Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Public Bill Committee, 24 February 2004.

Standing Committee G

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Clause 13 - Reinforcement schemes

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

As I recall, I had just sat down and was expecting to hear the Under-Secretary's words of wisdom in response. I have had to wait on tenterhooks for 12 days; I hope that the hon. Gentleman's words will be even wiser with the benefit of maturing over that time.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The words have matured and even fermented over the last week or so.

The clause largely re-enacts the existing provisions of the Fire Services Act 1947 which require fire and rescue authorities to enter into reinforcement schemes with other authorities, and it extends those provisions to the new core duties under the Bill. That will allow the authorities to provide mutual assistance in discharging the new duties and to notify the Secretary of State when they have done so. It also allows authorities to apportion between them the costs incurred in participating in a reinforcement scheme.

Reinforcement schemes are already in place between adjacent fire and rescue authorities and are integral to the day-to-day operational effectiveness of the fire and rescue service. As such schemes are essentially administrative in nature, authorities will not have to revise all their existing schemes as a result of the Bill. Instead, those schemes will simply continue to have effect under the new provisions in the clause.

Including the new core duties in such schemes will make it much easier for fire and rescue authorities to participate in wider reinforcement schemes, including on a regional and national scale in the event of a major incident, as well as providing simple cross-boundary assistance between authorities in the event of a fire. That wider approach to reinforcement will ensure cover for an authority responding to an emergency outside its area.

The fire and rescue service is trying to set up a national reinforcement scheme for emergencies. However, the existing legislation does not provide a solid statutory base for such a scheme, creating concern among fire and rescue authorities that participation in such a scheme will conflict with their local duties. The clause will allay those concerns by providing them with the statutory base that they need. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Directions as to reinforcement schemes

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in

clause 14, page 7, line 34, after 'may', insert 'by order'.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 36, in

clause 14, page 7, line 35, leave out 'direction' and insert 'order'.

Amendment No. 40, in

clause 17, page 8, line 24, after 'may', insert 'by order'.

Amendment No. 41, in

clause 17, page 8, line 26, leave out 'direction' and insert 'order'.

Amendment No. 42, in

clause 17, page 8, line 29, leave out 'give a direction' and insert 'make an order'.

Amendment No. 45, in

clause 17, page 8, line 35, leave out 'give a direction' and insert 'make an order'.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

It is good to be back after a short break, which has given me the opportunity to think up some more amendments for the remainder of the Bill's time in Committee.

Clause 14 runs directly on, as one would expect, from clause 13. It gives the Secretary of State the power to give directions on the reinforcement schemes about which the Under-Secretary has been speaking. Some of the amendments deal with other clauses, but they have broadly the same effect.

The clause deals with the Secretary of State's power to intervene to make an order on reinforcement in a situation where, by implication, authorities cannot agree to work together. That does not strike us as a terribly auspicious basis on which to build co-operation and collaboration. I am always wary of either voluntary arrangements that are made with the albatross of the Secretary of State's intervention hanging over them or compulsory arrangements to promote co-operation. Co-operation must come from

the bottom up and cannot be imposed from the top down. However, we accept that the Secretary of State may need a reserve power to require an authority to enter into a reinforcement scheme, to guard against authorities playing an awkward game, which hopefully is unlikely. I hope that the Under-Secretary can assure us that he would not expect such a power to be used routinely and that the Government acknowledge that genuine co-operation and collaboration cannot be imposed by order from Whitehall.

The circumstances in which such an order might be made will invariably involve the Secretary of State taking the side of one authority against another. Although I may be wrong, it seems unlikely that the Secretary of State will order a reinforcement scheme between two authorities that are both reluctant to enter into it. A much more likely scenario is that one authority refuses to co-operate with a scheme that another authority is seeking to introduce, which perhaps involves all the authorities on its borders. Where the Secretary of State intervenes to take the part of one supposedly independent body against another, there needs to be an adjudication process to review and scrutinise what he is proposing.

Initially, I wondered whether there should be a compulsory inquiry along the lines of the permissive power in subsection (3). On reflection, however, I decided that that would not be the most appropriate way to deal with the circumstances that we are considering. With the amendment, and with others relating to clauses 15 and 17, we have therefore sought to provide for the Secretary of State to make the direction by an order that could theoretically be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in a short debate in a Standing Committee. That seems to be a light touch and is a perfectly reasonable and sensible way to proceed. If the order were uncontroversial, it would not necessarily be debated, but if there were an element of controversy and the authority that was being coerced, if I can use that term, wished to raise objections—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that the attention of the Minister of State—the Minister with responsibility for UK resilience—has been drawn to the knocking sound above the ceiling. No doubt he is alert to the risks that might be lurking there and will draw the Committee's attention to them if necessary.

If what the Government were proposing were sufficiently controversial for one of the fire authorities involved to enlist the support of Members of Parliament to scrutinise Ministers, the mechanism suggested in the amendment would be a sensible and light-touch way of allowing them to do so. We would have plenty of time to do what was needed without going over old ground, and we could hold a Standing Committee on a statutory instrument at 8.55 am before a Standing Committee on a Bill took place. Making directions the subject of an order would allow there to be scrutiny, albeit not much, of the exercise of the significant power to override the right of a locally

accountable authority to reject arrangements, or to enter into arrangements that it finds appropriate for its circumstances.

As I said earlier, amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43 deal with the same matters in clause 17, and would make the directions that the Secretary of State can give subject to statutory instrument and therefore debatable in Parliament. I hope that the Under-Secretary agrees that that would provide the degree of scrutiny that these matters need: something rather less than a full inquiry, but more than simply an instruction issued from Whitehall without any necessity for external scrutiny.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I am sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has said—any attempt to prevent local authorities being bullied by the Secretary of State is to be commended—but I am a little unclear as to what his amendments would achieve. As I understand it, one effect would be almost to incorporate Standing Committees into the Executive as courts of appeal, rather than having them look at the general principles of legislation or a particular order made by the Government. It slightly worries me that they could function on a regular basis as some kind of additional arm of the Executive, and it would help if the hon. Gentleman clarified that. It is not clear to me whether, if the proposals were incorporated in the Bill, we, as a statutory instrument Committee looking at orders made under this legislation, would be doing quite the same kind of work as we normally do.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

As I understand it, if these directions were made by order, they would be laid in the normal way as a draft statutory instrument, they could be prayed against by any Member of this House and, if sufficient pressure were applied, a debate would no doubt be allowed. They would be dealt with in exactly the same way as all other secondary legislation coming before the House. I fail to see how that would in any way become part of the process of the Executive. Scrutinising the Executive is a core function of Parliament. I appreciate that that scrutiny has become so diluted it is perhaps difficult to spot it in action, but it is, after all, at least theoretically, our principal function. The amendments simply try to extend the power of Parliament to scrutinise what the Executive are doing.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He says that he wants to extend the power of Parliament, and that is to some extent how it came across. I accept, and I want to put on record, that his experience of these things is far greater than mine, but it seems to me that the effect of the amendment would be to carve out work different from that normally done by Standing Committees on statutory instruments. I understand the mechanics of the process, but the quality of what we would be doing seems to vary from what we normally do.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

If the hon. Gentleman sits down by way of invitation to intervene—

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

I have finished.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

In that case, I should like to comment further. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and the error must be mine. It must lie in how I expressed the intentions of the amendment. It is not our intention to introduce a new class of scrutiny; it is rather to try to resist the growing tendency to make what is effectively secondary legislation by directions issued by Ministers from their Departments without the need for parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State would never have to make such a direction if all the authorities involved were in agreement, so there would be at least one aggrieved party as a result of such a direction being made. Such a matter is, by definition, contentious, and it is entirely appropriate that that direction should be made by statutory instrument and that Members of the House of Commons and, indeed, the House of Lords should be able to debate it if they felt it necessary. In practice, that will happen where the aggrieved authority regards the matter as sufficiently serious to lobby Opposition Members or perhaps Government Members. It is not inconceivable that a Labour Back Bencher would pray against a statutory instrument if local issues were involved—anything is possible these days, as we have seen over the past couple of months.

The intention behind the amendments is to make such scrutiny possible, and I hope that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and his party, which usually supports the strengthening of the legislature's power to scrutinise what the Executive are doing, will support a move to reduce the Executive's power to issue unscrutinised directions and to strengthen the legislature's power to scrutinise all contentious secondary legislation.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 would require the Secretary of State to make an order before directing one or more fire and rescue authorities to participate in a reinforcement scheme.

The clause largely re-enacts provisions of the 1947 Act, which allow the Secretary of State to direct fire and rescue authorities to enter into, vary or revoke a reinforcement scheme. The Secretary of State may invoke that power only where authorities are unable to come to an agreement about forming such a scheme and, more importantly for the purposes of the amendment, only at the request of one of the authorities.

As such, the Secretary of State's role is simply that of an adjudicator in a dispute between authorities over a practical arrangement. As is the case under existing legislation, all the parties involved will have the opportunity to make representations to him, and he may even cause an inquiry to be held if he feels that that would be helpful. Given that the parties involved have the opportunity to make representations and that there is the possibility of an inquiry, I see no need to introduce a degree of parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 45 would impose the same parliamentary scrutiny on the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under clause 17 to give directions about arrangements entered into by fire and

rescue authorities under clause 16. Clause 17 also re-enacts provisions of the 1947 Act, giving the Secretary of State the power to require two authorities to enter into an arrangement under clause 16 or to vary or revoke such an arrangement. The Secretary of State can exercise his power if invited to do so by one or other of the authorities or on his own initiative.

Under clause 17, the Secretary of State therefore keeps his existing dual role, as provided for in section 12 of the 1947 Act. That is in part so that he can act as an umpire when asked to decide on a disagreement between two fire and rescue authorities. It also ensures that he has the power to initiate action when he believes it necessary. Any direction under clause 17 must be given with a view to securing greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness and can be issued only after consultation with the authorities affected. Again, the Secretary of State has the option to hold an inquiry if that would be appropriate.

I therefore say to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that I see no reason for the direction to be subject to an order-making power, which would, as the hon. Member for Southport said, give hon. Members the opportunity to micro-manage the running of fire and rescue authorities. It would also add delay and cause uncertainty about the delivery of a public service should the order be revoked.

Given those problems, I ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the amendment, which is simply unnecessary.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am disappointed to hear the Under-Secretary justify the provisions simply by saying that they replicate the 1947 Act. It would be a grim business if we spent out our time in Committee repealing provisions from the 1947 Act and then reinstating them clause by clause, with no greater assurance of whether they were appropriate than the Minister's statement that they were in the Act whose provisions we had just repealed. That would be a time-wasting exercise. It is appropriate that we look at all the provisions of the 1947 Act that the Government intend to reinstate and consider whether, 57 years on, they are still appropriate and necessary and whether they further the cause—which I hold dear—of maintaining the independence, autonomy and local accountability of fire and rescue services.

I am not persuaded by the Under-Secretary's apparent assumption that it is wrong for Parliament to consider the micro-management of fire authorities but right for the Secretary of State to intervene.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

This raises a puzzle. For many of those 50 years the Conservatives were in power, but not until now do they find it necessary to scrutinise in the way that is being suggested, so they have made a belated conversion to this new role for Standing Committees on statutory instruments.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am delighted to say that for none of those 50 years have the Liberals come anywhere near even a sniff of being in power. It will probably be the same for the next 50 years—actually, it was not the same for the whole of the previous 50 years.

I make no apology for taking the opportunity, in Government time, to scrutinise a Bill, which, unusually, seeks to abolish the entirety of earlier legislation and then to reinstate rather a lot of it. I am sure that the Under-Secretary would not want to give the impression that he is abolishing chunks of the 1947 Act and then reinstating them without reviewing them. If the Government have reviewed them and decided that they continue to be required in more or less their original form, it is entirely appropriate that Parliament should assess whether it agrees with the Government's assessment.

I am not a great advocate of giving more quasi-judicial functions to the Secretary of State—be he such an eminent and dignified personage as the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not my view that politicians are primarily equipped to make quasi-judicial decisions. It does not seem to me obvious that where two democratically accountable bodies, both probably under party political control, disagree about how one of their functions should be discharged, a party politician holding the office of Secretary of State is the best-placed person to make that decision.

We do not necessarily have an alternative to the Secretary of State making a decision in extremis, but if a party politician holding that office is to make that quasi-judicial decision, it seems that people of other persuasions, with other views and perhaps with local connections to the authorities involved, might reasonably be afforded an opportunity to scrutinise the decision in a brief 90-minute Standing Committee, which would be the maximum allowed to deal with a statutory instrument.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I want to make sure that I have understood the hon. Gentleman's position. Two elected authorities of politicians have difficulty coming to a single decision and are therefore referred to the Secretary of State, but the hon. Gentleman does not believe that politicians should make a decision, so he wants a Committee of more politicians to deliberate on that decision. Am I clear?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Very good.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am delighted to hear the Minister of State saying, ''Very good'', because, wearing another hat, he is engaged in a process of grafting on to us tiers of politicians to solve all sorts of problems. He seems to come from the school of thought that says the more politicians and elected bodies the better.

I suggest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) that if we take local democratic accountability seriously, we must regard local fire and rescue authorities as autonomous bodies. If the Secretary of State is to be given power to intrude on

that autonomy in a way that undermines the sense of local ownership and accountability, we need to ensure the maximum scrutiny of that activity.

I did not think that the amendments were tremendously radical; the proposals are simply designed to stop a pernicious tendency, which could almost be missed if one was not focused on the language of the Bill. In one clause, the Secretary of State makes an order; in the next, the Secretary of State makes a direction. A layman reading the Bill might think that those were the same thing, but of course they are different. An order is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and it is secondary legislation. A direction has exactly the same effect but is not subject to scrutiny, and it is simply slipped out in a letter from No. 26 Whitehall late on a Friday evening. I shall not press the amendment because it is a relatively minor point, but I am surprised that the Government have not been able to say anything reassuring.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The hon. Gentleman asked whether this would be a routine matter. I would like to put it on the record that we do not anticipate this happening often, so it will not be routine. The measure provides for intervention where there is a dispute about participation in a reinforcement scheme. The Secretary of State will be able to make a sensible intervention following the request of one of the authorities taking part, or on his own initiative under clause 16, in order to make the system work efficiently and effectively. I repeat: this will not be routine, but a last resort. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman in deciding whether to press his amendment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. With your permission, Mr. O'Hara, I hope to raise another question in a stand part debate, but perhaps it would be sensible if I extend what I was just saying so that we can move on.

The Under-Secretary refers to the Secretary of State being able to act on his own initiative under clauses 16 and 17, but that is a separate issue that we will come to. Under clause 14, we are dealing with an application by one of the fire authorities involved. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can be a little more specific about how a Secretary of State will go about making that judgment. What weight will he give to what I consider to be the precious commodity of local autonomy when considering what is being proposed by the other fire authority?

Let us take the example of a large metropolitan fire authority such as Greater Manchester and the neighbouring, rather smaller, county brigade of Cheshire—I emphasis that the example is plucked from thin air and has no basis in reality. Let us suppose that the larger, metropolitan authority wanted to enter into a reinforcement scheme with its much smaller neighbour, but the terms of scheme and its operation led the smaller neighbour to fear that it would lose autonomy and be dominated by the needs of its larger neighbour to the detriment of its obligations and duties to its electors and citizens. When the Secretary of State came to make a decision in such a case what weight would he give to economy, efficiency and

effectiveness—cold and, to some extent, measurable concepts—as opposed to the important but much more difficult to measure commodities of local ownership and the sense of autonomy, control and accountability?

