Dog Fouling

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Anne Main

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Main]

I do. That is why I said that the approach of saying, “There are eyes watching you” does work. However, if someone is out walking their dog, do they want the grief of watching a person’s dog foul, going to find a ranger—assuming they know where he is—and having the argument about whether it was that dog, given that the owner has walked off by that point? The situation is difficult, which is why we need a multi-strand approach.

I am not coming up with answers, but some suggestions: better signage, better placed bins, and a country code that says, “If you are here, this may be the appropriate thing to do. But if there are no bins, it would be inappropriate to bag.” We should get a set of graphics, which should be printed on dog poo bags to reinforce the message. There should be a dog poo bag code of disposal, a bit like for packets of cigarettes.

Dog poo bags are what plastic bags were yesterday. Given the number of pets in this country, I suggest that dog poo bags are as big an environmental problem as we had with people using disposable plastic bags from supermarkets. People use sandwich bags and all sorts, which flutter into waterways and float down into drains. We need to tackle that now and get a grip on it.

I would look at “The Countryside Code”. On farmland, I completely accept, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, that the NFU is opposed to dog poo being left in rural areas because of the risk posed to the health of cattle and sheep, which may eat the poo. We are back to the educative approach: the NFU has called for posters to be displayed in farmland areas to raise awareness of the problem and for a change to the “Scottish Outdoor Access Code”—I know this is a devolved matter, but it is worth looking at that—to explain the risks posed to cattle more clearly.

The NFU said that there has been an increase in cases of the disease Neospora, which can be spread by dogs that have eaten infected material from cattle, such as placentas from newly calved cows, and then through dog faeces. The parasite survives for several months and can contaminate the pasture and water supplies. I suggest that while that may have increased, that is one part of the entire problem that needs to be taken into account in the broad brush approach.

Of course, not all farmland has livestock on it, so we need to work with landowners to come up with signage to reflect the local disposal need. Improved signage should appear in lay-bys close to footpaths that cross farmland. People park up in lay-bys and ramble across farmland, where there will not be any bins, guidance or signage. Perhaps where the sign for the parking lay-by is could be an appropriate point to have a small graphic showing dog walkers how to deal with dog poo.

Finally, I know there have been suggestions about DNA testing. That theory has gained a lot of coverage in the media, being viewed by some as a silver bullet to the problems of dog fouling. However, to operate a successful DNA scheme, we would need all dog owners to volunteer to register their dog on a database. Then, using DNA technology, we would be able to trace exactly which dog had committed an offence.

There are fundamental flaws to that initiative at the present time. The major groups involved are not supportive and the scheme would come at considerable cost to local authorities in creating and filling a DNA register as well as carrying out the tests on the offending poo. As I said, we have abandoned the registering of dog fouling incidents; that process would be hugely costly and would not tackle the problem. We would need armies of people to police it. Improved signage should appear in lay-bys and close to footpaths—that would be more helpful. We have to get the public educated so that they feel that not dealing properly with dog fouling is as antisocial as smoking in public places.

I also see an issue in that the type of person who would allow their dog to foul would not register their dog on a DNA register anyway. We therefore need to tackle this problem with awareness and education. The Government have recently announced that they will come up with a new litter strategy. Since dog poo counts as refuse, it would be excellent if the work could incorporate that.

I have been told that I need to tell the Minister that he needs a PPS—a pragmatic poo strategy. I suggest that a pragmatic poo strategy would recognise both the failings of human nature and the need to enjoy the family walk and do the right thing. I look forward to hearing his comments. Hopefully, when he comes up with his new litter strategy, there will be input from landowners, councils, dog walkers, dogs trusts, forestry commissions and all those bodies who experience this problem and seek to encourage the public not to keep creating a mountain of refuse in our wildlife areas.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate can last until 5.30 pm. I call Teresa Pearce.

