Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2004.

Standing Committee G

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I welcome all members of the Committee to our seventh sitting. I am aware that a knife fell at the end of the previous sitting, so we commence afresh this morning. Looking at the faces of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I am confident that good and constructive progress will again be made.Clause 25 Information

Clause 25 - Information

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 100, in

clause 25, page 11, line 30, after 'returns', insert 'reasonably'.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 101, in

clause 25, page 11, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Sir Nicholas.

The clause deals with the information that a fire and rescue authority might be required to supply to the Secretary of State. My instinctive concern, when we are dealing with a local service that is accountable locally, is that the Bill will create the wrong relationship between that body and the Secretary of State. Clauses 25 to 27 are grouped under the heading ''Supervision'', and this clause puts the fire and rescue service under an obligation to submit various reports and returns to the Secretary of State.

I do not like provisions that suggest that the relationship should be that of the schoolboy sending in his prep for marking by the headmaster. I accept that some information must be available centrally, not least so that Ministers cannot hide behind the time-honoured convention of rebuffing questions from Members by saying that information is not collected centrally. I hope that only sensible data will be collected under the clause. The explanatory notes give examples of sensible, unexceptional and acceptable information that the Secretary of State can collect, such as the numbers of fire deaths and casualties, information that it is useful to have centrally.

The Bill, however, gives the Secretary of State a wide power, so amendment No. 100 would require a fire and rescue authority to submit only those reports and returns that he ''reasonably'' requires. I have learned over the years that the Secretary of State always acts reasonably. That is not in any sense a comment on the behaviour or inclinations of the current incumbent of that office—

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Oh yes, it is.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am not sure that, if the Minister casts his mind back to the some of the Secretary of State's more publicised actions, he would want to be tarred with the view that the Secretary of State always acts reasonably. However, I understand that, in the discharge of his official duties, by definition the Secretary of State always acts reasonably.

The point of the amendment is to try to establish what reports the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to require. If the Under-Secretary can reassure the Committee that it will simply be the reports that are made on a regular basis to the ODPM, nobody will have a problem with that.

Following on from our debates on Tuesday, perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell the Committee whether one of the reports that he might ask for is an annual report on revenues raised through charging under different categories. Then, the next time I am facing him and want to ask him about how much revenue is raised through charging for different activities, he will have the information available instead of having to bluff his way out four or five times by talking about the percentages of fire authorities that may make charges under certain categories, rather than telling the Committee how much revenue is being raised. There is a thought for the Minister on a useful area in which reporting and returns of information could be extended.

Amendment No. 101 would delete paragraph (b), and it, too, is a probing amendment. On first reading the clause, the paragraph appears entirely redundant. Any information that the Secretary of State requires could be obtained through the requirement to make a report or a return to him. On reflection, however, I wondered whether the Under-Secretary has it in mind that the reports to be made under paragraph (a) will be recurring annual, monthly or quarterly reports, and that the power under paragraph (b) is intended to allow him to demand additional information that is not provided on a routine basis. Exploring that a little further, is it the Government's intention that the reports and returns under paragraph (a) will be provided by all authorities? Does the Under-Secretary see paragraph (b) as more of an enabling provision to let the Secretary of State fish for specific information from individual authorities?

I do not want to feed the Minister of State's inclination to see paranoia in my every question, but I must say to the Committee that the paragraph (b) could—if I am interpreting what Ministers have in mind correctly—be used to mount fishing expeditions to harass a fire and rescue authority. I would like to hear an assurance from the Under-Secretary that there is no intention to seek lots of new information on an ad hoc basis from individual authorities. It would be helpful if the Committee could understand how the two different paragraphs are intended to work and why paragraph (b) is not redundant.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The clause is

a restatement of section 230 of the Local Government Act 1972, which covers local authority reports, returns and information. The purpose of the clause is to extend that requirement to all fire and rescue authorities. Combined fire and rescue authorities, as we discussed earlier, are not covered by the 1972 Act.

Reports and returns are required from fire and rescue authorities to enable us to evaluate fire and rescue service performance and to monitor progress against national and local targets. The importance of such information has been recognised, not least in the Select Committee's recent report on the service. The hon. Gentleman accepted that it is entirely right that we should be collecting such information. We always work closely with fire and rescue authorities when we are designing reports and returns to be completed by them.

