Coastguard Service

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) was absolutely right when she opened her speech by saying that we were on the graveyard shift. I almost thought that I would be in the graveyard of the debate, so thank you for calling me, Mr Crausby.

Unfortunately, we are in here because of the machinations of the Backbench Business Committee, and that deserves a few words. We must ensure that more Members lobby the Committee so that we get on to the Floor of the House, as we hope to do, on 28 April—that is a possible window. I urge hon. Members to lobby the Chair and members of that Committee. I was very perturbed when, because of the internal politics of the Committee, the entire day that we were meant to have for this debate was given over to the debate on UN Women. I contributed to that debate, and was told by, shall we say, a senior voice to speak for as long as I could and to take interventions. It is my belief that we could have had our debate on the Floor of the House that day, with all the attendant publicity and spotlight that that would have given us. I know that the Minister would have been welcomed holding our debate on the Floor of the House, and that he, too, was perturbed when it was moved.

As a result of my complaints at the time, I was kindly given an Adjournment debate by Mr Speaker, but I pulled it to allow the Minister to go to Stornoway and Shetland—I am grateful that he did. I am also grateful for the extension, but I am perturbed that we are again in a situation in which we are rushed by time. In the previous debate, I spoke for three minutes and crashed my remarks together as quickly as possible. We are nine parties united on this.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I just want to demonstrate that point. I am the only Member here from the Humber, and I will be unable to speak due to the time available, so no one from the Humber will be able to put forward the case for our particular coastguard. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the machinations are stifling debate on this important subject.

[Mr MacNeil]

Absolutely. We want this issue to be considered on a substantive motion on the Floor of the House on 28 April, and with hon. Members’ support, I hope that we will achieve that.

I am delighted that the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), is in the Chamber to hear our proceedings. I can but hope that I will see her and her Committee in Stornoway at some point in the future.

I am the MP for the longest chain of islands in the UK, and my constituency has probably the longest coastline. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) might dispute that, but we are not going to walk every inch to find out whose coastline is longer. However, my constituency’s coastline is certainly disproportionate to its area.

The modernisation proposals coming from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are concerning in the extreme. When the Minister was in Stornoway, he visited the Iolaire memorial. On new year’s day in 1919, 205 men out of a crew of 280 lost their lives when returning from world war one, and that is still a sore and well-remembered point in Lewis.

The reduction of the number of co-ordination centres in the UK from 18 to 10, with only two in Scotland, is the wrong decision. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) asked whether there should have been a statement to the House at the time of that announcement. I asked Mr Speaker for a statement on a point of order, but unfortunately I was not given one. I agree that we should have had something more thorough in the House at that time, so hopefully we will get that later.

The modernisation proposals will result in England having six co-ordination centres, while Scotland will have only two. The current proposal is that the two Scottish centres will be based in the north: one in Aberdeen, for real estate and lease agreement reasons, and one in Stornoway or Shetland. That proposal is unacceptable because both Stornoway and Shetland need centres, given the considerable distance between them. Only one of the two centres will be a 24-hour centre, while the other will be open only during the hours of daylight. When the MCA was in Stornoway, it was asked what hours of daylight might mean—would the centre ever close in summertime, and would it ever open in winter? There was no real answer. There was an answer on the hoof about the times being perhaps 7 am to 7 pm, but no consideration had been given to that very basic point.

Scotland will be left with just two stations to cover 60% of the UK’s coastline, yet the MCA thinks that that is more than adequate. According to its consultation paper, it feels that it could monitor the waters around the UK from one central location, but it has chosen not to pursue that argument. That feeling has been comprehensively destroyed by Members from the nine parties with concerns.

There is concern about the loss of local knowledge. The MCA feels that it can address the issue of local knowledge by using highly detailed maps or GPS technology, but I am referring to local knowledge—we heard about this in relation to Wales—that knows the difference between Marivig and Maaraig in my constituency. As the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) mentioned, the area is predominately Gaelic, and the place names are Gaelic, or Norse but gaelicised in the intervening centuries. The local knowledge to which I am referring allows a co-ordinator to communicate a position to a rescue team down to a specific tree in a specific field, if they are an urban dweller, or down to a specific rock on the coastline, because they know the area so well.