Backbench Business

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Anne Main

Thursday 8th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

There is no greater expert on African affairs in the House than my hon. Friend, so I am grateful that he has secured the debate. Is he worried, as I am, that Her Majesty’s Government may be underestimating the extent to which the elephant population is declining? In a Government answer on 1 November—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. We must keep interventions short. A lot of people want to speak.

Benefits (EU Nationals)

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Anne Main

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I will touch only on some of the benefits, but the actual list is almost endless. We cannot delude ourselves and think that people will not know about the loopholes or the benefit pots. According to Martin Beckford and Matthew Day, writing in The Daily Telegraph in November 2008, jobcentre staff in Poland encouraged returning migrants in Poland to continue to claim jobseeker's allowance from Britain, rather than sign on for Polish unemployment benefit, which pays much lower amounts. A quick trawl on the internet shows how EU migrants can get a myriad of advice on how to claim a range of our benefits. We must be under no illusions. We are seen as a soft touch, and we will be exploited by those who have the full might of EU law behind them.

Perversely, we are expecting our own citizens to bite the bullet on cuts in order to help slash the massive budget deficit, yet at the same time we are widening the pool of foreign EU families who are eligible to make a claim from the UK benefit pot. What we save in one corner we pay out in another. Benefit payments to newcomers from eastern Europe and other parts of the EU are not specifically recorded by the Department for Work and Pensions, but unofficial estimates put the bill at a very conservative £200 million a year—that probably does not include the NHS—and growing. Teasing out firm data on this has been difficult. In a series of questions, I have been told by the DWP that the data are not recorded or are not available due to cost. However, I was pleased to be assured by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on 20 June that he has commissioned his officials to look at alternative ways of making the information available.

The child benefit bombshell has been widely covered in the media from The Daily Telegraph to the tabloids. I find it hard to look ordinary middle-class families in the eye, particularly families with a mum who stays at home, and say, “Apparently, you are so wealthy with one of you earning just more than £44,000, you must give up your child benefit so that a family in Poland, and ultimately Bulgaria, Romania or wherever within the EU, can claim it for children who do not even live here.” They are furious and so am I. It is estimated that 1.2 million British families will lose out under the new benefit rules. I am not happy that we are looking at this issue in this way.

Although in theory there is reciprocation, other EU countries have far lower benefit rates, and many EU countries also have tougher qualification rules. All those EU countries have some form of family allowance. If children qualify for benefits in their own country, why should our taxpayers be expected to support them? If we could afford it, I would rather that every family in Britain had child benefit as a right that was not means-tested—as used to be the case—instead of rationing it, especially since it now appears that any money that is saved is then swallowed up in our burgeoning welfare bill, which must include payments for EU children and families who do not even live here. If we are expected to make cuts, I want to cut back on this scam, which takes the UK taxpayer for a fool.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent speech. I do not believe in the free movement of labour across the EU. However, if we are to have this system and if we are to have reciprocity between nations, would it not make sense that, when someone moves from Poland to this country, they should be entitled to receive the same child benefit that they would get in Poland? In other words, they should receive the rate of benefit that they would receive in their home country. That way, we would have reciprocity across the EU, but we would not have to shell out billions to other EU nationals.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend has anticipated my next point, but I think that he will be shocked at what he will hear. The figures speak for themselves. I have taken the case of one three-year-old child, because I know that there are various rules and regulations, depending on whether a child has a disability and so on. In the UK, child benefit for one three-year-old child is £87.97; in Poland, it is £14.99; in Bulgaria, it is £15.87; and in Romania, it is £8.67. Those are the equivalent figures for euros at today’s rate. We should ask ourselves, “If you could claim at a higher UK level, why wouldn’t you?”

