Before the Minister moves the first order to be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of each order, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee consider the order in question. I should make it clear that the Motion to approve the order will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. I also remind noble Lords that in the event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement) (Republic of Tajikistan) Order 2007.

The noble Baroness said: This order is a necessary step before the UK can ratify the EU-Tajikistan Partnership and Co-operation Agreement. UK ratification of the EU-Tajikistan Partnership and Co-operation Agreement will contribute to strengthening EU engagement with central Asia through implementation of the EU strategy for the region and the work of Pierre Morel, EU special representative. Ratification and implementation of the PCA will mark a step change in the EU's relations with Tajikistan and will help address concerns that the EU lacks profile in the region.

Our key interests in Tajikistan, which are also a focus of EU and other donor activity, are counter-narcotics and counterterrorism, given the involvement of Tajik nationals in radical Islamist movements in Afghanistan and central Asia, and the promotion of good governance, human rights and sustainable development. Since 2004, the region has seen a retreat from democracy and relations with the West. Russia, China and Iran are playing a greater role, including in Tajikistan. There is a need for greater co-operation between the five central Asian states as well as with Afghanistan and beyond. This is a focus of EU and other donor activity.

The Partnership and Co-operation Agreement—PCA—sets out the political, economic and trade relationship between the EU and Tajikistan, instituting the basis for a regular political dialogue, co-operation in a wide range of areas and trade and investment. The PCA is a mixed agreement, covering some matters falling within the competence of the European Community and others within the competence of the member states. It is concluded for an initial period of 10 years.

The PCA aims to promote democratic reforms, economic growth, sustainable development and action against poverty. It also includes model clauses on action against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in addition to standard clauses on human rights.

Ratifying this agreement would enable the EU to put its relations with Tajikistan into a comprehensive legal framework which will boost current co-operation, allow wider trade and economic relations and strengthen EU influence in promoting good governance and human rights in Tajikistan at a key stage in its own development. It would help the EU to compete with the growing influence of Russia, China and Iran, which are also contributing to the development of Tajikistan's infrastructure and energy sector.

Tajikistan is both the poorest country in central Asia and one of the most strategically placed, bordering Afghanistan. The Tajiks co-operate with the EU on counter-narcotics, participate in Partnership for Peace and support coalition efforts in Afghanistan. Tajikistan needs EU assistance more than most, as civil war and the drugs trade have significantly disrupted its development.

As regards UK-specific assistance, our growing DfID programme has spent more than £10 million since 2003, focused on community development, judicial reform, encouragement of the private sector and HIV/AIDS. In addition we have spent more than £2 million on helping the Tajik border forces to strengthen the Tajik-Afghan border, promoting the development of civil society and democratic reform, and addressing the threat of conflicts through HMG's Global Conflict Prevention Pool.

The European Commission spends about €33 million per year in Tajikistan. From an initial focus on humanitarian aid, it has moved to a significant programme of technical support and is established as a key partner alongside Russia, China and the US. Fifteen per cent of heroin trafficked from Afghanistan transits Tajikistan to Russia. This has a profound negative effect on young people, disrupts the economy and encourages corruption. Through the EU's border management programme, HMG have supported efforts to strengthen the Tajik-Afghan border and we work closely with Tajikistan's drugs control agency.

The EU strategy for central Asia, adopted in June, raises the profile of central Asia within Europe and paves the way for an expansion of our activity in the region, both bilaterally and regionally. In Tajikistan, President Rahmon has consolidated his power and is looking for support to take the country forward out of poverty and dependence. Ratification would strengthen the EU's ability to influence the direction that the president will take.

A priority for the UK and a significant part of the EU strategy for central Asia focuses on strengthening respect for human rights. We will look to the Tajik Government to work with us and the EU to implement the principles of good governance and transparency to facilitate trade, economic relations and foreign investment to strengthen stability and to develop the prosperity of Tajikistan. The ratification and implementation of this PCA would consolidate Tajikistan's links with Europe and enhance our efforts there. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement) (Republic of Tajikistan) Order 2007. 24th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Baroness Royall of Blaisdon.)

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the order. If passed, it will declare that the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and member states and the Republic of Tajikistan, signed on 11 October 2004, is to be regarded as a Community treaty as defined by Section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Therefore, Members of the Committee are today undertaking the second stage of a parliamentary ratification of that agreement. Of course, it has already been agreed in another place. I should make it clear from the start that we on these Benches have no objection to the proposal in principle. However, given that we are today agreeing a treaty, it is important to ask the noble Baroness some questions about the practical implementation.

This treaty contains measures to strengthen the EU's trade, economic and political relations with Tajikistan. It also contains a number of additional measures covering human rights, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, all of which are important subjects. Tajikistan is one of the last constituent republics of the former Soviet Union to have its agreement with the EU ratified. There has already been a series of these agreements with former republics of the Soviet Union. I would not go so far as to say that they are all substantially equivalent, but there is a broad precedent in the way in which they have been laid out. There was an agreement with Ukraine in 1998; with Kazakhstan in 1999; and with Armenia in the same year. A treaty with Belarus was decided against by the EU, and in the case of Turkmenistan the agreement, which was signed in 1998, still remains to be ratified.

My honourable friend in the other place, Mark Francois, raised a number of issues which I believe were adequately addressed. However, one of the most important issues that he raised, which was not entirely addressed, was that of the dissuasion and prevention of terrorist activity in Tajikistan. Its strategic importance, bordering, as it does, Afghanistan, cannot be overstated. It is of vital importance, so I was surprised to read the Minister’s words in another place when he admitted that Tajik nationals were involved in radical Islamist groups actively involved in terrorism in the region as a whole and claimed that it did not affect this country. I remind Her Majesty's Government that we have troops in Afghanistan who have to deal with the presence of regional terrorism day to day. Can the noble Baroness give further information on what is being done to tackle fundamentalist radical Islamism in Tajikistan beyond the investment in a border police? The Minister in another place did not give a comprehensive answer on what is being done to encourage co-operation between our two countries to assist British, European and anti-terrorist groups currently engaged in Afghanistan, so I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to elaborate further on that today.