We have established a new institutional framework in which the concerns of the service can be resolved. The clause follows the wording in section 230 of the 1972 Act, and to introduce the concept of ''reasonableness'', as is being suggested, would put the collection of information about fire and rescue on a different basis from the collection of other information by the Government. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is implicit that the Secretary of State must act reasonably and his requests must be reasonable. The current set of reports and returns is reasonable, and there has never been any complaint that we have asked for excessive or unreasonable information from brigades. We have no intention of making unreasonable demands for information of fire and rescue authorities.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Under-Secretary will recognise the concept of proportionality and cost. All Members of Parliament are familiar with departmental answers stating that parliamentary questions would be disproportionately expensive to answer. I hope that he will confirm that the Government will take into account the cost of providing information. That will not arise when the authority is already collecting information, but if the Department were to ask for information that the authority was not already collecting, significant costs might be involved.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Of course, that is an integral part of the system, which is embodied in the 1972 Act. It is interesting to note that although the hon. Gentleman is concerned about collecting too much information and placing too much of a burden on local authorities—at least I understand that to be the gist of his contribution—he is suggesting further areas from which we should collect information on fire and rescue authorities. We have heard his comments; I will convey his thoughts, contributions and ideas to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and in due course the hon. Gentleman will see whether they have been accepted.

As these are probing amendments, the hon. Gentleman asked for information and clarification. Statistics and information already collected from several fire and rescue authorities to meet various central Government requirements include best value

performance indicators and national statistics on fires. The Committee will realise that that is important information. The clause formalises the requirement for all authorities to supply such information because in that regard they are not covered by existing legislation. We need paragraph (b) because some information that we require may not be included in the reports covered by paragraph (a).

The Secretary of State requires some flexibility as and when circumstances arise, so paragraph (b) would not be used to harass authorities by throwing increasingly demanding requests for information at them—that is a little touch of the paranoia that we have seen in previous sittings. The purpose is to reflect and repeat the wording in section 230 of the 1972 Act, which allows us to collect information in order to provide assurances to the community and to plan for the future. The existing wording has worked well and we see no reason to change it. With those assurances I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am interested in what the Under-Secretary says, but his comments on my suggestion that it would be helpful to have available information about revenues collected by authorities cause us to focus on an interesting point. Time and again, we find that Ministers do not have available information on areas that MPs often find relevant to the discharge of their responsibilities. I fear that with the Bill we will see Ministers collecting information that it suits them to publish and not information that it would be embarrassing to have to present.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

No.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister says no, but if he had had the figures that I asked for in our debate on charging he would have been embarrassed by them because the sums involved are far smaller than he sought to impress on us by quoting the large percentages of authorities that charge or might do so.

The Under-Secretary has provided the reassurance that I sought. There is no easy answer to the matter. This is a much broader point, but it cannot be entirely satisfactory that bodies such as fire authorities—hospital trusts would also come into this category—should be required to provide all the information that the Secretary of State demands, but there is no mechanism that enables Parliament to obtain centrally collated information of a type that Ministers for one reason or another do not want to collect centrally. To be fair to the Under-Secretary, on the latter point I can think of more examples in health than in fire and rescue. However, I suspect that it would have been outside the scope of the Bill to provide for Parliament to collect information from fire and rescue authorities.

I hope that we will be able to return to that point in due course. The more that I speak about it, the more I am fascinated by the idea of a parliamentary information commissioner—

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

More bureaucracy.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Such a post could be independently administered, and the commissioner could collect

information that might be used to challenge some of the things that Ministers tell us.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Small government.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Under-Secretary says two things. He says ''more bureaucracy'', when he operates in a Department that is about to impose an additional tier of bureaucracy across the regions of England foolish enough to be duped by his offer; and he says ''small government'', pointing at Her Majesty's Opposition, interestingly confusing a parliamentary commissioner answerable to Parliament with part of the Government machinery. The holder of such a post would have nothing to do with the Government; indeed, the purpose of being able to collect information independently would be to hold the Government to account, which is not something that they seem keen on.

