Clause 42 - Notice of works affecting water supply and fire hydrants
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
11:00 am
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Subsections (1) and (2) make provision for specific notice periods to be given by persons carrying out works on the water supply network or on a fire hydrant. Subsections (4) and (5) provide that failure to give such notice is an offence and deal with the punishment to be meted out.
Subsection (3) drives a coach and horses through the whole structure with the undoubtedly sensible and pragmatic approach that, where it is not practicable to give longer notice, a person will avoid committing an offence by giving notice ''as soon as practicable''. That could be an hour before the works commence. Indeed, some circumstances, such as a major water leak or a burst main, will almost certainly require very short notice.
The requirement in subsection (1) for six weeks' notice is excessive and bureaucratic. Given the provisions of subsection (3), it is extremely unlikely that anybody will be prosecuted for failing to give six weeks' or seven days' notice provided that they give some notice. They will be rescued by the provisions of subsection (3). Amendment No.126 would not allow the law to make an ass of itself, by creating a regime of requirements and then a clear route through that regime, which I suspect will be followed in most cases.
I am opposed to the creation or maintenance in being of meaningless offences. It might have seemed appropriate in 1947 to require six weeks' notice, but things happened rather more slowly then. No doubt the notice was sent by post—although it might have got there rather quicker in those days. Changing the arrangement so that notice must be given as soon as practicable—as soon as the person doing the work knows that he will be doing it—is much more straightforward. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on the issue.
Rather than raise an additional point in a stand part debate, I would like to ask the Minister now what happens in practice, because it is pertinent to the amendments. How much notice do fire authorities need? How much do they routinely get? Is there a problem, or does the system work well when notice is given as soon as practicable by those—typically, though not necessarily, the statutory undertaker—who will be carrying out the works? If fire and rescue authorities can work satisfactorily with a few days' notice, and on some occasions with much shorter notice, I see no reason why that should not be formalised in the Bill.