Generally, we support these measures and believe that it is vital to help the republics of the former Soviet Union to emerge from the scourge of communism and to form links with Europe based on trade and co-operation.

When the European Union—or European Communities, as it was then known—was developing in earlier days, the frequent cry, rightly, from both supporters and critics was always that the communities should avoid being inward looking, introspective and concerned only with their own internal matters but should look outwards and be a genuine international body as well. We therefore welcome this order, as an example of those developing relationships between the European Union and all the neighbouring or nearby geographical areas surrounding the borders of the enlarged Union of 27 countries.

This order would be a standard text in many ways, which is one of the reasons—apart from the absence of any technical mistakes or drafting errors—why, in July, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments said that there was no need formally to report. I welcomed that—I was a member of that committee and still am. The text and import of this agreement would be routine and standard, as it is with many other areas, but for the enormous number of problems that the new emerging Republic of Tajikistan is experiencing and will experience in future.

I am sure that all right-thinking citizens in the Republic of Tajikistan welcome the involvement of the European Union in trying to help them with these matters. It is that delicate balance, again, between the Union offering genuine advice from outside at the request of a Government and as a result of signing this treaty and passing this order in all the national parliaments, and not seeking to interfere and dictate how they should run their own country. That is particularly important for new countries when they are learning governance, having been a Soviet republic, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, said, for a long time—since the Second World War and, indeed, for some time before.

For those of us who do not know the particular “stans” in the area—and I confess that I am one—it is equally complicated to make the differences clear to an audience in Great Britain and other western European countries. But these countries, of which, as the Minister said, Tajikistan is the poorest, are very important, which is why the order will be vital. We welcome its passing today, following the debate on 16 October in the other place, when there was positive support for the order and a hope that it would take effect soon.

There is a long list of problems, which I would be tempted to go into but they have already been enunciated by the Minister and the noble Lord. I, too, request that those questions might be answered a little more. There is extreme anxiety about the heroin trade and the country’s proximity to Afghanistan means that the citizens of Tajikistan suffer grievously from the effects of that as well as from terrorism and the other things that the Minister mentioned. The European Union and the United Kingdom, as one of the leading member states anxious to continue its long tradition as an international power with relations with all parts of the world, including the third world and the developing world, will wish to play a key part. Therefore, I hope that national ambassadors in the capital city, as well as the EU representative, will get very much involved with these matters in future.

My Lords, I am grateful for the broad support from noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, is correct that there is a broad precedent in relation to agreements with Soviet republics. This agreement is particularly important because of the country’s strategic position and its extreme poverty.

The prevention of terrorism is of the utmost importance. Tajikistan hosts a French military base that supports coalition forces in Afghanistan, which I am sure is of interest. The central Asia strategy, of which I spoke earlier, sets out the EU’s intention to step up co-operation with the central Asian states to combat international terrorism by improving the institutional capacity of law enforcement agencies, updating the legal framework, improving border management and strengthening regional co-operation against trans-national organised crime, including international terrorism. The counterterrorism activity is within the broader context of the central Asia strategy.

The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, is right that the EU is now looking outward, and this is a fine example of the way in which we are developing relationships with surrounding countries. Learning good governance is a key part of the agreement under discussion today. One of its aims is to promote democratic reforms. The UK is already working on democratic reform. Our embassy is supporting projects that develop the capacity and quality of civil society and independent media, promote good governance, particularly at local government level, and address the threat of conflicts through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool. Under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, we are spending £98,000 on a project with the Aga Khan Foundation developing a system to mitigate conflicts over the use of water in the Khatlon region of Tajikistan. There are many other examples of the way in which we are promoting democratic reform.

The noble Lord raised the vital issue of counter-narcotics. We have made a £500,000 contribution to build the capacity of the 8th Afghan border police as part of a larger EC project of €3 million to replicate the border management central Asia programme on the Afghan side of the Tajik border. UK funds will establish mobile training teams while Germany develops regional border liaison networks. Unfortunately, this element has recently been suspended due to Tajik reluctance, for legal reasons, to set up networks. However, we are working hard on counter-narcotics and take these issues seriously. The Tajiks know that we take them seriously, and we expect our new relationship with Tajikistan to be an honest one. We will ensure that these issues are taken as seriously as they deserve.

The birth of independent Tajikistan was difficult. A civil war in the 1990s killed more than 60,000 of its people and displaced many more. It was always the poorest of the Soviet republics but the war badly damaged its infrastructure, drove many of its best professionals away and its school and health services are still well below those of Soviet times. About 57 per cent of Tajikistan’s population live in poverty, many of them shackled to cotton production in former collective farms. That 57 per cent lives on less than a dollar a day.

This discussion has confirmed the crucial role that the EU must play in winning hearts and minds in Tajikistan, both in competition with others and to promote reform and contribute to the development of the country. It is also strategically placed in the region for the support of our efforts in Afghanistan. The ratification and implementation of this agreement would consolidate Tajikistan’s links with Europe and enhance our efforts there.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.

The noble Baroness said: These regulations are part of a package of regulations and guidance that will put into place new procedures for parking enforcement by local authorities in England. They make no changes to the procedures used by the police and traffic wardens. They cover only England, and similar regulations for Wales will come before the House later this year.

