Mr John Pugh (Education Spokesperson, Education & Skills; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 188, in

clause 41, page 19, line 13, at end insert—

'(a) where such a notice or mark would be fixed to a listed building the Fire and Rescue Authority shall consult with the Planning Authority on the appropriate style and fixing of the notice or mark.'.

The amendment is not at all inconsistent with the thrust of the legislation. It is an attempt to get some clarification on the sensitive matter of civic architecture, I guess. It is quite clear that there must be obvious and easily identifiable forms of marking for the location of fire hydrants, and the water authority must ensure that there is a realistic expectation that one will find a hydrant in one place rather than another. Signage must be clear, obvious and easily detectable in an emergency. However, there are other issues in certain areas, one of which is aesthetics, building construction, and so on. That ought to be taken into account, rather than the water undertaker having the right simply to slap a sign wherever he feels it should go.

I do not necessarily argue that the local civic society should chose the location of a fire hydrant or a sign for it, but we need to achieve a balance. It may be that that balance is indirectly achieved through the consequential effects of the legislation, which may have no power to overrule ordinary planning rules and regulations. The amendment is designed to find out whether that is the case, and whether the balance will be achieved. That is why we are simply asking for there to be consultation with the planning authority on the appropriate style and fixing of the notice or mark. The fixing and placing is probably more important than the

style, because there is probably a requirement for uniformity of style. I am not sold on any tweaking of the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point about style, because uniformity is absolutely critical. Is there a problem that needs fixing? Fire hydrant signs are always little yellow notices about 6 in square, and if he walks around London, he will see them affixed to the most historic and illustrious buildings without having caused anyone, and certainly not me, any distress or concern. Is he aware of a specific problem that needs addressing?

Mr John Pugh (Education Spokesperson, Education & Skills; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman is far more observant than I am, and has no doubt looked at fire hydrants across the land. I think that there is a possibility of their not being placed in an appropriate place; in fact, some are not. There is sensitive consultation in most places, but there does not seem to be any requirement for sensible consultation. We are merely asking for such a requirement in the Bill.

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

I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, as he has clearly been landed with the task of moving the amendment because his colleague, the hon. Member for Teignbridge, has had to go to an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall—as, indeed, has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The hon. Gentleman has been landed with this somewhat bizarre amendment.

I understand that the hon. Member for Teignbridge has a background as an architect, and I thought that, if he was here in time to move the amendment, we would hear a very interesting case for neo-Gothic hydrant markers or some other bizarre arrangement, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Southport recognises that that is not appropriate.

Fire and rescue authorities are aware that they must balance the need for visibility of notices and marks for fire hydrants with respect for the location in which they are sited and the wishes of the owners of property, whether listed buildings or otherwise. Although the notices are the responsibility of the water undertaker, they are fixed in a position agreed by the authority, and rightly so, because they are there for operational reasons. They are sometimes affixed by the authority, because it is important that firefighters arriving at an incident can locate the nearest hydrant without delay. I understand that fire and rescue authorities discuss with property owners the siting of any marker and, when necessary, use alternative means of indicating the hydrant, such as painting its cover yellow. In addition, many authorities are developing the use of global positioning systems to locate hydrants to reduce their dependence on notices or marks.

The amendment would not be helpful and it is somewhat bizarre that it would be appended to a subsection that is concerned with expenses rather than the siting of hydrants. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Mr John Pugh (Education Spokesperson, Education & Skills; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

It is a great loss for the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge has had to leave us and cannot enlarge on the civic vices that may

occur if the amendment is not incorporated into the Bill. However, I accept the Minister's assurances and the sensitivity of his reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 125, in

clause 41, page 19, line 25, after 'authority,' insert

'authorised by an agreement made under section 38'.

This amendment would amend subsection (6), which deals with the circumstances in which a hydrant is permitted to be used otherwise than for the purposes of firefighting. Hydrants exist primarily for firefighting, but they are also used for other purposes. They are a handy means of temporary access to water for construction work in the street, and contractors working for local authorities might enter into arrangements with water undertakers to obtain water from a fire hydrant to water plants. We are all familiar with walking down the street and seeing a fire hydrant cover open and a standpipe affixed to it for a proper purpose.

Water undertakers are commercial businesses and if they enter into arrangements with people who want to use their water in that way they should extract a commercial charge for allowing them to do doing so. There are no problems with that. However, subsection (6) limits the offence to anyone taking water from a fire hydrant other than

''(a) for the purposes of fire-fighting or for any other purposes of a fire and rescue authority, or

(b) for any purpose authorised by the water undertaker or other person to whom the hydrant belongs.''