We know that the life-saving helicopters contract has had its problems, and our rescue tugs will have question marks over them as well. I really do not understand how cutting our co-ordination centres and the assets that the coastguard uses to save lives will result in a better coastguard. To be fair, I do not think that the MCA has thought it through either—I have given some examples. I really do feel sorry for the Minister because he has been given a poisoned chalice by the MCA. If he could have looked in a crystal ball and seen how things would pan out, perhaps he would not have accepted that chalice quite so readily, but I will leave it to him to tell us that.

I was the first Member to raise the issues of risk assessments on the Floor of the House. From the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State for Transport told me that a risk assessment had indeed been carried out. However, in a briefing in the House five days later, the chief executive of the MCA, Alan Massey, said that no formal risk assessment had been done. It was distressing to learn that the coastguard was considering the proposals without being able to know whether the basic work had been done to see if they were safe. A risk assessment was eventually published, of course, but who can trust a risk assessment that was done to fit the MCA’s story, which is what I suspect has happened, as opposed to one that leads the process? I do not trust it, and I am sure that many others do not either.

I also want to mention the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Perhaps we could pressurise it to free up its teams—its crews and coxswains—to speak with a freer voice, instead of our just hearing something from the RNLI centrally. In my area alone we have teams in Stornoway, Lochinver, Mallaig, Castlebay, Portree and Kyle, and I would like to hear their opinions, including on a very formal basis. Some of the coxswains and crews tell me that they do not in any way praise the proposals. The RNLI has to empower its crews and enable them, their coxswains and their launch secretaries to enunciate their very real concerns, which are based on their knowledge of the areas in which they work.

The coastguard service needs to be improved and to adapt to the changing conditions at sea. The MCA has said in its consultation that the seas are getting more congested, ships are getting larger and weather patterns are getting worse. Scotland is responsible for 70% of UK fish landings, and we need to ensure that when our mariners go out to sea, their lives are as safe as possible. I reiterate how concerned I am that the proposal has been pushed in some ways by real estate considerations. In addition, the savings are minimal. I think that £120 million will be saved over 25 years, or £4.8 million a year, which is such a small figure that it was not mentioned in the comprehensive spending review.

A letter has come to me from Councillor Dominic Lonsdale of Weymouth and Portland borough council with reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. He wrote to Sir Alan Massey:

“The MCA lodged a planning application on 20 May 2010 with Gosport Council for a new MRCC at the Deadalus site.”

The councillor’s contention was that the planning had taken place long before the paper came out following the change of Government. In its first answer to him, the MCA had said that it was going to change the type of building, but he could see from the scale of the work that such serious plans were in hand that there was clearly another agenda. The letter goes on:

“I put it to you that the reply I was given of 9 June 2010 was neither full, honest nor within the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.”

I will certainly pursue that issue further.

I am feeling harassed, because although there are a number of details and issues that need proper time for discussion, we are again not getting that because this debate will be truncated. I am aware that I have spoken for 10 minutes and that other Members wish to speak.

It is disappointing that our debate has been rushed and that we have not had the opportunity to consider a substantive motion on the Floor of the House. There are plans in the air among the coastguards that we would be happy to support in a motion, but a debate needs to be held on the Floor of the House. I hope that that will happen on 28 April. This is about safeguarding our coastguards—the maritime insurance policy around our coasts. That is an important issue, and it should be debated on the Floor of the House of Commons.

