Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 167, in

page 14, line 5, after second 'specified', insert 'traffic-sensitive'.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 185, in

page 14, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

No. 168, in

clause 38, page 17, line 35, at end insert—

' ''Traffic-sensitive street'' has the meaning given by section 64 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.'.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

This is a completely different subject: permit schemes. Following their consultation, the Government have come up with an interesting concept. Those people who will end up operating the permit schemes have a number of concerns about the proposals.

One of those concerns is reflected in amendment No. 167, which would avoid delaying work and increasing red tape in areas that are not prone to significant levels of traffic, thus enabling the focus to be on managing those areas where congestion is greatest. The amendment would also alleviate fears that the permit system is about generating revenue for local authorities rather than about improving co-ordination. There is an important precedent. Clause 64(2)(a) in part 3 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 refers to traffic-sensitive areas, so the provisions apply only to areas where traffic is a sensitive issue. It is of some surprise to people that the Government have not included a restriction to the application of permit schemes to traffic-sensitive streets in the same way as under the 1991 Act. Much of the work undertaken by the utilities is in urban streets and is of short duration and high volume, thereby creating little congestion. Permit schemes could have the greatest effect on reducing congestion by focusing on streets where traffic is at its greatest. The danger of permit schemes being all embracing is that local authorities would drown in a volume of permit applications, unless they increased their resources considerably, and they might mismanage instances where congestion is severe. There is also the question of how quickly people could obtain permits. One of the greatest concerns that many people have when dealing with local authorities is the time that it takes to receive an answer to a question. A scheme will not be effective if it is too complicated and too bound up with red tape. That is why I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 185 would remove the definition specified in the clause. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will speak to that amendment also, but the key point is to try to ensure that any permit scheme is restricted to the areas in which it will provide some benefit.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I shall speak to amendment No. 185. In debates of this sort, the Minister, and other Ministers, has told me that my amendments are

unnecessary, repetitive, and otiose or whatever else he wants to call it. However, I have never managed to achieve the heights of unnecessary verbiage that I find in subsection (3), which states:

''In this section ''specified'' means specified''.

Golly gosh! Really? How exciting. It goes on:

''or of a description specified''.

Even more golly gosh. What on earth are we doing by saying, ''In this Act, a word we use means the word we use.''? It is barmy beyond belief.

Mr. McNulty rose—

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative)

Get out of that one!

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

Far be it for me, as hon. Members have probably discerned today, to jump to the defence of lawyers or the gobbledegook that we sometimes have to deal with. However, the subsection makes sense if it is read properly, so I shall jump to the lawyers' defence and resist amendment No. 185. The commas do it all, so the subsection can be read as,

''In this section ''specified'' means specified . . . in a permit scheme'',

or,

''In this section ''specified'' means . . . a description specified in a permit scheme.''

That makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps I am turning into a lawyer because I have sat on too many Committees. The alternative would be to have to say, ''specified in a permit scheme'' again and again whenever parts 1 and 2 said ''specified''. It is clumsy, I grant you. At best, I cheerfully accept that it is middle English, or Germanic grammar rather than English grammar, but it makes sense once one reads the whole subsection.

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative)

We then have doubling and trebling and not only tautology, but tripology, or whatever. The main part of subsection (2) is governed by a permit scheme. We are then reinserting ''permit scheme'' in the subsection where it is already.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

I will not labour the point. The right hon. Gentleman can collar one of those lawyers afterwards. I have defended their honour, and at 10 to 5 on a Thursday afternoon, I am going no further. I do, however, take his point, in part at the very least.