I think that we have gone far enough in that direction. Having heard what the Under-Secretary said and been largely reassured by it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Inquiries

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I have a brief question for the Under-Secretary. When I first read the Bill I was puzzled that the clause did not give a hint of the nature of the inquiries or any detail about the way in which they were to be conducted. As I read through the Bill, I discovered that the information is contained in clause 54. I am interested to know why it was felt appropriate to put the specification for the conduct of inquiries under clause 26 into clause 54, the supplementary provision on inquiries in a separate part of the Bill, so making it harder for a person trying to understand the Bill. If I have misunderstood, the Under-Secretary will correct me, but it seems that, having read clause 26, one has to go to clause 54 to find out what sort of inquiry is involved—whether it would be public, whether it would publish a report and so on.

I know that the Under-Secretary's instinct, in explaining this tortuous architecture, will be to hide behind the parliamentary draftsmen, but surely one of the Ministers here is in charge of the Bill. It is not good enough for them to keep hiding behind officials and parliamentary draftsmen. I would hope that the Under-Secretary had asked at some stage, ''Why can't we have plain English? Why can't we say in clause 26 under what provisions and in accordance with what procedures the inquiries will be conducted?'' He would then have been able to give the Committee a proper explanation for putting the information in a separate clause.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The clause replaces the existing provisions for the holding of inquiries under section 33 of the Fire Services Act 1947. The Secretary of State

will be able to establish an inquiry into the performance of a fire and rescue authority in respect of any of its functions, or in respect of the circumstances leading to, or the handling of, a particular incident in relation to which it has functions under the Bill. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that that is right.

A technical point was made about the position of clause 54 in relation to clause 26—of course, inquiries are mentioned elsewhere in the Bill. The structure was chosen because parliamentary counsel suggested that we do not want to make this a clumsy Bill. If we were to accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, we would have to repeat the text every time an inquiry was mentioned. Placing the reference in one place and referring to it as we have makes the Bill more robust, clearer and more transparent. That was parliamentary counsel's intention when drafting the Bill. I hope that, with that explanation, the Committee will be happy to support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Inspectors

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Dealing with the inspectorate, the clause re-enacts the provisions of the 1947 Act, but goes further in providing that a person appointed under the 1947 Act will continue in office under the current provisions. What the clause does not tell us—the explanatory notes are also entirely silent—is the Government's intentions for the inspectorate.

If I may be blunt, during the course of the dispute there was quite a bit of rumbling in the fire authority community about the role of the inspectorate and the way in which the inspectorate collectively contributed to progress during the dispute. There was a belief among the fire authorities that there was a degree of sympathy in the ODPM for the view that the inspectorate's contribution was not at all times entirely helpful, and there was an expectation that, as part of the process of modernisation and reform, there might be substantial changes to the way in which the inspectorate operates and the role that it plays. Nothing in the Bill precludes that. It is perfectly possible that inspectors will go on being appointed by Her Majesty, as they have always been, and that assistant inspectors and other officers will be appointed by the Secretary of State, but that they will perform a quite different role.

It would be wrong of us to skip though the clause apparently confirming the status quo when, in fact, the Government might have in mind a fairly significant change in the role that the inspectorate plays. Rather than nod the clause through, I wanted to give the Under-Secretary an opportunity to explain to the Committee the role that he envisages the inspectorate having.

Given the role of the Audit Commission, and the fact that the proposals for comprehensive performance

assessment will apply to fire and rescue authorities—the best value regime—will there be some duplication? If the fire service inspectorate is to continue to inspect, why do we need the more generic local government inspection and performance assessment mechanism as well? It would help the Committee if the Under-Secretary explained not only what is in the Bill, because that is clearly understood and not contentious, but what lies behind it and how the inspectorate will operate in the future.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The clause re-enacts section 24 of the 1947 Act, as the hon. Gentleman said. It gives powers to appoint inspectors and assistant inspectors to obtain information about the way in which authorities are discharging their fire and rescue functions and about technical matters relating to the service. It provides that those appointed under the 1947 Act continue to be inspectors.

Let me clarify our intentions about the role of the inspectorate and its relationship with the Audit Commission. The hon. Gentleman raised two good points in those respects. The inspectorate provides a valued source of technical and professional advice to the Government, which is vital to maintain as we modernise the fire and rescue service. The White Paper ''Our Fire and Rescue Service'' made it clear that the work of the inspectorate would be refocused and redirected to support the process of quality assurance and service improvement. It would provide professional advice to Government on good practice, operational and technical issues, and bringing on future leaders of the fire service. It would also support the Audit Commission in its new inspection function.

