Clause 42 - Directions relating to

Part of Traffic Management Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:45 pm on 3 February 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tony McNulty Tony McNulty Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport 3:45, 3 February 2004

The provision is confined in part to reflect the starting point of section 46 in the principal Act, and in part because we are discussing legislation that refers to traffic management and its consequences. It must be seen in the context of street works, and they must be seen in the context of the new network management duties. It is entirely proper, and not necessarily resulting from the clause or the Bill, that local authorities give due regard to noise and other factors to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Principally, the causes of disruption by street works with which we are most concerned are set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). The paragraphs state that the works

(a) ''are likely to cause serious disruption to traffic, and'',—

not or—

(b) ''that the disruption would be avoided or reduced if the works were to continue to be carried out only at certain times or on certain days (or at certain times on certain days)''.

It is entirely appropriate that local authorities can and should take account of all those other factors. Our principal concern is with traffic management, the disruption caused to the flow of traffic and its impact on the overall network management duty.

I am not undermining what the hon. Gentleman says about the other elements and circumstances. However, if work is wholly disruptive on the ground of noise to the point of being not only a nuisance, but worse, it should be picked up by environmental health, health and safety and other authorities.

In our goldfish bowl, it is easy to see the Bill existing in isolation, rather than in the wider context of all the other duties that local authorities undertake. The Bill does not say, ''Do not do it when there are football matches at a football ground, or any other sporting activity at a sporting location.'' Clearly, they cause significant traffic disruption in the first place, which would be reinforced by street works on Fulham broadway when Chelsea is playing at home and—who knows, even rarer—fielding an English player. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill covers many of his suggestions; and what it does not cover is covered elsewhere in legislation.

Importantly, the Bill shifts from simply timing, which is already in the 1991 Act, to days, which allows greater flexibility in direction. It takes account of the wider circumstances that are pervading the local network at that particular time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.