I take the point about traffic-sensitive streets, as outlined in section 64B in the previous Act. That is a reasonable place to start. I would also throw into the pot the fact that, throughout the Bill, we are trying to start from as many perspectives as we possibly can, allowing, through this and subsequent sections, specificity at the local level. That is troublesome, rather like last year's experience with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2003; it was a Christmas tree Bill, with lots of general outlines, but not much substance, which came thereafter in the hanging baubles of guidance or regulation. I am loth to accept the amendments, because, as undertaken, I would far rather consult more with local authorities, see what comes out of some of the pilots, talk to the utilities; I want to get the more detailed definitions by getting the regulations right. That may or may not accord with section 64A(2)(a) of the Act. I would far

rather that we set out the basic principles of what a permit scheme should be, but then got to that level of detail in regulations, where it would matter substantively for those who will be most directly involved. That is why, although the amendments are well intentioned and may well be where we end up, I would ask that they be withdrawn.

The point of law—which I do not want to labour—is that traffic-sensitive, as outlined in the 1991 Act, means the relationship between the utilities and local authorities, the notice given and a range of other things. I do not want to create the illusion that that is what I am saying. I want to get to a stage where we have clearly defined, substantive regulations on the basis of that round of consultation with local authorities, the utilities and others most directly involved. The clause as it stands is merely about defining—ill-defining, perhaps—the permit scheme, rather than that level of detail. I would ask to leave that detail to regulation, and that the amendments be withdrawn.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

If we were talking about tens of thousands of incidents each year, I might accept what the Minister says, but we know from his regulatory impact assessment that in the last year for which figures are available there were no fewer than 1.1 million individual street works. The idea that we are going to establish a permit scheme for 1.1 million permit applications per year is totally ludicrous. It would be better to put some sensible restriction into the primary legislation. The individual street works carried out in what are currently described as traffic-sensitive streets are far fewer than 1.1 million. If we are not sensible, local government is going to be bound up in its own red tape and bureaucracy. I am not prepared to accept that it is reasonable for the Government to go ahead with a blank cheque to impose permit schemes on each of 1.1 million individual sets of street works as proposed.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

I know that I should not, at nearly 5 o'clock on a Thursday, but the hon. Gentleman's obtuseness provokes me. We are not imposing permit schemes on anybody. We are defining clearly under law what a permit scheme is and the rest of the section goes on to define how a permit scheme can be applied for. To say that 1.1 million incursions into the roads are now going to be under some national permit scheme is daft in the extreme, even daft for the hon. Gentlemen.

Mr. Wilshire rose—

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

I am berating the hon. Member for Christchurch; I do not want to have to berate the hon. Member for Spelthorne as well.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I shall try not to berate the Minister either, but I thought I heard him say that they are not trying to impose a permit scheme on anybody. Clause 33(2) says:

''The appropriate national authority may direct a local highway authority, or two or more such authorities acting together, to prepare and submit to him a permit scheme''.

Is that not forcing a permit scheme on to people?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

I shall berate the hon. Gentleman. Quite how he, in his obtuseness and vacuity, reads into

that a universal imposition of a permit scheme, I know not. That clause is there precisely for the reasons we suggested earlier, which had broad agreement; there will be occasions when two local authorities abut and where it is more appropriate for there to be one permit scheme shared by the two of them for the efficacy of the roadworks in that area.

Mr. Wilshire rose—

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

For the last time.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

The Minister should read his own Bill. He said that it would be sensible for two or more authorities to do something together, and that I am being obtuse. If clause 33(1) states that a local authority, or two or more such authorities acting together, may prepare—

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

May.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

That is the point about which the Minister says that I am being obtuse; that two authorities may act together if they wish. The point that I made was that he then takes powers to order them to do so if they will not.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

Clause 33(1) says that they may do so, and 33(2) says that there may be circumstances in which we feel that two local authorities should do so and that we may impose that. I do not know where, in all that, there is a Stalinist, universal, national scheme being imposed on anyone.

