Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 49, in

page 20, line 39, at end insert—

'(ba) no additional cost would be incurred by the undertaker if the apparatus were to be placed in Street B'.

Mr Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath & Crayford, Labour)

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

No. 205, in

page 21, line 1, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

No. 206, in

page 21, line 9, at beginning insert 'solely'.

No. 207, in

page 21, line 10, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

The amendment is an attempt to include a provision in the Bill that would help statutory undertakers. It would restrict the power of the traffic authority to direct the placing of apparatus if it adds cost to the undertaking. It is a reasonable amendment. Why should statutory undertakers have to pay a substantial penalty because the highway or street authority thinks that the apparatus should be placed somewhere else? Statutory undertakers do not dig up the road, lay cables or pipes where there is no need for them to do so. They certainly do not wish to lay pipes over longer distances and incur substantial additional costs because the local authority says that they should. The amendment would restrict the local authority's power to give directions when the effect of doing so would add significantly to the statutory undertaker's costs.

Mr John Mann (Bassetlaw, Labour)

I shall oppose the amendment and support the clause by dint of an example. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that the example is relevant, or I may have to eat my words.

The example that I cite is that of Wood street in Worksop.

Mr David Wright (Telford, Labour)

Warsaw?

Mr John Mann (Bassetlaw, Labour)

Wood street has been closed for 20 years. It is in a major renovation area that has received significant funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for neighbourhood renewal, and the local population would like it to be opened. The money is available to open Wood street, much to the local population's delight, but only after the intervention of my good self, because of the problems in the intervening 20 years of the utilities digging holes and putting their apparatus in the middle of what was, is and will be Wood street.

Some of them—for example, BT—were more than helpful in reducing their rather high price to a much lower and more appropriate price to remove their apparatus. The electricity supply companies were more than happy to remove their apparatus, taking it off Wood street and putting it on to adjoining land, so that there will be no further complications when Wood street, which forms a major junction with the A60, is reopened.

However, NTL was less helpful. Indeed, it was reticent to admit that it had apparatus in Wood street. It could not identify exactly where it was, although it

was clear to anyone walking across Wood street where it was—indeed, its initials were imprinted on the apparatus—nor could it give a price for removing the apparatus that it claimed was not there, in spite of the fact that everyone else knew that it was, because the town hall is on the corner of Wood street and uses the NTL facility for its internet access. It is a prima facie case and a good example of a street where the powers exist to enable coherent planning, for which the operator should pay the cost.

I seek my hon. Friend's confirmation of the relevance of my comments to the clause.

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

My hon. Friend made some interesting points about Wood street in what one of my colleagues unkindly said was Warsaw, and we do not do Poland. My fellow Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), asked if he meant Walsall in the west midlands, and my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) said Warsaw. I fully appreciate that some people do not say the ''k'' in Worksop.

I am sad to say that everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said is irrelevant to the clause, which refers specifically to new apparatus. However, his points are pertinent to the Bill and are well made in that regard.

As the hon. Member for Christchurch says, amendment No. 49 qualifies the highway authority's power to direct an undertaker not to carry out work in a certain street unless following an alternative route would not impose any additional cost on the undertaker. In part, I accept the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. It goes without saying that most utility works need to take place in a certain location, especially when they are to maintain existing apparatus. However, when new apparatus is being installed, there may sometimes be several different routes that could be followed, and following one of those routes might cause much more disruption than following another. In such a case, we believe that it would be sensible to allow an authority to direct the undertaker not to follow the most disruptive of those routes.

There is no inherent reason why following an alternative route would impose greater costs on utilities. It would depend on the circumstances of each case. There might be greater costs, but they are not inherent. It must be borne in mind that following the alternative route should cause less disruption and hence mean lower costs for road users, other businesses and perhaps local residents. Against that, I accept that it would not be reasonable to impose significant extra costs on those carrying out the works. Clearly, a proper balance needs to be struck when setting out the detailed arrangements for the powers in guidance and regulations. When consulting authorities and utilities on the matter, we will want to consider costs and the question of how undertakers could appeal or seek adjudication in the case of directions that they perceive to be unjust.

With the introduction of new apparatus, we can see circumstances in which there will be a range of

options. Very often, of course, the location will be almost pre-determined.

Mr John Mann (Bassetlaw, Labour)

The Minister generously said that my case study was irrelevant. Having reread the clause, I think that he is wrong about that. I shall give a separate example. If there were a new housing development that had planning consent to expand, would the powers and the definition of ''likely to cause disruption'' relate to future developments rather than to the existing infrastructure? That is the point that I was trying to make—perhaps rather badly—in relation to Walsall. In other words, is a future or potential use of a piece of land sufficient for the purposes of the criteria? Or could a utility dump its apparatus in what would become, under the local plan, the entrance to a brand new estate?

