GrXwRM3e
type: Answer
type: WrittenAnswer
answer has question: W9cVXAwP
answer has answering person: zfV7nFP8
answer text: The Department sympathises with concerns expressed by local authorities about the issues addressed in the TRL Report, and with the view that ““the polluter should pay””. However, I am yet to be persuaded that statutory powers about resurfacing and recovering long-term damage costs would offer a proportionate and workable solution that creates the right incentives for utilities to reduce future damage.I am concerned that these costs may simply feed through into utility bills rather than changing utility companies' behaviour for the better. It would therefore still be households and businesses who ultimately bear the costs of long-term damage, whether through taxation (as now) or through utility bills (as it would be under the TRL proposals).The proposal would also be inconsistent with the coalition Government's commitment to reduce regulatory costs on business, and in particular the principle that any new regulatory costs affecting business should be accompanied by an offsetting deregulatory measure.Rather than imposing a levy that would create a new regulatory burden and result in higher utility bills, the Government believe the more pragmatic approach is to reduce long-term damage costs through a greater focus on high-quality reinstatements.I do not propose to bring forward legislative proposals in this area in the foreseeable future, but the Department will continue to keep the position under review through its ongoing engagement with the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee, ADEPT and other interested parties.
answer given date: 2012-03-21+00:00
answer has answering body: XouN12Ow
written answer has answering body: XouN12Ow