Rail Investment

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Of course we will take into account the views of the business community, in particular, but we will also look at the evidence. I now want to work with the Welsh Assembly Government on building that evidence.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

For 13 years, Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire received the fluffy end of the lollipop when it came to transport policy. I therefore welcome the announcements on the trans-Pennine express and the east coast main line, which my two Yorkshire colleagues got to mention first. However, we also have in northern Lincolnshire some exciting open access proposals, including a line from Cleethorpes through Scunthorpe and direct to London. Will the Secretary of State work with those open access providers, and have his officials work with them, to help to bring those new services to our region?

[Mr Hammond]

We are always happy to see additional services being provided, but decisions on open access applications are for the rail regulator, not for the Secretary of State.

National Express East Anglia

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a genuine delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me the opportunity to raise in Westminster Hall the issue of the performance of National Express East Anglia, which operates the Greater Anglia franchise. The issue really affects my constituents, so I welcome the Minister, who will listen to the concerns I raise. She has been incredibly helpful on issues relating to the commuters and the local rail service in my area, and she has heard about some of the quality-of-service issues I have had to raise previously.

By way of background, I should say that my constituency has four rail stations on the great eastern main line, which very much parallels the A12 through my constituency. The main stations, from west to east, are Hatfield Peverel, Witham, Kelvedon and Marks Tey. Marks Tey may be familiar to some Members, because it is at the junction with the Sudbury line, which crosses into Suffolk. There was a serious derailment there in August when a train collided with a sewage tanker. Witham is at the junction of the Witham to Braintree branch line. These are incredibly busy junctions, and total annual passenger usage for the four stations is close to 4 million.

The great eastern main line is a busy line. A lot of commuters travel to London, which takes under an hour, given London’s accessibility. As a result of its close proximity to London, my constituency has boomed, and that is also true of its housing developments. My constituency is very attractive for professionals working in London, particularly in the City and in Docklands.

Given the high fares that they pay, local commuters genuinely expect a good-quality service on their journeys and a good overall commuter experience. Let’s face it, a commuter paying a lot of money each day will want a reasonably pleasant journey. On that point, I should pay tribute to the Braintree and Witham rail users group and the Kelvedon rail users group, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) would want to do so, too. Over the years, both groups have relentlessly fought on behalf of rail users on issues such as poor-quality train stations, the lack of ticket office staff, overcrowding, access to train stations and fares, which are going up constantly.

I want to draw a number of issues to the Minister’s attention. They relate predominantly to the Marks Tey train station and the new timetable that comes in from December, as well as to customer satisfaction levels and performance across the board, which I have touched on.

On customer satisfaction, a recent study highlighted the poor record of National Express in running train services in a reliable and punctual manner. Only 62% of National Express East Anglia passengers arrive in London on time and just 48% of those travelling from London arrive on time. The Minister will be aware that National Express has the second lowest customer satisfaction levels of any train operator in the country. The number of complaints it receives has soared, while the number of answers it supplies within 20 working days continues to fall. I get complaints from constituents about that. The situation is unacceptable, and constituents and commuters who use these services deserve better.

These matters need to be addressed, and I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister that many of them will be raised as and when the discussions on the franchising arrangements take place. Frankly, if National Express cannot provide the service that my constituents expect, local people would obviously welcome a new operator taking over. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet later this month with one of my constituents, the chairman of the Kelvedon rail users group, Mr Mark Leslie, who has many issues to raise.

On poor performance, I have touched on satisfaction and punctuality, and I want now to move on to Marks Tey station. The Minister is well versed in what has happened and she is already aware of the appalling way in which National Express has handled the £2.4 million of taxpayers’ money that has been spent through the national station improvement programme. Network Rail described the development as a “programme of investment” that

“will give passengers what they want”.

Despite the promises of new facilities, however, there is a major issue.

One gentleman, local business man entrepreneur Mr Nigel Clark, who runs his business out of Marks Tey station, has been treated very badly during planning for the redevelopment of the station. He has been a stalwart of passengers at the station. Every day over the past decade, in all weather conditions, he has served commuters their morning coffees and newspapers from a stall on the platform. Since the plans were put together, however, he has effectively been made homeless.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Although few people in Brigg and Goole probably use the National Express East Anglia route, the quality of our stations is important. Some train operating companies have told me that if franchises lasted longer, companies could plan investment in stations much more and possibly increase it much more. Perhaps the Minister can address that when she responds.