One of the things that concerns me hugely about the Bill and the national framework is that the Government are trying to impose a modernisation agenda based on an idea that, from the outset, has been counter-intuitive to a lot of people in the wider world: that a better service can be provided at less cost. Whether that can be achieved is for another debate, but Ministers have to acknowledge that a sceptical public are likely to regard that initially as counter-intuitive. As that programme is rolled out, any erosion of local control and accountability, whether by the Secretary of State or a large, powerful neighbouring fire authority, is likely to fuel scepticism.

If the Under-Secretary wants to help the Committee by elaborating on how the Secretary of State would make a decision between two autonomous independent bodies, perhaps he could also tell us about the existing power under the 1947 Act, which, as he has already told the Committee, the Secretary of State has possessed for the past 57 years. How many times has that power been used to impose a reinforcement scheme against the wishes of one of the fire authorities involved? Assuming that is only a small number, can the Minister tell the Committee about the circumstances that made it appropriate on those occasions to impose a reinforcement scheme? How was that decision reached between the opposing positions of the two or more fire authorities involved?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Are we now debating clause stand part?

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

No, we are still debating the amendment. I extended latitude to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to save time.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

If I may, I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points directly.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned his fears about modernisation, which have been articulated in the debates on earlier clauses. The Bain review looked at the nature of, and the need for, modernisation. The Bill is a radical transformation in the way that the fire service is structured and how it delivers its services. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman is reluctant to embrace that agenda.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

For the sake of clarity, I reiterate that we endorse Bain's modernisation proposals. The Government go much further in the Bill than we understood they would last summer, and they propose a framework for a wholesale reorganisation of the fire and rescue service on a coercive, regionalised basis.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

On the one hand, we hear that the hon. Gentleman supports modernisation, on the other he tells us that he does not want us to re-enact the 1947 provisions. We say, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' The parts of the Act that we propose to include are there to operate effectively. If they work, we wish to re-enact them, as we are doing now.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a particular example: a small authority fearing that a larger neighbour will do something in a reinforcement scheme that will be in some way detrimental to its duties. The Secretary of State will make judgments about such matters on a case-by-case basis, and he is unlikely to intervene in a dispute between two authorities in the way that has been described.

The measure has effect when there is a greater area of dispute; for example, if one inefficient authority is unprepared to co-operate with all the other authorities in trying to establish a national emergency scheme. Those are the type of circumstances in which we envisage the powers being invoked.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Is the Under-Secretary talking about firefighting, or the functions under clause 9?

Phil Hope: Clause 13 deals with reinforcement schemes. They have been established for many years and are nothing unusual.

Clause 14 deals with the Secretary of State's ability to intervene, in response to a request by the local authority where there is a dispute and an arrangement cannot be agreed. The fire and rescue authorities were previously concerned that these matters were not set out on a statutory basis: they will be now. I made that point during the debate on clause 13. That reassures the authorities that they can enter into the kind of schemes that they believe to be in their own interest and that of public safety.

The hon. Gentleman's concern is unnecessary. Yes, the powers are there, but they are powers to intervene in the circumstances that I have described, such as those in which an unco-operative and inefficient individual authority prevents a wider group of authorities from entering into a mutual reinforcement scheme to the benefit of the people whom they serve.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Can the Under-Secretary tell the Committee anything about the circumstances in which that power of the Secretary of State has been exercised since 1947?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Inspiration will come my way soon about whether such a power has been used in the past. Where authorities were in disagreement, we would not allow one inefficient authority to hold up the good work of the others. The power has not been used often in the past, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact figure when we have tracked back through the records to 1947. A purely voluntary approach would not deliver the resilience necessary to ensure that we can meet the new terrorist threat to which many of the reinforcement schemes are intended to respond.

I hope that I have reassured the Committee about the nature of the schemes that the clause would apply to and the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might intervene, which would be decided on a case-by-case basis. It would be, as I have described, when a regional or national reinforcement scheme was being developed and one local authority, through inefficiency or a lack of willingness to co-operate, could undermine arrangements that other fire rescue

authorities wanted to enter into. Those are the terms on which we have been endeavouring to proceed with the proposals, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. Before we proceed, I want to make it clear that the way in which the debate has proceeded means that I am ruling that the clause stand part debate has been incorporated in the debate on the amendment. If any member of the Committee wishes to speak to clause stand part, he or she should do so now because I will put that question formally at the appropriate time.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. O'Hara. I listened carefully to what the Under-Secretary said, and I am grateful to him for saying that he will write to me with details of the past use of the power. I wonder whether it has ever been used at all. It may not have been, which would put an interesting slant on the hon. Gentleman's saying, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it''. If the power has not been used in over 55 years, do we really need it?

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I should have guessed. I am happy to give way.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

If the provision has not been used in 57 years, perhaps the hon. Gentleman's worries are unjustified. The matter has never bothered any of his past or present colleagues. In fact, I should like to know the source of the inspiration for his sudden concern.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The source is obvious.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Tell me.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I will, if the hon. Gentleman gives me a second. We are now being required to consider the Bill clause by clause, including those clauses that have been brought forward from the 1947 Act. I am a believer in small government; I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman is. [Interruption.] I did not hear that, but I am sure that it was very amusing. Frankly, if legislation gives a Secretary of State significant powers to override the decisions of autonomous local authorities, and those powers have not been used in over 55 years, we might question whether we need them. That is a perfectly legitimate matter to raise.

In his final words, which were generally emollient, the Under-Secretary said something that I find alarming. On the basis of the inspiration that reached him, he said that a purely voluntary approach to reinforcement would not deliver the resilience that is now required. That is an a priori condemnation of fire authorities and their willingness to work together. My contact with fire authorities suggests to me that most of them are jealous of their independence when it comes to dealing with their core local functions, but readily recognise that they need to submit to a broader pattern of command and control when dealing with resilience issues.

I am not aware of a fire authority having said that it intends to stand out against the resilience arrangements into which it would be entirely proper for fire and rescue authorities to enter when dealing with the discharge of their functions under clause 9. That was the point of my question to the Under-Secretary.

As we go through this debate, I find that, having prayed in aid draconian central powers, we have always a need for resilience against non-conventional threats. None of us would dispute that the unit of organisation for combating such threats needs to be much bigger because although such episodes will, hopefully, be rare, they call for specialist types of intervention. However, I am concerned that there is a theme throughout the Bill of praying in aid the resilience agenda in order to create a structure that is then applied to all core functions of fire authorities.

I would have taken a different attitude to this debate if the Under-Secretary had said that the Government intend to use the powers only when dealing with a reinforcement scheme for non-conventional threats and risks, and that they will not use it for schemes that address what I would call conventional fire and rescue work. The issue slightly alarms me, and I want to return to why the hon. Gentleman thinks that a purely voluntary approach would not work. What evidence does he have?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

What if the voluntary approach breaks down? That is the point about having the ability to direct when necessary. We hope that the voluntary approach works. There have been occasions when, perhaps because there has been a bit of pressure and people are negotiating, the Government have helpfully intervened to encourage a resolution between two authorities working together in a mutual reinforcement scheme. To deny us the fall-back of being able to intervene when a voluntary approach might not work is foolish. I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's fears in that regard. It is important to have the ability to step in if required. However, we hope and expect the voluntary approach to be successful.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The record will show that the Under-Secretary is now saying something different.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Not at all.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The record will show that the hon. Gentleman is now saying that he expects a voluntary approach to be successful. A few moments ago he said that a purely voluntary approach will not deliver. He seems to be saying two different things. I support what he has just told us—that he expects and hopes that the voluntary approach will be successful—and I am relieved that he does not think that a purely voluntary approach will not deliver the resilience that the Government seek. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Arrangements with other employers offire-fighters

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in

clause 15, page 8, line 5, leave out ', 8 or 9'.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 38, in

clause 15, page 8, line 6, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 39, in

clause 15, page 8, line 7, at end insert—

'(2A) A fire and rescue authority may enter into arrangements with any person for securing provision of assistance for the discharge by the authority of a function conferred on it under sections 6, 8, 9 or 11'.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Clause 15 deals with the situation where fire authorities want to make arrangements between other private sector, or third party, providers of support whom they may wish to use in certain circumstances. It allows for the equivalent of reinforcement schemes, which are a mutual aid arrangement between fire authorities, on a one-way commercial basis, with third-party employers of fire fighters.

This is a perfectly sensible arrangement. The obvious case that springs to mind is that of employers of private fire brigades. I think that I am right in saying that British Airports Authority has the fourth-largest fire service in the United Kingdom, measured in terms of manpower and equipment. Although it is spread across a very large area, it is quite a significant resource that could be used as back-up in certain types of emergency.

There are other employers of private fire brigades: large commercial undertakings might have fire equipment on their premises that could be brought into service in a particular type of emergency. We are absolutely at one with the purposes of the clause. This is another provision brought forward from 1947, and it gives fire authorities a statutory basis—a proper basis—on which to engage in commercial arrangements with outside bodies.

We now need to look at this in the light of the other changes that we have made to the environment in which fire authorities operate and to their functions that. Subsection (1) allows the fire and rescue authority to

''enter into arrangements with a person who employs fire-fighters . . . for the purpose of the discharge by the authority of a function conferred on it under section 7, 8 or 9.''

Clause 7 confers firefighting functions on a fire authority; clause 8 confers road traffic accident functions on a fire authority; and clause 9 deals with other emergencies, which can be anything specified by the Secretary of State. We have already had the benefit of the draft order, so we know that it will include such things as dealing with the response to terrorist attack, major flooding incidents, inshore rescue and perhaps rescue further out at sea, as has previously been seen. However, those are not firefighting functions.

The purpose of amendment No. 37 is to challenge the restriction of powers under subsection (1) to arrangements with employers of firefighters. There is no obvious reason why only an employer of firefighters should be contracted to render assistance to a fire authority in relation, for example, to road traffic accidents. Let me give an example. It might be perfectly logical for fire authorities to have stand-by arrangements with operators of heavy lifting equipment, such as large, heavy cranes that can be brought on to the motorway to remove wreckage or, in the case of a building collapsing, the kind of equipment that can be used to jack up and support structural elements of the building.

I know that in some cases the Government intend that the fire and rescue services will have access to a pool of such equipment that will be purchased and, I assume, maintained centrally by a designated authority on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. That is fine but, by definition, those will always be centrally pooled resources. It is perfectly logical, particularly in more sparsely populated areas of the country, that fire and rescue authorities may wish to enter into arrangements to bring in assistance—I heard the Minister muttering ''clause 16'', from a sedentary position—not to delegate the discharge of their functions to another person, but to contract with another person to assist them in the discharge of their functions. I take that to be a very different thing.

The best and most obvious example is the use of heavy lifting equipment. Why is it necessary for a fire authority to contract for the supply of locally available heavy lifting equipment or hydraulic jacks, and for experts in their use, only if the contractor employs firefighters? That has been brought forward from the 1947 Act, and a time when the only statutory function that we were dealing with was firefighting and the requirement that the person in question employed firefighters would be wholly logical and consistent with the structure of the Act. Now that we have introduced other statutory functions, we must revisit that. Amendment No. 37 is designed to remove the reference to clauses 8 and 9 from subsection (1) so that the restriction on making such arrangements only with employers of firefighters would relate only to firefighting functions.

Amendment No. 39 would introduce a new subsection that gives fire and rescue authorities broader powers to enter into arrangements relating to their functions under clause 6—the fire safety promotion clause, which is not mentioned in clause 15. Clause 8 refers to road traffic accidents, clause 9 refers to emergencies as defined by the Secretary of State and clause 11 deals with discretionary services and the power to respond to other eventualities. In relation to those functions, fire authorities could enter into arrangements on a commercial basis with any third parties that they found appropriate.

The Under-Secretary needs to explain why there is no reference to clause 6 in clause 15. There are statutory duties on a fire authority for fire safety, and

it is perfectly conceivable that authorities will want to contract out—for example, for the fitting of smoke detectors—to a third-party contractor on a commercial basis. I do not see where that power is stipulated.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

In clause 16.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Under-Secretary says again that the power is in clause 16, but that contains the power to delegate the discharge of a function. That is quite different from securing the provision of assistance, which will always be alongside the principal discharge of the function by the fire authority. The delegation to another person of the discharge of a specific function under clause 16 is a different action—it must be, or there would be no point in having both clause 15 and clause 16. If there is a technical explanation, I look forward to hearing it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes the amendments in the spirit in which they have been tabled, and will address the issue arising from the change in the core function of fire and rescue authorities.

Amendment No. 38 would delete subsection (2), which explicitly prevents the entering into of such an arrangement with another fire and rescue authority. I can see where such an idea would come from in the climate of 1947; mutual reinforcement is seen as good, and arm's-length, commercial-type transaction as bad. However, we have moved on since then, and it must be possible for the Under-Secretary to envisage mutual reinforcement schemes as appropriate in some cases, while in others there could be an arrangement that is more on a one-way, arm's-length basis with an authority that will specialise in road traffic accident rescue.

Let us consider the Manchester example again. Might it not be sensible, logical and economical for Cheshire fire authority to decide that it wants to contract with Greater Manchester fire authority to deal with road traffic accidents on the M62, which stretches beyond Greater Manchester into Cheshire? That would be a perfectly logical arrangement; it ought be something that fire authorities, discharging their functions efficiently, could decide to do. Fire authority A might decide to contract for a sum of money with fire authority B to provide cover on a defined stretch of motorway. Perhaps that would be a stretch to which there was no easy access for one authority, but which was easily accessible for an adjoining fire authority.

In the present mixed-economy climate, in which the Under-Secretary recognises that commercial arrangements and arms-length, one-way, for-cash transactions can be as valid as mutual assistance arrangements, I see no reason to exclude an arms-length arrangement with another fire authority. It must be for each individual authority to decide what is best for its circumstances in each case. We should not constrain them.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I will be brief, as I am sure that the Under-Secretary has a lot to say on the amendments. I would hate to do his work for him; he gets paid more than I.

I am slightly puzzled by the amendments, which would rewrite a clause; they could be called wrecking amendments. Clause 15 relates to arrangements with other employers of firefighters; that is clear. Clause 16 covers all those other matters. How is it that all of a sudden we wish to take apart the arrangements with other firefighters and open up to other potential contractors? That seems an unnecessary complication of the clause.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Clause 16 also covers firefighting duties. At the end of subsection (1) it specifically refers to

''a function conferred on the first authority under any of sections 6 to 9 and 11.''

That would include the firefighting functions under clause 7. It would be wrong to see clause 16 as dealing with functions other than firefighting.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I did not say that that was the case; my point was to do with arrangements. Clause 16 allows arrangements with other contractors; clause 15 allows arrangements with other firefighters. That is clear. I cannot see the logic in taking apart a clause, only to repeat it almost in the following clause. The logic of that totally defeats me.

Had the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted the powers under clause 11 to be extended to clause 15, I would have followed his logic. I cannot see the logic of extending clause 6—which relates to fire safety matters—to other fire authorities. One would assume that BAA fire services would cover that for airports. I cannot see the logic of firefighters at Heathrow airport all of a sudden going out to schools. That would not be within their remit and would be far better done by those in the community.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 would allow fire and rescue authorities to enter into arrangements with any body, including other fire and rescue authorities, to secure assistance for their duties under clauses 6, 8, 9 and 11. However, the amendments would keep the restriction that only an employer of firefighters can assist in firefighting duties.

Clause 15, to which the amendments relate, should be read with clause 13, which provides for reinforcement schemes. The intention of clause 15 is to give fire and rescue authorities the flexibility to complement their reinforcement schemes. Clause 13 ensures that core duties that require an emergency response, such as fighting fires and dealing with road traffic accidents and emergencies designated under clause 9, are discharged effectively, regardless of geographical boundaries or authorities. Clause 15 allows arrangements for firefighters not employed by fire and rescue authorities to be deployed to assist with such incidents. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has explained, one example would be a firefighter who is employed in commercial airports and by the Ministry of Defence.