It was in that context that I objected to what the hon. Member for Christchurch said. The serious point that underpins our resistance to the amendments is that we do not think it appropriate to include that level of detail in the Bill, not least because of—without wishing to bore people again—undue specificity. Moreover, we have not consulted in any detail those who will be most affected by the regulations; the local authorities and the utilities. Our opinion is that the level of detail needed should be included in the regulations rather than in the Bill. The definition of traffic-sensitive streets may be appropriate for some areas and not others. It would be appropriate to include that level of detail in the Bill, if we were doing that of which the hon. Gentleman accused us; universally imposing a permit scheme. However, we are not doing that, so it is not appropriate, and he is wrong.

Question put, That the amendment be made:–

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 155, in

page 14, line 15, leave out subsection (c) and insert—

'(c) as to cases in which emergency, minor and specified works may be carried out without a permit.'.

Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 34, in

page 14, line 22, at end insert—

'(2A) No permit shall be required for, or in connection with, any works which are required by reason of an emergency.'.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

I suspect that, in a moment, I shall be attacked for undue specificity. However, if I make the case, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to it.

I appreciate that the Minister says that permit schemes will not apply all over the place and that there will be the kind of common sense that he expects. However, some fears have been expressed by the utilities and by people who will use the permit schemes. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to allay those fears.

Many emergency works take place. There are more than 1 million gas leaks every year, and flooding often occurs when emergency work is removing an obstruction. In such emergency works, the delay in being part of a permit scheme would be unacceptable. I am sure that that will be covered in the guidance and in the negotiations, but it would be helpful if the Minister clarified the matter.

Many minor works occur, but cause minimum disruption. They tend to be in areas that do not cause the maximum disruption to road users, on the verges and of limited duration, so they tend not to impede the flow of traffic. They are far more numerous than the major infrastructure works that cause many of the problems.

The genesis of the amendment was the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which defined such works. I appreciate that the Opposition have an amendment on the subject, but it goes wider than what I suggest; indeed, it may be too broad. If the permit schemes are to concentrate on the better control and co-ordination of projects, removing minor works and emergency works will be a major step forward.

Broadband connection is one of my key concerns. The broadband cable network has generally been installed, so the major infrastructure works are complete. However, many of the connections from roads to properties have not yet been made. Such works are of a minor nature and tend not to hold up traffic on major roads, but they are done in response to customer demand, and the companies often have to respond quickly. Having to subject such works to a permit scheme will cause problems in other parts of the economy.

A large part of the Bill is about improving the economy by removing congestion, as it results in costs for industry. I would be concerned if the inadvertent consequence of a permit scheme was that it stopped smaller companies responding to that demand by allowing the bigger players like BT, which could afford the time—although they may dispute the fact—to take a bigger part of the market. I am concerned about

competitiveness, and I hope that the Minister will address the concerns of the marketplace.

I hope that the Minister will not do what the Minister of State, Department for Transport did when he was the Minister debating the Communications Act 2003; he accepted a Conservative amendment and then gave me grief. I am sure that he will not do that.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

I want briefly to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend. I remind the Minister of the exchange earlier this month between the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and the Secretary of State for Transport in which the hon. Gentleman asked a question on that precise subject. The Secretary of State replied:

''The hon. Gentleman is right that that is an essential part of the United Kingdom economy and we want to encourage it.''—[Official Report, 5 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 42.]

We need a practical mechanism that distinguishes between short-term slit trenches, which might be there for a couple of hours, and major roadworks that may require a whole road to be dug up—perhaps to replace a sewer. Getting the balance right is difficult. We do not want an overly bureaucratic system, as it could create the competitive disadvantages mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East.

I know that the Minister has received representations from the technology companies, who recognise the need for such a mechanism and know that they must take part in the process. However, the general plea is that it should not affect the country's competitive interests. I realise that the Minister has a difficult balancing act to perform, but it is important that he puts his thoughts on that point on the record.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

We have had two excellent contributions to the debate. In supporting what has been said, I also commend to the Minister my amendment No. 34, which addresses the same point. Emergency works will need to be carried out for the foreseeable future, particularly given the state both of our water infrastructure, which will take years to get right, and of our gas infrastructure—people are talking about another 25 years before that is sorted out. Given that, there are going to be many emergencies. Action needs to be taken straight away in an emergency, so why cannot the Government say in primary legislation that permit schemes will not be required for, or in connection with, works that are required because of an emergency? That is what amendment No. 34 asks for.