[Priti Patel]

That is a timely intervention. The development at Mark Tey station has come together quickly, and there was no local consultation. I presented the Minister with a petition bearing the signatures of more than 700 local commuters who were very distressed that Mr Clark’s service is being taken away from the station, but National Express completely ignored their views and those of Mr Clark. Planning and timing are important; as I said, however, the development has come together very quickly in Marks Tey. The frustrating aspect of the plans is that they made provision only for a “retail outlet” in the ticket office. That would then be offered to Mr Clark. I say retail outlet in inverted commas, because Mr Clark’s business is a stall.

The only reason why National Express was willing to take any representations on board was that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made persistent representations to secure Mr Clark’s business in some shape or form. The Minister may be interested to hear that I have had a letter from National Express today saying that it has had positive engagement with Mr Clark, will take the dialogue on board and will secure a facility for him. Alas, I have also heard today from Mr Clark. He was told that he would have a new stand, but it was too small and inadequate to function on the platform, so it has been removed and put in the car park. Mr Clark is losing business because nobody comes through the car park in the morning to buy coffee and newspapers. Mr Clark needs to be on the station platform.

The poor performance of National Express really is in another realm. There has been no full consultation. Local passengers have been ignored. Mr Clark has been treated appallingly. The premise that National Express used in the consultation was based on some kind of national passenger survey results from Passenger Focus, which, for the record, is a quango receiving £7 million of public money. Given that we are spending vast sums of public money and that our policy is very much about localism and giving people the chance to have a say—that brings in issues of accountability and transparency in public spending—we should have had much more accountability and engagement.

I ask the Minister to review in full the details of the way in which National Express has performed in relation to Marks Tey. I would very much like a response from Passenger Focus. I wrote to the chief executive two months ago, but I have yet to receive a response about the background to the dialogue that has gone on. I have asked for the full evidence base for the decisions that have been taken. I would be grateful if the Minister informed me when all the contracts for the project were signed. It seems to have come together very quickly. I would welcome a reassurance that she will look again at Mr Clark’s situation and see whether there is any way to guarantee his future.

Another example of poor performance by National Express is in the consultation of commuters about timetable changes. Following the comprehensive spending review and the introduction of the retail price index plus 3% fare formula, commuters will pay significantly more for their tickets. Yet commuters using Kelvedon, who currently pay more than £3,500 for their season tickets, will lose a service in the new timetable, from December. The 18.38 from Liverpool Street will no longer stop there. That is more than inconvenient for hard-pressed commuters, who want to get home to be with their families, because the next train is not until 19.08. One of my constituents who contacted National Express was told that no alterations would be considered, and despite a request for an explanation for the changes, none has been forthcoming. Likewise, the 6.27 service from Witham to London will be lost. In both cases, commuters feel they will simply be paying more money for a reduced service. I trust that the Minister will help my constituents to obtain the explanations from National Express that have been denied them.

I know the Minister is considering and reviewing the franchising process, and that the Greater Anglia franchise is likely to be the first to be put out to tender, under new arrangements. I hope the Minister will take seriously many of the points I have made, and the views of my constituents—she will meet the Kelvedon rail user group later in the month—and reflect on them as part of the franchise review and the Greater Anglia tendering process. I welcome her attention and thank her for coming to the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The hon. Lady has considerable knowledge of transport issues as a result of her role on the Transport Committee, and I think she understands that what the Government are doing is freeing up local councils to spend their own money rather than determining the number of grant streams centrally. There have been 26 grant streams for transport funding for local authorities, but that will be reduced to four. That will enable local authorities to prioritise matters in their own areas, as they should do as democratically elected bodies.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The A160 scheme has enjoyed the support of local government in north Lincolnshire, but it has now been delayed until 2015. Will the Minister meet me and a cross-party delegation of local MPs to discuss this important scheme in more detail?