Hon. Members might be surprised to learn that we are not only paying child benefit here, at our rate, if an EU worker is eligible to claim it, but apparently we are also topping up dependants in countries whose largesse does not meet the standards of our own largesse. We should be asking ourselves, “Why are we paying top-ups to less generous countries where the level of child benefit has obviously been set at one that the country deems acceptable?” When conducting research for this debate, I was staggered to be told only yesterday by the international child benefit team, which is part of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, that the rules allow for top-ups to be claimed to top up lower rates elsewhere. So, when one EU migrant worker is in the UK with a spouse working in their country of origin, such as Poland, and with their children receiving that country’s child benefit, we will top it up to the level of UK child benefit. That is madness.

Loopholes exist in the current benefits system to such an extent that EU migrants can always find a way around the system, if they are resourceful. As has been reported widely in the Daily Express and other newspapers, by declaring themselves self-employed Bulgarians and Romanians get around our weak transitional arrangements on restricting access to the labour market simply by selling The Big Issue and paying a nominal contribution of £2.50 in national insurance per week, which then opens up a lucrative stream of other benefits. The TaxPayers Alliance has described that system as a scam, and it is right to do so. We are the politicians; what are we going to do about this situation? It is a ridiculous state of affairs that I believe will foster social unrest, discrimination and most importantly resentment.

I know that fairness works both ways. The fact that so many newspaper editorials are addressing this thorny issue shows the depth of public concern, and I pay tribute to those newspapers and urge them to keep up the pressure. With their help, we can hopefully give Britain a strong voice when we stand up to this nonsense.

Let us not forget that we have the poor, the young and the elderly living in increasing poverty in our own country. According to the Poverty Site, some 13.5 million people in the UK—around a fifth of the population—exist on or below the poverty line, and yet we are rationing money to send it to even poorer citizens elsewhere in the EU. Sadly, poverty is always relative, and so our citizens will lose out.

A staggering case of opportunistic lifestyle enhancement was recently reported in The Economist under the headline, “Keeping the coffers shut”. The Economist reported how Galina Patmalniece came to Britain after 40 years working in Latvia’s factories and kitchens with only her Latvian state pension to support her, which was as little as £50 a month. She applied in the UK for a means-tested pension top-up of £133 for a single person. She was denied that top-up, but meanwhile she got council housing. To cut a long story short, she appealed to the Court of Appeal, which said that the Government were entitled to withhold benefit. The basic issue at stake was whether the conditions that Britain imposes for giving out pensions were compatible with the rule of EU law, which prevents discrimination on grounds of nationality. Broadly speaking, an EU national must be able to support themselves, so with no family or work and only her Latvian pension to support her, Ms Patmalniece had no right to reside here, although we made no effort to deport her. It is a common theme that Britain does not remove EU migrants who cannot support themselves, even though we are allowed to do so.

On 8 March this year, the Supreme Court found in the case of Ms Patmalniece that the British requirements amounted only to indirect discrimination. A majority of the Supreme Court judges agreed that our approach was reasonable. However, the European Commission might decide that it wishes to challenge that ruling and bring an infringement action against Britain in the European Court of Justice. The Commission has already written to our Government expressing unhappiness about our approach in this case as well as about other restrictions on the access of EU nationals to benefits. I believe that that letter has been described as being of quite a threatening nature. Will the Minister update us on that case? I believe that Britain will be firmly behind him in resisting dishing out benefit payments to EU migrants such as Ms Patmalniece.

I am sure that my constituents and hon. Members here in Westminster Hall today have read with interest articles in the Daily Mail and other newspapers covering the Dutch approach to pulling up the drawbridge on workless and benefit migrants amid angry allegations that labour migrants in the Netherlands are abusing the benefits system. In many countries, there is a rising tide of disquiet over EU migrant tourism. I hope that the Minister takes note and joins Holland in saying no to this sloppy and misplaced altruism. If that sentiment catches on across Europe, perhaps a bit of collective common sense will prevail.