I hope that the Minister will recognise my proposal as a way of restricting the ambit of permit schemes and gaining the confidence of those who deal with the permit regime. Entrepreneurs and the utility companies greatly suspect and fear that, as a result of the Government's proposals, they will be burdened with an enormous amount of additional bureaucracy, which will be damaging to them and the UK economy.

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

The best way to ensure the confidence of those who are most directly involved, whether they be from local government or the utilities, is to consult them and thrash out exactly what the definitions will be in regulations. It is terribly easy to

ask, ''What is a minor work?'', but it is enormously difficult to answer that. A minor work on a little side road, even in the middle of the street, may be fairly non-disruptive; yet a minor work in the middle of Victoria street may be minor by any definition of size, but will cause God knows what sort of disruption. I fear that the same may be true of ''emergency''. What is an emergency? Where does the definition start and stop?

The Bill says clearly that there is scope to define in the permit scheme what specified works will not require permits. Although that is broad, it is the hook on which we, along with the utilities and local government, will hang definitions of minor works and emergency works. That is a far more appropriate, confidence-building approach than seeking to include things in the Bill in an overly specific fashion—I was going to say ''anally retentive fashion'', but I should not say that. Things do not have a greater import just because they are included in the Bill. It is the hook in the Bill, rather than a certain level of detail, that will give the regulations their teeth.

I take the importance of broadband and other infrastructural connections to our economy as seriously as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did on 5 January. We are not putting obstacles and traps in the way of people going about their lawful business. Much of this work is what the utilities already do, and many of the powers are those that local councils already have. The provisions draw together the powers relating to permit schemes, and those that will apply to street works, and put some co-ordination and liaison into the equation. The notion that the nasty Government are wielding a big stick, and trammelling contractors and the utilities with one arm behind their backs so that they cannot get on with their work, is absolute and abject nonsense. The proposals are designed to allow everyone who needs to get at or under the roads to do so more efficiently than prevailing conditions allow, even though the relevant provisions can be found in many existing laws.

The key point is that whether we are talking about an emergency, minor works or, as was mentioned, traffic-sensitive streets, the specifics are better fleshed out in detail through regulations. That is best done with the very people in local government and the utilities who are directly involved, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said, rather than in Committee, no matter how glorious our collective expertise. In that spirit I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

The Minister mentioned utilities, but he did not mention the telcos. Given their interest, would they be included in his consultation?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

We shall seek to involve those who are or will be most directly involved in street works, permit schemes and utilising services underneath our streets. I use ''utilities'' as a shorthand term, which of course includes telecommunications, broadband, and so on.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

On the basis of the Minister's helpful response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

May I take this opportunity to put one question to the Minister? In the debate on amendment No. 167, he said that a permit scheme could be the subject of an experiment. Does he have it mind for the permit scheme to be piloted before it is introduced nationally? It is clear from the regulatory impact assessment how empty the scheme is of detail. On the basis that we have had a pilot on the lane rental proposals, and the studies have produced interesting and perhaps unexpected results, does the Minister agree that it would be better to pilot such a permit regime in particular areas rather than draw up a scheme for a national roll out?

Mr Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

Let me turn that round, because we are not drawing up a scheme for national roll out. We are providing permissive powers to allow local authorities to apply for permit schemes should they want to. The Bill is not providing for a universal roll out or a centrally imposed scheme, as the hon. Gentleman suggested 10 minutes ago. Will we encourage authorities to work actively with the first one or two authorities that implement such a scheme to see how it can work? I suspect that the answer is yes, but not in the context of a national pilot or centrally imposed scheme. The hon. Gentleman should unpick his ideology, his objections to the Labour Government and what he thinks we will do from what is in the Bill and what we are actually going to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.