[Norman Baker]

It is my practice always to accede to requests for meetings from Members of Parliament, so I will ask my office to fix that up.

Transport (Investment)

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

To clarify, the scheme to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is one in the pool of projects submitted to the Department before the cut-off date that we announced in June, but it has not yet been appraised by the Department. The Department will now make a rapid assessment of the scheme—the right hon. Gentleman asserts that it is extremely high value for money, but I can tell him that the promoter of every single scheme that I have come across asserts that their scheme is high value for money. A number of these schemes will then be accelerated into the development pool so that we can do further work on them with the promoters during 2011 with a view to allocating funding at the end of 2011. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), that if a rail scheme is not successful in this funding process, it will of course be possible for it to be put forward as a proposal for the next control period of Network Rail’s capital enhancement settlement.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

For years, Yorkshire and the Humber has had some of the lowest per capita transport funding in the country, so I welcome the investment in Yorkshire and the Humber today and specifically the two schemes in the Humber area—the A63 Castle street and the A161—that are likely candidates for funding into the future. May I ask the Secretary of State whether he will take into account when making a final decision the massive investment that is going into the ports on both the north and south banks of the Humber? Will he also give us any further details of when a final decision will be taken on whether those schemes will be funded?

[Mr Hammond]

Transport funding in Yorkshire and the Humber is now about average, although I accept the comments that my hon. Friend has made about historical levels of funding. The two schemes to which he referred will not be funded during the current spending review period but they will continue to be worked on as schemes for funding in a future spending review period, as and when funding becomes available. The appraisal model that the Department uses will take account of the effects that he talks about and the external benefits that can be delivered.

New Roads (Adoption)

Andrew Percy Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

If the street has not been adopted, the responsibility for maintenance rests with the owner or, more usually, the frontages—the owners of the properties that front on to or abut the streets concerned. Those purchasing a property in an unadopted street should be advised of its status and the implications by their solicitor. I fear that in all too many cases people who purchase properties in unadopted streets are not being advised of the potential liability that they face. My first request tonight to those on the Treasury Bench would be to look at ways in which the estate agents code or the solicitors code could be revised so that purchasers of property in such roads are advised of their potential liabilities. I know that that is not the direct responsibility of the Minister who is being kind enough to reply to the debate, but I would be grateful if he passed it on to the relevant Minister or Ministers with responsibility.

This issue is important for places such as Kettering, because we are experiencing rapid housing growth. Under the present housing targets—they could be revised, and I hope that they are—the number of houses in my constituency is set to increase from 36,000 at present to 49,000 by 2021. That is an increase of one third. Potentially, in the next 11 years, one third of the residential roads in my constituency could be unadopted.

If a road is not adopted, there are lots of potential problems. For a start, almost by definition, the standard of the road surface and the pavement treatment are not up to the requisite Highways Authority standard. In the sort of estates concerned, the size of the kerb between the pavement and the road surface is often far bigger than normal, and represents a major trip hazard, especially for elderly residents, and many difficulties for young mums with pushchairs. I have had representations from local residents of Mawsley, a village in my constituency, on that very issue.

Developers are also responsible for the street lighting in those roads until they are handed over, and it is often substandard. Other issues include local authority access. There are places where local authorities will not send in rubbish carts to collect rubbish because of the lack of suitable access. Furthermore, speeding and parking enforcement cannot take place because the roads are not adopted. The Poppy Fields development in Kettering, close to Kettering general hospital, frequently experiences nuisance parking, but the county and borough councils can do nothing to address it. They cannot put in yellow lines or residents’ parking, because the highway is not adopted and is therefore not the responsibility of either local authority.

