Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Perhaps the Minister can confirm that clauses 37 to 40 essentially re-enact the regime of the Fire Services Act 1947 and the Water Industry Act 1991. In other words, we are getting the status quo. Until recently, the 1991 Act was the longest piece of legislation that this Parliament ever passed, and it is very complicated. Without ploughing through it all, can the Minister tell us whether we are re-enacting the status quo? If we are not, will he draw our attention to the differences? Will the Minister tell me why it is necessary to repeat in the Bill provisions in the 1991 Act? Why deal with matters such as the supply of water by water undertakers, which are already dealt with in that Act?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is right that the general effect of the part 5 clauses is to re-enact the provisions in the 1947 Act. There are one or two changes that reflect change in practice, notably the charging regimes that relate to the 1991 legislation,

and therefore there are exemptions in respect of the requirement for water for firefighting purposes, which have been introduced since 1947. Otherwise the provisions are exactly as envisaged in the original legislation. I hope that that explanation allows us to move rapidly through the clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

While I am on my feet, I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that extraneous reading matter should not be perused during Committee proceedings.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.