The regulations are made under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 and form one component of the Government’s strategy to make better use of the existing road network by improving road safety, reducing congestion and minimising the impact of road traffic on the environment. The Traffic Management Act gives local authorities a specific duty to manage their networks, and fair and effective parking enforcement has a key role to play in this. When a local authority takes over this responsibility from the police, it frees up police time to concentrate on more serious matters. It also means that parking regulations are, often for the first time, enforced throughout the area and at all appropriate times. Although this does not always please motorists, it is essential to facilitate the safe and smooth use of the highway.

There are over 28 million vehicles on the roads in England and each of them spends an average of 23 out of 24 hours parked. Managing that demand is what we ask local authorities to do. These regulations will help them to do it in a fair, transparent and effective manner with the overarching objective of keeping traffic moving safely.

The regulations before your Lordships set out the procedures for disputing a penalty charge notice, a vehicle immobilisation or a vehicle removal. Some drivers believe that a penalty charge notice or the clamping or removal of a vehicle is never merited, but it may genuinely be the case that the charge was served or the vehicle restrained or removed in error. That might be because the driver was delivering or collecting goods and had left the vehicle to do so; or a valid permit, ticket, voucher or badge may have been displayed on the vehicle at the time; or the owner who received the payment reminder was not the owner at the time of the contravention. A penalty charge notice, or parking ticket, is not a serious matter and does not involve endorsements on the driving licence, but it does have a financial impact that a fair society should levy only when merited.

Clamping and removal are a considerable inconvenience, even when merited. When they are not merited, far stronger language springs to mind. The measures put in place to challenge penalty charge notices, vehicle immobilisation and vehicle removal are an important part of delivering a just enforcement system.

The procedures for representations and appeals set out in these regulations largely replicate those in the Road Traffic Act 1991. That Act replaced a costly and time-consuming procedure in the magistrates’ court with a simple and streamlined independent adjudicator who dealt only with parking matters. That original vision has been changed to some extent by adding bus lane, certain moving traffic and congestion charging contraventions to the responsibilities of the adjudicators. However, we need to ensure that the procedures remain simple and easily accessible to the public, avoiding the fear that they will need costly legal or other representation to make their case properly.

We believe that the draft regulations before the Committee deliver the continuation of simple and straightforward procedures for representations to the issuing authority and appeals to the adjudicator that are easily accessible to the public. They have been subject to extensive consultation but few comments were received on the representations and appeals provisions, and the changes that have been made since the consultation largely result from reconsideration by government.

We have also had the benefit of expert and robust advice on our proposals from the entirely independent adjudicators. This reflects their expertise in dealing with many thousands of individual cases and we are grateful to them for their advice.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the areas where the draft regulations now improve on the current procedures. As recommended by the House of Commons Transport Committee, the penalty charge notice will itself state the procedures for representations and appeals. The committee was of the view that there is widespread ignorance of the challenge procedures and that putting them on the penalty charge notice would help to resolve this.

The circumstances in which a representation and an appeal can be made have been widened specifically to include instances where the enforcement authority has not followed the correct procedures. This ground would cover things such as an authority’s failure to observe the correct time limits or include the right information in notices, or a case where a local authority had served a penalty charge notice by post when it was not authorised to do so.

Finally, the adjudicator will have the power to return to the local authority for reconsideration of a case where a contravention has taken place but in mitigating circumstances. That could cover cases where a driver had to pull over because someone in the car had become ill or the cheque for a resident’s parking permit had been banked by the local authority but the permit had been lost in the post. Local authorities have long had the power to cancel a penalty charge notice in such circumstances but a few have shown some reluctance to use this power. The adjudicators will now be able to ask them to consider the case again.

The regulations will be widely welcomed by local authorities and the public. It has taken a lot of hard work to balance the needs of local authorities for a strong and effective enforcement regime and the needs of motorists for one that is flexible and fair. The regulations are based on the successful regime put in place by the Road Traffic Act 1991 but make a few key changes to help to deliver a fairer and more transparent system of effective parking enforcement by local authorities. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. 26th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Baroness Crawley.)

We support the thrust and the policies behind the regulations and behind the whole legislation. We support what we hope will be an improvement in road safety and congestion problems, as well as a reduction in carbon emissions that would follow as a result. Therefore, we support the theme and ideas behind the regulations.

As many know, I am the leader of a local authority and therefore welcome the local authority part of the regulations and the strength that they give local authorities. However, I have one or two points to raise about natural justice and how the public can appeal. At the end of her statement, the Minister went to some lengths to present the result of the various negotiations and discussions on the regulations in the House of Commons Select Committee and elsewhere, but my understanding is that there is still some unease about how the public might get treated by local authorities.

As we have just been told, there is an appeal process, which will be mentioned on the ticket displayed on the car. If motorists are unhappy, they can make an appeal to the public adjudicator, who will consider it; they can then ask the local authority to reconsider, but the local authority is not bound to do that. There could be a problem with natural justice there. The local authority should be bound to reconsider the matter if the adjudicator goes back to it and says that there is a problem. At the moment, as I understand it, the local authority could just ignore that. I do not think that that is right in terms of natural justice. If the adjudicator feels that there is a real problem, the local authority should be bound to reconsider. I hope that the Minister will consider that further because I have received representations that there is a little flaw in the regulations. Apart from that point, I support the whole recommendation.

I, too, support the regulations. I believe that the duties placed on local authorities better to manage the highway, which we will move on to in a moment, are quite onerous. Some local authorities are taking them seriously but I am not sure that all are doing so. However, anything that keeps matters out of the courts, simplifies procedures and, in particular, takes them out of the hands of the police I warmly welcome.