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the Audit Commission is to implement a performance assessment of fire and rescue authorities as a key tool in support of modernisation. That work will subsume the traditional inspection of brigades that accounted for about 25 per cent. of the inspectorate's business. It is expected that the commission will wish to draw on the inspectorate's professional expertise. The remaining business of the inspectorate, especially the purpose for which its inspectors are appointed—to obtain information—will continue to be important. The skill will be in interpreting the information, drawing conclusions and making recommendations, rather than in obtaining it per se.

The change in focus will result in a smaller and more efficient inspectorate with a different set of skills, as envisaged in the independent review of the fire service. Though the change in tasks and focus makes it difficult to compare the situations before and after change, the transfer to the Audit Commission will result in a reduction in staffing levels. In future, the smaller team will provide independent advice and guidance on professional, operational and technical matters and support the modernisation of the fire and rescue service.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Will that smaller team be based in the ODPM?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Yes. It is, of course, an independent inspectorate, appointed by Her Majesty's commission, and its status will remain as it is now. I hope that, with those points of clarification and explanation, hon. Members will support clause 27.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that explanation. I take it that he is telling the Committee that some employees of the inspectorate are likely to become employees of the Audit Commission, thus shrinking the inspectorate. Can he give us some indication of the numbers involved in the inspectorate and the intended reduction in staffing of the residual inspectorate that will be lodged in, but not part of, the ODPM? Can the hon. Gentleman also tell us something about cost, because I am concerned about the cost implications of duplication of function. I do not imagine that the same number of people will simply transfer from the fire service inspectorate to the Audit Commission. To be honest, I am surprised that only 25 per cent. of the work load of the fire service inspectorate is made up of inspecting fire authorities. One might think that inspecting would be rather more than a quarter of an inspectorate's work load, but perhaps that is a rather old-fashioned view on my part. To set the matter in context, perhaps he could tell us the overall cost of the fire service inspectorate.

I do not want to draw parallels with the Minister of State's negotiations on council tax, which are going on in parallel with the Committee's deliberations, but I emphasise that we must consider the absolute values involved and not just percentages and changes. If the fire service inspectorate budget is small, the questions that I am asking are of less significance than if it is large.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I am glad that we are not going to drift into discussions of the hon. Gentleman's district council's council tax increase, which at 17.5 per cent. is wholly unacceptable given the level of grant that we have given that council. [Interruption.] I do not want to stray into that, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I am happy to accept the intervention.

Mr. Hammond rose—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I hope that the Opposition spokesman is not going to stray down the path of council tax increases.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I was merely going to question the Under-Secretary's definitions of terms by asking him whether he thinks that 1.7 per cent. is a large increase.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I am very wary that if I stray into the debate that the hon. Gentleman would like to take me into, you will rule me out of order, Sir Nicholas. I will endeavour not to berate Runnymede again.

I hope that I have explained about avoiding duplication in the roles of the inspectorate and the Audit Commission. I regret that I cannot provide the hon. Gentleman with the details of the costs of the inspectorate or the other details he asked for, but they are a matter of public record, so I can send him those details after the sitting. The changing role of the inspectorate and the developing role of the Audit Commission are both sensitive matters. It is important

to get them right and it would be wrong of us to rush. We must take into account the views of both the inspectorate and the Audit Commission.

The hon. Gentleman suggested a straightforward transfer, but the way in which the inspectorate will change its role and size and the way in which the Audit Commission will develop its role and functions will be a matter for more negotiation than would be found in his approach. For example, we are considering secondments and other such restructuring, rather than the simple transfer that he suggests. We want the Audit Commission to carry out the performance inspection role well, drawing upon a range of expertise, some of which is located with the inspectorate. We want the inspectorate in its refocused role to carry out that function with much greater efficiency and effectiveness, so that we have the independent advice that we need when formulating policy and making decisions.

