Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 203, in

page 26, line 27, after 'may', insert 'reasonably'.

The amendment, as the Minister would expect, is a reasonable one. It would ensure that an action that is not reasonable would not be contemplated. I hope that it commends itself to him.

Mr Brian White (North East Milton Keynes, Labour)

One thing that annoys people about reinstatement is the impact on pedestrians and cyclists, so the addition of the powers is useful. Will the Minister ensure that, as the regulations are drafted, the impact on cyclists and pedestrians is taken into account as much as the impact on traffic?

Mr John Mann (Bassetlaw, Labour)

My concern relates to the position of local authorities, and the danger that they may be tempted to try to pass on some of the costs that they should meet, because the opportunity arises to do so. One of the problems that the clause may face is the success of the Government's economic policy, and the fact that there is a general labour shortage in many areas. It strikes me, therefore, that in trying to get competing jobs done by a local authority and the private sector, the pressure to pass on some costs from the local authority to the private contractor will become all the more appealing. What reassurance can the Minister give that that will not be allowed, and that there will be some ability for a private company to protest and get independent validation if there is any suggestion of a local authority attempting to do so?

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

Amendment No. 203 is totally unnecessary. New section 73A (3) already provides for regulations to limit the extent of resurfacing, and authorities will be constrained by regulations as to what they can require of undertakers.

Regarding the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, we have agreed that the authorities and utilities should be consulted separately and jointly so that what he suggests does not prevail.

Putting in the ''reasonably'' asked for in amendment No. 203 would add absolutely nothing to this clause. It is already alluded to in section 73A (3) and will be dealt with in substance in regulations.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

In the light of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Viscount John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 191, in

page 27, line 9, at end insert—

'(6A) A resurfacing notice—

(a) shall not have effect for more than three years from the date of its issue; and

(b) shall not cause a contingent liability to be held in the balance-sheet of an undertaker for more than two financial reporting years.'.

The amendment deals with a small but important technical point. Clause 53 will insert three new sections on resurfacing into the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and I have no problem with the principles of resurfacing. However, we should consider new section 73D(2)(d), which is contained in clause 54 and deals with regulations relating to new sections 73A to 73C. That prescribes

''circumstances in which an undertaker is entitled to pay a sum to the street authority instead of executing the works''.

In clause 55, subsections (1) and (2) of new section 78A detail the conditions in which an apportionment may be made.

The amendment is designed to address those provisions' effect of creating a contingent liability. When undertakers elect to pay a sum rather than undertake the works—as I suspect many will do—and when that sum or its apportionment will be contingent on other works at a later stage, it is possible that a liability will accrue, which will have to be accounted for in the books of the undertaker. Under the Bill, that situation could go on indefinitely. Considering the helpful briefing that I received from officials, I am sure that the Government's intention is to include at some point a reasonable time limit on notices.

Amendment No. 191 would provide for a three-year limit, so that the liability would drop after three years. The reference to the undertaker's balance sheet coincides with three years, since having two balance sheet dates would take out the contingent liability. As I said, the amendment is small and technical, but it is by no means unimportant. The current provisions could result in a mass of complicated accounting, and a reasonable cut-off point—three years seems reasonable—could clear it up to some extent.

That is a brief explanation of what the amendment is designed to do. I hasten to add that I do not want to press it, but I would be grateful to know the Government's thinking and how they intend to deal with the matter.

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

The hon. Gentleman's points are fair, but they would be dealt with more appropriately in regulations. Time scales for authorities to serve utilities with surfacing noticing will be a matter for regulations, on which we shall consult fully with undertakers and authorities on a range of issues. The point about the time scales has been well made, but regulations should create certainty for utilities about any contingent liabilities that the clause might create.

If there were time, I would try to find an accounting novelist to match John Grisham and wax lyrical about how it is not our job in the Bill to impinge on accounting regulations or any other relevant developments, or on what utilities or contractors do on their balance sheets or in their internal and external accounting, but we do not have time, so I shall not. Instead, I shall simply say that we will tackle the hon. Gentleman's fair point about time scales in regulations after consultation with local authorities and utilities. That will capture the hon. Gentleman's fair points about contingent liabilities and time scales. As such, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Viscount John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

I accept that using regulations is a way of dealing with the point, but what sort of time scale do the Government have in mind as being reasonable? Would three years, five years or seven years be reasonable? What is their thinking at this stage?

