Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

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

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 Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

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

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.

Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire, Conservative)

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

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.