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

I take the point. I think that the answer is that as and when what currently exists underneath Wood street in Walsall becomes an impediment to the introduction of new apparatus, the provisions will apply. We cannot legislate for something that may happen some time down the line in those local circumstances. Given the gateway nature, as my hon. Friend described it, of Wood street, it may be appropriate to lay a central core of new apparatus, and have bits leading off to the new development. If the underlying apparatus is an impediment to that, or if we are talking about the least disruptive or more disruptive route, his point has a bearing. In the broader sense, the points that he made about Wood street are entirely appropriate to the Bill; it is just that talking about the existence of old apparatus underneath the ground is not germane to the clause, which refers specifically to new apparatus.

Mr John Mann (Bassetlaw, Labour)

If the example involved the provision of gas to an area and there were two options available to a local authority, one of which fitted with its local plan and involved routing gas supplies so that they could be expanded to a new estate—I have a specific example in my area in mind—would the clause give the authority the power to instruct the utility to put the gas supply in place A rather than place B solely on the grounds of the potential for future development?

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

The authority would certainly be in a far stronger position when it came to indicating that that is what it would like to see prevail. However, the existence of such proposed developments in the local plan—they would therefore come under planning law—might not be enough in itself. The clause is about saying that the least disruptive route for new apparatus—and it may well be because it is in the local plan and is implied new development—will prevail, strengthened by the local plan. However, there could then be a clash between the Bill, when enacted, and planning legislation. The existence in the plan of some potential future development would not of itself be enough, but it may well come into play if it is—as my hon. Friend describes—the least disruptive and most sensible way to put the new apparatus in place.

Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire, Conservative)

Is not the hon. Member for Bassetlaw making rather heavy weather of this? I do not think that he has adduced any argument against the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. His difficulty appears to

be with a company called NTL, which denied that it had property in a particular street. As, under our law, one cannot be convicted of stealing, or causing criminal damage to property that is abandoned, why does the hon. Gentleman not lead a resident's revolt, take over the property owned by NTL, and destroy it?

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

That contribution clearly shows the value of having lawyers on our Committees. It is an interesting point, but none the less, what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw says is important, certainly in local terms. Where the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire is wrong is that it must be the case that a local authority can direct, when a utility insists on taking the most disruptive route for the laying of new apparatus. I am sure that we will reach a position in the regulations where some process is established whereby there can be further discussion on the detail of that, but as we would all agree, in most circumstances there will be a direct route, and it will be clear that there is only that route and no other. However, there will be circumstances where there is a range of options for the laying of apparatus, and it must be appropriate for the local authority to be able to serve direction where the most disruptive avenue is chosen.

As for amendments Nos. 205 and 207, have we not been there? We are talking about ''may'' versus ''must'', and the points that I made earlier remain valid. In terms of the law, if we use ''must'' we will not issue regulations or guidance until everything possible is included in the guidance. ''May'' will give us flexibility to come to some broad agreement on what all sides concur is important. The current ''Code of practice for the co-ordination of street works and works for road purposes'' gives guidance on the existing power for authorities to direct utilities as to when they can carry out works—[Interruption.] I thought I heard the Committee leaving then, until I looked up. We envisage expanding the code to give further guidance on the use of the power to give directions in relation to both the timing and locations of works.

We also expect to issue regulations covering appeal arrangements, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross suggested, after consulting authorities and utilities. Having said that, we still feel that it is sensible to retain some flexibility, leading us to have ''may'' rather than ''must''.

We will be bringing forward an amendment in the form of new clause 11, after part 7 of the Bill, which will allow the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice covering the inspection of utilities' street works to make sure that they are carried out properly, and highway authorities will have to take account of that. I wanted to flag that up for the Committee as this is the appropriate point in the Bill to do so, although we will return to the matter when we come to new clause 11.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

When will that be?

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

After we have considered part 7. It is the only Government new clause, and is already tabled.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

The Minister has misunderstood my question. I was asking when the guidance will be issued, not when will we be debating the new clause.

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

The guidance will be issued in due course. We will certainly not issue guidance before we have secured the new clause that is relevant to it. I do apologise. I did seriously think that the hon. Gentleman thought that the new clause was not yet published and was asking when it would be debated. I apologise for that.

Amendment No. 206 would provide that an undertaker should not be taken to have failed to fulfil a statutory duty to supply a service if that failure is solely attributable to a direction relating to the place and apparatus. We discussed that under amendment No. 204. The arguments that were advanced did not give me any reason not to resist the amendment, and the same situation prevails in relation to amendment No. 206. In the light of that serious debate, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

On that basis, and given that we shall have time to debate new clause 11 in due course, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.