Amendment No. 38 is unnecessary. It deletes clause 15(2), which ensures that there is no overlap between clause 13, relating to mutual assistance between fire and rescue authorities, and clause 15, relating to arrangements between fire and rescue authorities and other employers of firefighters. The point is that the arrangements between fire authorities that the hon. Gentleman described would be exercised under clause 13.

It may be helpful to explain that in the Fire Services Act 1947 mutual reinforcement schemes between fire and rescue authorities and between a fire and rescue authority and another employer of firefighters were elided together in one clause. Clauses 13 and 15 separate those out to clarify the powers of mutual reinforcement schemes between fire and rescue authorities and between a fire and rescue authority and another employer of firefighters.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Is the Under-Secretary saying that it will be possible for one fire and rescue authority to enter into an arrangement with another that is not a mutual reinforcing scheme, but a scheme under which fire and rescue authority B contracts to provide assistance for money to fire and rescue authority A?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The nature of reinforcement schemes is covered by provisions in clause 13. The hon. Gentleman described a theoretical example of a scheme between Cheshire and Manchester. He has an obsession with Cheshire and Manchester.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

He is going there tomorrow.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I have been studying the road.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

By separating the two provisions to make clear the various powers, duties and directions under clauses 13 and 15, we are clarifying what is possible. The kind of arrangements that the hon. Gentleman described would be a reinforcement scheme under clause 13. It is for the two authorities to decide and discuss how that scheme would work—subject to the directions under clause 14 if one of them did not agree with it, which we debated earlier.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

To be absolutely clear on that matter, as the Under-Secretary has avoided use of the word ''money'', is he saying that under clause 13 a scheme could be put in place in which the assistance was not mutual but one-way and paid for by money from the first authority? Is that possible?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The nature of the reinforcement scheme would be a matter for the local authorities involved.

There is confusion in the hon. Gentleman's mind about what clause 16 may or may not cover. Amendment No. 38 is unnecessary because those arrangements are covered by clause 13. Amendment No. 37 is unhelpful because by removing references to clauses 8 and 9—that deal with road traffic accidents and emergencies designated by order respectively—it would remove the symmetry between clauses 13 and 15. That would mean that arrangements made under

those clauses would be unable to compliment each other so successfully. The essence of the two clauses is that they mirror one another.

Amendment No. 39 extends the scope of clause 15 so that arrangements for assistance can be made with any person for a wider range of fire and rescue authority functions. That is confusing because it breaks the link with reinforcement schemes under clause 13, and then muddies the waters of the relationship with clause 16. We will come to clause 16 later, but it may help hon. Members if I point out the differences between clauses 15 and 16.

Under clause 15, a fire and rescue authority is securing help to discharge its own functions—for example, when an airport fire service is sent to assist with a fire outside the airport. Under clause 16, a fire and rescue authority's functions are discharged by another. The point of that delegation is that it can be ''to any extent'', as line 16 of page 8 states. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's concerns about whether a fire risk authority could enter into arrangements with organisations other than those employing firefighters are covered by clause 16.

Clauses 13 and 15, taken together with clause 16, provide a set of practical and effective powers for fire and rescue authorities that ensure that they can make appropriate and flexible arrangements for delivering all the services that the public expect. I make the hon. Gentleman an offer. I have asked officials for the details to be spelled out in an easy-to-read table. Clauses 13, 15 and 16 refer to different relationships between fire authorities, and between fire authorities and other employers and other bodies. What applies to each is different because of the way in which we have framed the legislation. If it assists the hon. Gentleman, I shall have that laid out in a helpful table, which I shall give to him this afternoon if a copy can be produced by then.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I suppose I should be grateful to the Under-Secretary for his offer, although having spent the entire recess week studying the clauses, I am not sure that I am terribly flattered by the suggestion that a helpful table provided by his officials will be necessary. He will have heard of the campaign for plain English. If it really requires a table to be provided by officials to enable reasonably engaged and well-educated Members of Parliament to understand the provisions, there is a problem.

In my experience, parliamentary draftsmen are careful with language, even if I do not always like it. Clause 15 refers specifically to

''securing the provision by that person of assistance''.

Clause 16 refers to entering into arrangements

''for the discharge to any extent by that other authority or person of a function''.

I consider that it is not accidental that different language has been used in the two clauses, but that they convey something significantly different. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the degree of delegation of the arrangement is similar under clauses 15 and 16. That is not how I understood the position.

It is important that we understand not only the scope of the parties that may enter into arrangements under clauses 15 and 16, but the quality and nature of those arrangements.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I have already spelled out the difference between clauses 15 and 16 and the ability under clause 16 for fire and rescue authorities to enter into arrangements with others who are not employers of other firefighters. It is important that clause 15 spells out the conditions under which there can be arrangements between fire and rescue authorities and other employers of firefighters. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment because it would affirm examples of ongoing ineffective practice that we do not wish to be continued.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I have a couple of points to make. It seems that fire is still being treated differently from the other now to be core functions of fire and rescue authorities, such as dealing with road traffic accidents and other emergencies, fire safety and prevention. I thought that one of the objectives of the Bill was to broaden the role of fire and rescue authorities and make it clear that they had the other functions on an equal status. I am not sure why arrangements with other employers of firefighters should be treated differently, as the Under-Secretary suggests.

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman reply specifically to my question—perhaps he imagined that a response was implicit in his answer. I wanted to know whether an arrangement made under clause 13 allows a one-way relationship when the assistance is provided in one direction and money flows in the other direction. It is not clear that the term ''mutual reinforcement'' embraces the concept of a one-way relationship when no assistance, but simply a payment of money, is provided from authority A to authority B. If he cannot confirm that his concept of mutuality involves assistance being provided in one direction only, that will certainly explain one of the issues that are at the root of the debate.

In his response, the Under-Secretary said that amendment No. 38 would break the symmetry between clauses 15 and 13. He then went on to observe, correctly, that amendment No. 39 would restore that link. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 would simply separate the arrangements for procuring assistance to deal with firefighting functions under clause 7, limiting them to arrangements with employers of firefighters, and deal under a new subsection with the arrangements for procuring assistance to cover functions under clauses 8 and 9—and, indeed, clauses 6 and 11. I therefore do not agree at all that the amendments break any link between clauses 13 and 15 in their entirety. Of course, if the Under-Secretary chooses to consider only amendment No. 38 and ignore amendment No. 39, he will think what he said he thought; however, the group of amendments is not intended to break that link.

I am frankly surprised that the amendments appear to have been dismissed not merely because some technical deficiency or superfluity, as I was expecting—I have become accustomed to that. The Under-Secretary appears to suggest that the amendments strike a blow to the architecture of the Bill, but that was not what we had in mind—in fact, we genuinely thought that there was an error in the structure of clause 15(1), because it is difficult to understand the logic of restricting the arrangements to employers of firefighters when the arrangements might be targeted on entirely different fire authority functions.

The Under-Secretary has made his point and we have listened to what he said. It is a complicated issue. With the benefit of his helpful table, I shall ponder the matters before the Report stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Arrangements for discharge of functions by others

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Fire and Rescue Authority: discharge of functions—

'(1) It shall be the duty of a fire and rescue authority to make provision for the discharge of the functions conferred on it by sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 with economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

(2) A fire and rescue authority shall formally review the arrangements it has made under the provisions of sections 13, 15 and 16 at least once every two years and shall satisfy itself that the arrangements it has in place under these sections and the provision it has made for discharging its functions under sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 discharge with its duty under subsection (1).

(3) The Secretary of State may provide such support and assistance as he considers necessary to fire and rescue authorities in discharging their obligations under this section and to assist them in using their powers under sections 13, 15 and 16 to ensure that their functions are discharged with the greatest possible economy, efficiency and effectiveness.'.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Clauses 13, 15 and 16 of the Bill provide a sensible framework for what I shall call ''outsourcing'', and for mutual reinforcement and the procuring of specialist assistance. It must make sense to have a framework that allows not only co-operation between authorities, but the provision by one authority—of its own initiative—of a service to other authorities. Under provisions elsewhere in the Bill, the Secretary of State can require an authority to deliver a service in the area of another authority.

It must make sense to allow fire and rescue authorities to procure services and assistance from third parties—whether they be bodies such as the Ministry of Defence, or commercial third parties—which either operate fire or rescue services incidental to their own operations, or have specialist equipment or manpower available that might be appropriate. Fire

and rescue services will called to deal with certain types of event so rarely that it is almost inevitable that greater expertise and more suitable equipment will be available elsewhere: for example, someone who routinely handles chemicals as part of their commercial business is likely to have readily available the appropriate equipment to deal with a chemical incident. All of that is entirely sensible. It will be interesting later on to see just how far Ministers envisage that going.

Last year, at the Local Government Association fire conference, which the Minister of State attended, I was approached by a gentleman from Denmark, a representative of the private sector company that runs the Danish fire service. The Minister may also have had such an approach—if he did not keep the gentleman's card, I can lend it to him. It would be interesting to discover whether Ministers have considered the possibility of the functions of fire and rescue authorities being contracted out wholesale to properly qualified third-party contractors. I do not know whether the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has looked at that. It would also be interesting to learn how the system in Denmark works and how effective and economical it is. I know that the Minister is very interested in efficiency and economy, so he will want to explore as deeply as possible all the available options.

New clause 1 creates a framework for requiring fire and rescue authorities to discharge the functions that are conferred on them by clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 with ''economy, efficiency and effectiveness''—we have heard those words several times. That requirement is specifically stated, and is then used as a building block to require authorities formally and periodically to review the arrangements that they have made under clause 13 for mutual reinforcement schemes, under clause 15 for the procurement of assistance, and under clause 16 for the discharge of functions by others.

Testing will take place all the time to ensure that the arrangements that they have put in place under those clauses comply with their duty to discharge their core functions with ''economy, efficiency and effectiveness.'' That is something like a best value test. The following questions will be asked: ''Is there somebody out there who could deliver any of the functions that we are gearing up to deliver more efficiently or at lower cost, and if there is nobody out there who can do that today, will there be tomorrow?'' There will be constant testing and re-testing of the decisions that an authority has taken.

New clause 1 goes further. Subsection (3) empowers the Secretary of State to

''provide such support and assistance as he considers necessary to fire and rescue authorities in discharging their obligations under this section and to assist them in using their powers under sections 13, 15 and 16''.

I am seeking a commitment from the ODPM to support best practice. Without naming names, we all know that fire authorities differ in their attitude to innovation and modernisation. Some fire authorities will embrace with enthusiasm the possibility of contracting out certain services or entering into collaborative arrangements, but others will take a

more blinkered view, and it has to be said that, on past form, some will take a dogmatic political stance on how a public authority should discharge its functions.

I do not favour the Secretary of State wading in with steel toe-capped boots to enforce such arrangements on authorities, because the core motivator for locally accountable, democratically answerable authorities should be the interests of their electors. Their search for best value should be driven by a sense of answerability to the payers of their council tax rather than by somebody in Whitehall telling them that there are cheaper ways to do things. None the less, it would be helpful if the ODPM were actively to engage in disseminating best practice—in promoting awareness of what is going on in other authorities and of opportunities to contract out certain peripheral or support functions in a way that would allow fire authorities to increase their efficiency, effectiveness and economy. This is our preferred route to defend the independence and accountability of locally-based fire and rescue authorities and at the same time to encourage collaboration, outsourcing and mutual co-operation so that they deliver services with maximum economy, efficiency and effectiveness—and all with the Government's active support and encouragement. I recognise that subsection (3) as tabled merely provides a power to the Secretary of State and does not oblige him to provide that supportive environment, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us how the ODPM intends to engage actively in this process.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I want to give the hon. Gentleman every opportunity to be absolutely honest with us. I have listened to him with great interest, but there seems to be repetition of words. We are obsessed with outsourcing and with procurement for commercial third parties. Earlier there was an invitation from a private Danish company to tout for business. I do not know what the situation is in Runnymede and Weybridge, but the poor people of Cheshire should be worried that their fire service could be reduced to a mere contract operation. Is the hon. Gentleman telling us the full truth about his intentions, or are we getting a glimpse of new Tory, new privatisation?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing a classic demonstration of the kind of thinking that might be going on in the darkest recesses of some of our less forward-thinking fire authorities. The purpose of probing the Under-Secretary on these issues is precisely to discover how far the Government's thinking has gone down this route. Are there any lines in the sand? Are there any areas that they would regard as not appropriate for outsourcing—to use the term again? It could be outsourcing to another fire and rescue authority, and not necessarily to a commercial third party. We spent some time in the last debate trying to establish that an outsourcing arrangement could be made between fire authorities on what would effectively be a commercial basis, with one authority providing services for another.

I make no apology for saying that this is the model that I commend. The unit of democratic accountability needs to be small enough to be meaningful, but we must recognise that for many services, the operational unit will need to be larger. I see no contradiction between having a democratically accountable authority responsible for the discharge of a function and the recognition that that function can be economically discharged only on a larger scale, so the authority should seek to deliver it by contracting it to another provider or by collaborating with adjacent authorities. That is a flexible approach.

There is little risk in allowing fire authorities almost unlimited scope in discharging their functions, provided that they are held to account for their proper discharge and the authorities are based on units that allow proper democratic accountability and transparency. That is why we favour the smaller structure of local fire authorities rather than the mega-regional authorities that the Under-Secretary appears to favour. I hope that he will engage constructively in the issues raised by the new clause.

You said, Mr. O'Hara, that this debate was to incorporate the stand part debate. The term ''firefighter'' is used in clauses 15 and 16, but so far as I can see, it is not defined in the Bill. As a restriction is placed on the type of person who can be engaged in the arrangement under clause 15, will the Under-Secretary point to where we can find the definition of a firefighter? Clearly, if that is simply a person who goes out and fights fires, the definition is tautologous. Any person employed by someone contracted through an arrangement under clause 15 would be by definition a firefighter, so there must be some qualification of the term if the clause is to have any real meaning. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary could explain where I might find that definition.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Just to be clear, are we are taking clause stand part with the debate, not new clause 1?

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Yes—the question is that clause 16 stand part, and it is convenient that we consider new clause 1 with that, so I will be putting clause stand part at the end of the debate.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was usefully questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green. On the one hand the hon. Gentleman supports clause 16, but on the other he suggests that his limits go a lot further than he would otherwise wish the wider fire and rescue community to know.

I will start with new clause 1 and move on to clause stand part if that is acceptable to the Committee. I was being excoriated earlier for seeking reserve powers if fire and rescue authorities did not voluntarily co-operate with each other in a reinforcement scheme. However, the hon. Gentleman introduced new clause 1 by describing some authorities as blinkered and in need of measures to deal with them, which is entirely

the reverse of the argument he put when I was defending the need for reserve powers where voluntary arrangements could not be created.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I was choosing my words carefully. I could have used the term ''Labour-controlled'' about one authority that particularly springs to mind, but I chose to use ''blinkered'' instead.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, although it does not take us any further forward.

New clause 1 would create a duty for the fire and rescue authorities to ensure that provisions to carry out their core duties were arranged economically, efficiently and effectively. Any reinforcement scheme, arrangement for support from an employer of firefighters, or arrangement to delegate a fire and rescue authority's functions would have to be reviewed at least once every two years to ensure that it still facilitated the authority's duty under subsection (1) to discharge core functions efficiently, effectively and economically.

The new clause would empower the Secretary of State to offer assistance and support to fire and rescue authorities in their endeavour to undertake the duties under the provision. It is unnecessary because all fire and rescue authorities are best value authorities and as such have a duty under section 3(1) of the Local Government Act 1999 to make arrangements for continuous improvement in economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

Subsection (3) would empower the Secretary of State to provide such support and assistance as he considered necessary to fire and rescue authorities in discharging those duties. However, new powers are unnecessary because the 1999 Act empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance, set standards, make directions and provide for the performance of functions by an authority. Those provisions are further supported by the new national framework powers provided for in the Bill.

