Clause 42 - Notice of works affecting water supply and fire hydrants
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
11:00 am
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge rightly surmised, the provision dates back to 1947; it re-enacts sections 16(1) to (3) of the Fire Services Act of that year. Although he may well be right that communication was slightly slower then because it depended on the post rather than the internet, there was clear logic behind the provision. Let me try to explain that logic.
Subsection (1) provides that a person who proposes to carry out works for the purpose of supplying water to any part of the area must give at least six weeks' notice in writing to the authority. If hon. Members think about the issue, they will realise that when a new development is being planned it is important that the fire and rescue authority has good advance notice, so that it can make observations that might be germane to the siting of hydrants or the availability of water to deal with an emergency. In the case of the works generally associated with new development, it does not seem unreasonable to require six weeks as the norm.
Subsection (2) provides that the person who proposes to carry out works affecting a fire hydrant must give at least seven days' notice. That is clearly a lesser obligation, where there is a need for maintenance or works affecting a hydrant. Nevertheless, the fire and rescue authority should still know about such work in advance, so that it can make alternative arrangements if necessary in the knowledge
that a particular hydrant may not be available for a period. Again, that is a sensible and reasonable provision. Its purpose is to give the fire and rescue authority some certainty and to make the contractor aware of the time expectation.
Subsection (3) copes with emergency circumstances in which it is not practicable, for whatever reason, to comply with the seven-day or six-week notice period. We would not want it to apply with any frequency, but we can all envisage circumstances in which, in an emergency, work must be done immediately to a water supply that will interrupt a hydrant. If, for example, there is a serious risk of flooding as a result of burst pipes, it would be absurd to say that the contractor cannot carry out any work for seven days because there is no relief from the obligation to provide seven days' notice. Subsection (3) is therefore necessary as a safeguard and contains the term ''as soon as practicable''. Clearly, someone who went ahead and carried out the work regardless could be challenged for that action, even though there was no good reason for not giving notice. The provisions are sensible and benefit from having been tried and tested over a long period.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made the point that there was no reason to change something that was not broken. I hope that he will recognise that this practical, workable arrangement has not caused any complaint.