Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)

- View Speech - Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of roadworks; and for connected purposes.

I introduced a very similar ten-minute rule Bill in the previous parliamentary Session, which unfortunately ran out of time. However, under the heading of the “Can the Cones” campaign, I am now seeking to reintroduce similar legislation to help tackle the issue of overrunning roadworks head on.

One of the great frustrations of modern life is queuing for ages in a line of traffic, inching forwards to get through a set of contraflow traffic lights at the scene of some roadworks, only to then finally crawl past a large hole in the ground, heavily coned off, with absolutely no one working on the site. According to data highlighted by The Echo newspaper, recent freedom of information requests showed that during the 2021-22 financial year there were over 77,000 street and roadworks in my county of Essex, making it the most dug up county in Britain. But this is by no means an issue confined to Essex.

Last week, we had a debate in Westminster Hall on this same subject, ably secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who I am pleased to say is one of the sponsors of my Bill, which also has cross-party support. Last week’s debate was replied to by the Roads Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I am pleased to note that she is in her place on the Front Bench listening today, as she promised she would be. I thank the Minister for her courtesy.

Roadworks can take place for a variety of reasons. Sometimes utility companies are carrying out repairs or maintenance, broadband providers laying new fibre, or property developers connecting new estates to the grid. In many cases, however, the common denominator is a lack of any palpable sense of urgency whatever to get the job done, regardless of the inconvenience caused to the travelling public. As a constituency MP, I have received a growing tide of complaints about the spiralling frequency of roadworks in recent years, with the gas utility company Cadent being by far the worst serial offender. Last year, in one of my villages, Hockley, a perfect storm of the above three things occurred and led to so many concurrent roadworks that the exasperated villagers, led by a very proactive local councillor, Adrian Eves, resorted to nicknaming their village “Blockley”.

Given all that, the Bill essentially has three key aims. First, it would give local highways authorities, such as Essex county council, much stronger powers to control the granting of permits to anyone who wanted to dig up the highway network. This is a critical weakness in the current arrangements. Currently, highways authorities can only really refuse to grant a permit on safety grounds. If those applying for one deem the work to be an emergency, the authority’s ability to refuse is weaker still. And I am sad to report that people sometimes attempt to game the system. The Bill would allow refusal on the grounds of causing unacceptable disruption and would materially strengthen the hand of councils to negotiate much tighter conditions, including stricter deadlines when granting permits, so that companies would hopefully be prevented from overrunning in the first place.

Secondly, the Bill would mandate highway authorities to take all practicable steps to deconflict roadworks in their areas to prevent multiple works in the same neighbourhood from leading to near gridlock, especially during peak periods. Under section 59 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, local authorities are required to co-ordinate roadworks to minimise disruption to road users. It states that a street authority

“shall use their best endeavours to co-ordinate the execution of works of all kinds”.

Nevertheless, a few years ago we had near chaos in my home town of Rayleigh when several sets of roadworks on the main arteries in and out of the town were allowed to proceed at almost exactly the same time. When we subsequently looked into why, it turned out that the official at county hall who handed out the permits to developers did not communicate with the one who gave them to utility companies. In short, the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing, which led to utter confusion and some very frustrated constituents. The Bill seeks to rectify that, ensuring a far more joined-up approach, by imposing much stricter procedures on highways authorities that give out the permits. It also seeks to prevent the same stretch of road from being dug up multiple times, in short succession, by different companies.

Thirdly, the Bill would materially increase the fines for roadworks that do overrun. At present, under section 74 of the 1991 Act, local highways authorities have the power to fine utility companies for “unreasonably prolonged” occupation of the highway. The fines to be levied are set out in the snappily entitled Street Works (Charges for Unreasonably Prolonged Occupation of the Highway) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, with which I am sure the whole House is familiar, and which provide for a maximum charge in respect of “traffic- sensitive” streets of £5,000 a day for the first three days of overrun and £10,000 a day thereafter.

However, for streets that fall outside that tightly defined category, the fines fall away dramatically. Crucially, they have not been updated or adjusted for inflation since 2012, and are hardly likely to be a deterrent to major utility companies or housing developers, some of whom just accept them—on the rare occasions on which they are actually levied—as a cost of doing business. The Bill would significantly increase the penalties for overrunning beyond the schedule agreed when the permit was first granted. Persistent offenders could be fined up to 10% of their annual corporate turnover, which should make even the most high-handed company sit up and listen.

Another related solution is “lane rental”—not to be confused with “road pricing”—whereby companies must pay per day to carry out roadworks. That gives them a clear financial incentive to be efficient, but at present it applies to only a very limited number of selected roads. May I suggest to the Minister that perhaps there is scope for this solution to be much more widely applied? I see that she is nodding.

As an experienced constituency MP, I know that it is a rare thing for a ten-minute rule Bill to make it on to the statute book. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government may yet be minded to grant it time to assist its passage. Failing that, I should be very grateful for a meeting with the Roads Minister so that we can seek at last to “Can the Cones”, either through legislation or, at the very least, by strengthening Government guidance to highways authorities to achieve the same effect, short of primary legislation itself.

No one really likes roadworks. They are sometimes a necessary evil of modern life. Nevertheless, the spirit of this Bill is to try to ensure that where they are really necessary, we expedite them as quickly as practicable, with as little disruption as possible. I promised my constituents when seeking re-election that if they returned me to Parliament, I would seek to reintroduce my Roadworks (Regulation) Bill, and I am keeping my word to them today. This is not a partisan issue; it is something on which I hope all Members of Parliament—and, even more important, their constituents—can agree. So let us collectively “Can the Cones”, and keep the traffic flowing as much as we practically can. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Mark Francois, Mr Richard Holden, Greg Smith, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Sir Desmond Swayne, Andrew Rosindell, Sir John Whittingdale, Lewis Cocking, Sir Bernard Jenkin, Andrew Griffith, Sir Roger Gale and Jim Shannon present the Bill.

Mr Mark Francois accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July 2025, and to be printed (Bill 118).