Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

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

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 Tony McNulty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Harrow East, Labour)

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.

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.