Although I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the details he requires now, I shall be happy to send him details of the current overall cost of the inspectorate. I will not be able to tell him the future cost, which will be discussed in the coming months. I hope that I have made clear our intentions regarding the roles of the inspectorate and the Audit Commission. A process of transition must be undertaken, but we are mindful of the concerns that he has voiced, and we have responded positively in the Bill to allay them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Equipment, facilities, services and organisations

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 102, in

clause 28, page 12, line 15, leave out from 'considers' to end of line 17 and insert

'necessary for the protection of public safety'.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 184, in

clause 28, page 12, line 18, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 103, in

clause 28, page 12, line 19, leave out from 'considers' to end of line 21 and insert

'necessary for the protection of public safety and the effective discharge of functions conferred on fire and rescue authorities under section 9.'.

Amendment No. 185, in

clause 28, page 12, line 25, leave out subsection (3)(b).

Amendment No. 186, in

clause 28, page 12, line 30, leave out subsection (4)(b).

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The clause allows the Secretary of State to provide equipment and services to fire authorities, to require their use and to require them to pay for their use. One wonders whether a referral to the fair competition authorities might arise out of the activities of the ODPM.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The charity commissioners might be more appropriate.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Well, that is a very interesting observation and it should not necessarily be taken as a light-hearted comment. One question to explore is the basis upon which the ODPM will charge for those services: either it will be purely cost recovery, or something more will be involved. The provisions have the potential to erode the autonomy of the fire and rescue authorities. The 1947 Act does not require fire authorities to use equipment; the Secretary of State can act as the central procurement agent, but there are no powers to require authorities to use and pay for such equipment.

Our debate will give the Under-Secretary the opportunity to reassure us that use of the powers in the clause will not result in disaster. As is often the case, the powers are drafted extremely widely. Our job is to consider what is in the Bill. It is interesting to hear Ministers say that it does not do this, or it does not erode autonomy, but in a lucid moment the Under-Secretary might agree that it is capable of extreme erosion of the autonomy of the fire and rescue services—[Interruption.] Well, it is capable of that. His job this morning is to reassure us that he has no intention of using it in that way, and I hope that he will be able to do so.

I am sure that the Under-Secretary will refer to resilience—much of our debate has been conducted in those terms. He will tell us that expensive equipment may need to be bought but that it is likely to be used very rarely or, if we are lucky, never. I do not disagree with the concept of central procurement, holding and maintenance of such equipment. The hon. Gentleman indicated that not only the capital cost, but the cost of maintaining and running the equipment for dealing with such new risks is likely to be financed by the ODPM. Concerns about charging do not arise in relation to such equipment. To some extent, I accept the Minister of State's comments about the charity commissioners. The ODPM will procure equipment, make it available and not recover its cost.

Concern arises when we come to the provisions in the clause that allow the Secretary of State to charge for the use of the equipment that he provides. The Under-Secretary might tell us that he has no intention of providing any equipment for which a charge will be made. I shall return to the details of that—I suspect that we shall find that we are talking about control rooms and radio equipment more than anything else. The Under-Secretary must accept that we are considering a clause that makes it possible for the Secretary of State to own the entire fleet of fire appliances, for example, and to require fire authorities to use his fire appliances at a charge determined by him. That is possible under the Bill, so we need to know just how far the Secretary of State intends to go in using his powers to become, in effect, the provider of equipment and services for all the nominally independent fire and rescue services throughout the country.

Amendment No. 102 is designed to focus the Secretary of State's mind on his stated public safety agenda. The clause constrains him to central procurement and provision of equipment only when that is in the interest of

''promoting . . . economy, efficiency and effectiveness''.

The amendment would substitute a reference to public safety. That would cover the circumstances in which the Secretary of State needs to provide equipment to deal with the threat of an unconventional terrorist attack, for example, because it would clearly be in the interest of public safety to have such equipment purchased and made available. It is not obvious to me that the provision of routine fire appliances, purchased by the Secretary of State and made available to authorities who are required to use them, is in the interest of public safety. The Secretary of State may think that it is in the interest of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for him to decide everything, but that is a matter of judgment.

We now come to the nub of whether the service is to be a local service, or a nationally or regionally dictated one. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give careful consideration to the suggestion that the test for the Secretary of State entering into such a scheme should be that it promotes public safety, rather than just economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The power that the Secretary of State will have under the clause is a major intervention in the autonomy of authorities. It can be justified on the grounds of public safety, but it is the authority's council tax payers, not the Secretary of State, who should be driving the agenda of efficiency and effectiveness. We are talking about saving money rather than saving lives.