In addition, proposed subsection (2) is wholly ineffective because it does not state what a fire and rescue authority should do if its arrangements under clauses 13, 15 and 16 were found not to comply with its duty to carry out its core functions effectively, efficiently and economically. For example, under clause 16 the fire and rescue authorities may be bound by a contract lasting longer than the two years. New clause 1 gives no direction about what should be done with such an arrangement should it fail to meet requirements under proposed subsection (2).

Although I agree with the spirit of the new clause, according to which fire and rescue authorities should discharge their duties with regard to the three Es—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—I cannot support one that will serve only to repeat legislation that is already in place.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Under-Secretary has explained why proposed subsection (3) is not needed, but will he explain what the ODPM intends to do about promoting the powers that fire authorities would have

under clauses 15 and 16? Without wanting to go too far down the route suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, I am trying to understand, for the benefit of the Committee, how far the Government wish to pursue an agenda that actively seeks to go beyond the authority's own internal employee resources in delivering services.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

This is the clause stand part point; it is about clause 16. It re-enacts and extends powers under section 12 of the 1947 Act to allow a fire and rescue authority to delegate to others, including other fire and rescue authorities, the discharge of part or all of the function conferred on it under clauses 6 to 9, and clause 11. An example of such an arrangement would be where a fire and rescue authority might decide a contract with the local education authorities to promote fire safety education within its school.

In Cornwall recently, I met firefighters who were conducting an excellent scheme of fire education with young people, in collaboration with the local education authority. There are similar arrangements throughout the country, where fire authorities are working with education authorities to ensure that there is good fire safety education.

Another example would be a fire rescue authority that has specialist expertise in, let us say, rope rescue, which it provides under contract to a neighbouring authority. However, in recognition of the particular expertise involved in firefighting, under clause 16, a fire and rescue authority may delegate the discharge of its function to extinguish fires only to persons who employ fire-fighters. The existing powers to delegate are, by necessity, limited by the narrow scope of the 1947 Act, which sees fighting fires as the only duty. Clause 16 extends those provisions to take account of the wider role of the fire and rescue service and the contribution that others can provide towards our objective of a more modern and effective service.

The Bill is not about the wholesale privatisation of the fire and rescue service—although that is possibly the way that some Members of this Committee may be going. The Bill gives fire and rescue authorities flexibility to work in partnership with others to discharge their functions. That could include arrangements with private companies. We see no reason why a fire and rescue authority should be prevented from delegating its fire safety function, as I have just described, to another provider. Ultimately, the authority is accountable for the services that it provides. The flexibility to work with others is a key component in efficient and effective service delivery. It is widespread and successful elsewhere in local government. There is no reason why these opportunities should not be available to fire and rescue authorities, subject—as I have said already—to the limitations concerning extinguishing fires, where specialist training and expertise are crucial.

Lastly, there is no definition of the term ''firefighter'' in the Bill. However, this term is widely used and widely understood throughout the fire and rescue services. It is not defined in the 1947 Act either. I hope that after those words of reassurance about the

purpose of clause 16 and the lack of any need for new clause 1, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. The question of the inclusion, or otherwise, of new clauses in the Bill comes later in our proceedings. The question that we shall consider is whether clause 16 should stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I have to say that I am pleased with the Under-Secretary's reply. It was a very good answer. To some extent, this is how we should conduct our business: we table a new clause that seeks to understand what the Government are doing, and the Government answer that the new clause is not required for the following reasons, and explain how those things will be done. Then it is all on the record and everybody is clear about what is intended.

I am delighted that the obligation for a fire authority to review arrangements that it has made, or, perhaps more importantly, to review the fact that it has not made arrangements under these clauses, will be a continuous duty that it will have to perform. That is very helpful.

The Under-Secretary said that the drafting of subsection (2) of the new clause was defective because it did not suggest what a fire and rescue authority should do if it found that the arrangements that it had entered into were no longer appropriate. I do not have the statutes to hand, Mr O'Hara, but I know that I could take a leaf out of the hon. Gentleman's book and quote some paragraph of a local government Act that would make it clear that once an authority has formally determined that it is doing something in a way that is not efficient, effective and economic, it had better do something about it. At the very least it will have publicly recognised a weakness in its arrangements, which will be clear to its electors and council tax payers. That, of course, is what accountability is all about.

The Under-Secretary said that new clause 1(3) was not needed because the ODPM had the powers anyway. I was seeking to test the extent of the Government's enthusiasm for the use of the provisions. We have had a little charade, which we are becoming pretty used to, whereby the Government introduce legislation that makes it possible to make a perfectly sensible arrangement between a public authority responsible for discharging a function and a private commercial body that will undertake that discharge in an economical way that makes sense for that authority, but then they say that the Opposition would like to privatise everything, while implying that the Government's view of the potential for such an arrangement is that somebody from the private sector may be able to come in and sharpen the pencils if that is necessary and it is something that it can do better.

We have seen that although the rhetoric of Ministers at this stage is to talk down the scope for engaging in non-conventional arrangements, there is probably little difference between the political parties in their enthusiasm for securing the best possible deal for the taxpayer by ensuring that publicly accountable

authorities, while remaining entirely accountable for the discharge of their functions, can organise the provision of services in the way that delivers the best value for their ratepayers.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We will see that later.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister says that we will see that later. I am not sure whether he means later in our discussions on the Bill, or later when there is a Conservative Government and he can see how my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) discharges the extensive powers that the Minister is generously seeking to make available to him.

I am slightly concerned about what the Under-Secretary said about the definition of the term ''firefighter''. He said that there was no definition. I rather suspected as much—and I rather suspected that that has never been a problem. However, we now have something rather different, because clause 15 specifically limits the class of person with whom an arrangement can be made to a person who employs firefighters. That puts the need for a definition of a firefighter on a different level. The hon. Gentleman might want to reflect upon that, because otherwise it seems to me that somebody who fights fires becomes by definition a firefighter, and the thing becomes completely circular.

If clause 16 is to stand as drafted, I cannot see why there should not be a definition in the Bill that refers to appropriate skills, training and experience, or something of that nature. Otherwise the restriction in clause 15 is meaningless—but as this is a stand part debate, I have said everything that I need to say.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Directions as to arrangements under section 16

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in

clause 17, page 8, line 29, leave out from '(1)' to 'one' in line 30 and insert

'only if requested to do so by'.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 44, in

clause 17, page 8, line 34, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Amendment No. 158, in

clause 17, page 8, line 34, leave out 'may' and insert 'will'.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Clause 17 deals with the Secretary of State's power to direct the discharge of functions by one authority on behalf of another, or one body on behalf of another. We are concerned not about the underlying ability to enter into those arrangements, as I have made clear, but about the Secretary of State's power to direct such arrangements, because we believe that the responsibility and accountability for the

discharge of its functions must lie with the individual authority. We strongly support the making of arrangements between authorities, and between authorities and third parties, for the efficient, effective and economical discharge of their duties. Our position is that the arrangements must be on a voluntary basis.

The power of the Secretary of State to order that a fire authority's functions be discharged by others is inconsistent with the maintenance of a genuine locally managed and accountable service. Let us consider what would happen if the fire and rescue authority in county X were ordered by the Secretary of State to contract out a chunk of its core functions to a third party, which could be another fire and rescue authority, a commercial contractor or a provider of certain services. The fire and rescue authority would rightly argue that it had not determined the arrangement and could not therefore be answerable for the efficiency, effectiveness and economy with which those services were discharged on behalf of the local council tax payers. That seems entirely wrong and inappropriate in the usual routine circumstances.

As usual under the Bill, it is necessary to enter a caveat. If the Under-Secretary were focusing specifically on extreme arrangements to deal with high-level terrorist threats and so on, we would understand, because we have always acknowledged that different arrangements will need to be in place in such circumstances. We are willing to enter into such a debate, but our problem is that the need for resilience against that new and literally terrifying threat is constantly prayed in aid of all sorts of intervention powers for the Secretary of State, but that those powers are not limited to those circumstances. They can just as easily be deployed in relation to the discharge of fire safety functions, road traffic accident work, flooding, inshore rescue and any of the other matters for which fire and rescue authorities will have responsibility.

The only constraint on the Secretary of State is the requirement to proceed with the direction only when he believes it is expedient to do so to secure

''greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness.''

As drafted, subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State to give a direction

''on his own initiative or at the request of one of the authorities.''

Amendment No. 43 would limit the Secretary of State's power to make an arrangement for discharge of function to a situation in which he had been requested to do so by one of the parties involved. In other words, it would eliminate the power of the Secretary of State to act on his own initiative.

Amendment No. 44 would change the meaning of subsection (3)(b) to require an inquiry to be held before a direction is made, whereas the Bill is purely permissive and allows the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry if he wishes. It would substitute ''shall'' for ''may'' in the provision.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) had not noticed amendment No. 44 when he tabled the Liberal Democrat amendment, No. 158. That amendment would insert ''will'' in place of ''may'' rather than the word ''shall''. Unless that is a

deliberate ploy to avoid adding his name to my amendment, I suggest that ''will'' does not have much to recommend it over ''shall''. Indeed, ''shall'' might be a more conventional form of drafting. I hope that we are in agreement about the principle of requiring an inquiry to be held before the Secretary of State uses such a significant power to override local responsibility for the discharge of functions by imposing such an arrangement.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I concur with the hon. Gentleman's comments. I shall go no further than that, except to say that the Under-Secretary conceded that there was an argument when we debated the difference between ''may'' and ''shall'' earlier. One hopes that he will make the same concession now.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I think that the difference may be that ''shall'' means that people have to do something whether they like it or not.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Amendment No. 43 would remove the Secretary of State's power to direct two authorities to enter into an arrangement for the discharge of any of their functions without a request from one of the authorities. Amendments Nos. 44 and 158 would oblige the Secretary of State to cause an inquiry to be held before giving any direction to fire and rescue authorities to enter into an arrangement.

Clause 17 re-enacts provisions in section 12 of the 1947 Act that grant the Secretary of State a dual role in respect of delegation of the discharge of functions. As we said earlier, that role is in part to act as an umpire when asked to determine a disagreement between two fire and rescue authorities, but also to initiate action that he believes to be necessary. I stress that any direction under clause 17 must be with a view to securing greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

The existing power under the 1947 Act for the Secretary of State to act on his own initiative is an important safeguard. I emphasise that exercise of the power to act on his initiative would be evidence based, and used only as a last resort, but it is an important measure. Frankly, it would be ridiculous if the Secretary of State could not intervene in such circumstances unless invited to do so by one of the parties, as would be the case under amendment No. 43. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.

The fall-back position as a last resort is important. We visited that territory earlier when we debated clause 14, and I emphasise the point again.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Can the Under-Secretary explain why, when neither authority wants to go ahead with the arrangement in question, the power is needed separately under clause 16? My understanding is that the Secretary of State already has powers to direct that an authority will discharge its functions beyond its own area. Therefore, he could achieve the same objective without the power in clause 16.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The power in clause 17 applies to clause 16. It is important that the Secretary of State has the ability to intervene if all else has failed and economy, efficiency or effectiveness is not being achieved through clause 16. The Secretary of State must have the ability to intervene as a last resort in such cases.

Before issuing a direction of that kind, which I emphasise would be a last resort, the Secretary of State must give the fire and rescue authorities affected the opportunity to make representations to him, and he may hold an inquiry. However, amendments Nos. 44 and 158 would go beyond that, as they would oblige the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry before issuing a direction. The real difficulty with that is that holding such an inquiry, which could take months if not years, would lead to long and unacceptable delays in securing an acceptable service for the community. That would not be fulfilling our duties as a Government, and it would not be of service to the community.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

When Ministers were making the point earlier about the delay of an inquiry in the context of another clause, I could follow the argument. However, this clause relates to arrangements for others to discharge functions. I cannot quite grasp why the Under-Secretary is so keen that there should be powers to direct an authority partially to privatise in order to go down another route. The Secretary of State already has powers to force an authority to undertake functions, and he has powers to deal with it if it fails to discharge those functions. I cannot see why he should also need a great deal of power to force them to use other bodies to undertake functions that he can force them to undertake anyway.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that these are powers to enforce privatisation. If the Secretary of State believes that decisions made by a fire and rescue authority in discharging its functions through others are inefficient, uneconomic and ineffective, and would therefore put services to the community at risk, he needs the ability to take powers, if required, as a last resort. To have an inquiry that might hold that process up when it was needed because of the urgency of the situation would also present a difficulty.

The Secretary of State may choose to hold an inquiry if circumstances permit, but would need to have as a measure of last resort the ability to intervene swiftly, and in a way that would not be delayed, to ensure that the service to the community was upheld. I understand the fears that both hon. Members have expressed, but the provision is a re-enactment of the existing power in the 1947 Act to ensure that local authorities discharge their functions in a manner that is economic, effective and efficient, which ensures that the community will be served properly.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Will the Under-Secretary explain the asymmetry between clauses 16 and 17? He presented clause 17 as a power to direct fire authorities to enter arrangements that they have the ability to

enter under clause 16, but it is not. Under clause 16 a fire and rescue authority may enter into arrangements with another fire and rescue authority, or any other person. The power of direction, however, is limited to an arrangement between two fire authorities. That is slightly odd, and seems to prejudge the efficient, effective and economical discharge of any particular function. Why have the Government created that asymmetry?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand that the clause provides a final safeguard for the community and the public, to ensure that they receive services that are economic, efficient and effective. I cannot understand the reluctance of hon. Members from both Opposition parties to ensure that the Secretary of State can introduce that. The measures will ensure that two fire authorities can work together in a way that meets the needs of local people. I am at a loss to understand why, in the exceptional situation when that fails to occur, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would want to allow an unacceptable situation to carry on.

We have an obligation—and if he ever were in Government, the hon. Gentleman would have the same obligation—to ensure that the community is properly served by those fire authorities. I am sure that if he were sitting on the Government side of the Room—which I dare say he will not be for many years—he would want that safeguard. I hope that after that assurance, he will withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

That is what we call slipping into the error of 1992, and I would caution the Under-Secretary against it. I hear what he said, but I think he has misunderstood—[Interruption.] I think that ''Sheffield'' is the word that the Minister of State is groping for. I was trying to ask the Under-Secretary why, in granting the Government those powers under the clause, which he has just robustly defended—we may have our differences but I understand what he says—he has chosen to limit the power of the Secretary of State to intervene to only part of the scope of clause 16. That was my question, and he has not really addressed that point.

I am at a loss to understand why the Government have chosen to limit that provision, and are making a judgment in advance that it would be appropriate to require one authority to have its functions discharged by another authority, but it would never be appropriate to have any of those functions discharged by a third party, such as the Ministry of Defence. I can envisage, for example, a remote area where there happens to be an RAF base with substantial firefighting capability, but it is a long way away from the nearest convenient fire service appliance, or there might be an opportunity to remove a local fire service appliance if the RAF capability could be deployed. However, the Secretary of State could not impose such an arrangement.

I am not suggesting that I want to give the Secretary of State more power, but I want to understand why the power that he is taking is asymmetrical in relation to the different solutions to the problem that he foresees. If the Under-Secretary wants to intervene, I shall be happy to hear what he says. [Interruption.] However, he does not. When I see Ministers conferring, I always think something might come of it—but clearly that is rather ambitious.

I have spelled out my concern, and I do not believe that we have had an answer. However, looking around me and looking at the clock, I feel that it would perhaps not be in the Committee's interests to press the amendment to a vote. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 161, in

clause 17, page 8, line 40, after 'securing' insert 'public safety'.

