Clause 2 (Hansard, 19 February 1981)

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 5, at end insert 'but subject to the provisions of any order made under subsection (2) below,'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 5.

§ Mr. Shaw
These are drafting amendments. In its present form, the clause is confusing on one point. We need to be clear that no consumer can ignore the effects of the Secretary of State's orders under subsection (2), which spells out the basis for calculating charges where there are supplies both for fire fighting and for other purposes.
We do not think that the consumer should be able to argue, from first principles, that his exemption should be what he thinks, and not what the authorities properly calculate under subsection (2). That could be important where he has a supply that is usually fully used for his every-day industrial or other purposes, but which he can switch to fire-fighting in an emergency. He should not be entitled to any exemption of his availability charge in such a case. The Secretary of State's orders will make that clear.
The first amendment specifically limits the exemption so that it does not override the charging arrangements contained in the orders, where there is this mixed supply case. The second amendment makes it clear that charges assessed on the basis of an order are the charges that will have to be paid.

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 9, after 'apparatus', insert 'installed'.
In Committee the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) and Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) sought clarification about the extent to which the exemption from charge would apply when water was used for testing fire-fighting apparatus or equipment. It was felt that, as drafted, the clause could prevent exemption from being given in the case where fire-fighting apparatus or equipment had been installed but not yet used. It might also be claimed by manufacturers of fire-fighting equipment that they would be exempt from charges for water used in testing such equipment at their works.
Clearly, that is not the intention, and I promised to consider the point further. The amendment now seeks to clarify the position and shows that water will be free of 479 charge if it is used to test apparatus which has been installed in premises. The amendment will thus satisfy the assurances sought by Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth raised a certain point in Committee. I explained that in a few areas local statutory provisions allowed the water undertakers to install meters where water was used to extinguish a fire which lasted for three days or more, but I also mentioned that no charges were made for water taken. The proposed amendment was withdrawn. However, I did undertake to consider the implications behind the amendment if the provision was required for operational purposes. I can now tell the House that the water authority principally concerned has written to the Department confirming that it was concerned about the charging aspects of that type of arrangement, and not the operational requirement. Once the Bill has been passed it appreciates that no charge can be levied for the water used in fire fighting. It does not seek to pursue the matter further. I hope that the hon. Member for Hemsworth is reassured by that additional information.

§ Mr. Giles Shaw
I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 18, at end add ';and such order may make provision for arbitration.'. As the House knows, the purpose of this subsection of clause 2 is to allow the Secretary of State to make orders which will determine what charges will be paid by those consumers who receive a supply of water which is mixed, that is, where the supply provides water for the purpose of fire fighting and for other purposes. The charges which are to be paid will be based on an assessment made by the water undertaker which takes into account the physical arrangements of supply such as the size of the meter or supply pipe and the quantity of water used for those other purposes. The basis for such assessments will appear in the orders. However, there may be situations where the consumer will wish to question the assessment and no agreement can be reached between the two parties. There is a need for such disputes to be settled by arbitration. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the Secretary of State to make provision for arbitration in the orders that he will make.