It would be different if the Secretary of State did not have the power to require authorities to use the equipment and require them to pay for it, presumably at charges that he will set. If the provisions simply replicate the 1947 Act powers allowing the Secretary of State to procure equipment using his aggregating capability to give economies of scale, and then to offer that equipment to fire authorities that want to take advantage of his purchasing power, that would be absolutely unexceptional. However, we have to consider the at least theoretical scenario of the Secretary of State in one of his more Delboy-ish moments going out and buying a job lot of equipment that he finds no one wants, which he requires local authorities to use.

Phil Hope indicated dissent.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but he will be aware that fire and rescue authorities have different requirements in relation to fire appliances, for example. That has been the subject of some discussion. The Secretary of State might think that he has the perfect specification for a fire appliance and might choose to impose a uniform specification for equipment by central purchasing and requiring the use of centrally purchased equipment by fire authorities. If that is intended—I hope it is not—we need to know that. The Committee will take a very

different view of proposals by the Secretary of State to purchase equipment, of which he will bear the cost, for use in abnormal and exceptional circumstances. That is quite different from any intention to go into the routine procurement business in order to impose uniformity in all fire services. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to those comments.

Amendment No. 103 repeats the same intentions in relation to subsection (2) of the clause, substituting reference to public safety and giving symmetry with clause 29, which specifically allows the exercise of powers only in the interests of public safety. Amendment No. 103 adds another ground on which the Secretary of State can act: the effective discharge of the functions conferred on an authority under clause 9. The Secretary of State will confer functions under the clause in relation to dealing with the anti-terrorist response. It will give Ministers an opportunity to confirm that organisations will be established—subsection (2) allows the establishment and maintenance of organisations—and forced upon fire and rescue authorities only where that is in the interests of public safety, or where they are related to the response to unconventional threats. In other words, it will give Ministers the opportunity to reinforce the general tone that the more extreme powers would give. By extreme, I mean simply that they are powers that could erode the local autonomy of fire and rescue authorities. If the Minister is able to confirm that the powers will be used only in respect of equipment for dealing with non-conventional risks and threats and that organisations will be established and maintained only to deal with that area, in which we all accept that central Government has a legitimate and key role, the Committee would be much more relaxed about this part of the clause.

The Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 184, which is the substantive amendment in their group, takes a different approach. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) would retain without any qualification the powers under subsection (1) to provide and maintain equipment, but would remove altogether the powers under subsection (2) to establish organisations. I am not sure what the intention is, so I shall not comment further on those amendments until we have heard from the hon. Gentleman.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept the spirit in which amendments Nos. 102 and 103 were tabled. I hope and half expect that I will be reassured by what he has to tell the Committee.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

On the question of our amendments leaving the other parts of the clause unamended, I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. Having seen his amendments, we were happy to listen to his comments about them and then decide whether we would support them. From what he has said, I am happy to support his amendments. His points are extremely valid.

I am concerned that the Secretary of State is taking on a vast number of powers in the clause. It is almost as if he will sit on his own Tracy Island and set up his own British international rescue organisation with his

own equipment. The clause would not actually preclude that: he can buy what equipment he wants, from what organisation he wants, and force the authorities to use his organisation or some other organisation that he sets up and equips to undertake a task discussed in another part of the Bill. If the powers were clearly related to resilience, we would be far happier, but they are not. One reason for supporting the Conservative amendment is that it ties the measure into clause 9, which is particularly important.

This is almost a Henry VIII clause. The Secretary of State is giving himself the ability to do whatever he likes, whenever he likes, in establishing an organisation. It is extremely bad practice to allow a Secretary of State such wide powers. The Under-Secretary must say clearly what organisations he thinks would be established and when and why they would be established. If he has an understanding of what the organisations are, why are they not referred to in the Bill? Why does the Bill give the Secretary of State such broad scope? He could have powers in respect of resilience in other Bills and other places.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that if the Secretary of State has in mind, for example, the creation of a separate organisation to run the radiocommunications system for the fire service and to operate control rooms, that would be a further removal of management responsibilities and powers from individual fire and rescue authorities, and would likely lead still more quickly to the demise of independent fire and rescue authorities?