Our national autonomy is being eroded by the EU, which must stop. There is an old adage that good fences make for good neighbours. How much more important is it for us to reclaim our boundaries and our borders? Tackling this benefits time bomb must now be a priority for the Government. There is no Government money, only taxpayers’ money, so give us back our say over how we spend taxpayers’ money, whom we can help and how we can do it. I am sick of having to find wriggle room within regulations that we find incomprehensible and that disadvantage ordinary hard-working families in the UK, who pay their taxes to fund services in this country and not to dish out benefits to some cash-strapped EU member country that has its hand out.

I know that I have given the Minister a lot to think about today and I am happy for him to write to me about any of the issues that I have raised. However, I want to hear that the Government are stiffening their resolve to tackle this problem, which I believe will only get worse and worse.

European Union Bill

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Anne Main

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hollobone]

That was an interesting intervention. I am certainly of the view, as are many of my constituents, that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend for his efforts at that time and to all those in the Eurosceptic movement who made sure that Tony Blair did not go as far as he might have.

[Mrs Main]

Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am to hear the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) say that the Opposition Benches are virtually empty because there is no interest in this matter, even though it crosses so many issues in our everyday lives?

[Mr Hollobone]

I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. This shows the tragedy of what has been happening since 1997. There has been huge disinterest in matters European from Labour Members both when they were in government and now they are in opposition. That is why there was a massive loss of sovereignty to Brussels over the Blair and Brown years.

I am going to support the Bill. I supported it on Second Reading and I will happily vote for it on Third Reading, because it provides the referendum lock that the British people want. The purpose of new clause 11 is to strengthen that referendum lock so that no future Government would dare to propose a transfer of power that they thought they might have the slightest chance of losing. That entrenches the little bit of sovereignty that we have left. If Her Majesty’s Government stood back and thought about this, they would welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough’s proposal and agree to the new clause without the need for a Division.

[Mrs Main]

I shall speak for just a few minutes on this particularly interesting clause, which I support. I should like to make a big apology to the Whips; I am sure that the eye-rolling and head-banging has gone on already, because they see the usual suspects rising to speak on this matter, but I think that it is important. I know that rather a tortuous device was used to get it debated today and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for his ingenuity.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that the measure would somehow negate the referendum lock. Let me put that on its head: if we were to have a referendum about a significant transfer of powers and the public said no, where would that leave us? We would be standing alone saying no. It would be quite logical to go on and say, “We have been hearing grumbles over the years about your unhappiness”—for 19 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has pointed out—“over bits and pieces of legislation that you believe have come from Europe and may have impacted negatively, let’s have an open debate about it and have a referendum on whether we should be in or out.”

I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who spoke very eloquently. As I said in an intervention earlier, an in/out vote would not be a foregone conclusion. Indeed, I would look forward to a robust debate airing the positive aspects. Perhaps we could look forward to people being persuaded, despite some misgivings about whether or not we should give prisoners the vote, which we will debate next week, or whether they agree with human rights legislation being imposed on us from Europe—I believe that we were somewhat opposed to that in our manifesto—

New Roads (Hertfordshire)

Debate between Philip Hollobone and Anne Main

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is good to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Benton. The debate is about the adoption of roads in Hertfordshire, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), who is in the Chamber, has also had an important debate. Highways adoption is a pressing concern countrywide, and its importance is signified by the fact that this is the second such debate in this Parliament alone. My hon. Friend also raised the issue in the previous Parliament, and I pay tribute to him for his tenacity. We both cried “Snap!” when we got back to the House and saw that we were trying to secure a debate on the same topic.

I thank the Minister for his considered replies to my hon. Friend’s debate on 10 June. I wish to pick up where my hon. Friend left off and to have second stab at the issue, which I hope to move forward even more. I noted with interest the Minister’s comments about the current position and the measures that are in place, but I hope that he will be able to update us on his thoughts and give us some hope of a speedy resolution.

Unadopted roads—particularly residential roads—are a particular issue in Hertfordshire, where we have experienced a large amount of development. Up-to-date information about the scale of the problem is not available, but it is estimated that 40,000 roads in England and Wales are unadopted. I am not particularly concerned about farm tracks or roads that residents wish to keep unadopted; I am talking about the tens of thousands of roads on new residential developments. Let me make it clear that when I say “new” I do not mean brand-new, but relatively new.

