Clause 47 - Duty to inspect records
Traffic Management Bill
4:30 pm

Photo of Mr Tony McNulty

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.

Annotations

No annotations

Sign in or join to post a public annotation.