|
Mr. McNulty: In terms of requirements to remove rubbish, that is not the purpose of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman knows fine well—this will come out in discussion of the regulations—that many contractors will use the street or road as a permanent or at least temporary dump for their building materials or rubbish, for the duration of their work. As such, it is entirely appropriate to include that element as well as skips in the Bill.
I was referring to what I thought the hon. Gentleman was referring to: his suggestion that the authority should not have to register rubbish that will probably be cleared up then and there or by the end of the working day, then come back and say that it is gone, so it does not matter. There are examples throughout London of sites that effectively become a builder's yard for the duration of the contractor's work. That cannot be right or appropriate either for the local authority's maintaining its ability to fulfil its network management duty or for the efficient use of the public street or road.
Generally, street works must be done on positive terms. Contractors must work with everyone else who needs to use the road, rather than simply taking the road as a gift for the duration of their works. That happens rarely, but to the extent that it happens in London, which is principally what I have been talking about, it can be entirely disruptive. As a suggestion for inclusion in the register, it is right and proper, but the black bag that will not be there by the end of the day or the week is not.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Duties relating to the location
of unexpected apparatus
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
4.30 pm
Mr. Chope: The clause amends section 80 of the 1991 Act, but section 80 has never been activated, being regarded apparently as too rigid and burdensome. The clause aims to develop a practical and effective regime that is not too burdensome on
Column Number: 229
operators. The Government have had more than 10 years in which to cogitate on the provision, so will the Minister share with us some of the ideas that might be proposed in regulations to express that practical and effective regime?
Mr. McNulty: I shall not rise to the notion that we have somehow had 10 years to deliberate and cogitate on the provision. Of course we have not. The time from 1991 to half of 1997 was not in our gift as the Government of the day; it was in the gift of the hon. Gentleman's party. He is right to say that it has never been activated for fear of placing an excessive burden on the person who finds the apparatus, given that the fact that it was not properly recorded in the first place is not their fault.
Instead, the clause allows, with modification, for regulations to be made that set out the action that someone finding such apparatus needs to take. It also allows the Secretary of State to set up, or appoint someone to set up, a central register of apparatus in the road, whose owners are unknown. If there were an opportunity afforded by the opening of a road or street to identify some of the apparatus underneath, it would be foolish not to do so. Since 1991, there has been an explosion in the number of utilities that can dig up the roads.
I am always astonished at the time and energy such work costs private and public contractors. They consult maps and anticipate undertakings under the road in certain locations because things have not been dealt with or the road has not been breached for so long; but there has been some movement under the road, and apparatus has moved 5, 10 or 15 ft and is well away from the location in which the undertaker believed it to be.
It is right and sensible to set up a practical regulatory regime in consultation with undertakers, authorities and others, that balances the need to ensure that all apparatus under the street is accurately recorded with not placing an unfair burden on the ''innocent'' persons carrying out the work. They are not responsible for what they find under the road, but as and when they find apparatus, it seems logical to mark it and inform whoever keeps the register.
We have already agreed with the utilities that it is a good idea to put the details in the regulations. We will discuss with them and local authorities how that should be done. Rather than starting from the premise that section 80 of the 1991 Act has not been activated and that we therefore do not need it, we believe that it can be suitably modified in full discussion with utilities and local authorities.
We can mark and record undertakings that are found when roads are opened, recording not simply that their existence—I hope that we know what is there—but their location, should they have shifted. In London, given the shifting sands on which this glorious and wonderful city is built, that happens on numerous occasions and not only in parts where there is porous earth.
Column Number: 230
The provision is not another stick with which to beat the utilities, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. It is the common-sense notion of taking forward a provision that was not activated from the 1991 Act to reach a stage where the location of apparatus is recorded for the benefit of the utilities and all who seek to do street work and for those who are responsible for the maintenance of the main highways. That must make sense and I do not understand the complaint.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Duty to inspect records
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Chope: What requirements are to be laid down in relation to the availability of records? If the records are kept on a computer that can be interrogated at all hours of the day and night, that is one thing, but if the only way to gain access to them is to go down to the local authority when it is open between 9.30 am and 4.30 pm, that is a major restriction and inhibition on an entrepreneurial contractor's ability to take effective action.
We know that issues arising under this part of the Bill will often arise at short notice, at weekends, in the evenings, late at night or in the early hours of the morning. Can the Minister give us some idea of the requirements that will be placed on local authorities to ensure that the records are available to be inspected? That must surely be the fair corollary of the duty to be placed on statutory undertakers to inspect the records.
Mr. McNulty: That is entirely fair and is the thrust not only of the clause but of the regulations that will stand behind it. We want the duty to fit with the new provision in clause 46, which is intended to make it easier for different undertakers to exchange information on their apparatus in the street and to have full regard for it.
Section 79 of the 1991 Act deals with access to records. Section 73(3) says that an undertaker must keep them available at reasonable hours and free of charge. The clause builds on that. The elements of the Bill will be dealt with in detail in regulations, after full consultation with utilities and local authorities.
Mr. Miller: There are some exceptions in the publicly mapped data. For example, in my area significant parts of the Government's own pipeline network are not held in the public domain, which could cause problems if emergency works are needed. Therefore, some aspects will have to be dealt with outside of an open computer system and covered by security provisions.
Mr. McNulty: I do not doubt that. I am sure that local authorities and the utilities are fully aware of that matter, which we will need to take full cognisance of when we draft the regulations. It is an entirely fair point. I accept that there will be exceptions to the notion that we should have full and open access to everything under our roads.
Column Number: 231
Mr. Knight: In a rather throw-away line the Minister said that the provisions build on the existing position, where the records are available free of charge. Can he clarify the use of the word ''build''? I hope that it does not mean that charges will be introduced in future. The clause refers to making regulations. Does the Minister take the view that access to the records should still be free of charge to those who need to inspect them?
On the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), in the light of the Government's stated intention to provide more and more information on the internet, why could this information not be on an intranet, to which those authorised to carry out the work could have access? They would then not have to send an employee to the council offices to start looking through pieces of paper, but could delegate a member of staff in their own office to go on to the intranet and find out the information much more quickly, efficiently and cheaply?
Mr. McNulty: I take the point about an intranet for the utilities and local government on a nationwide basis. That may be worth exploring, but it is something for the local authorities and the utilities to explore rather than the Bill. I repeat what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said about the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston.
Save for updating matters relating to the changes made over the last 12 years, we are not changing what the 1991 Act says about sensitive equipment under our roads. Existing regulations make provision for sensitive equipment, although we may well need to update that because, as I think everyone accepts, there have been considerable changes between 1991 and 2004 to who can access our roads and what has been done under them. The points about having as much access as possible and about retaining the free-of-charge position will be explored in regulations. I hope that we reach the stage at which that can prevail, because the mutual exchange of the records and information must, by definition, benefit both the local authority and the utility about to undertake operations. There may simply be a minor administrative charge to cover the cost of retaining access to those records—as currently prevails under the existing Act, I hasten to add. However, the notion that we are talking about a commercial exchange for which there ought to be a fee should be broadly resisted. Given the mutuality in the process, I think that, when we come to consider the matter in relation to the regulations, what I described will prevail in future as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