Worryingly, residents are frequently unaware of the status of their road until they try to consult their council about a problem. As we know, some roads have been unadopted for 10 years or more. The people who live on them often struggle to access public services and to meet the maintenance costs for which they are personally liable. More importantly, these roads materially inconvenience residents, creating an unfair situation in which householders pay significant amounts of council tax for services that they do not receive.

Hertfordshire contains significant areas of green belt. In areas such as my constituency, the focus has understandably been on the usage of brownfield sites for new development. One such site is the old City hospital site, where there is a problem with unadopted roads. That was highlighted to me when I talked to residents over the campaign period. They are frustrated that people visiting the current City hospital park on their roads to avoid the hospital’s car-parking charges. They are powerless to combat the problem because the local authority cannot do anything about rogue parkers. Children who live in these roads are also put at risk by the increased volume of traffic outside their homes. Furthermore, hospital visitors avoid paying parking fees, and local authorities, which raise significant amounts from legitimate parking schemes and city centre car parks, will be keen to see roads formally adopted and brought under proper control. Most of St Albans has a residents’ parking zone, so something surely needs to be done to protect residents who are affected by the blight that I have described.

It can be difficult living on an unadopted road. Street lights might go out, but no one will repair them. Vehicles can be dumped, but the police can do nothing. People use the busy roads as a car park, but there are no parking attendants. Residents cannot get parking permits, zones or controlling. Importantly, dangerous pavements also go unrepaired. Unadopted highways can lead to issues with maintenance, street cleaning, lack of pedestrian facilities, lighting and drainage. As time goes by, such issues make it harder for those living in the road to sell their properties.

Speeding is an even greater concern. For safety reasons, St Albans wishes to adopt a “20’s Plenty” city centre speed limit, but some city centre roads in new developments are not adopted, so the speed limit is not enforceable. The issue came up on the doorsteps. People are puzzled as to why recently constructed roads, which often look superior to the potholed roads that we are famous for in Hertfordshire, are not formally adopted.

I called the debate because my council wants action. Hertfordshire recognises that we in Parliament need to help it. Indeed, in 2009, Herts county council highways and transport cabinet panel formally recommended actively involving MPs, with the aim of exploring the possibility of altering legislation to address the problem. In many areas in my constituency where new housing developments have been built, the local authority has subsequently failed to adopt the roads. I have consulted Herts county council, which shares local people’s frustration about unadopted roads, but it is often frustrated by the limited mechanisms available to it to tackle the issue. There has been concern, and people have voiced the belief, that local authorities may not wish to adopt roads for reasons of their own, but Herts assures me that that is not the case.

One issue that has been raised with me over the years is that people buying a property are assured that the road is being considered for adoption. I know that this is a case of caveat emptor, but if someone is told that a road is seriously being considered for adoption—a woolly phrase if ever I heard one—they would expect it to be adopted within a reasonable time. One constituent, who contacted me last year, bought their home in 2006. The road was built approximately 10 years ago and was unadopted at the time of purchase, but inquiries seemed to suggest that it would be adopted shortly. However, four years later it has still not been adopted, and my constituent is understandably frustrated. Many purchasers who have been given similar assurances that their road is indeed progressing towards adoption feel duped. This seems to be a frequent issue when prospective purchasers do the searches; they are given the impression that the road is in the process of being adopted, but nothing is really being done to progress that.

