Clause 36 - Permit regulations
Traffic Management Bill
5:15 pm
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
The amendment addresses a serious issue. It would remove the power to make it a criminal offence by regulations to carry out works without a permit or in breach of permit conditions. It is bad enough to introduce that as a criminal offence, but if that is going to be done it should be done in a Bill rather than by some regulation-making power.
The Minister was involved in the deliberations last year on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, so he will know that no criminal regime operates against people who obtain planning permission and are then in breach of conditions attached to it, or against people who develop land without planning permission when they should have had such permission. Why do the Government think it right to make it a criminal offence to carry out works without a permit or in breach of conditions? That is oppressive, and it is disproportionate compared with what happens in other areas of law enforcement.
Amendment No. 166 would add a provision that allows disputes to be settled by arbitration. The Bill would lead to a situation in which the highways authorities were giving out permits while also being responsible for half of the street works. An independent appeals mechanism is surely essential to ensure that disputes are resolved in a fair, consistent, even-handed and timely manner. There is provision in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 for dealing with arbitration. The Government have given no explanation of why they do not feel that there should be an arbitration provision in the Bill. Surely it would be a sensible safeguard. Many utilities and local authorities work closely together, but not all of them do.
The national joint utilities group is concerned that some local authorities could seek to maximise the revenue-generating opportunities available in the exercise of permit schemes. They could dispute utilities activities even when it was unreasonable to
do so. That is why the group wants an independent appeals mechanism. It wants someone to go to: someone who will enable the issues to be resolved even-handedly, thus minimising the need for costly disputes. That would enable the focus to be on reducing congestion, rather than increasing contention.