When I looked into this issue, I was staggered to learn that the Government have no idea how many unadopted roads there are in this country. I pointed this out to the Minister’s predecessor and he did not seem very concerned. However, I am hugely concerned, because the available figures suggest that there are some 40,000 unadopted roads with a total length of 4,000 miles. However, those statistics come from 1972, and no attempt has since been made to revise them. One of my requests to a previous Transport Minister was that the Government try to collect more up-to-date data on the extent of the problem, and I pass that request on to the new Transport Minister. I would think that a basic requirement to establish the full extent of the problem.

The difficulty is that there is in law no effective mechanism for the local highways authorities to force developers to get the roads up to the requisite standard so that they can be handed over to public authorities for adoption. Various mechanisms are in place, but when it comes to the crunch, they are effectively toothless. The main problem is section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. Following the debate I secured on this subject, with the permission of the Speaker, on 11 November last year, a previous Transport Minister made one concession: I could meet his officials to talk about the matter. I am pleased to say that, after much effort on my part to hold him to that kind offer, a meeting took place in March this year.

I and senior representatives from Kettering borough council and Northamptonshire county council met in the Department for Transport with some extremely helpful officials, and we made quite a lot of progress. A number of suggestions were made, not least that we find out the extent of the problem around the country. I am pleased to say that Northamptonshire county council contacted its colleagues around the country and was overwhelmed by the response. I shall read out some of those responses. Hampshire country council said:

“We have had our fair share too”.

Staffordshire county council said:

“We certainly had issues with developments where progress has been slow and sewers hadn’t been adopted.”

Worcestershire county council said:

“This as you would expect is also a fairly major irritation in Worcestershire.”

Devonshire county council said:

“I can confirm that we certainly have such problems in Devon, most notably relating to delayed adoption of sewers”.

Hertfordshire country council said:

“Very much an issue here in Herts.”

Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) is very concerned about this issue, and is also seeking to get involved with it.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is listing the areas of the country where this is a concern, but he has not mentioned—he might not know about it, of course—the situation in the East Riding of Yorkshire, in my constituency, particularly in Hook and the small town of Snaith, where there are several examples of developments where this has happened. This is, indeed, a national problem. As he has intimated, people look to their local authorities for support on this matter, and they ask, “Why are we continuing to pay council tax when we are not getting the same access to services as other council tax payers?” The local authorities are in a difficult position, and this is a big issue in the East Riding of Yorkshire and throughout my constituency. As he said, we need national and Government leadership, because it is not acceptable for his and my constituents to be left in limbo as they are now.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend is spot on. He is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for adding the East Riding of Yorkshire to my list. If he will encourage his colleagues there to reply to Tony Ciaburro at Northamptonshire county council, we can complete this list and send it to the Government. That was a most helpful intervention.

I shall continue with the list. Lincolnshire county council said:

“We have had some problems over the years.”

Dorset county council said:

“Confirm this is an issue in Dorset”.

Northumberland county council said:

“NCC and most other Highway Authorities experience exactly the same difficulties.”

Essex county council said that

“we certainly have our fair share of these in Essex.”

Cambridgeshire county council said:

“It is certainly a problem in Cambridgeshire.”

Derbyshire county council said:

“The Highways Act is out of date.”

Staffordshire county council said:

“Similar problems in Staffs together with another issue related to roads constructed by developers that are not intended for adoption.”

Wiltshire county council said:

“Wiltshire certainly has its share of problems.”

Oxfordshire county council said:

“I agree that the legislation as currently set out is well out of date and needs to be re-written”.

Flintshire county council said:

“The problem with unadopted roads that you have highlighted are being experienced throughout Wales…Winter maintenance was a major issue on these roads this last winter, particularly on parts of housing estates which appear to be completed but weren’t obviously adopted.”

