuss that report in Bermuda, that information will be fed into the British
Government. We will look at it; we will look at the reactions to the report; and we will make a decision at that time. It would be inappropriate for me to make any commitment before we have been through that process.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Minister will appreciate that, for obvious reasons and because of the job I had there, I have no wish to comment on the proposals for constitutional change put forward by the Bermuda Government. But does not a point of general importance emerge? Is it not correct that there was a constitutional conference in 1966 when constitutional change was in the wind, and another constitutional conference in 1979 when constitutional change was in the wind? It would have cost the Foreign Office nothing if it had allowed a constitutional conference right at the beginning of this exercise. Had there been a constitutional conference, would it not have gone some way towards disarming criticisms from people who fear that if there is no constitutional conference this time round a precedent will be set which might be relied on in years to come when very much more important constitutional change is in the wind?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is right—there were constitutional conferences in 1966 and 1979. There has been a process of consultation. Four consultation meetings have been held across the island and a wide cross-section of the community participated in those meetings. We have not ruled in or ruled out the possibility of a constitutional conference but, on the basis of the commitment to constitutional change made by the Government of Bermuda in their 1998 election manifesto, we thought that this was the most appropriate way to go. We will look at local reactions; we will look at the outcome of the boundaries commission report; and we will then make a decision on the next steps.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have recently returned from a few weeks in Bermuda having not been there for many years? Is she further aware that a great deal of concern has been expressed by many people to whom I spoke about the situation that faces them?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Baroness was recently in Bermuda. I am aware that concerns have been expressed. In fact a decision to put this matter to Order in Council was challenged by judicial review and overturned. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, there have been opportunities for consultation. We will look at the responses to that consultation process, the debate in the national assembly and the recommendations of the boundaries commission. I repeat, no decision has been
made. A constitutional conference has been neither ruled in nor out. Our minds remain open on this matter.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, bearing in mind that the largest constituency in Bermuda is under-represented by 33 per cent and that the smallest is over-represented by 42 per cent, does the boundaries commission have the power to look at other kinds of electoral systems, including a proportional multi-member system, where the number of members is less likely to get out of kilter than under the present first-past-the-post, double-member system?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page