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It is quite feasible that the Secretary of State will seek to establish an organisation for the running and maintenance of radio equipment. As the hon. Gentleman said, that would remove from fire and rescue authorities some of the authority that they presently have. That would take power away from the grass roots. The Under-Secretary keeps talking about locality and about giving power back to localities, but in the clause he gives the Secretary of State powers to take that power away.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred to the 1947 Act and to the ability to procure equipment that is then available to the authorities. That is an exceedingly good thing. The fire authorities have told me on several occasions that they would welcome its being done more often. They particularly mentioned uniform—[Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. If the Under-Secretary is intervening, he should rise to his feet.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

No, I am not intervening. Sorry, Sir Nicholas.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

The authorities have mentioned clothing to me. With women now coming into the service, some authorities have difficulty in purchasing clothing suitable for female firefighters at a reasonable cost. Therefore, the ministerial use of procurement would be welcome, but not this broad power that the Minister is giving himself. Perhaps the

Under-Secretary will enlighten us as to which organisations he intends to establish.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

First, let me restate the effect of the amendments. Amendment No. 102 would allow the Secretary of State to provide only such equipment, facilities and services as are necessary for the protection of public safety.

Amendment No. 184 would remove the Secretary of State's ability to establish or maintain an organisation that could promote the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of fire and rescue authorities. Amendment No. 103 would allow the Secretary of State to establish or maintain such an organisation only where necessary for the protection of public safety and the effective discharge of the new duties under clause 9. Amendment No. 185 would prevent fire and rescue authorities from being charged for any equipment, facilities or services provided by such an organisation.

Lastly, amendment No. 186 would prevent the Secretary of State from requiring a fire and rescue authority to use specified services.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Just to set the record straight, I think that the Under-Secretary slightly misrepresented amendment No. 185. It is not for me to defend Liberal Democrat amendments, but my understanding is that it is simply consequential on amendment No. 184. It removes the power to charge for services simply because that is a necessary corollary of removing the power to provide services.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Yes, and when we come to amendment No. 104 in the next group we shall consider other issues relating to charging that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise. However, I want to respond to the points made so far about charging.

Unlike many of the other clauses that we have discussed, the clause is not about the way in which the fire and rescue service discharges its functions, but it ensures that the Secretary of State can provide the tools to enable the service to carry out its job effectively. Therefore, it is not appropriate to specify public safety as a requirement. The need to ensure that the service was properly equipped led us to implement the new dimension programme, which provides fire and rescue authorities with equipment such as incident response units. That will enable them to ensure public safety by carrying out mass decontamination in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack.

However, we must take into account the overall economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the fire and rescue service, particularly as that has an impact on local council tax payers. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge oppose measures to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness at a time when his Front-Bench colleagues are publishing various targets for the vast amount of savings they intend to make by imposing swingeing cuts of some £15 billion on the civil service. The two arguments appear to be in conflict.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I may have missed something, but perhaps the Under-Secretary can explain which bits of

the civil service will be cut as a result of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness that would be secured through these measures.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I am simply intrigued in general terms. The Government are taking measures to ensure that there is economy, efficiency and effectiveness; those on the Conservative Front Bench claim that vast savings can be made, but do not support any measures that might achieve them.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bain review concluded that procurement was an area where significant improvements could be achieved if authorities pooled requirements and expertise. The other recommendations included the amalgamation of control rooms, outsourcing or collaboration over vehicle maintenance and rationalisation of management and support costs. The review suggested that savings of about £42 million over three years could be achieved. The provisions are not an erosion of the autonomy of fire and rescue services; they are about good practice and common sense.

The current procurement of equipment and services specific to the service is often inefficient owing to the small scale on which they are carried out. Fire and rescue authorities can collaborate to develop standard specifications, reduce specialist administration costs and place bulk orders. That potential has been significantly underexploited despite efforts over the past decade to achieve improvements, and it has led to important equipment such as breathing apparatus not being standardised across the service. As well as the cost implications, there are problems of interoperability, so it is no longer acceptable to continue in that vein.

One option is to establish a single organisation responsible for providing fire and rescue service-specific equipment and services. We are working with the service and the Local Government Association to establish what that would involve and how best it could be done.