This is a repeat of an earlier debate, so I can be fairly brief. The amendment would add ''public safety'' to the Secretary of State's considerations when he is giving a direction under the clause. When we tried to insert the words in an earlier clause, it was argued that it was not appropriate because they were covered by the word ''effectiveness''. In that debate I referred to clause 22(3)(a), which contains the words ''public safety''. That clause relates to an intervention by the Secretary of State within the fire and rescue national framework. The directions being given in the clause are in some ways similar to the order that would be given under clause 22, so the words ''public safety'' should be inserted for greater clarity.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's power under the clause to making directions that secure public safety, greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The clause allows the Secretary of State to direct two fire and rescue authorities to make, vary or cancel an arrangement made under clause 16. Subsection (4) restricts the directions that the Secretary of State can make to those that he considers will secure greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The addition of the words ''public safety'' is unnecessary. We have travelled this path before.

Protecting the public is at the core of what fire and rescue services do. It is difficult to imagine an effective fire and rescue authority that did not have regard to public safety. Equally, in making a direction under the clause, the Secretary of

State would find it difficult to direct a fire and rescue authority to do something that improved its effectiveness but had a negative impact on public safety. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

In that case I am totally perplexed about why the words ''public safety'' appear in clause 22. Considering the time, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but I should have thought

there would be greater clarity if the words were included in the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Charging

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 70, in

clause 19, page 9, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

'(1) Subject to the following provisions a fire and rescue authority may charge a person for providing a service to them if:

(a) the authority is authorised, but not required, by an enactment, to provide the service to them, and

(b) they have agreed to the provision.'.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 71, in

clause 19, page 9, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—

'If a fire and rescue authority decide to charge for taking an action of particular description—'.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

Amendment No. 71 is a tidying-up amendment consequent on amendment No. 70 being accepted. We want the fire and rescue authorities to have greater freedom in charging than the Bill allows. The clause says:

''The Secretary of State may by order authorise a fire and rescue authority to charge a person of a specified description for any action of a specified description taken by the authority.''

We seek to remove the need for the Secretary of State to make an order to allow an authority to charge and, instead, empower the authority to charge, as local authorities charge under the Local Government Act 2003. In short, we are trying to create the same rules for charging that currently apply to local authorities.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

O'Hara, Mr. Edward (

Chairman

Bailey, Mr.

Ellman, Mrs.

Flook, Mr.

Follett, Barbara

Gilroy, Linda

Hammond, Mr.

Hope, Phil

Humble, Mrs.

McCabe, Mr.

Murphy, Mr.

Pugh, Dr.

Raynsford, Mr.

Swire, Mr.

Younger-Ross, Mr.

[Part I]

Clause 19 - Charging

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 71, in

clause 19, page 9, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—

'If a fire and rescue authority decide to charge for taking an action of particular description—'.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

The table that the Minister provided entrances me. I am sure that we will come back to it. I might have spotted an error, and I will look at it in a minute.

We were dealing with charging and seeking to establish a more liberal regime. Perhaps the Minister and his staff have to work until the early hours of the morning dealing with orders to authorise local authorities to charge for this, that or the other. Instead of the Minister burning the midnight oil, it sounds far more reasonable to ask that the fire authority should have the right to charge for something if it decides that it wishes to do so. Our amendment would not affect the exemptions that are clearly stated and with which we do not disagree—that is, an authority could not charge for extinguishing fires or for protecting life and property in the event of fire. Likewise, the other conditions of the clause would still apply—we have not sought to amend those. We are simply trying to free the process and give the power to the authority rather than to the Secretary of State.

To give an example, a fire authority may have particular difficulty with false alarms—burglar alarms going off in industrial estates and repeat offenders—and it therefore wishes to charge for the second or third call-out. The amendment would allow that to happen and give the authority the flexibility to charge.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am curious about that example. What would happen if a fire had in fact broken out? The hon. Gentleman is drawing a distinction between an alarm

that turns out to be a false alarm and an alarm caused by a fire. I expected him to exclude everything related to fire from the capability to charge.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

That is not what the authorities and senior officers have advised us. They would like some flexibility to deal with the cases in which there is a continuously faulty fire alarm in a building, yet the owners take no action to put it right. Schemes might be introduced to ensure that such charges are not made, such as regular maintenance being carried out on the alarm. Of course the fire brigade would always attend if an alarm went off—the brigade would respond to that as normal—but if it repeatedly transpired that it was turning up and there was nothing but an alarm going off, with no smoke or fire in sight, the authority should be allowed to charge. I am not saying that it should charge; simply that it should be free to do so.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am broadly sympathetic to the thrust of the amendment, but it requires that the person paying has had to agree to be provided with that service at a charge. It seems to me that the owner of premises who knows that the fire brigade will turn out anyway for an alarm—because it has to, as there might be a fire—is unlikely to agree to pay a charge in the event that it turns out to be a false alarm, and would be foolish to do so.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I should have prefaced my argument by saying that the amendment is a probing one. From the amendments the hon. Gentleman proposed earlier, I know that it is often possible for an amendment to have unintended consequences. We do not want any unintended consequences to result from an acceptance, which is why I am sure that I shall withdraw the amendment once we have heard the Minister's response. I hope that the Minister will accept the main thrust of what we are saying—how we can free authorities to charge, rather than putting everything through the Secretary of State.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The clause deals with the ability of a fire and rescue authority to charge for services. I will confine my remarks as narrowly as I can on all the groups of amendments in the hope that we might have an opportunity to discuss the broader issues and the compare-and-contrast exercise between clause 19 and the provisions of the Fire Services Act 1947 in a clause stand part debate.

We are broadly sympathetic to the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 70, which largely reflects the intentions of our amendments Nos. 46 and 47, to which we will come in due course. I do not, however, believe that the hon. Gentleman's amendment goes quite far enough, and I think our amendment No. 48 will underline the requirement to go a little bit further than he is suggesting. We have no argument with the principle of limiting the power to charge to discretionary services only, except for one issue—that of medical co-response—that we need to address. We also strongly support the removal of the process of order making by the Secretary of State. However, the

local freedom to charge can only work if it is strictly limited to the non-statutory, non-core functions of a fire and rescue service.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman why?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Perhaps I should qualify my remarks. The discretion would only work in a way that is satisfactory and acceptable if it were limited to the non-core functions. I certainly do not want fire and rescue authorities to be able to charge for carrying out their core, front-line emergency work, and I imagine that other members of the Committee—I am looking at the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe)—would also be pretty horrified at the thought of a fire and rescue authority turning up at a road accident scene with its invoice pad in hand.

I am interested by the Minister's intervention. I anticipated that his defence of the structure involving the Secretary of State in authorising charging in certain areas would be that he needs to ensure that fire authorities are not able to charge in areas where it is not appropriate, or where the public would be outraged were charges to be imposed. No doubt, we will come that debate in due course.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

On the point about core services, at the moment the ambulance service charges for attending a road traffic accident. I am puzzled about why an ambulance should be able to charge and a fire brigade should not.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in Parliament when the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999 was passing through Parliament. I was deeply involved in consideration of that Bill. We argued strongly that there were dangers in introducing charging in that way. The hon. Gentleman will see, because he will have studied our later amendments, that our aim is to ensure that we do not extend that regime any further, and that we create a level playing field between fire and rescue authorities—or in the case of delivering medical care at the scene of an incident, between fire and rescue authorities and NHS ambulance service trusts.

As I was saying, the local freedom to charge can only work satisfactorily if it is limited to non-mandatory services. We will, I am sure, return to that theme in succeeding groups of amendments. We also agree that, since the amendment, as the Liberal Democrats have tabled it, is limited to charging for discretionary services, it is appropriate that the user should have had to agree in advance. That will create difficulties with the example of response to automatic fire alarms that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) gave. Although I had not thought about it, I confess that the automatic fire alarm response issue is quite complicated. Clearly, it is directly related to the possibility of an incident of fire, and it would certainly be wrong to say that the fire authority does not have to respond unless the chaps have agreed to pay if it turns

out to be a false alarm. However, responding to such alarms must be one of the bigger drains on fire authority resources. Clearly, the matter needs to be considered much more carefully than I have yet had a chance to do.

Broadly speaking, we are sympathetic to the thrust of the amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree, when he looks at amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48, that we need to go that little bit further and deal with the issue of medical co-response.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Amendment No. 70 is phrased in the same terms as section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003. That provision deals with discretionary services provided by best value authorities. Those are services that the authority is allowed to provide, but that are not obligatory. Section 93 of the 2003 Act allows authorities to make charges in such cases. Although we consider section 93 appropriate in the wider local government context, we do not consider that a similar provision would be a suitable substitute for the charging provisions in section 3 of the Fire Services Act 1947, which is why we introduced clause 19 instead.

The first effect of amendment No. 70, as a mirror of section 93 of the 2003 Act, would be to restrict the services for which authorities can charge to those that they are not obliged to provide. That might well have been an appropriate response had the 1947 Act provisions remained in force. Under the 1947 Act, fire calls are the only calls to which authorities are obliged to respond, although in practice they tend to respond to a much larger range of requests. The Bill makes provision for that to change. We have imposed a number of additional response requirements on the service in relation to traffic accidents and other non-fire incidents, but we gave a commitment in the White Paper that the power to charge for dealing with non-fire incidents would continue. Our proposals fulfil that commitment and continue the prohibition on charging for extinguishing fires or for protecting life and property in the event of fire.

Not only would amendment No. 70 involve a breach of that White Paper undertaking and cut across existing practice on the part of various fire and rescue authorities—if the hon. Member for Teignbridge has been in contact with chief fire officers and representatives of fire authorities, I have no doubt that they have drawn his attention to current provisions—but it would have the possibly unintended effect of frustrating clause 19(3), which is designed to enable authorities to recover the cost of dealing with an incident from a responsible third party in circumstances in which it may not be appropriate to seek to charge the person for whom the service was provided. Let me give an example. The authorities might seek to charge third parties for effecting the release of people from stalled lifts. Many of those incidents arise from a failure to maintain the lift system adequately, which is usually the responsibility of the building management or owner, and certainly not that of the passengers.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will explore the example a little further, and then I will be happy to give way to him. Amendment No. 70 would require the authority, if there were to be any possibility of recovering the costs incurred, to obtain the consent of the person who is liable to pay the charge before effecting a lift release. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that that may not be desirable as far as the passengers are concerned.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I wanted to inquire whether persons of the Minister's exalted status ever have the misfortune to cross the road to Portcullis House, where the lifts regularly appear to be stuck. I am reliably informed that that building has a most responsible and thorough landlord, so such things are not always down to incompetence or malice on the part of the landlord.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I did not say that they were. I said that failures involving lifts may often be attributed to a failure to maintain them adequately. For all the undoubted expense—and the skills of the architect responsible—I would not hold up Portcullis House as a model example of procurement. I was the Minister responsible for construction during the period that that building was procured, and I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the rethinking construction initiative for which the Government were responsible pointed to a much more positive way forward in procurement practice. On reflection, I hope that he will agree that that was not a good example.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I speak in honour of my former profession; architects are blamed for everything. It is mechanical engineers who deal with lifts.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will see that I paid tribute to the undoubted architectural skills of Sir Michael Hopkins, the architect responsible, but referred to Portcullis House as not a good example of procurement practice. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will probably agree with me.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) highlighted a malfunctioning automatic fire alarm as another instance where advance approval would be almost impossible to obtain in order to effect a charging regime. Frankly, there are much more complex issues to be discussed in relation to malfunctioning fire alarms. In the evidence that I gave to the Select Committee a while ago, I highlighted the potential perverse consequences of charging in such circumstances. That could lead to the owner of premises removing an automatic fire alarm for fear of paying charges for a malfunction, which in many cases would increase the risk. It is not a simple matter. If there were a regime for charging, the hon. Gentleman would be right. The owner of premises would simply have to decline to give advance consent to make the provision ineffective.

The recent Select Committee report on the fire service to which I referred noted the potential for authorities to recover the costs of dealing with traffic accidents from insurers in a manner similar to that for which provision exists in the NHS. The requirement in amendment No. 70 for express prior consent of the person to be to charged would prevent any such approach, as would excluding duties other than firefighting from the scope of any charging regime. Indeed, the amendment would run entirely counter to the view expressed by the Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) used to be a member. The Select Committee made a clear point and recommendation in paragraph 77 of the report:

''We believe there needs to be more research conducted on the potential for Fire Authorities to charge for activities of the Fire Service. As a statutory role of the Service expands, we expect Government to support Authorities as they seek to recoup costs.''

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has often been only too keen to quote the Select Committee in order to have a go at the Government, but the Select Committee's view runs entirely counter to that which he has put forward. The hon. Member for Teignbridge, whose hon. Friend has been a member of the Select Committee, should reflect that if we are to be serious about our response its report—which we are—the kind of amendments that both Opposition parties have tabled are not the right way forward. The amendments are highly prescriptive, they restrict the scope for fire and rescue authorities to take decisions in the light of local circumstances, and they would in some respects have perverse consequences, of which I have highlighted a couple.

Amendment No. 71 is consequential on amendment No. 70. It reflects the proposal that the latter would require each authority to determine from first principles which service it would provide for a charge, rather than taking decisions in the light of any order issued by the Secretary of State under the provisions of clause 19(1). As the effect of amendment No. 70 would be to restrict drastically the scope for authorities to make charges, the supposed freedom is illusory.

I ask the hon. Member for Teignbridge to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I understand what the Minister is saying, but the provision is not as prescriptive as he is trying to argue. I accept that the wording of the amendment is not exactly perfect, so we might return with a similar amendment at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 46, in

clause 19, page 9, line 12, at end insert—

'(c) the discharge of the functions conferred on the authority under section 8(1);'.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 47, in

clause 19, page 9, line 12, at end insert—

'(d) the discharge of any functions conferred on the authority under section 9 (other than charging to another fire and rescue authority in respect of functions discharged in that authority's area by virtue of section 9(2))'.

Amendment No. 48, in

clause 19, page 9, line 12, at end insert—

'(e) the provision of emergency medical assistance in circumstances where such assistance would be provided without charge by an NHS Ambulance Trust'.

Amendment No. 49, in

clause 19, page 9, line 12, at end insert—

'(f) the provision of anything which it is the authority's duty to provide under section 6(2)'.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The tone for this series of debates has been set by the Minister. He has the audacity to describe as highly prescriptive the Opposition amendments that would tackle the centralising provision. He will hide behind the Select Committee report.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

No.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Well, the Minister has already quoted from the Select Committee report, which reminded me how happy I am to quote it when it is critical of the Government—and I shall continue to do so. However, the Minister will find that the Select Committee is not with the public on the issue, who object to paying again for services that they have paid for through their council taxes and which some people already consider a major imposition.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, will he estimate the likely consequences for the council tax given the restrictions that he wants to impose under the amendments, bearing in mind the existing practice of fire and rescue authorities? Has he estimated the costs to fire and rescue authorities and assessed the consequences for the council tax?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister's question is interesting. He pre-empts a question that I was about to ask him. How much revenue does he estimate will be raised by allowing charging for road traffic accidents and how much revenue is currently collected? While it is true that, under the 1947 Act, fire authorities have an ability to charge for that work, very few do so. I should be interested to know how much the Minister believes is involved. Will he inform the Committee of it? Will he also tell the Committee his estimate of the amount of revenue that he expects to be collected as a result of charging?

Given the dramatic changes that will take place, the whole thrust of our debate this afternoon will be that it is not simply a question of business as usual, carrying forward the provisions of the 1947 Act. If the Minister is sending a signal that charging will be a significant part of future funding of fire and rescue services, it will be taken up by them. We may anticipate that arrangements will be not a continuation of what has happened in the past, but a step change towards a regime of charging for services other than fire.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious error by claiming that the Government are seeking to make changes to the existing framework. We have made it clear that there needs to be more work on that, but the Opposition are seeking to make a fundamental change. If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the Select Committee, he will see a reference to the evidence from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It refers to its current activity in advice and consultancy on fire safety that generated revenue of approximately £700,000 in 2000. That helps to resource our fire prevention work and is the equivalent of some 25 firefighters. Under the hon. Gentleman's amendments, that provision would become unlawful. Will he tell us how the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority will source those 25 firefighters—or will there be a further charge on the council tax?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister needs a fast forward button because the example that he has quoted is dealt with specifically by an Opposition amendment that we shall be discussing in a moment. That would explicitly exclude commercially provided arm's-length consultancy services specifically because the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority has raised with me the issue to which the Select Committee report refers.