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

At this stage, I would not care to hazard a guess. It may be one year or two years rather than three. The hon. Gentleman's point, which was entirely fair, about carrying the liability around for ever was well made and I assure him that it will be dealt with through consultation and in regulations rather than in the way that he suggested.

Viscount John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

In the light of that explanation, 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)

The Minister knows, and it is apparent, that there is a lot of mutual suspicion about the clause and the provisions relating to reinstatement. Some utilities are fearful that they will be required to pick up the bill for the failure of highway authorities to maintain their roads properly. The Minister said that that would be dealt with in regulations. The tension is recognised on page 29 of the regulatory impact assessment, which states, under the heading ''Balance of costs and benefits'', that

''the exact balance of costs and benefits will depend upon the framing of the regulations''

which will bring this new measure into force.

I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he sees any scope for a new type of pre-legislative scrutiny. We usually talk of pre-legislative scrutiny in the context of a Select Committee considering a draft Bill for primary legislation. This is not the only example in the Bill because, throughout it, runs a mass of proposals for detailed regulations, many of which will come before us for affirmative resolution. Or, if we pray against them, we may have a chance of a one-and-a-half-hour debate. None of the regulations will be able to be amended and that is not scrutiny as Parliament understands it.

Having regard to the concern that has been expressed by the Chairman of the Select Committee and many other people, I wonder whether the Minister sees any scope for submitting some of the draft regulations, after they have been subject to a great deal of consultation with the interested parties, to the Select Committee for a short period before they are considered by the House of Commons.

Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)

I am thinking about it.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

I am pleased that the Under-Secretary is thinking about it because this is not a contentious Standing Committee, as has been apparent from the smooth way in which it has proceeded, but underlying that is much anxiety. At the moment, the utilities and local authorities can have negotiations and areas of dispute could remain. That can be dealt with by Ministers, but I think that it is the wish of the House of Commons to have more scrutiny of the whole area than will be possible if we proceed as it looks as though we will—by trusting everything, and saying that it will all be dealt with and that there will be a regulatory impact assessment and so on.

I do not know whether the Ministers attended the recent seminar on regulatory impact assessments, but I am sure that they have been bombarded with circulars on the subject because the Government are rightly concerned about RIAs. They are not much use if they are not linked with proper parliamentary scrutiny. I see that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East agrees with me. I would have thought that the

whole subject would lend itself to the sort of scrutiny that I have been discussing. I have not discussed the matter with the Chairman of the Select Committee, but, having regard to her comments and desire to exercise more pre-legislative scrutiny before Second Reading, I am sure that she would be enthusiastic about the prospect of her Committee getting down to some of the detail.

I use the opportunity of our debating a contentious area of the Bill—namely, reinstatements—to ask the Minister about the possibility of that sort of additional scrutiny. If he wants to think about it, or discuss it with his colleagues, I shall understand that he will not be able to reply fully. However, I put it on record as a way forward.

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

I have already said that, after full consultation with the local authorities and utilities and once we have the draft regulations, I am more than happy that some scope should be afforded to members of the Committee to explore the regulations in far greater detail. Indeed, once the local government side has been fully consulted, I can foresee even wider consultation, beyond the Committee.

To be entirely fair, in the first instance the Select Committee was considering pre-legislative scrutiny of the entire Bill, not only of the regulations, so I am not sure whether that is an appropriate avenue. I do not know whether the august Chair of that Committee would welcome detailed scrutiny of regulations, similar to the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill to which she alluded. However, I shall reflect on the matter. It is certainly right and proper that we engage with the entire Committee, and even, as we did at the start of the Bill, afford time for other hon. Members to go through the draft regulations with departmental officials.

We want to get the regulations right before they go through the affirmative or negative resolution procedure. In the context of what I have already said about sharing draft regulations with the members of the Committee, perhaps affording them the chance to go through the draft regulations with officials before they come before Parliament, I am more than happy for there to be greater scrutiny.

I am not entirely sure whether it needs to go formally through the Select Committee, but I will reflect on it. However, the hon. Gentleman can be assured that I want the greatest consultation and scrutiny on and of the regulations. I want them to be dealt with properly; and when they are put into effect, I want them to be of practical advantage to the utilities and local authorities. That is what we seek from the entire Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.