A report to Herts county council in November 2009 looked for a new approach to highway adoption. The report was formulated in response to the concerns of many of my constituents, as well as district councils and developers, about the time that it was taking to adopt roads in new developments. At present, Herts county council, which has responsibility for all non-trunk roads in the county, is responsible for the adoption and subsequent maintenance of roads. The guiding principle in the adoption of new roads is that they should have wider utility than simply providing access to a small number of properties. As a result, short cul-de-sacs are routinely not adopted, and commercial and industrial roads are also not adopted. Herts county council tells me that all parties need more clarity over the extent of adoption and that the extent of highway adoption should form part of any planning approval for developments involving the construction of new highways. It also believes that it would be helpful if road signs on unadopted roads made it clear that they were not adopted, so that there was no confusion.

As I said, we have no idea of the number of unadopted roads, because the most recent survey was in 1972. It is vital, if we are to tackle the problem, that we gather more information about its extent. In his recent response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, who is in the Chamber because he feels so passionately about this matter, the Minister stated that

“knowing the number of unadopted roads would not really provide the context, because the vast majority…are not really relevant to the issues in question”.—[Official Report, 10 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 578.]

However, it might be helpful for the Government to have some idea of the scale of the problem. I am aware of the need to limit public expenditure at present, and a full survey would be prohibitively expensive, but closer working between the Minister, his Department and local authorities might help us all. Will the Minister therefore undertake to arrange for his officials to write to every relevant authority in England and Wales to seek an estimate of the extent of the problem in its area? In his recent debate on the issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering listed 14 local authorities, my own among them, with which he had been in correspondence over the problems of unadopted roads. Their experiences are surely not atypical, which is why a thorough investigation of the issues is necessary, and it need not be expensive.

Let me give an example of the extent of the problem. In just one borough in Hertfordshire—Hertsmere—more than 626 out of 2,165 sections of streets, footways and other highways are not maintained. That represents nearly a quarter of the sections of Hertsmere’s roads. As I said, a lot of the data dates back to the 1970s, and there has been a huge expansion in building since then, so it would be helpful to get a sense of the extent of the problem. Will the Minister agree to undertake such an exercise and to place a copy of the information that is collected in the Library, so that other hon. Members can see the extent of the problem?

Where the construction of a new estate is involved, a local highways authority can, under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, adopt a road by agreement with the owner. Essentially, the developer of an estate can enter into an agreement with the highways authority to construct streets to the authority’s satisfaction and in accordance with its specification. The road then becomes a highway maintainable at public expense. I should add that section 38 cannot be used if the owner cannot be traced. However, Hertfordshire county council tells me that under the current system, when local planning authorities grant permission for a development that includes new roads, they cannot impose planning conditions regarding the extent of highway adoption or the timing of the adoption process, nor do they have any power to force the developer to put a road up for adoption. Perhaps that can be looked at under the new Government’s fresh approach to planning.

In the previous Parliament, the use and inadequacies of section 106 funding were seriously examined, and section 38 might be a suitable topic for the Department for Communities and Local Government to look at with the Department for Transport in a cross-cutting report. There are no incentives for developers to enter into section 38 agreements, and developers currently initiate the process dictating whether they enter into a section 38 adoption. However, in the current economic climate there is a risk that even fewer section 38 agreements may be entered into, because developers do not have resources to fund the bond of such an agreement.

There are several reasons why a road often does not progress to adoption; I shall not list them in this short debate. My council tells me that it has concerns about the inability of local authorities to oblige developers to enter into a section 38 agreement so that highways can be adopted. I understand from the Minister’s recent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that the Government are investigating options to alter legislation to address the problem. After the thought that he may have gone through since the last debate, will the Minister update us today on the progress of the investigations or give us a hint of the trajectory that his thought process might take?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

It would be remiss of me not to pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend for her excellent speech. She is hitting all the right buttons for me. On the Minister’s welcome point about looking at legislation on section 38 agreements, I hope that he will advise her about the point that, even if developers enter into section 38 agreements and have bonded funds, local authorities cannot access those bonded funds without the permission of the developer. Often the developer has to go bust before the local authority can access the moneys.

