I beg to move amendment No. 126, in

clause 42, page 19, line 35, leave out from 'give' to 'in' in line 36 and insert

'notice as soon as practicable of his intention'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 127, in

clause 42, page 19, line 37, leave out from 'give' to first 'in' in line 38 and insert

'notice as soon as practicable of his intention'.

Amendment No. 128, in

clause 42, page 19, line 40, leave out subsection (3).

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.

The clause certainly requires clarification. It is clearly important that hydrants are not tampered with, so that when disasters occur, they are not found to be deficient. At first I was slightly unsympathetic towards amendment No. 127, because the hon. Gentleman seemed to want to replace the fairly precise term of ''seven days'' with the fairly debatable term ''as soon as practicable'', and I could see problems ahead. If, for example, it were suggested that there had been a breach of the regulations, there would have to be a process to enable us to decide how the term ''as soon as practicable'' could be applied. It seemed to me that a possible reason for a minimum of seven days' notice was to rule out abuse. One can imagine people on a building site, for instance, simply phoning up the fire and rescue authority and saying ''That's as soon as practicable.''

I may be misunderstanding subsection (3), but it seems to undo the precision of subsections (1) and (2), so I do not know where the clause is going. If the Minister of State can assist us, I shall be in his debt.

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.

Has the Minister consulted the construction industry? It is important that it, too, understands the provision.

I have not recently met representatives of the construction industry. I had detailed involvement with it during the four years in which I served as Minister with responsibility for it, but I have not consulted it on this issue.

The fact that the provision is now being re-enacted will help to clarify the expectation that the periods must be adhered to as part of the normal development process. My experience is that most developers get legal advice. Their lawyers would not be acting properly if they failed to draw such obligations to their attention.

I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will recognise that his amendment is not helpful, as it would create uncertainty and leave room for argument and for failure to give advance notice. Indeed, it might well encourage a failure to give the advance notice that is essential to the fire and rescue service. I therefore hope that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

I am not sure that the Minister's last comment is right. Subsection (3) provides that if it is not practicable to give the notice required under subsections (1) and (2), notice must be given ''as soon as practicable''. The amendment requires that in every case notice be given as soon as practicable. In some cases, that would be much earlier than six weeks. To use the Minister's example of new developments, it

would be appropriate to give notice once arrangements had been entered into with the statutory undertaker and the scheme was known.

However, I shall not press the point. I wanted to hear from the Minister about current practice, but I do not believe that we actually heard anything about it. I am prepared to stick my neck out and guess that less than statutory notice is given in many cases, but that the system copes with that perfectly well. I am curious as to whether any prosecutions have been made under the relevant sections of the 1947 Act. I notice that the Minister is not leaping to his feet to enlighten the Committee about that, and I suspect that the answer is that there have been none.

Before we conclude, I wish to ask the Minister another question about subsections (1) and (2), which require that notice be given in writing. My understanding was that legislation passed in this place states that the requirement in statute for notice in writing is to be construed as allowing electronic forms of communication. However, a doubt has entered my mind because of the Government's tabling new clause 6, which appears to make special provision for such communication. Can the Minister confirm that notice in writing under subsections (1) and (2) could, by virtue of other legislation, be given by electronic means? If so, how is that notice different from the notice under clause 44, for which new clause 6 makes specific provision in respect of electronic communication? I am sorry, I must correct myself: it is not clause 44 but clause 46 that requires notice.

I was becoming a little uncertain as to which clause I needed to discuss, but let me deal with the key point. The convention that the hon. Gentleman refers to is correct, in that the word ''writing'' can include all forms of written communication, including e-mail. That interpretation remains correct, and new clause 6 is necessary so that service can be proved in particular circumstances. But that is not a reason—

Order. We should not be going too deeply into new clause 6 at this stage.

We will no doubt come back to new clause 6 later. I hope that, with the assurance that electronic communication is acceptable and satisfies the conditions in the clause, the hon. Gentleman will agree that he can now withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister. He has resolved the mystery relating to clause 42—and created a deeper one, in my mind, in respect of clause 46. However, as you rightly say, Mr. O'Hara, we shall come to that issue in due course. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43Powers of fire-fighters etc in an emergency etc