I thought that the Minister would come back to the question of revenues that might be raised under charging for road traffic accidents, and I am happy to engage with him on consultancy charges when we come to that. I do not disagree with him at all. Where consultancy is provided on an arm's-length basis to commercial customers, there is no reason to limit charging to cost recovery as the Minister does in the Bill. In those cases, it would be perfectly sensible to allow a commercial rate of charging. Subsection (2) identifies extinguishing fires and protecting life and property in the event of fires as the only two ring-fenced areas in which the Secretary of State cannot authorise charging. The amendments would extend the exclusion.

Amendment No. 46 would extend the prohibition to all functions conferred by clause 8(1): rescuing people and protecting them from serious harm in road traffic accidents. Road traffic accident rescue work is to become a statutory duty and a core function of fire and rescue authorities. Apparently, it would have equal status and standing with the core firefighting duties in the 1947 Act. It would not be right to allow charging for one and not the other.

Maintaining the position of the 1947 Act requires treating road traffic accidents the same as fires—not, as Ministers continually assert, distinguishing them from fires. Of course, the 1947 Act prevents only charging for fires, but it effectively prevents charging for statutory duties. They are to be expanded, and it is sensible that the exclusion of charging should be extended to cover those areas that will become the core statutory functions of the fire and rescue services.

It is an inconvenient fact, but not material to the philosophical debate, that an insurer will usually be involved in a road traffic accident. I suggest to the

Minister that there is a piece of pure opportunism going on. The opportunity to charge a landlord for rescuing an elderly lady from a lift or an insurer for rescuing somebody from the wreckage of their car presents a superficially soft and attractive target for the Government. Those people paying the bill will not necessarily generate large amounts of sympathy compared with the person being rescued. It is a very dangerous route for the Government to take.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Would the hon. Gentleman consider the argument that the existence of charges in certain circumstances could act as an encouragement to good practice? I have previously referred to good lift maintenance. Does he not accept that the knowledge that there might be a charge for having to release people from a malfunctioning lift could act as a very useful stimulus to actions that would improve public safety?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister is absolutely right, and I am glad that he is embracing the market concept of pricing as a way of managing people's behaviour. He has in mind a rather convoluted means of achieving the good maintenance of lifts. Fines under health and safety legislation for the inadequate maintenance of lifts might be a better route to achieving the same objective.

The Minister is creating a very complicated regime from which there will inevitably be substantial exemptions and arguments over individual cases. As with the NHS powers to charge patients—I do not refer specifically to road traffic accidents but to NHS general powers—those responsible for managing the system will determine that it is too complex and costly to make it worth while.

The amendments address the real concern that the Government have set out to tax by stealth large sections of the population of what I will call middle England, and none more so than the motorist. Increasingly, motorists are a source of revenue, and there is little correlation between the costs imposed on them and the services or infrastructure provided for them and financed by those imposts. I fear that the Government are preparing to transfer the burden of road traffic accident work on to the long-suffering motorist by charging insurers for road traffic accident extraction, which will lead to higher insurance premiums.

I had expected a vehement denial of any such thing from the Minister. However, his remarks so far suggest the opposite: he is openly embracing the concept of widespread charging for road traffic accident extraction work. Of course, the power to charge for such work was in the 1947 Act, but we are now considering a wholesale reorganisation of our fire services—a complete change of direction.

We are also considering extreme financial pressure. When the Minister is not happily ensconced with us, he is busily engaged in beating various local authorities over the head in an attempt to squeeze the proposed council tax increases. He will know that there are few authorities proposing higher increases than the

combined fire authorities, which have special circumstances to deal with. In that environment, anything short of a ministerial ruling out of charging road accident victims for their own rescue will be taken as a steer that charging should be imposed.

The Minister is reaching again for the Select Committee report; perhaps he should reach for the Bain report. Professor Sir George Bain clearly appreciated the scope for charging, but he is not an elected politician and does not have to answer to the public for his proposals. The Minister will have to answer to the public if he intends to transfer the burden of road traffic accident rescue work from the council tax payer to the motorist through insurance premiums. Motorists are also council tax payers, of course. Ministers should be up front and clear. If that is not the Minister's intention, then amendment No. 46 should be accepted, to exclude the possibility that the Government will go down such a route in the future and to end for ever the discussion about what they will or will not do.

The Government have a job on their hands to sell modernisation to the public anyway. People already fear that modernisation simply means cuts. If the Minister doubts that, he should look at the letters columns of any local paper in an area in which changes to manning, staffing or appliance levels at fire stations have been announced. I know that very well because two fire stations affect my constituency. One is having an appliance removed, and another is moving from full-time working to daytime-only manning. I make no comment on the appropriateness of those decisions; they are perfectly in accordance with the Surrey fire authority's draft integrated risk management plan, but they have created an outburst of public concern.

I hope that the Minister accepts that, rightly or wrongly, people are fearful that modernisation means cuts to services. If they see their local fire station closing or moving to part-time manning, and at the same time their car insurance premiums rise by £100 or so a year to pay for the cost of fire service interventions in road traffic accidents, they will be clear that the Government's agenda is one of cuts, not of improved services.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I would not want in any sense to misrepresent what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I want to check that I have understood him correctly. One thing about insurance is the notion of liability. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in a vehicle accident with a clearly liable party—someone who has caused the accident through their own irresponsible behaviour—that person and their insurer should be free of any liability, and that that liability should automatically be the responsibility of the non-motoring 83-year-old council tax payer? Is that his position? Has he ruled out the possibility that in any circumstances there could be charging in such a situation? If he does, why is that fair?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

It is double tax. The motorist is already paying—paying and paying again.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I have finished responding to his last intervention. Now the hon. Gentleman wants to charge the motorist again. [Interruption.] If the Minister thinks that a charge to insurance companies is not a charge on the motorist, he is gravely mistaken. I did not hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green suggest that the police should be able to charge people for their attendance at a road traffic accident. Should the police be able to charge burglary victims for finger-printing their homes? We have a concept of certain services that are provided out of general taxation—services that we regard as public services, which should rightly be provided in response to emergencies and matters such as those we are discussing.

There is another reason why we should tread extremely carefully before we think about attacking the motorists via insurance premiums: there are already millions of uninsured drivers on our roads. That is a growing social problem, with very wide ramifications. Although by definition it is impossible to know how many, the numbers are almost certainly increasing very rapidly. The hon. Gentleman will know about this. I read a very interesting national newspaper article just last week, which referred to an area in the west midlands—not in Birmingham—as one of those where there has been the highest increase in the incidence of drivers apprehended while driving without insurance or, indeed, any other form of documentation.

Anything that further increases the incentive for drivers simply to ignore the law and drive without insurance, thus further increasing the burden on the law-abiding motorist who pays his insurance premiums and whose insurance premiums have to contribute to a fund that, effectively, soaks up the problem of uninsured drivers when they are involved in accidents, makes a bad situation very much worse. I strongly urge the hon. Gentleman not to go down that route. The motorist, frankly, has had enough.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

To suggest that the best way to avoid fraud is to diminish individual responsibility is a wonderful concept; I have not encountered that philosophy, but it is an interesting notion. I take the hon. Gentleman back to the point that I put to him. Insurance is about the idea of liability. What is the purpose of an insurance policy if, when one is liable, one is not liable for cost? The implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that he would prefer to transfer that liability to the non-motoring 83-year-old pensioner. That cannot possibly be fair.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am honestly struggling to understand where the hon. Gentleman's logic would take him in the taxation system in general. Should childless people have a lower rate of income tax because they do not send their children to school? Should we get a refund on our taxes if we go a whole year without visiting a doctor? The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should take—

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. The debate is drifting away from the precise terms of the amendments. It might we wise and better for all of us if we return to the confines of the amendments.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

You are absolutely right, Mr O'Hara. I was enjoying the debate so much, I had not noticed. All I can say to you in mitigation is that I do not think it was my fault that it went in such a direction.

Amendment No. 47 would extend the exclusion on charging to functions that are conferred on a fire authority under clause 9—other emergency functions. Let us look at the draft statutory instrument that the Minister has already published to see what kind of instances we are talking about. A fire authority would not be able to charge someone for chemically decontaminating them after a terrorist attack, for rescuing them from the sea after a collision or for rescuing them from floodwaters rising around their ankles in their home. That is the kind of core service that the public would expect to be paid for out of taxation and funded as a proper public emergency response service. Amendment No. 47 would specifically allow for the charging of one fire authority by another where under proposed section 9 the Secretary of State has conferred functions on a fire authority requiring it to operate outside its own area. That is right and proper and we would not want to interfere with that.

Amendment No. 48 moves beyond the statutory services and deals with an important point, which I hope the Minister will respond to in a different tone from the one that I anticipate he will use in response to amendment Nos. 40, 46 and 47. There is no reference in the Bill to co-response initiatives, but I hope—and I am pretty confident—that he will confirm that it is the Government's wish to encourage medical co-response by fire services. It was one of the issues that was constantly referred to in the many debates and discussions that we had during the fire dispute.

Amendment No.48 would preclude charging for emergency medical assistance of a type that would be free if given by a national health service ambulance trust. That addresses the concern raised by the hon. Member for Teignbridge that in certain circumstances—wrongly in my view—NHS ambulance trusts are allowed to charge for work related to road traffic accidents. I am not seeking to roll that back or to restrict fire authorities from doing the same. With amendment No. 48, I am seeking to limit the circumstances in which fire authorities could charge, so that it is not simply an accident of fate that determines whether the fire engine arrives before the ambulance and a person has to pay for a certain level of first-response medical care at the scene of an incident—which may or may not be a road traffic accident. It is essential that the public can be confident that they will not be charged for medical assistance simply because the fire brigade is first on the scene.

I hope that that is a sensible and necessary exclusion. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, I hope that he can give assurances that a victim will not be lying at the side of the road listening to two sets of

sirens coming from different directions and hoping that the ambulance will get stuck at the traffic lights—sorry, that the fire engine will get stuck at the traffic lights, so the ambulance arrives first and the victim is not at risk of being charged by the fire authority for the medical attention that it will deliver.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I invite the hon. Gentleman to return to his original formulation of words before he corrected it, because if his amendment were agreed to, exactly that perverse incentive would apply—the unfortunate individual would be hoping that the fire engine got there first rather than the ambulance.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Not at all; if the Minister examines amendment No. 48, he will see that it says specifically that there should not be a charge for

''the provision of emergency medical assistance in circumstances where such assistance would be provided without charge by an NHS Ambulance Trust''.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The effect of amendment No. 46 would be to make it impossible for a fire authority to make a charge, whereas, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, there are circumstances where an NHS ambulance would be able to. That is precisely the circumstance where there would be perverse incentive to encourage the arrival of a fire engine rather than an ambulance to deal with a road traffic accident. He cannot seriously be suggesting that.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

There are all sorts of perverse incentives that are arising out of this debate. The Minister is mistaken—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

No.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

It is conceivable. The exclusion referred to in amendment No. 46 is

''rescuing people in the event of road traffic accidents in its area''

''protecting people from serious harm''.

The duties in clause 8(1) do not extend to the delivery of medical attention. We have tabled amendment No. 48 specifically to deal with co-response initiatives. Amendment No. 49 excludes charging for the provision of services or material that fall within clause 6(2) which deals with fire safety. The group of amendments prevents charging for statutory functions that the public rightly believe they have already paid for through the council tax system. It goes further by ensuring that medical assistance provided by virtue simply of the fire brigade being first on the scene should be free at the point of use in all circumstances where it would be free if the ambulance service had been first on the scene.

My note says, ''I hope that the Minister will be able to agree to this group of amendments,'' but something in his tone makes me wonder whether he will.

Adrian Flook (Conservative, Taunton)

My hon. Friend has been talking about cases in which an ambulance arrives before fire brigade. What would happen if the fire brigade arrived first and gave the injured car driver

or passenger first aid care, and then the ambulance turned up and took away the injured person? Would there be double charging in that case?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

My hon. Friend's point underlines why such emergency incident scenes are not susceptible to this kind of invoicing approach. Some years ago when Labour was in opposition, its Members used to rail against the very idea of invoices or charging mechanisms, even between authorities within the health service. They used to portray it as an absurdity that people requiring medical care should be subject to a paperwork trail process. My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that there might be two ambulance services at the scene, or two fire services if the incident is close to a fire authority boundary. The mind boggles about such a case. The public is much more receptive now than they were even a decade or two ago to the idea of charging where it is sensible to charge—to the idea of a mixed economy in the delivery of services—but we would be testing the public's tolerance if we were to move into charging for front-line emergency responses. I do not want to paint absurd pictures but if we were to go down the route that appears to be suggested, where would it end? Would we be looking next at charging for police attendance at incidents? One could go on forever. The public will simply draw the line at front-line emergency response attendance being charged for.

We can have a different debate about people trapped in lifts. There are issues that need to be resolved about such incidents. As I understand it, they do not come within the functions conferred by clauses 8 or 9. Rescuing people from lifts would be undertaken under clause 11—unless the Minister intends to make directions under clause 9. We can debate those matters, but the core issues are road traffic accidents and rescue from flooding and from accidents on the water, and dealing with the consequences of such incidents. It is hardly credible to think that any Government—even the present one—could consider charging people for chemical or nuclear decontamination, and I hope that the Minister can rule that out for a start.

This debate is about excluding charging from the kinds of areas that have been mentioned so that in an emergency, the emergency first-response service continues to be paid for by the taxpayers and the victim does not have to think twice about whether he is willing to dial 999.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

When the hon. Gentleman began, I was sympathetic to him because he said some kind things about the general principle of our amendment. I was looking through the amendments and thought that there might be something I can support. I am sympathetic to one of the amendments—I shall return to it in a moment—but the general principle behind the amendments seems to be that the hon. Gentleman is making a plea to the editor of the tabloid papers saying that the motorist is hard done by. The only matter to which he did not refer was speed cameras, but I am sure that he would have worked them into his remarks if he could have.

The hon. Gentleman is misleading when he says that the victim pays. Charging for attendance at a motor accident does not involve the victim alone; it is paid from insurance. It is the person who drives into the back of someone else's car, not the victim, who ultimately pays, because it is claimed from the insurance. I am not saying that such matters are exclusive—there are exemptions—but, as a general principle, the person to whom the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green referred, the person at fault, who actually pays, not the victim.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not the case. The insurer of the person at fault might pay, but those who pay include the victim, the person at fault and the passing motorists who have not had an accident for years. All motorists pay because insurance is based on the principle of pooled risk.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

Insurance is based on that principle, but if someone has an accident, by and large that person pays extra on his premium the following year and the money is clawed back. The person who is responsible for the accident—the motorist—pays for something that he has caused. In a pooled-risk scheme, the person must accept that he is paying not necessarily for his faults, but for other people's faults. We can get into a complex argument about liability and fault, but the clear principle is that people must be responsible for their actions. I therefore have no difficulty in opposing amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 49.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Why does the hon. Gentleman not extend that principle further? Why does he not make attendance at fires subject to an assessment of whether the person who started the fire, perhaps accidentally, acted foolishly or did not take the necessary precautions? Why not extend personal responsibility still further?