The Bill seems to create a gap. Fire and rescue authorities can take water without agreement or consent for firefighting purposes, as has always been the case, and other people can take water for any purpose that is agreed with the statutory undertaker or the owner of the hydrant. However, subsection (6) creates a situation in which a fire and rescue authority can take water by right for any purpose. We all know, following our consideration of earlier parts of the Bill, that the purposes of such authorities are no longer limited to firefighting or even to emergency functions. They include, for example, contracting, for a fee, to fill someone's swimming pool or ornamental pond. A fire or rescue authority might even be tempted to fill bottles with tap water for the supplier the Minister mentioned earlier—to which I do not wish to give further publicity.

There is an anomaly. It cannot be intended that a fire and rescue authority should be entitled to take a supply of water without paying for it in order to deliver functions that it has chosen to undertake under clause 12. That could give the fire and rescue authority a commercial advantage over other suppliers. We do not want authorities going into the business of municipal plant watering simply because they have free access to the hydrants of the statutory undertakers. That would be inappropriate, and unfair to the statutory undertakers. The amendment would remedy that by limiting the right of a fire and rescue authority to take a supply of water for purposes other than firefighting

to circumstances in which it has entered into an agreement with the water undertaker under clause 38, so that proper arrangements are made for payment and so forth.

Although there are provisions in the Water Industry Act 1991 for charging for an emergency supply of water, I am not aware of any provision in it for the automatic charging of fire authorities for a non-emergency supply of water. I offer the example of the local fire service undertaking for a fee to fill the Minister's ornamental garden lake. I know that he is held in high regard by the firefighters in Greenwich, and I am sure that they would be anxious to turn out to fill his lake when the water level gets low in the summer. They might want to charge for that, and the water undertaker should be able to charge them or to refuse to allow its supply to be used for that purpose. Unless I am much mistaken, the Bill gives a fire and rescue authority the automatic right to extract water from a hydrant for any purposes, including non-emergency purposes.

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

I understand the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but unfortunately the amendment would not achieve his purpose. The powers under clause 38 are conditioned by the duty in clause 37(1):

''A fire and rescue authority must take all reasonable measures for securing that an adequate supply of water will be available for the authority's use in the event of fire.''

The safeguard is that agreements under clause 38 can be made only for the purpose of what is referred to in clause 37(1).

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Having sat down, I turned the page of my notes and saw the point that I was going to own up to—that the amendment is incorrectly drafted. Clause 38 is not the provision under which an agreement would be made for use of water for non-emergency purposes, for the reason that the Minister has just explained. However, as I understand it, under clause 41(6)(a) a fire authority has the right to take water for other purposes.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right. We drafted this deliberately because there are circumstances other than directly fighting fires in which it would be wholly reasonable for a fire and rescue authority to have access to a supply of water. The obvious example is individual employees of the authority taking water from a hydrant in the course of carrying out routine tests to ensure that it is working effectively. Another example is in the event of a major terrorist incident where there was a requirement for water for decontamination. We felt that it was unduly restrictive to limit this provision solely to the circumstances envisaged in clause 38. The amendment would prevent fire and rescue authorities from operating in the public interest.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The Minister has made a good case for not restricting the rights of fire authorities to take water to firefighting. He has made the case for

extending it to other emergency functions, but he has not addressed the clause 12 activities of a fire authority or the filling of the ornamental lake. It would be helpful if he could say at the very least that he would not expect fire authorities to draw water under the powers granted in subsection (6)(a) for the purposes of activities for which they were charging third parties, other than with the agreement of the statutory water undertaker and, by implication, with proper recompense made to the statutory water undertaker for the water taken. As I understand it, the only statutory provisions for the payment of compensation to the statutory water undertaker are under section 147 of the Water Industry Act in respect of water used for emergencies.

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

The hon. Gentleman has come to the critical point here. The 1991 Act does allow the water companies to charge for non-emergency use of water. Therefore, if I did have an ornamental lake at my house in Greenwich, as sadly I do not, I would not be able to ask the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority to come and fill it up with water taken from Thames Water free of charge. I can see that this scenario is very attractive to the hon. Gentleman, but it has no relation to reality and is not one that would arise in practice.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Subsection (6)(a) and clause 37(1) refer to the fire and rescue authorities and the use that they can make of fire hydrants. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee as to what access to these hydrants the military would have in an emergency? Perhaps that is covered by legislation elsewhere. Would the military be in contravention of subsection (6) if they required access to these fire hydrants in the absence of the fire and rescue services?