I thank noble Lords for their support, with one or two reservations, for the regulations. It is generally a good news story—and the covenant between government, local authorities and the public always needs to be monitored continually so that the public feel that they are being fairly treated on parking and other issues relevant to these regulations.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that there was still some disquiet that the public could not appeal, in that local authorities were not bound to take the decisions of the adjudicator into account in the last resort. Perhaps I may go over with him the mitigating circumstances that are now part of the regulations but were not there before. Although it may not answer his point completely—I do not think that I can do that—it may give him a little more confidence.

An adjudicator will have the power to refer a case back to the enforcement authority for reconsideration where a contravention has taken place but in mitigating circumstances. The department’s statutory guidance makes it clear that such a case should be referenced to the local authority’s chief executive so that, when it is referred back, it goes not simply to one department but gets a wider view by the local authority. The thinking behind that is that other voices may then come in on the side of the person whose case has been referred back because of that wider view.

This provision was introduced into Section 80 of the Traffic Management Act at the specific request of Parliament, which was at one with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, over this concern. The Government believe that their response is as far as we can go on this at the moment. There will, of course, be a review to ensure that it is working properly.

Government policy is that the function of the adjudicator is to determine whether any of the statutory grounds of appeal apply and to allow appeals only where he or she makes a finding to that effect. Local authorities have wide discretion to cancel a PCN—they always have had. Giving this power to the adjudicator would strongly discourage local authorities from deciding cases involving mitigating circumstances. It would also substantially increase the number of penalty charge notices that motorists take to appeal.

Judges who have looked at cases involving mitigation have taken the view that decisions on cases such as these should be based on policies but that those policies should not be used rigidly or formulaically. Adjudicators are not in a position to make policies, let alone follow them consistently. Making policy is the responsibility of elected councillors, and that is why it should ultimately come back to the council’s decision.

A High Court challenge to an adjudication can be made only on a point of law. Very few cases have been to the High Court since this system was introduced. If adjudicators can use discretion, there will a substantial increase in the number of cases going to the High Court because their decision will be seen as random rather than based on a balance of probabilities as to whether a contravention took place. That is not what parking enforcement should be about. On that basis, I hope that I have answered noble Lords’ questions.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007.

The noble Baroness said: These regulations introduce a new way for highway authorities in England to manage works on the public highway. We all recognise the importance of our roads for businesses and communities, and for moving people and goods around towns and cities and across the country. We are also all familiar with works that create hold-ups on those roads, whether carried out by utility companies or by highway authorities which themselves are responsible for, and have a duty to, manage the road network. Permit schemes will provide highway authorities with a more effective tool to help them manage these works and thus reduce the delay and congestion that they cause. Permit schemes were introduced under Part 3 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, which included a provision, in Section 39(4), that the first regulations about permit schemes,

“may not be made … unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”.

These regulations provide a detailed framework for applications for permit schemes and for the content and operation of those schemes. Highway authorities may prepare and administer individual permit schemes within that framework only. Permit schemes prepared by local highway authorities will take effect only when they are approved by the Secretary of State following extensive local consultation.

Under a permit scheme, any utility or highway authority wanting to carry out works in a street specified in that scheme would need to obtain a permit before the relevant works are begun. A local authority may choose to attach conditions to a permit, such as specifying the days or times when work may be done. Local authorities will be able to make exceptions to permit requirements in certain circumstances, which will enable emergency works to be dealt with promptly. Utilities will pay a fee for a permit which will cover the cost of administration in relation to their works.

The draft regulations have been drawn up following extensive consultation, particularly with the permits working group, which consists of representatives from local authorities and utility companies. It has resulted in a number of changes in the draft regulations now before the Committee.

The policy objective behind permit schemes is to give highway authorities greater control over work in the street that may cause disruption. While those works may be necessary, how they are planned, co-ordinated and carried out can make a great difference to their impact. The intention is that the highway authority should be proactive in managing and co-ordinating its own and other promoters’ works, enabling authorities to have better managed local road networks and reduced local congestion.

We believe that permits will be a valuable new tool to achieve those ends. For example, permit schemes can be arranged so that where gas or water companies want to maintain pipes in the same street they will have an incentive to work together and perhaps co-ordinate their work with the highway authority street maintenance programme. Even if it is not physically possible for works promoters to combine their activities, local authorities will be better able to manage and co-ordinate all works to minimise the overall impact and reduce disruption and congestion.

It will not be mandatory for highway authorities to run permit schemes, nor do we expect that all highway authorities will wish to do so. The regulations provide a framework for permit schemes. We have also issued statutory guidance and a code of practice. While the regulations will require a degree of standardisation in permit schemes—for example, all schemes must include utility and highways works and they must be treated equally—there will also be some flexibility. Authorities will be able to choose whether to operate a permit scheme over all or some of their roads in all or some of their area.

When it comes to considering applications from authorities to operate a permit scheme, a key factor will be the expected balance of costs and benefits. The Government are aware of the concerns of utility companies about fee levels. The regulations constrain the level of fees so that only the costs associated with running a permit scheme attributable to utility works can be recovered by fees and an absolute upper limit is imposed on fees. We are equally aware that some local authorities have concerns about fee levels from the opposite perspective: that the cap on fees will not enable them to cover the relevant share of the costs. The Government consider that the maximum fee levels proposed should enable authorities to go ahead with setting up permit schemes. We will be reviewing the first permit schemes after a year to look at their operation and see whether they are achieving their objectives. The appropriateness of fee levels will be part of that review.

As we see it, the benefits of successful permit schemes will be substantial, with reduced disruption and delay. Reduced occupation of the road by activities helps to reduce congestion and maximises the efficiency of the existing highway network, improving reliability and making journeys more predictable, as well as faster. This makes journeys easier to plan and reduces the amount of wasted or unproductive time. With reduced congestion comes reduced local pollution, with benefits for air quality and other aspects of the environment. Public transport can also operate more reliably and provide a better service to the public, potentially further relieving congestion on the road by attracting motorists on to public transport.

