---

Local Transport Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 169 to 173, 178 and 179. Amendment No. 169 relates to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Government policy is to encourage efficient and effective working in the highway, with works properly co-ordinated by the highway authority. Key to that is the need for the authority to be given notice of works in its highways carried out by undertakers, whether they are placing, maintaining or removing apparatus in or below the highways or consequential works—for instance, carrying out a permanent reinstatement as a separate phase or works to remedy a failure to complete a reinstatement to the correct standard in the first place. All occupy the highway and impact on our crowded roads and, as I know from my one month in this job, are matters of acute concern to the public and to Members of your Lordships' House. Following a judgement by the Divisional Court last November, there is a lack of legal certainty about what works are required for or incidental to placing, maintaining or removing apparatus, and fall within the definition of street works. The amendment is intended to confirm the existing view and practice that ““street works”” includes reinstatement or remedial works and remove that uncertainty. Amendment No. 170 relates to the Traffic Management Act 2004. Government policy is to encourage local authorities to take over from the police service the enforcement of parking restrictions. When a local authority does that, police resources are released for more serious matters. It also means that a single body—the local authority—is responsible not only for developing parking policies, but for enforcing them. The parking components of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 came into force on 31 March this year. Despite comprehensive consultation and scrutiny, it subsequently came to light that the definition of ““local authority”” in the Traffic Management Act, read with other provisions of that Act, means that shire district councils may not be able to make full use of the new enforcement powers in their off-street car parks or in relation to any free on-street parking they authorise. The anomaly has no impact in relation to enforcement by London boroughs, unitary authorities or metropolitan district councils nor does it in any way affect the enforcement of yellow bands or pay-and-display restrictions. Furthermore, the department considers that parking attendants appointed before 31 March under provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 are unaffected by the anomaly. However, to enable shire councils to continue to enforce off-street controls and appoint sufficient numbers of parking attendants to do so,, the department also introduced temporary amending regulations under the Traffic Management Act. Provided that the amendment is accepted, the amending regulations will no longer be necessary and can be revoked. Amendment No. 170 makes clear in primary legislation for the long term that a shire district council has the power to appoint the civil enforcement officer who would serve the penalty charge notice to the motorist who has parked in contravention of the parking regulations in a local-authority-owned, off-street car park. Amendment No. 170 also makes minor amendments to other provisions of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act to make sure that council waste-collection vehicles operated by non-metropolitan district councils are exempted from restrictions on double parking and parking at dropped kerbs, as originally intended under those provisions. Finally, the amendment makes it clear that guidance issued on parking will have statutory force in relation to non-metropolitan district councils. Amendment No. 171 amends the definition of conditional offers in Section 90F of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 so that it refers also to conditional offers made by the Department for Transport’s vehicle examiners in Scotland. The amendment is needed to ensure that the provisions inserted by the Road Safety Act 2006 into the Road Traffic Offenders Act work as originally intended. Unfortunately, when the Road Safety Act provisions were drafted, the definition of conditional offer in this context was not amended to include conditional offers issued by VOSA’s vehicle examiners in Scotland. Unless this deficiency is corrected, it will undermine the scope for VOSA’s vehicle examiners to take effective enforcement action against foreign vehicle operators while operating in Scotland. This error was only identified recently in the finalising of secondary legislation and the Local Transport Bill provided a useful opportunity to make this minor technical amendment. On Question, Motion agreed to.