[Mrs Main]

I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable point. He has done sterling work on the matter. What he says is true. It seems that people are caught in the dilemma that although the money is in place, no one can access it. They are therefore powerless to do anything about the road that is unadopted. I am hoping that the Minister will give us his thoughts today, think outside the box and tell us what he could do.

I am told that another option is the advance payments code under the 1980 Act, which was designed to secure payment of the expenses of completing roadworks in unadopted roads next to new buildings, and to ensure that the street works authority could complete the roadworks if a developer failed to complete them. The code was apparently introduced to guard against the post-war problem of small, speculative developers, but my local authorities tell me that it offers little protection for them on today’s large developments where access roads may not contain houses adjacent to the road and are therefore not covered by the code, or where there might be many properties, each of which has to be dealt with separately, so that strict time constraints preclude that action.

The advance payments code is not implemented by Hertfordshire county council and has not been for at least 30 years. Surely that shows that it is a toothless tiger that needs to be revisited as a piece of defunct legislation. I am told that the code is highly resource-intensive and that it gives little protection against the problems currently besetting Hertfordshire, not least because we are a two-tier authority, and planning is the responsibility of the district council. Hertfordshire county council says that other highways authorities that follow the code are in the minority and are mostly single-tier authorities where the necessary communication between planners and highway engineers is more easily achieved.

I just wish to touch on one further issue today. I want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond; perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and I may come back at him occasionally. I want to highlight a particular impact that delays in the adoption of roads have had in recent months. We all remember that dreadful cold snap in January and its effect on roads in many areas. In Hertfordshire, we felt it particularly acutely and it exacerbated an already dire situation regarding road surfaces in the area. As a result of two harsh cold snaps in two years, the problem is now reaching a tipping point for our roads. It has also affected unadopted roads. Those roads were not gritted. They were also liable to damage by the weather. Some roads that were already in a dire situation have got worse. Some roads still awaiting adoption have now deteriorated in the interim period and they are even less likely to lose their orphan status.

As for the question of timing, 10 years is a very long time in the life of a road. My constituent said that his house was built 10 years ago, and since then significant damage has been done, especially if utilities have been digging up the road and compromising its integrity. I shall be grateful if the Minister will say in his reply what steps are being taken to speed up the process so that such situations do not arise in the future, with the inevitable knock-on consequence for people waiting for their roads to be adopted.

On a final note, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering stated that he was open, as I am, to practical suggestions as long as they place the cost on the appropriate people and can be implemented quickly, to enable authorities to manage the situation better. In these harsh economic times, that is exactly the right tone. It should be for the people who have benefited from the new estates and developments to make roads up to standard, which are then adopted with all rapidity. There needs to be a purposefulness on the part of the developer to bring that about.

My local authority has a great deal of expertise, and I know that it will welcome the chance to make practical suggestions to the Minister. Is he willing to meet representatives of Hertfordshire county council to discuss the issue in more depth, or even consider calling there once he has ascertained the seriousness of the problem in the country, bringing the authorities together for an open, round-table discussion? Since the problems vary greatly from area to area, people might throw their hands up in the air and say, “Nothing can be done”, but I do not believe that that is the case. Given all the expertise around the country highlighting the problems to the Minister and making practical suggestions, perhaps that is something that he could put as a feather in his cap. It would be an easy win relatively early in this Parliament, and prevent the problem from happening any more.

I welcome the fact that planning is being given back to people to decide at a local level. However, the Minister should be aware that in district councils there are many people who are willing to serve their area but do not necessarily know how to put in place a tough agreement to ensure that when they grant permission for a development, it has roads that are fit for purpose and can be readily adopted. The two-tier council approach that we have in Hertfordshire and other areas is part of the problem. Is the Minister able to give us any comfort on how we can have input from local authorities and how we can ensure that local people who wish to take control of planning are not left with a load of white elephants in the form of buildings on unadopted roads? Perhaps he can tell us whether he is able to get a sense of the scope of the problem by writing to local authorities, so that we can have the information at our fingertips.