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

We could have an interesting argument on that subject. However, existing legislation already establishes a principle in respect of road traffic accidents. Proposals to allow a charge in that respect would be reasonable. We would have to consider other issues fully before disregarding them. The instance of a stuck lift is a good example: the Minister is right in principle—by and large, lifts break down because they have been poorly maintained. The fire alarm example I gave earlier was caused by poor maintenance, which is why such issues should be dealt with by a charge. We must say to people that they must be responsible and not keep wasting taxpayers' money, which is what they do when they call out services needlessly.

However, the hon. Gentleman is right about amendment No. 48. It would be iniquitous if a fire engine turned up at a scene and a charge was made, while the local ambulance service did not make a charge. I am sure that, given the Minister's beaming smile, he will say some kind words about the amendment.

Adrian Flook (Conservative, Taunton)

It would appear that, through clause 19, the Government are keen to confer a stealth tax. We Conservatives want to keep the charges limited to non-mandatory or discretionary cases. Earlier, we heard about the Minister and his lift. It appears that he had a fear of getting stuck in the lift, not because he suffered from claustrophobia but because no one would let him out.

We have heard a lot about road traffic accidents. I would like to ask the Minister some questions about Somerset fire brigade and the consultation that has take place over the past few months. The brigade has announced that it is keen to make it its policy that it will not attend a fire alarm from commercial premises unless someone—one presumes from that company—is in attendance. When the consultation began in October, it was decided, based on a decision by Oxfordshire that had been implemented just nine or 10 months earlier, that the Somerset brigade, too, would not attend alarm calls from commercial premises unless someone was there.

During that consultation process, I wrote a letter of concern because I did not think that the proposal was practicable in Somerset, which is somewhat more rural than Oxfordshire. It is easy in an urban area for a key holder to get to premises at the same time as the fire brigade, but in a rural area the managing director or company secretary could live 40 or 50 miles away and the fire brigade could be in attendance at the scene much more quickly. I am concerned that, on the back of what Oxfordshire fire brigade is doing, Somerset fire brigade is setting the standard that it will only turn up if someone is there. It will either not turn up if no one is there, or the company will be charged to ensure that the fire brigade always turns up without a key holder having to be present. I hope that the Minister addresses that concern.

We accept that in certain circumstances charging makes sense, but it appears that that Government are being opportunistic. I can see what will happen in Somerset, especially as Somerset fire brigade comes wholly within the responsibility of the county council, which is, in any event, having to be innovative in the ways in which it increases charges. The council could look at clause 19 and consider its new approach to turning up—or not—at commercial premises, and might leave businesses in my constituency and the rest of Somerset bereft of fire care. They might also be told in a nice annual letter that if they pay a little extra directly to Somerset fire brigade they may get permanent cover with or without key holders in attendance.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

This has been an interesting debate. It reveals a great deal both about the views of the parties and the Opposition's political positioning.

Amendment No. 46 is designed to prevent any charge being made for actions taken in dealing with road traffic accidents that do not involve fire. How the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge could suggest that that is somehow compatible with his scenario about the use of defibrillators by fire authorities is difficult to understand. As he knows well, clause 8(1)(b) states specifically that

''A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of—

(b) protecting people from serious harm, to the extent that it consider it reasonable to do so, in the event of road traffic accidents in its area.''

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister quotes defibrillators rather bafflingly at me. Heart attacks are not the most common consequence of road traffic accidents. Can the Minister explain to what extent it is reasonable to make provision for protecting people from serious harm in the event of a road traffic accident? What medical equipment and training should firefighters have when attending a road traffic accident?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman tries to lure me into territory into which I shall not go. That matter is properly a subject for individual fire authorities to determine on the basis of expert professional advice. The point is that there is considerable experience of the benefits of the first responder on the scene being able to give expert medical assistance, including the use of defibrillators. Heart failure can occur in road traffic accidents and it is possible to respond to such an event.

The Opposition's position on the matter is wholly opportunistic. They seek for crude electoral reasons to criticise the Government for supposedly introducing loads of new charges. Of course, their allegation does not stand the slightest degree of scrutiny, as we will explore in the next few minutes. I just thought that the Committee should be aware of what this discussion is all about. It is not about the long-term interests of the fire and rescue service. It does not recognise the fact that fire authorities already charge for a considerable number of activities. The hon. Gentleman has only to read our consultation paper to know the extent to which charging is already a reality and the extent to which it would be severely cut if the amendments were accepted.

Mr. Hammond rose—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I ask him to explain to the Committee how he will avoid the inevitable increases in council tax that his amendments would lead to if he were to push for the restriction of charging that already applies in extensive circumstances among fire and rescue authorities.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I thought that the Minister would give us a figure. With all the resources at his disposal, we still have not heard a figure from him. In dealing with road traffic accidents and the other emergencies to be defined by the Secretary of State in a draft statutory instrument under clause 9, how much charge is levied at present?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Let me give the hon. Gentleman some figures that are clearly shown in our consultation document: 63 per cent. of responding fire authorities charge for clearing up after chemical or other spillages, including spillages at road traffic accidents; 55 per cent. charge for clearing up domestic or commercial flooding; 38 per cent. charge for effecting entry to

premises; 35 per cent. charge for the hire of crews and equipment for special events; 30 per cent. charge for the hire of salvage or other major equipment; 28 per cent. charge for providing water in non-emergency situations; 23 per cent. charge for providing fire reports; 20 per cent. charge for removing dangerous structures; 18 per cent. charge for lift rescues. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) seemed to think that I was obsessed with lift rescues, but they are well known as an activity that the fire and rescue service perform on many occasions. It is right that they should do so, and it is also right that in certain cases charges should be made if it is clear that there has been negligence on the part of the people who are responsible for management of the premises.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I thought that the hon. Member for Taunton was most disingenuous in suggesting that no one would come to the Minister's rescue. His fear of lifts is surely really a fear about who he would get stuck with.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

You have no fear of being trapped in a lift with anyone, Mr. O'Hara. I shall not pursue that matter.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Perhaps the Minister has genuinely misunderstood what we are trying to do, but I do not think so. The list that he has just read out is extremely interesting, but not one of those circumstances in which fire authorities currently charge would be caught by our amendments. The amendments are not about rescuing people from lifts, filling swimming pools with water, draining ponds or hiring out heavy lifting equipment. They are about rescuing people and protecting them from serious harm in the event of a road traffic accident, and dealing with other emergencies that the Secretary of State may specify. Such emergencies could include rescuing people from flooding, but would not include pumping out their basements.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am sorry to say to the hon. Gentleman that the first item I mentioned was clearing up after chemical or other spillages, including road traffic accidents. Such accidents feature among the list of restrictions that the hon. Gentleman and his party seek to impose.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Will the Minister give way again?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I want to make some progress. When we considered amendment No. 70 a short while ago, I explained the reasons why we wished to leave open the possibility of charging for actions performed at a road traffic accident, but were not proposing a change to the status quo without further consultation. Indeed, the Select Committee specifically recommends further research on the subject.

As I highlighted in an earlier exchange, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is normally only too happy to quote the Select Committee, but on this occasion he chooses not to. I wonder why? After careful consideration by a large number of people, including the Bain review and the Select Committee, it is obvious that what is required is sensible, thoughtful,

intelligent analysis of the appropriate circumstances in which charges may be helpful or useful, and those in which they would not, rather than the knee-jerk reaction of the Conservative party seeking, for crude opportunistic electoral purposes, to present itself as the friend of the hard-done-by motorist. That is the cheap political opportunism of the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Teignbridge, who—for a number of reasons that he will recognise later—was the most perceptive speaker in the debate, highlighted that factor.

The Bain report recommended that the issue of charging should be considered further. That report has been widely praised for its thorough and perceptive analysis of the needs of the fire and rescue service. It referred to several areas in which brigades could charge, including charging insurance companies for the costs associated with road traffic accidents, as the NHS does, charging commercial operators for fire safety advice and charging for false alarms from automatic fire alarms. That would provide an incentive for people to ensure that they are not calling out the fire service unnecessarily, and the potential for cost recovery will depend on the services offered by brigades. The report went on to say that the sum involved might amount to £100 million or so over the next three years.

The Government gave a cautious and measured response to that. The Select Committee report highlights my evidence in which I stated that this was one of the very few areas in which we have probably not gone fully along with the Bain recommendations. Bain suggested there was scope for a very substantial increase in revenue through charging. There are complex issues involved and there are risks of deterring people from taking necessary safety measures if they decide that the cost is prohibitive. Our wish is that each fire authority should consider carefully where there is a genuine and legitimate case for a charge that will not inhibit action to improve fire safety, but should not pursue charging schemes that might have an adverse impact on that all-important wider objective.

That is the position of Her Majesty's Government. We stand by that position and we reject the opportunistic stance of the Conservative party, and the pursuit of charging beyond what is reasonable recommended by some advocates who believe that to be a way to raise additional revenue that would benefit the fire and rescue service.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Having stated his position, will the Minister now clearly explain in plain English whether the Government will allow charging for routine extraction of victims from road traffic accidents? If so, will they make a distinction between drivers who are insured, whose insurance will pay, and drivers who are uninsured, who would have to pay themselves?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As I have already made absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman, the Government do not believe that any changes should be made to the current

status quo without further thorough research, analysis and consultation. We are proposing a measured way forward, which, as I indicated by reference to my evidence to the Select Committee, leaves individual fire and rescue authorities a proper degree of discretion, as opposed to the highly prescriptive approach that the Conservatives are opportunistically pursuing while they argue the case for freedom from prescription elsewhere. The matter should be approached in a sensible, thoughtful manner, not through a knee-jerk response.

Amendment No. 48 seems to be aimed at ensuring that no anomaly arises between the emergency medical treatment that a person might receive at the hands of the fire service, compared wtih that provided by colleagues in the ambulance service. It would prevent any charge being specified for treatment that would have been free if provided by an NHS ambulance trust. Situations in which this might be relevant include incidents at which the ambulance service is not the first in attendance, and areas in which much valued co-responder schemes are in operation. It is not clear how that is compatible with amendment No. 46, which would impose a blanket ban on charging for the functions discharged by a fire and rescue authority at a road traffic accident.

However, having explained to the Committee why we cannot accept amendment No. 46, I should say that I am much more sympathetic to the aims of amendment No. 48. If Opposition Members will accept that there are circumstances where cost recovery may be appropriate, I am happy to consider an amendment designed to ensure that there is no inconsistency of policy or practice between that to be adopted by the fire and rescue service and that for NHS ambulance trusts. I should be interested to hear the response of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who is keen to argue the case for no charging in any circumstances—for reasons which, as I believe the Committee has already rumbled, are predominantly opportunistic.

Amendment No. 49 would prohibit charging for the type of fire safety advice that it should be considered the duty of an authority to provide. Yet the distinction between the type of general advice to which that prohibition would apply and detailed consultancy is a vexed issue, on which we are likely to have further debate. Consultation is already in hand about the way in which we might draw that distinction in any order made under the clause. Until we have a better understanding of the responses to that exercise, I suggest that it is premature to attempt to deal further with this matter.

I also remind the hon. Gentleman that the amendment would seriously inhibit existing practice by fire and rescue authorities in a way that could have a significant budgetary impact. At a time when people are rightly concerned about council tax levels, the Opposition should be wary about imposing blanket restrictions on the ability of fire and rescue authorities to recover some of their costs, which would inevitably lead to additional pressure on council tax. This is a classic instance of an opportunistic Opposition trying

to have it both ways. On the one hand they argue that council tax is too high and it is all the Government's fault, and then in the next breath, without the slightest shame, they say that the Government should stop fire and rescue authorities making any charges and let council tax bear the strain.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Does the Minister think that it is all right simply to reduce the amount that authorities can charge in cost recovery in areas where they already charge, and let the council tax take the hit of that reduction in the charges made by authorities that are currently making profits, particularly on their consultancy services?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As the hon. Gentleman will realise when we debate cost recovery, some authorities currently make charges that appear to be in excess of what is required to deliver the service—although there are wider definitions of the factors involved in the overall provision of the relevant service or advice. We shall deal with that later. However, the hon. Gentleman has not paid heed to the parallel legislation, the Local Government Act 2003, which puts in place a charging regime that will apply to best value authorities, and therefore to fire and rescue authorities, and will enable them, as and when they have been subject to a comprehensive performance and assessment regime—

Adrian Flook (Conservative, Taunton)

That is about eight years away.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

No, not in eight years' time. If the hon. Member for Taunton were better informed, he would realise that the Audit Commission is already consulting on the framework for a comprehensive performance assessment for the fire service.

I put it to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that this is the right framework, because it will allow the fire and rescue authorities in appropriate circumstances to trade, as other local authorities can. That is the correct way forward. I hope that in the light of those comments, he will seek to withdraw the amendment, and indicate his willingness to accept that there are circumstances in which cost recovery may be appropriate. I shall then be happy to consider an amendment designed to ensure that there is no inconsistency between the regimes applied by the fire and rescue services and NHS ambulances.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

That was a mixed response to this group of amendments. I want to go back to the Minister's list. He triumphantly read out his list of situations in which fire and rescue authorities already charge, as if we were proposing to wipe out all those charges. I said that not one of them would be affected by the amendments, but I take the Minister's correction: it is arguable that the first one that he read out—clearing of chemical spillages, including spillages after road traffic accidents—may be relevant in some cases. Can the Minister quantify what we are talking about? How much money is recovered by charging motorists or their insurers as opposed to local authorities or the Highways Agency for clearing chemical spillages after road traffic accidents? I would

be interested to know, but I am prepared to make a small bet with the Minister—if that if is in order, Mr. O'Hara—that the sums involved are very small.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. A bet is in order as long as it is made outside the Committee.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

For one horrible moment there, Mr. O'Hara, I thought that you were going to say as long as you got a cut.

All the other issues mentioned by the Minister would not, as I understand it, fall within the functions defined under clause 8(1), clause 9 or, indeed, clause 7—the firefighting clause. Therefore, we are not talking about preventing charging for: rescuing people stuck in lift or cats stuck up trees, pumping out ponds, filling swimming pools, propping up dangerous structures, and all the other things he mentioned.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman did not mention clause 6(2), which is affected by amendment No. 49.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Let us deal with that now. It is right that a fire and rescue authority should not charge for the

''provision of information, publicity and encouragement''.

That is not to say that it should not charge for the smoke alarms that it installs or for some other product that it makes available—we can argue at the margins. However, I would hate the Minister to succeed in duping the Committee into believing that we seek to exclude a huge list of services for which fire and rescue authorities currently charge, and from which they raise hundreds of millions of pounds of revenue.

The Minister is right that there is a power to charge for road traffic accident work. It is little used. My fear is that the Bill, the Select Committee report and the Bain report represent a shift towards charging, particularly for road traffic accidents. The Minister calls the Opposition opportunistic, but, in fact, the assault on the motorist is opportunistic because in most cases he will have an insurer standing behind him who will pick up the bill and frankly he will only experience the cost as a second order imposition when he comes to pay his insurance premium, along with his neighbour who may not have been involved in any accident. Our concern is that the Government are sending a message. The Minister will say that they intend to send no such message, so I invite him to make that very clear by ruling out charging motorists or their insurers for attending the scene of an emergency. The public will draw their own conclusions from his repeated refusal to do so. I would be interested to hear the Minister tell us how much money is currently raised from charging in cases that would be excluded by this group of amendments. I imagine that it would be small.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman has made an ingenious attempt to wriggle out of the position that he got himself into. The Opposition are alone in arguing that position. Is he aware that the Local Government Association, which generally takes a view that is not

dissimilar from the one that he advocates—that the service should not charge for core activities—specifically says:

''The exception would be road traffic accidents where we have supported an examination of the feasibility of recovering costs from insurance companies.''?

Why does he not recognise that he is on his own in taking this very restrictive and prescriptive approach, rather than welcoming the Government's measured approach of allowing a proper, serious analysis of where charging is appropriate and where it is not and then deciding on the right way forward?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The fact that the Labour-controlled LGA agrees with the Minister on that point, although it does not agree with him on a great deal else, does not particularly impress me. I am far from being alone: there are 27 million motorists in this country, and the large majority of them would take my side rather than the Minister's in the argument.