In conclusion, the regulations will, I am sure, be widely welcomed. It has taken a great deal of hard work to achieve the right balance between the needs of road users and the need for effective and well-maintained infrastructure. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed so far to trying to find that balance, and I commend the regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007. 25th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Baroness Crawley.)

Again, we welcome these regulations. This sort of scheme could reduce congestion considerably, and anything that reduces congestion reduces carbon emissions and improves quality of life. The AA has estimated that on any one day 4 million holes are dug in this country. If that number can be reduced so that things work better, then we will have achieved something. I think we all want to work towards that.

I totally support the general thrust of the regulations. I almost wish that it was mandatory for local authorities to take part in the scheme and I hope that most of them will. There would be a slight problem if one local authority took it up but a neighbouring one did not when a new sewage or water system was being put through the two authorities. It has been suggested that that could be dealt with through the new multi-area agreements between local authorities, which will come into force under different legislation. It will obviously make sense for two or three local authorities to work together when they are all involved in a major scheme.

I have a few questions for the Minister. The legislation currently allows up to three months for permit applications to be processed. I come from a local authority background and want to ensure that enough time is allowed in that regard. Could a three-month delay sometimes hold up major infrastructural maintenance and the introduction of new services, particularly to a new estate, for example, which needs new services? Is three months too long for a utility company to wait for a permit? I hope that local authorities can turn round applications quickly, but sometimes we are not allowed three months for a planning application and it might be too long to wait for a permit to be processed.

The noble Baroness mentioned that she would look at how the scheme was working after a year. I like to think that the Government will find out whether it is reducing delays, congestion and carbon emissions and whether the utility companies are co-operating with it. I hope that the Government will carry out a comprehensive review after a year, as the Minister mentioned.

Has any thought been given to how many local authorities will take up the scheme? As I said earlier, I hope that they all do. I shall certainly encourage them to do so and I hope that the Local Government Association will too.

Finally, the fine for non-compliance is only £500. Will a major company doing infrastructure work be deterred from getting on with a big project with a fine of £500? I know that one can resort to the courts and so on, but could there not be more latitude on the level of the fine for non-compliance? It will have very little effect on a £1 billion business. Perhaps the noble Baroness could answer those points. Having said that, we support the thrust of the regulations. We hope that the scheme will work and I shall do my bit to encourage it from a local authority point of view.

I, too, welcome the regulations; they have been a long time coming. There has been a lot of representation from the utilities about this, a lot of which has been somewhat febrile. The utilities basically make a lot of money: they post huge profits and get sold to one another for large profits. Against that, we are talking about permits—as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has just said—where the fines are almost derisory. In preparation for today, I have a note from the police on this issue. Some of the penalties currently levied, such as £30 for no seatbelts or driving a heavy lorry through country lanes, are ludicrously low. In fact, the operator, in the case of a heavy lorry, recoups that on one illegal journey, of which he makes many. Similarly, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I believe that the penalty level for not observing the permit regulations is too low and hope that it will be taken into account in the review.

The Minister mentioned that the schemes would have to be authorised by the Secretary of State. Why? If the permit scheme is designed in accordance with the regulations and put before a local authority—a county council in many cases, or a metropolitan authority—surely its officers should be able to decide whether the scheme has been advanced in accordance with the regulations before it. I deplore the Government’s attitude that everything has to go to the highest level. I know that the Secretary of State does not sign it, but an official on his behalf—but is that official any better qualified, for example, than the chief executive or director of a local authority? Will the Minister ruminate on this making a cumbersome process? I hope—again, with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield—that a lot of people take up this system.

I hear what the noble Lord says about a permit scheme possibly being needed within three months. However, from my knowledge of utility schemes, they are several years in the planning, as is a new estate. Utility companies would be well advised to get in their applications in a timely fashion and not resort to the use of emergency powers. They often do that, and say that they must dig up the road because of floods, gas leakage or electricity failures, and are therefore not properly controlled by any permit scheme.

I do not take the views of the utility companies into consideration any more. The Government have listened long and hard to them, and have possibly erred too far on their side. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I represent people who have to use the roads, whose journeys are constantly disrupted. They want to see proper planning of the highway brought in so that it can be managed in the most effective way.

I ought to say a few words on this, since I took part in the discussions on the Traffic Management Act when we put it together. First, including the highways authorities in these proposals is very welcome. One problem we pointed out was that much of the intention would be wasted if we did not include the highways authorities, since they are responsible for a lot of the works. After that, however, I am afraid that I immediately start to wonder whether we are just inventing a whole lot of bureaucratic bloat. We discussed the voluntary, collaborative approach that worked very well in Scotland, which was then called Susiephone—I know it has changed its name, and I have no idea what it is called now. Incentives tend to work much better than sticks—regulations. Regulations tend to include delaying processes and stop things happening, whereas with incentives people do things and things happen. They provide a different way of thinking.

On bureaucracy, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, spoke of authorities working together. Back in 2005 when implementing electronic government stuff, trying to get one county and 12 districts to work together on e-procurement was impossible. We finally managed to get half of them to work together and the other half would not take part at all. The issue of common or joint permits going across county boundaries can be quite important if the counties do not collaborate properly. I see more problems, challenges, different timetabling, different forms to be filled in in different ways, and so on. If we have this system, the Minister will have to ensure that the forms are not totally incompatible across boundaries, which can easily happen.