That last point is very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I begin by congratulating my coalition colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), on securing his second Adjournment debate on this issue and on providing the House with a further opportunity for debate. I also thank him for the very positive way in which he has progressed this matter. I know that he raised it with my predecessors, as he mentioned, and that he has had the opportunity, along with representatives of the local district and county councils, to discuss his concerns in more depth with Department for Transport officials, to which he also referred in his contribution. I think he is right to pursue this matter, as are the other Members who intervened on him. Indeed, I might add, from a local perspective, that I am aware of a similar issue in my constituency at a street called August Fields in Newhaven. I thus have some sympathy with the points that my hon. Friend raises. We at the Department for Transport expect all property developers to build roads to a high standard, so that they are ready for adoption by the local highways authorities as a matter of normal practice. However, I recognise that that is not always the case, as my hon. Friend highlighted.

It may help if I begin by outlining the powers that are currently available to local councils to ensure that new streets are built to a decent standard, and the two mechanisms by which those streets, once finished, can be adopted by the highways authority. I will then go on to discuss the concerns raised about the effectiveness or otherwise of these mechanisms.

The uses of planning conditions are set out in planning circular 11/95, to which my hon. Friend also referred. It states that the local planning authorities may impose conditions regulating the development or use of land under the control of the applicant, even if it is outside the site that is the subject of the application. Conditions should normally be consistent with national planning policies as expressed in Government circulars and planning framework documents. They should also normally accord with the provisions of development plans and other policies of local planning authorities. However, it is still necessary to consider whether a condition is justified in the particular circumstances of the proposed development.

In general, conditions that duplicate the effect of other legislation should not be imposed. It is for the local planning authority in the first instance to judge, on the facts of the case, whether a particular development proposal should be approved, subject to planning conditions. Reasons must be given for the imposition of every condition. Reasons such as “to comply with the policies of the council”, “to secure the proper planning of the area” or “to maintain control over the development” are vague, and can suggest that the condition in question has no proper justification. Successful challenges in the past might have been due in part to lax phrasing of conditions.

On a number of occasions, the courts have laid down the general criteria for the validity of planning conditions. In brief, these explain that conditions should be necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. Of those six, I feel that my hon. Friend will be most interested in the fourth—enforcement. A condition should not be imposed if it cannot be enforced. There are two provisions that authorities may use to enforce conditions: an enforcement notice under section 172 of the Act, or a breach of condition notice under section 187A.

Given the above, it would be possible for local planning authorities to devise and agree with the developer through the pre-application negotiations, a suitable condition to ensure that those roads that will service the new development are brought up to the adoptable standard. I understand that, in some cases, this period of time may stretch over a number of years, especially in phased developments. People have, of course, moved into their houses in the meantime, and we may find occurring some of the problems to which my hon. Friend referred—lighting not working at that point, rubbish not being collected, and so on.

[Andrew Percy]

All that is fine and good, but part of the problem is that when some of these developments are constructed, the builder can go bankrupt or disappear, leading to an utter lack of understanding of who is then responsible—and local authorities find themselves constantly in the middle. As I say, it is when builders go bust that the real problems develop.

[Norman Baker]

I entirely understand that point and the frustration felt by some Members, but I urge my hon. Friend to be patient: there may be some better news in a few moments.

I understand that in some cases the period involved may stretch over a number of years, but circular 11/95 states that conditions may be imposed to ensure that development proceeds in a certain sequence when some circumstance of the case—for example, the manner of provision of infrastructure—makes that necessary.

The authority can require a developer who is building a new property on a private street to enter into the advance payment code agreement mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering. That means that the developer must deposit the money required to make up the street to the required standard. The amount is paid by the developer and put into a segregated account. After the building has been completed, the money, including any interest, is used to make up the street, any difference being the responsibility of the frontagers. I accept that that is not a perfect solution.

Alternatively, the developer can enter into a legally binding agreement with the authority to build the street to the required standard. In return, the authority will agree to adopt the road once it is finished. That is known as a section 38 agreement under the Highways Act 1980. Once the street has been finished, the authority will inspect it to ensure that it has been built to the standard that has been agreed to. If that is the case—or when the developer has made good any deficiencies—the authority will adopt the road. That guarantees to anyone who purchases property on a development that the road will be finished to an acceptable standard, and that they will not be liable for any future charges.