The Government are being wholly opportunistic. The LGA and the fire authorities see what looks like a relatively easy source of revenue, and I do not blame them for having a go at it. However, we are here to consider what is right and balanced and the Opposition believe that there will be undesirable and unintended effects from any attempt to recover costs through insurers. There will be a motorists' revolt if what has hitherto been a publicly funded emergency service is charged for through insurers and charges are loaded onto insurance premiums.

If the Government go ahead with their consultation, review the subject and conclude that they want to encourage local fire authorities to charge, there is no doubt that the regime that we are putting in place through the Bill and the national framework will create an environment in which the Government will be able to tell fire authorities what they think they should and should not be doing. If the Government determine that an authority should charge for road traffic accidents, the consequences of not doing so for its best value auditing, compliance framework and budgeting process will be significant.

If the Minister goes down that route—he is refusing to rule it out—will he deal differently with insured and uninsured drivers? Will he levy a charge against an insurance company where there is an insurance company, but tell fire authorities that they should exempt an uninsured motorist from what might be a very substantial charge?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

That is one issue that will need to be considered, along with many others, as part of any review of the scope for introducing charges. The right way forward must be to ensure that there are no perverse incentives either to work against the interests of public safety by discouraging a response by the fire and rescue service where one is essential, or to encourage law breaking by motorists who try to evade insurance liabilities.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I cannot disagree with what the Minister says. I suppose that if he were to introduce a regime wherein an uninsured motorist could be sent a bill for a couple of thousand pounds by their local fire and rescue authority, that would have to be added—[Interruption.] Well, I would think that a couple of thousand pounds was a rather modest suggestion for a likely charge for attendance and extraction of somebody from a significant road traffic accident.

I do not want to pre-empt the debate about costs and how they are defined in such a service where one might pay for a crew to sit for eight hours without performing a rescue, and then perform one that takes 20 minutes. How does one cost that?

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Does my hon. Friend not agree that by extending the range of charging and incentivising local fire and rescue brigades to charge, we could find ourselves in a situation where they select which accident to go to based on the amount of revenue that they might be able to generate? They have a limited number of personnel and appliances, so they might pick and choose if there were simultaneous accidents.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. The intervention is getting rather long.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

My hon. Friend highlights an interesting and, frankly, rather alarming prospect. The possibilities are endless and I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to rule out the provision and say that in real emergencies where someone is trapped in wreckage, there will be no question of who will pay. That is how we have always operated.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

The hon. Gentleman is genuinely confused. Of course, in real emergencies we want the Minister to confirm that there will be no question of the emergency services failing to turn up and perform the rescue. However, after that episode is complete, why is it unreasonable to consider the question of liability? The hon. Gentleman is confused about the two different functions.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman had been sitting on the Conservative benches, I would have taken that as a kindly intervention. I am not confused at all—I clearly understand the distinction. I suggest that he talks to some motorists and motorists' organisations in his constituency. When the Minister says that I am entirely alone, he shows that he has not consulted motoring organisations on the issue.

I shall not seek leave to withdraw the amendment. I must press amendment No. 46. Before I do so, I want to address the Minister—[Interruption.] The Minister says that we will lose amendment No. 48. I am not sure what he means by that, because I understood the Minister to be suggesting that he is sympathetic to the objectives of amendment No. 48.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I made it explicit on two occasions that I would consider taking away amendment No. 48 and choosing appropriate wording to give effect to the principle behind it—with which I have sympathy—provided that the hon. Gentleman made it clear that

the Opposition were not opposed to the existence of charges in certain circumstances. In my view, the effect of amendment No. 46 as drafted would be to make it unlikely that a charging regime could apply in relation to road traffic accidents.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am not sure that I follow the Minister's logic, so perhaps we should explore it. Obviously I am pleased that the Minister has suggested that he wants to encourage medical co-response and does not want there to be any perverse regimes that would discourage it.

I rather hoped that the Minister's approach to amending Bills during their parliamentary passage was to improve them rather than to play a game of tit for tat whereby the Opposition withdraws one amendment and Minister accepts another. The Minister has not convinced me that amendment No. 46 is flawed and that it would do what he suggests. Amendment No. 46 is intended to deal only with charges where the fire and rescue authority is rescuing someone from a road traffic accident or protecting them from serious harm in the event of one.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman accepted a short while ago that the first item on the list that I read out—clearing up after chemical spillages, including at road traffic accidents—was the largest source of charging: 63 per cent. of respondent authorities charge in such circumstances. I find it difficult to see how he can now argue that amendment No. 46 does not have the adverse consequence that I suggested.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

It is not clear to me that that follows at all. I read clause 8(1) narrowly:

''rescuing people in the event of road traffic accidents . . . protecting people from serious harm . . . in the event of road traffic accidents in its area.''

It is not clear to me that the fire and rescue service has the primary responsibility for clearing the carriageway after an accident. I do not think that that is the case. Therefore, I suspect that when the fire and rescue authority undertakes clearance of the carriageway, it is undertaking a responsibility that belongs to the highway authority in that area. However, I stand to be corrected by the Minister.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am even more astonished by the hon. Gentleman's inability to understand that cleaning up after a chemical spillage at a road traffic accident is not

''protecting people from serious harm''.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

It would depend on the nature of the chemical, I suspect. What we still have not had from the Minister is a figure. What is the magnitude of the activity?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Sixty-three per cent.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

We want to know how much money is involved. Sixty-three per cent. of authorities say that they do sometimes levy a charge in those circumstances. That tells us nothing about the amount of money raised and nothing about how many times authorities make charges in those circumstances. Although I am grateful to the Minister for

acknowledging the purpose behind amendment No. 48, the purpose of amendment No. 46 is to exclude the possibility of charging for the extraction of victims from road traffic accidents. I will not be bought off by the Minister saying that he is prepared to look at correcting a defect in the drafting of the Bill—a defect to which amendment No. 48 has drawn attention—to ensure that there are no perverse disincentives to medial co-response schemes. That offer will not make me withdraw an amendment that deals with the critical issue of the Government targeting motorists insurers by seeking to pass the burden of paying for road traffic accidents from the taxpayer—the current situation—to the motorist.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

If it was the hon. Gentleman's intention simply to limit, in the narrow way that he describes, the purpose of amendment No. 46 to preventing fire and rescue authorities from charging for extracting people from road traffic accidents, why did he word the amendment in a way that means that it covers all the responsibilities in clause 8(1)?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am prepared, as I always have to be on these occasions, to accept criticism of my drafting skills, as I always have to be on these occasions. If the Minister would like to loan me parliamentary counsel the next time we have one of these little outings, it will probably be a bit easier to get the amendment precisely right. The principle that we are addressing is clear. The Minister has been given every opportunity to say that the Government have no intention of pursuing the agenda of making motorists and their insurers routinely responsible for the costs of road traffic accidents, and that is all that we are looking for. If the Minister had given us that assurance, we would have withdrawn the amendment, but he has not, and therefore I have no choice but to press the amendment to a vote and urge my hon. Friends to vote for it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in

clause 19, page 9, line 13, leave out subsection (3).

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 162, in

clause 19, page 9, line 20, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 21 and insert

'must publish a list which specifies the amounts the authority will charge in specific circumstances and in which circumstances they will charge nothing.'.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

We had a disappointing result in the last debate, but we will move on; we live to fight another day.

Subsection (3) gives the power to authorise a charge to be imposed on a third party. We have largely had this debate already, and it is clear to me that the Government have motor insurers in mind. During our debates, the Minister has also placed much emphasis on the owners of buildings in which people get trapped in lifts, so owners of buildings are another class of third party. It would be interesting for the Committee to hear other examples that the Government have in mind in seeking this power to levy charges on third parties.

I can see that insurers are a politically easy target. They are generally large companies and they probably do not complain too loudly because they recover the costs from the people they insure; no elector is hit directly with a large bill. When we consider the owners of buildings, we run into a different area. If a block has 20 or 30 privately owned flats, the tenants will own the block through a management company or some other arrangement. The easy option of the deep-pocketed wicked capitalist in the background who owns the building and can be made to pay for his misdeeds will not be there, and the burden that the Government are imposing will trickle down, as will any burden imposed on insurers.

The purpose of amendment No. 50 is to exclude the provision to charge third parties. On the insurance example, I would much prefer that the charges were levied—if they have to be levied at all—against an individual, who can always recover the amount from his insurers. Charging the individual rather than a third party would give the reassurance that the million or so motorists driving without insurance will not get away with it. I note that the Minister chose his words carefully, and I accept, because of what I know of him, that by instinct he would not want to enable people who fail to pay motor insurance to get away with it. However, charges of several thousand pounds against an individual will give rise to difficult consequences; people will be dragged through the courts for non-payment, and we already know that two thirds of fines do not get collected. It is probably impractical to collect large sums from people who are uninsured. The insured, law-abiding motorist will pay; the uninsured motorist, sadly, almost certainly will not. I am wary about the ability to charge third parties.

Will the Minister give further examples in which such charging would apply, other than those involving building owners and motor insurers? It would go down well in my constituency if every time a person's basement was flooded and they had to pay the fire

brigade to pump them out, they could recover the cost from the Environment Agency, but I do not suppose that was what the Minister had in mind.

Amendment No. 162 addresses a different issue. In the consultation paper on charging, the Government made it clear that they envisage charges being made on an ad hoc basis, with authorities making judgments about people's ability to pay. In my view, that approach is wholly wrong. We do not want a situation in which every time there is an incident, some kind of sub-committee of the fire authority has to decide whether to charge and how much to charge. That would lack transparency, and it would be wholly unsatisfactory. If we are going to have charges, there should be a standard charge about which people know in advance, rather than individual cases being dealt with differently, which could give rise to very inequitable outcomes, certainly between fire authorities and even within a fire authority.

I emphasise that I have no difficulty with fire authorities being allowed to exercise the discretion to waive a charge in cases of obvious or extreme hardship. However, that is different from setting a charge on an individual basis. We should not be envisaging a situation in which the make and value of the car in an accident determines how much the fire authority charges the victim's insurers for the work that it does at the scene. That does not seem to be an appropriate way to proceed. The amendment would require an authority to publish the amounts that it will charge in certain specified circumstances and to be clear about the circumstances in which it will not levy a charge. I shall not bother going round the loop again of explaining to the Minister how fraught with risk his proposals are.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

I was waiting for the hon. Gentleman to try to do so.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I do not want to disappoint you, Mr. O'Hara, but I shall not bother going round the loop again, although the Minister would be wise to think hard about the implications of going down his intended route.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Amendment No. 15 would prevent any charge from being imposed on, or recovered from, a person if that person had not been the immediate beneficiary of the action taken. I have made clear our wish to leave open the possibility of recovering charges from insurers. A scheme already operates within the NHS when the insurer, not the individual, bears the costs directly. No such recovery would be possible if the amendment were to be accepted. It would leave open the possibility that the individuals involved would be left to bear the charge.

The hon. Gentleman referred to potential levels of charges. I am advised that the average cost of NHS attendance at a road traffic accident is about £250 per hour, which is less than the large figure that has been suggested. I also know that the NHS schemes apparently yield about £100 million a year, which is a substantial level of revenue.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister quoted an important figure when he said that the average cost of NHS attendance is £250. It would be wrong for the Committee to think that the attendance of fire crews at an accident would involve the same cost. In typical circumstances, an ambulance crew is made up of two people, and the cost of maintaining that crew would be less than the cost of maintaining a fully crewed fire appliance. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the cost of fire service attendance at an accident would be significantly higher than that of NHS ambulance trust attendance.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My purpose in mentioning the figure was not to draw a comparison with the potential cost of attendance by the fire and rescue service, but to highlight the significant yield from the NHS scheme of about £100 million a year. Incidentally, I gather that the estimated impact on insurance of a scheme that generates that amount per annum is about £3 a year on an insurance policy. The extraordinary rhetoric that we heard from the Conservative party about the deterrent effect that such a measure would have on anyone who paid for legitimate insurance and the incentive that it would provide to individuals not to insure themselves seems wide of the mark.

The amendment would prevent the recovery of a charge from the owners, managers or operators of a building who were cavalier in their approach to the maintenance of lifts. We have already discussed lift rescue. I wish to inform the Committee that, in London alone, lift rescues account for more than 17,000 incidents a year. If the amendment were to be accepted, those who avoided the cost of regular lift maintenance could take comfort from the knowledge that the fire service would effect a release without exposing them to the risk of a charge. In case anyone has misinterpreted me, I want to make it absolutely clear once again that we are not talking about discouraging or delaying the response of the fire and rescue service to emergencies. We are talking about permitting charging for certain activities in appropriate circumstances—and only in appropriate circumstances—following very thoughtful and rigorous discussion by all interested parties, which is what we are doing. The Opposition seem to have great difficulty in accepting that principle.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I hesitate to question the Minister's figure, but will he check the figure of £100 million and make sure that it really is the cost of ambulance attendance at the scene? He will remember that the Act in question allows NHS trusts to recover the cost of treatment arising out of road traffic accidents. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the figure does not embrace treatment as well as attendance at the scene?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is right: that is the total figure for the NHS scheme at the moment. However, £100 million a year is a significant yield.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister must make it clear that we are not talking about revenue to an NHS ambulance trust. That revenue will be a tiny fraction of that amount. The serious revenue will be the cost of hospital treatment collected by NHS acute trusts.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Obviously, I accept that the cost involves the potential yield to NHS hospitals as well as to ambulance trusts. I was simply trying to illustrate the scale of the revenue involved, and to suggest that it is not something to treat lightly, which I believe that the Opposition have been doing.

Flooding is another issue. The fire and rescue service already deals with incidents of significant flooding and has the power to charge for action taken. That was one of the areas that I highlighted when listing the items for which authorities already make charges. Each authority must now determine whether it is appropriate in light of all relevant circumstances to impose a charge in such a situation. Authorities should continue to enjoy that right. Unfortunately, the amendment would strip them of it. That is another example of the highly restrictive centralising tendencies of the Opposition, despite their protestations that they are in favour of localism. The rhetoric that they employ to try to appeal to the motorist takes precedence over their localising instincts, which they have currently forgotten.

I can understand fears that every person who is unfortunate enough to suffer a tidal surge might find themselves with a bill for pumping out. That is not the case. However, it is appropriate in certain circumstances to charge for that. The amendment would delete subsection (3), but that could be used to allow authorities to recover from insurers the cost of responding to flooding incidents.

I should touch on automatic fire alarms, which we addressed in the previous debate. The hon. Member for Taunton raised the question of the Oxford initiative and Somerset fire authority's examination of that scheme. The Oxford protocol draws a distinction between residential and commercial premises. Where someone is in attendance, the brigade needs to confirm that there is a fire, but where no one is in attendance, there is no necessary presumption on the brigade attending. The reason for that is obvious: if the focus is on saving lives, empty premises are not necessarily the highest priority, particularly if there is a known history of malfunctioning fire alarms at them.

That is part of a risk-based assessment, and I am pleased to say that the evidence of the Oxford protocol is that attendance at false alarms has been reduced by 70 per cent. When a fire crew is still available to deal with real alarms rather than being deployed in responding to a false alarm, it is able to cope with genuine life-threatening incidents. Attending false alarms is a waste of public money and firefighters' time.

Adrian Flook (Conservative, Taunton)

That was precisely my point. A 70 per cent. reduction sounds very helpful in terms of saving costs and the deployment of manpower, but that figure cannot be much more up to date than the figure that

the Somerset fire brigade was relying on; it is a matter of months. No one has given me any information about the rurality of the reduction in call-outs, which would be important to know in rural counties.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.