I then started to think about the possible downside to this. There is a three-month delay. If one is trying to get a broadband connection into a new place, it is bad enough at the moment to get people to turn up to do it, but on top of that, one has another three-month’ delay while the local authority thinks about how it will schedule it. What will be the benefit? The critical benefit is that it will try to attack the 10 per cent of congestion caused by road works—we are not talking about the primary cause of congestion. We will try to co-ordinate road works better, so that the road is dug up only once instead of three times. That is why a long delay is needed to try to co-ordinate road works.

One is also delaying such matters as the green agenda and helping people to work from home. If people cannot get the communications, they cannot work from home. As a result, carbon production will go up. Such things will not aggregate properly. For some reason, the timescales will be wrong. I cannot believe that if it were that simple it would not have been done years ago, collaboratively. I think one will find that the challenges are too great and all that one is doing is introducing yet another bureaucratic layer and no improvements will be seen at the end.

What improvements do we think there will be? The hope is for a 3 per cent reduction in congestion, which is one-third of the 10 per cent that is caused by street works. That is quite a high proportion. A lot of co-ordination of activity will be required to make it go smoothly and I do not think that will happen at all. I think we will just be investing in another department. In reality, it is a hidden tax because the permits are expected to rake in £36.3 million for local authorities, which will be very nice for them, particularly as they are no longer being funded so well from central government. They will see that huge advantage.

There will be some soft benefits, but the ROI is not very good. If I were a businessman, I would not spend £36.3 million to get a £38.7 million possible benefit. The difference is that that £38.7 million is not a concrete benefit; it is someone saying, “If we take the amount of petrol burnt by the cars sitting in traffic jams”, and so on. It is yet another hidden tax. This time it will not purely be on the motorist, but actually on everyone trying to get a better water system, better drainage, broadband connections and everything else. It concerns me and I am sorry that I cannot join in the general feeling of how wonderful this is. I am glad that this will be reviewed after a year and I hope someone does a proper cost-benefit analysis at that point.

I thank noble Lords for taking part in this interesting and intriguing discussion. I shall respond to as many of the issues raised as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked how roads would be affected when one authority operates a permit scheme but its neighbour does not. The permit scheme will specify clearly which streets and roads are within the scheme, which will be available for all to see. The notices regime will be on roads without permit schemes.

Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Traffic Management Act to facilitate the expeditious movement of all traffic on other authorities’ networks, as the noble Lord will know. Authorities must work with their neighbours where their actions will affect other authorities. That would apply to the authority running a permit scheme and to the adjacent authority running a notices scheme. There are similarities between the permit scheme and the notices scheme that mean that the difference between them should not be too great as far as the IT systems are concerned, so good communications between the authorities will still be possible and the IT systems will have mechanisms to facilitate that.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and other noble Lords asked about the review. We recognise that the use of permits is a new way of working and it must be shown that benefits are realised. This takes up the final point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about a cost-benefit exercise. The first permit schemes are to be reviewed after a year of operation, so we are probably talking about the spring or summer of 2009. The review will elevate the performance of permit schemes against the current baseline. It will also compare performances against highway authorities not operating permit schemes. We will also look at information on how schemes operating over different categories of roads compare in delivering benefits—for example, highway authorities operating schemes on traffic-sensitive roads only compared with those operating schemes over all roads. In particular, the review will look closely at the appropriateness of the permit fees. We intend to publish the review and will ensure that it is provided to Parliament at the appropriate time.

The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked how many local authorities we envisage running permit schemes. Our current feedback is that at present six to eight local authorities are interested, but we envisage 150 authorities finally running schemes. We will assess each application, and each local highway authority has to justify fully its costs and benefits. Transport for London has expressed an interest and it is thought that that scheme is likely to be replicated in some London boroughs. Some of them may be ready to start with Transport for London, but others are likely to join later. Kent County Council has also expressed an interest in applying to run a permit scheme.

The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, asked about the three months’ notice, which they thought might be a barrier. It is required for major works only. Most connections will be much quicker and will need far shorter notice. Local authorities can be flexible about allowing an early start, if that is practical. We do not envisage it for the majority of works.

The noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Hanningfield, raised the issue of the level of fines. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was quite passionate about this. The offences that attract FPNs in permit schemes are serious. Working without a permit or in breach of the conditions will attract a fine because they undermine the permit scheme and could have a significant detrimental effect on the management and co-ordination of the network. The levels of fines were consulted on widely, and we have changed our original proposals. It was initially proposed that working without a permit and working in breach of a condition of the permit should be level 5 offences. We have now created two different levels of offences, reflecting the severity of the offence. The first offence is at level 5, up to a maximum of £5,000, for working without a permit, and the second is less serious for breaching a permit condition, which is a level 4 offence up to a maximum of £2,500. It is worth bearing in mind that both offences may be avoided by prompt payment of a fixed penalty fee, where given.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked why the Secretary of State would be needed to approve the running of these schemes. These are significant new powers for authorities and there are significant costs to utilities in the permit fees. The Government want to be sure that the appropriate balance is struck for all parties and it is important that schemes run efficiently and with parity for both authorities and utility companies and demonstrate that they deliver the stated benefits. Again, the Government want to be sure that the schemes will achieve their objectives and do so fairly. As many utilities work across several local authority areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has said, there must be some consistency between schemes to enable utilities to operate effectively and efficiently. Permit schemes are not a revenue stream for authorities and authorities must show that fee income does not exceed the share of costs of operating the permit scheme attributable to utilities over and above their duty under the New Roads and Streets Works Act 1991.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred to the slow delivery of the regulations. In an ideal world we would have liked a to have them earlier but these are complex matters and it is important to get it right. It is important to allow time for the utilities, authorities and others to have their say and to help to shape the regulations so that they work as intended. The key now is that we have them ready so that there is a chance to make a step change in the management of works in the streets.