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

The hon. Gentleman raises a most interesting question, but again it goes far wide of my responsibility. I will have to seek further advice and write to him, to tell him whether the military will have access, and if so, on what conditions. This Bill is concerned with the fire and rescue services' access to fire hydrants. We believe that we have a correct and proper balance, which ensures that the fire and rescue service can discharge its responsibilities in a range of circumstances in the most effective way possible, and that there is flexibility to cover circumstances other than firefighting, as I explained earlier to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. With that assurance I hope that he will now withdraw the amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I shall seek just one further piece of clarification from the Minister. The essence of his argument in dealing with this substantive point is that there is no need to worry, because if a fire and rescue authority draws water other than for an emergency purpose, there are provisions under the Water Industry Act that require it to pay for that water—as opposed to enabling the statutory undertaker to enter into an agreement with it. I am not sufficiently familiar with that Act to know where they are. I know that section 147 lays down provision for charging for

emergency use of water. Where in that Act I would find a provision that says that if a fire and rescue authority, using the powers under clause 41(6)(a), draws water for a non-emergency purpose, the statutory undertaker automatically has a right to charge for that water?

Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Order. I think that the Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman, and he may well respond, but I think it takes us beyond the provisions of the Bill before us today.

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

I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the particular provisions under the 1991 legislation that cover the charging regime that I have described. However, as I am sure he will understand, this is outside the provisions of the Bill, and I am not entirely familiar with all the provisions of the 1991 Act—but I am happy to write to him.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Jim Knight (South Dorset, Labour)

I do not want to take up much of the Committee's time in a stand part debate, but there are a couple of issues that I wish to raise with the Minister about charging for water supply and fire hydrants. I would like him to reflect on them and come back to us either today or later.

Dorset fire authority has written to me about the matter, because its chief fire officer, Martin Chapman, represents the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association on water supply issues. He is concerned about damage caused to fire hydrants and how that is charged for. The Bill clearly states that third-party damage is not paid for by fire authorities, but I am told that in practice it is difficult to identify the perpetrator if it is an act of vandalism. Therefore, it is difficult for fire authorities to defend against paying the repair and maintenance bill.

In many cases, firefighters and operational crews inspect hydrants to make sure that they are functioning and to ensure safety. I am told that the annual cost of that in Dorset is £124,000 a year, which is a significant cost to the council tax payer. I ask the Minister to reflect on whether it is possible to stop fire authorities having to pay those costs by putting the requirement on water companies to maintain their fire hydrants. That would mean that the water bill payer would pay.

While we want to constrain escalating costs of water bills to consumers, the point is that water bills and water companies are regulated by the Office of Water Services. There is no regulation of the charging that water companies make to fire authorities for work carried out. There is certainly no regulation of the work that fire authorities have to carry out to maintain hydrants. If fire authorities no longer had to pay those costs, that redirection of resources from intervention to preventative work would clearly be in line with the Government's modernisation agenda.

When the Minister reflects on that annual cost to Dorset of £124,000, I ask him whether he could give me an answer in respect of subsection (8), about what level 2 is on the standard scale of fines. If we, as council tax payers in Dorset, have to cover the cost of vandalism, I would be interested to know what fine the vandal would have to pay if caught—which I am told would be unusual.

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

My hon. Friend raises some important points. I am a little concerned to hear the figures of the estimated cost in Dorset of repairing damage caused by acts of vandalism to fire hydrants.

The regime that will be put in place by the Bill, which largely re-enacts the provisions of section 14 of the 1947 Act, provides that the repair of hydrants will be charged to fire and rescue authorities unless it is clear that the damage was done by other licensed users. Clearly, fire and rescue authorities need to record the use of hydrants and to develop good working relationships with water undertakers through liaison groups, to ensure that they pay only reasonable costs.

The issue is an important one and the national water liaison group, which includes representatives from the fire and rescue authorities, the water undertakers, DEFRA and the ODPM, has issued guidance on the management of hydrants to reduce the costs associated with inspection and testing and to ensure that brigades have a policy on dealing with the decommissioning of hydrants no longer required. This is an important issue. I am slightly concerned, because it is not an issue that the Local Government Association raised in its briefing on the Bill. I undertake to my hon. Friend to look into the matter and to write to him about it.

On my hon. Friend's technical question about subsection (8), level 2 fines do not exceed £400.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Will the Minister confirm—the question asked by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) implied this—that the fine is for acts of vandalism against fire hydrants? Are not the majority of cases brought under the provision likely to be for obstruction of a fire hydrant—when someone has parked a vehicle to obstruct it? The level of the fine should reflect the fact that the offence of obstruction is dealt with in the same way as the offence of damage, although no monetary consequences arise from the offence of obstruction.

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

If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at subsections (6) and (7), he will see that the latter refers to a person committing an offence

''if he damages or obstructs a fire hydrant''.

Therefore, the provision will cover the eventuality about which he is concerned. I have undertaken to write further to my hon. Friend on the issue, but the general provisions of the clause, which is concerned with the fitting, marking and operation of fire hydrants, are necessary and sensible for the

maintenance of the work of the fire and rescue service throughout the country. I hope that Members will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.