Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007

I thank noble Lords for taking part in this interesting and intriguing discussion. I shall respond to as many of the issues raised as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked how roads would be affected when one authority operates a permit scheme but its neighbour does not. The permit scheme will specify clearly which streets and roads are within the scheme, which will be available for all to see. The notices regime will be on roads without permit schemes. Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Traffic Management Act to facilitate the expeditious movement of all traffic on other authorities’ networks, as the noble Lord will know. Authorities must work with their neighbours where their actions will affect other authorities. That would apply to the authority running a permit scheme and to the adjacent authority running a notices scheme. There are similarities between the permit scheme and the notices scheme that mean that the difference between them should not be too great as far as the IT systems are concerned, so good communications between the authorities will still be possible and the IT systems will have mechanisms to facilitate that. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and other noble Lords asked about the review. We recognise that the use of permits is a new way of working and it must be shown that benefits are realised. This takes up the final point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about a cost-benefit exercise. The first permit schemes are to be reviewed after a year of operation, so we are probably talking about the spring or summer of 2009. The review will elevate the performance of permit schemes against the current baseline. It will also compare performances against highway authorities not operating permit schemes. We will also look at information on how schemes operating over different categories of roads compare in delivering benefits—for example, highway authorities operating schemes on traffic-sensitive roads only compared with those operating schemes over all roads. In particular, the review will look closely at the appropriateness of the permit fees. We intend to publish the review and will ensure that it is provided to Parliament at the appropriate time. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked how many local authorities we envisage running permit schemes. Our current feedback is that at present six to eight local authorities are interested, but we envisage 150 authorities finally running schemes. We will assess each application, and each local highway authority has to justify fully its costs and benefits. Transport for London has expressed an interest and it is thought that that scheme is likely to be replicated in some London boroughs. Some of them may be ready to start with Transport for London, but others are likely to join later. Kent County Council has also expressed an interest in applying to run a permit scheme. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked about the three months’ notice, which they thought might be a barrier. It is required for major works only. Most connections will be much quicker and will need far shorter notice. Local authorities can be flexible about allowing an early start, if that is practical. We do not envisage it for the majority of works. The noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Hanningfield, raised the issue of the level of fines. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was quite passionate about this. The offences that attract FPNs in permit schemes are serious. Working without a permit or in breach of the conditions will attract a fine because they undermine the permit scheme and could have a significant detrimental effect on the management and co-ordination of the network. The levels of fines were consulted on widely, and we have changed our original proposals. It was initially proposed that working without a permit and working in breach of a condition of the permit should be level 5 offences. We have now created two different levels of offences, reflecting the severity of the offence. The first offence is at level 5, up to a maximum of £5,000, for working without a permit, and the second is less serious for breaching a permit condition, which is a level 4 offence up to a maximum of £2,500. It is worth bearing in mind that both offences may be avoided by prompt payment of a fixed penalty fee, where given. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked why the Secretary of State would be needed to approve the running of these schemes. These are significant new powers for authorities and there are significant costs to utilities in the permit fees. The Government want to be sure that the appropriate balance is struck for all parties and it is important that schemes run efficiently and with parity for both authorities and utility companies and demonstrate that they deliver the stated benefits. Again, the Government want to be sure that the schemes will achieve their objectives and do so fairly. As many utilities work across several local authority areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has said, there must be some consistency between schemes to enable utilities to operate effectively and efficiently. Permit schemes are not a revenue stream for authorities and authorities must show that fee income does not exceed the share of costs of operating the permit scheme attributable to utilities over and above their duty under the New Roads and Streets Works Act 1991. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred to the slow delivery of the regulations. In an ideal world we would have liked a to have them earlier but these are complex matters and it is important to get it right. It is important to allow time for the utilities, authorities and others to have their say and to help to shape the regulations so that they work as intended. The key now is that we have them ready so that there is a chance to make a step change in the management of works in the streets. The noble Lord also referred to the fixed penalty notice as being too low to be a deterrent. As I say, fixed penalty notices were adjusted after consultation and the notice for working in the street without a permit was raised from £250 to £500. I know that the noble Lord thinks that that is still not enough, but we believe that £500 is not an insignificant figure, especially in relation to minor works. Authorities also have the option of taking the utilities to court, where fines can be up to £5,000. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said that permit schemes were too bureaucratic for the benefits that we claim for them. Through the working group involvement of key stakeholders, we have aimed to provide a scheme that is not unnecessarily complicated. The key aim is that at any time it should be possible for all parties to know whether there is a permit and what conditions are attached. All processes are geared to that one end. It may seem more complicated than it is because we necessarily have to provide for all eventualities. In reality we would expect many, if not most cases, to be straightforward—application made, permit issued and work carried out in accordance with the permit. But we are on a learning curve and we expect all parties to learn the ropes quickly.