The noble Lord also referred to the fixed penalty notice as being too low to be a deterrent. As I say, fixed penalty notices were adjusted after consultation and the notice for working in the street without a permit was raised from £250 to £500. I know that the noble Lord thinks that that is still not enough, but we believe that £500 is not an insignificant figure, especially in relation to minor works. Authorities also have the option of taking the utilities to court, where fines can be up to £5,000.

The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said that permit schemes were too bureaucratic for the benefits that we claim for them. Through the working group involvement of key stakeholders, we have aimed to provide a scheme that is not unnecessarily complicated. The key aim is that at any time it should be possible for all parties to know whether there is a permit and what conditions are attached. All processes are geared to that one end. It may seem more complicated than it is because we necessarily have to provide for all eventualities. In reality we would expect many, if not most cases, to be straightforward—application made, permit issued and work carried out in accordance with the permit. But we are on a learning curve and we expect all parties to learn the ropes quickly.

In the cost benefit review, could the Minister include the cost of the bureaucracy on both sides, because there will be an added cost to the utilities? That would be useful in trying to make up our minds whether the schemes are worth while.

I have just taken advice and am sure that that will be included. When we were talking about the number of highway authorities taking up the scheme, we began with the fact that there are 150 highway authorities. We hope that the majority will take up the scheme and I think I said that six to eight were in the process of doing that.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Defence Service (Very High Cost Cases) Regulations 2007.

The noble Lord said: These regulations are made by the Lord Chancellor under Section 15(5) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure under Section 25(9) of that Act. This instrument is being made to bring into effect part of the changes to the Very High Cost Case (Crime) Panel recommended by my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles in his independent review of legal aid procurement.

Individuals who receive publicly funded legal representation in criminal cases can generally choose their representative. In very high cost cases, the choice of representative will be limited to members of a panel set up by the Legal Services Commission. This instrument provides that, where an individual has chosen a representative who is not a member of the panel and the case is classified as a very high cost case, the commission need not continue to fund representation. The commission will continue to have discretion to go on funding a representative who is not a member of the panel. This is because in certain circumstances—for example, when a case falls within scope only at a late stage—there would be no benefit in taking it under the very high cost contract after the bulk of the work had been completed. The instrument also provides that the individual may choose a new representative from the panel.

Very high cost cases have been managed under individual case contracts by the Legal Services Commission since 2001, and the contracting arrangements remain largely unchanged after the panel is formed. These arrangements were introduced in response to growing concerns about the rapidly growing expenditure being incurred in the longest and most complex cases in the Crown Court. It was widely recognised that the method of paying lawyers by determining appropriate fees after the event—ex post facto determination—did not exercise control over the increasing cost of these cases. Very high cost cases account for around £100 million of legal aid expenditure each year. The management of those cases by the commission will not be changed by these regulations, and those who successfully become panel members will work with the commission in the same way that they do now.

Since 2001, a defendant’s choice of representation in fraud trials has been restricted to litigators who are members of the Serious Fraud Panel. In future, the choice in all VHCC cases will be restricted to those who are panel members. All panel members will have to meet quality criteria and have previous experience of managing such cases. It is in the best interest of all concerned, including defendants, the wider criminal justice system and taxpayers, if the most experienced representatives conduct these cases.

The Government’s strategy for legal aid was set out in A Fairer Deal for Legal Aid in July 2005, which set out the need to rebalance spending between civil and criminal legal aid. One of the recommendations was an independent review of legal aid procurement. As I mentioned earlier, my noble friend Lord Carter carried out that review. His report, Legal Aid: A market-based approach to reform, and the accompanying DCA/Legal Services Commission consultation paper, Legal Aid: a sustainable future, were published in July 2006. The Government set out their proposals for legal aid reform in Legal Aid Reform: the Way Ahead in November 2006.

My noble friend Lord Carter proposed a number of amendments to the system of individual case contracts for very high cost cases, currently defined as cases expected to last 41 days or more at trial. He also proposed that a small proportion of trials expected to last 25 days or more be included within the VHCC scheme. My noble friend believed that better value for money could be obtained for this work by giving defence teams some probability of increased or more consistent volume in return for a modest reduction in hourly rates. To achieve this, we will establish a panel and limit access to it to defence teams who can show a track record of experience in working on very high cost cases and meet appropriate quality standards.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his introduction of these regulations. I—like, I have no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—am grateful for the letter he kindly sent us setting out what the Government are doing. There will be further questions about the report by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in due course, just as there have been debates in the past, and I do not want to get into wider Carter issues at this point. However, we are grateful that the Government are trying to ensure that anyone who is going to deal with cases of this sort will be properly qualified to do so.

Having said all that, there is only one major question that I want to put to the Government, and I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to give us a clear answer. He referred to costs, and I shall refer to the Explanatory Memorandum and the regulatory impact assessment detailed in it. Paragraph 4.2 of the regulatory impact assessment is entitled “VHCH expenditure and volumes”. The noble Lord mentioned that about £100 million was spent on such cases. Paragraph 4.2.3 shows that litigators cost £55 million, advocates £44 million and disbursements—whatever they are—£4 million. Paragraph 4.2.5 details which firms received what. Paragraph 4.3 is entitled “Rationale for Government Intervention”. Paragraph 4.3.1 ends by very sensibly referring to,

“concerns about whether the taxpayer is getting best value for money on VHCCs”.

I would like the noble Lord to give me some sort of prediction about the figures in paragraph 4.2.2 for the year ending 2009—not 2007 or 2008 because they are too early as this will come in only in 2009. I am sure he will have those figures in front of him or, if not, that those behind him can offer him advice. If he does not have them, I do not see much point in paragraph 4.3 referring to “rationale for government intervention”. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

My first task is to declare an interest. I understand from my clerk that my name has been put forward for five or six defence teams which are bidding for contracts under this new system and it looks as though I will be on the panel at some stage, perhaps by January when decisions will be made.