Those mechanisms give highways authorities the necessary tools both to manage the development and adoption of new roads and to reassure property owners that the road in question will be maintained by the highways authority. They also protect council tax payers. Authorities have no liability to pay for the uplift of poorly built roads from the public purse, as it would not be fair for council tax payers to subsidise new developments in that way. Highways authorities are among the statutory bodies that should be consulted about planning applications by the planning authority; in areas where there are two tiers of local government, the same council is obviously not involved. That provides an opportunity to ask for planning conditions to be made, or to allow the highways authority itself to enter into an agreement with the developer under section 38 of the Highways Act for the adoption of the highway at a future date.

It is currently for highways authorities to decide how to use those powers, as they are best able to judge local needs. Not every street will need to be adopted, as some property owners will want to reside in a private street. The highways authority should consider both their needs and any issues created by the type of development on a case-by-case basis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering referred to the number of unadopted roads. Of course it is important for the Government to be aware of the scale and nature of public policy questions in this area. I, for one, accept that the views that have been expressed by Members this evening could be expressed by other Members, because the problems affect constituencies throughout the country. As my hon. Friend suggested, there are about 40,000 unadopted roads in the UK, according to a 1972 survey. I am afraid that there are no more up-to-date figures. However, knowing the number of unadopted roads would not really provide the context, because the vast majority—farm tracks, private estates, service roads and so on—are not really relevant to the issues in question, and it is not necessarily sensible to spend scarce public money on gathering information unnecessarily.

The people who know their areas best are members of local authorities and, of course, Members of Parliament. We greatly appreciate the work that local authorities and Members have done to bring particular problems to our attention and to gather other views and suggestions from around the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering has done so ably. The Department has acted on that information. Since the last debate, my officials have met representatives of Northamptonshire and Kettering local authorities to discuss further the points raised today, as such fast-growing areas are the most likely to have to manage issues of this kind.

The Planning Inspectorate provides model conditions to support local authorities in relation to issues that have been identified as problematic. It is in the process of developing a model condition—this was one of the requests made by my hon. Friend—to assist with the problems raised by Kettering. Local authorities will, of course, need to consider carefully the wording of any such condition to ensure that it suits the particular case, and to provide a clear and robust reason for its use in that instance. However, I hope that my hon. Friend considers that to be a move in the right direction.

We are working closely with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government in considering ways of helping local authorities who are struggling with this problem, and both Departments are in correspondence with Kettering. We are open to practical proposals from authorities such as Northamptonshire and Kettering on how the existing mechanisms can be made to work better. I would welcome any comments from any other Members, or from any other authorities anywhere in the country that wish to contribute to the process.

In exploring solutions to this issue, I am happy to say that I have today asked my officials to consider, with their Department for Communities and Local Government colleagues, options for legislation, including empowering local authorities to require developers to enter into section 38 agreements. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with local authorities and to support them in developing solutions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering talked about the fact that some people who purchase properties are unaware of the status of the road. I am advised that householders have some redress against solicitors who have not undertaken full and proper searches. Such action can be enforced through the Law Society. I am also advised that the estate agents’ code of practice, although voluntary, is usually followed and that they should be expected to provide information to property purchasers in that situation.

I recognise that this is an important issue. I want streets, when they are developed, to be adopted by the relevant highways authority if that is what is right for the street in question, as it usually will be. Good developers will build streets to a standard that authorities can adopt, thereby transferring the responsibility for maintenance away from property owners. I would like that practice to become commonplace, but I also understand that a small number of developers will not build to that standard without local authority intervention. I am, therefore, as I have said, open to practical suggestions as long as they would place the cost on the appropriate people and could be implemented quickly so that authorities can better manage the situation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on raising this relevant issue. There is considerable force behind his arguments and I hope that the steps I have taken in the short time I have been in office will help to bring about a solution that will render some of these problems redundant.

Question put and agreed to.