Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Clause 39 provides that, while carrying out the request of a fire and rescue authority to provide a supply of water at requisite volume and pressure, the water undertaker will not be liable for action by any other party who, for example, finds that his water pressure has dropped. As anyone who has had their water pressure drop will know, there can be some unpleasant side effects of the water supply drying up. It can take a while for a potable supply of water to be resumed, because all the muck on the inside of the pipes ends up coming out of the taps. However, in the circumstances of a major fire event, it is right that the requirements of firefighting should take precedence.

Although I understand the provision that there should be no liability to third parties, would it still be a requirement on the statutory undertaker to make an emergency supply of water available if the supply was shut off for firefighting reasons, as happens when the supply is shut off for any other reason for any length of time? Standpipes clearly would not work if the supply had been shut off, so we would be talking about an obligation on water authorities to provide water by tanker to affected households. A major fire could occur, and water might have to be diverted over a whole night or longer. Can the Minister reassure us that although the water undertaker could not have action taken against him for failure to deliver a water supply in accordance with his normal statutory duty, he would still be required to make alternative emergency provision for the households affected?

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

I can give the hon. Gentleman the important assurance that the obligations under the clause relate to the supply of water for the purpose of extinguishing a fire. There is a clear obligation on water undertakers to ''take all necessary steps''—and the use of the word ''necessary'' is rather important—to increase

''supply and pressure of water for the purposes of extinguishing a fire''

if requested to do so by a fire and rescue authority.

The hon. Gentleman asked an interesting question about the knock-on consequences for other water users. Of course, that is not strictly within the remit of the Bill, so I am afraid that I am not able to give him the precise assurance that he is seeking, but I will of course write to him when I have made further inquiries, as the issue goes wider than the Bill.

I thought for a moment that we would have a foray into the problems of water supply when the hon. Gentleman described the consequences of interruptions in potable water supply—I thought that we were about to get an advertisement for Coca-Cola, which appears to be trying to bottle water from the mains and sell it at an absurd price to a gullible public. Fortunately, we did not stretch to going down that route, and you did not have to call us back to order, Mr. O'Hara. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is happy for clause 39 to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.