There has been a huge increase in the length of trials over my professional experience. In the old Stafford Crown Court there was a plaque above the jury box that commemorated the longest trial that had then taken place, which lasted 18 days. These days the prosecutor has barely cleared his throat at the end of 18 days.

Some years ago, when the very high cost cases were first introduced, I was involved in one or two—I am a little out of touch because I have been doing lengthy courts martial, which come under a different system—but they were hopelessly bureaucratic and useless. Contract managers had absolutely no experience of what went on in court, yet they were designated as approvers of whatever proposals were put to them by counsel and litigators, as they appear to be called these days, about the length of time a case would take. They had no way of judging that. I hope that by now they have a great deal of experience under their belts and are better at it. There were problems. After spending days preparing a case, any deviation required their approval and, if necessary, the adjournment of the court.

In a big case, courts cost anything between £10,000 and £15,000 a day. We had a ludicrous situation whereby a judge would be asked to adjourn so that counsel could pick up the phone to such an individual to ask whether he would be paid for reading the papers that the prosecution had served on him that morning. The last case I did was a court martial and I do not think a day went by without fresh papers being served on us. It is an ongoing problem. That need for everything to be approved is absolutely counterproductive. Nevertheless, the problem has to be tackled. The advent of the Rank Xerox machine lengthened trials to an enormous degree because of the production of exhibits, extra statements and so on.

We do not require such close control by someone who is not in court and who does not know what is going on, but we need rewards for doing things efficiently and quickly. It is possible to string out a case if one has nothing else to do and one wants to earn money that way, but that is contrary to the public interest. The parts of the Explanatory Memorandum and the attached regulatory impact assessment on which I have fastened are paragraphs 4.3.6 and 4.3.7. I agree that there is an opportunity to secure better value by creating a specialist panel by means of competition on price and capacity. I pause there to say that the danger is that one can create a cartel; so unless it is easy to join the panel—or at least not too difficult to join it—those on the panel will draw up the drawbridge and charge whatever they think is appropriate. If they are in competition only within a specialist panel themselves, the danger is that fees will rise.

The second matter, at paragraph 4.3.7, is that:

“The Government also intends to require the LSC to start work with specialist practitioners to identify ways to incentivise and reward Defence Teams for representing their clients in more efficient ways. This will be more likely to be successful if the LSC is working with a specialist panel of firms for whom VHCC Work represents a long-term investment. At present, firms have insufficient incentive to invest in technology, training and high quality recruitment”.

I could not agree more that the Government should set about finding out what the appropriate incentives and rewards are for getting counsel and solicitors to do their jobs more efficiently and to be rewarded for being capable of getting to the point of a case, without drawing it out—as happened in the Jubilee Line case, for example—to the point where everyone loses heart and the case is dropped. I cannot come forward with any particular proposition at this time but it has always irritated me that some people spend days reading unnecessary papers and exhibits and get paid for it, whereas those of us who are a little more efficient and get to the point more quickly are paid the same, or sometimes less, than the inefficient practitioner. Obviously, if there is to be a panel, it is necessary to bring these regulations into effect but, if the case starts with one solicitor who is not a member of the panel, it has to be transferred. That is just a minor part of the overall picture and there can be no possible opposition to it.

I urge the Minister and those behind him to have in the forefront of their minds not bureaucratic control over how advocates and litigators do their job but incentives and rewards for those who act efficiently and get through cases by getting to the nub of them. In the old days—unfortunately, I suppose that I am entitled to talk about the old days—the assessment of fees was left very much to the court clerk or the clerk of quarter sessions or whoever. That person was in court and knew precisely the value of a particular advocate whereas, under this system, the person who decides what the rewards should be is sitting in an office at the end of a phone and has neither the experience nor the knowledge adequately to control what happens or to ensure that efficiencies are made.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Thomas, for their helpful and constructive remarks. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that in future I intend to write to opposition spokespersons with details of forthcoming regulations. I am happy to give that commitment to the Committee.

I recognise that this is but one aspect of a fundamental reform of the legal aid system. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, suggested, there will be opportunities in future to discuss progress in the reform programme. I also very much accept his point that these regulations are part of a restructuring of the way in which very high cost cases are funded, and they have the dual advantage of ensuring that there will be a quality check on people who provide services in future, alongside keeping control of the cost. On that basis, there is a real advantage to the public as well as the public purse.

The noble Lord was very confident that I would have the figures to hand. I am most grateful to him for that confidence; whether it is deserved or not, we will see. The spend for these cases in 2003-04 was £26.3 million. By 2004-05, it had risen to £66.6 million and by 2005-06 it had gone up to £86.2 million. By 2006-07, it was £99.9 million. As the noble Lord will observe, there has been a quite considerable increase. The noble Lord then asked me what I thought the savings would be in a full year. The estimate that officials have produced for me suggests between £6.2 million and £12.5 million. That obviously depends on a number of factors. These cases can last two to three years, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, suggested. As there is a catch-up in relation to the new structure, the savings will take some time to be realised fully. Clearly, however, we aim to make savings from an early stage.

The Minister has left out very important stakeholders—the defendants. What do they think of the system?

That is a very fair point indeed. Some defendants may not deem more effective access to justice and quick dispensation of justice in their best interests. However, I can take a public interest view of this, that overall the system seems to work better. All that I meant to do before I foolishly went down that path was to agree with the noble Lord that simply dealing with how defence teams are paid will not in itself produce the developments that the RIA suggests. There have to be changes to the system as a whole, but defence teams can play their part and the fee structure will help that.

With those remarks, I thank noble Lords for their contribution.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Committee adjourned at 5.07 pm.