I do not wish to invoke the hon. Gentleman's regional paranoia again, but we are planning to rationalise existing control rooms to create regional control rooms, which is the appropriate level for reasons of governance, resilience, intra-service working, and economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Without establishing a new organisation we could not deliver that commitment, because it involves more than the simple provision of equipment. Again, this is not a conspiracy; it is common sense.

I can give some reassurance to the hon. Member for Teignbridge by saying that we do not intend to procure centrally every item of equipment required by the fire and rescue service. Procurement of goods and services that are not specific to the service will be local or, to ensure economies of scale through bulk ordering and reducing bureaucracy, regional. We are supporting the LGA in establishing regional centres of excellence in procurement to improve practices. Yesterday at Eland House I announced the local authorities that would act as host centres for the

regional centres of excellence, which will promote better procurement in local government throughout the country.

Some things are better procured on a national basis or to a common standard and specification. They include the new dimension search and rescue vehicles and the new nationwide radio system known as Firelink. National procurement of the system will increase resilience and interoperability within the service and with other emergency services. Similarly, the provision of a standard call handling and mobilisation system for the regional control rooms will also deliver benefits.

As I have already mentioned, it is important for interoperability and firefighter safety to ensure equipment such as breathing apparatus is standardised. It will ensure that every firefighter is trained to use the same equipment and carry out their job safely and effectively no matter where they are asked to go. Without interoperability it would be difficult for them to participate in reinforcement schemes or operate across boundaries in emergencies. We must require the use of such equipment when the Government have purchased it because we must ensure resilience and interoperability.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Under-Secretary has jumped from issue to issue. Will he acknowledge the distinction between interoperability, which concerns public safety, and saving money by procurement through a single route—of uniforms, for example? Can he not see that those are different orders of activity? He makes a case that is difficult to attack in terms of interoperability for reasons of public safety and the health and safety of firefighters, but it is a different and more questionable case when the only issue is the apparent, or supposed, economies.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I simply cannot agree with the point that is being made. As far as I am concerned, interoperability—the ability to purchase and standardise equipment such as breathing apparatus—is both effective and efficient. We should take—as we are taking—the ability to work with the service and the LGA to create an organisation that will be able to procure centrally. That will both provide the equipment needed for safety and interoperability, and be a more efficient use of the fire and rescue resources available.

As for charging, the Government have no plans to charge. However, if we are making assets available for new dimension use, which could also be used for other purposes, it may be necessary to charge in those circumstances.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. It appears to me that that matter may be the subject of amendment No. 104. If the Under-Secretary continues, I shall be tough about the time that I feel amendment No. 104 should be given.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I take your guidance, Sir Nicholas. I want to address the points about charging, but if we are to do so under amendment No. 104, I will leave my remarks until we get to it. I do not want to leave the fears of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge unresolved.

It is our view that a great deal can be done, through both regional and national procurement, to ensure that there is greater efficiency, effectiveness and economy in the fire and rescue service. The service has a great deal of expertise concerning the equipment necessary to carry out its job effectively, and, of course, it will be directly involved at an early stage of any procurement exercise. That has already been the case with the new dimension programme and the Firelink radio communications system project. It will be the case with the control room project as well.

I hope that now that I have explained why we wish to do this, why the amendments are unnecessary and why it is important that we support the Secretary of State's ability to work with the fire and rescue service to procure specific fire and rescue equipment and services, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I will take it as read that the Under-Secretary will deal with the charging issues when we come to that debate, so I will not refer to that subject again now.

I find it somewhat surprising that the Under-Secretary is not prepared to make the distinction between public safety and effectiveness and efficiency, although I accept that the amendment may be overly simplistic. However, there is an important point. When the Under-Secretary talks about procuring equipment for new dimension work, nobody can disagree with his intention. When he talks about standardising breathing apparatus so that firefighters from one authority can reinforce those from another at a scene outside their area and be familiar with back-up equipment that may be in use there, nobody can disagree with his logic.

However, whether an organisation promoted by central Government is the best way to deliver that solution may be a different question. When we talk about economy in procurement, I have much graver concerns about whether the Government are going down the right route. Let us be blunt: the track record of Government procurement is not a noble one. If one talks to people in the private sector who are focused on Government procurement programmes—anything to do with IT in any of its forms is the usual first example, but it goes beyond that—one finds that historically, central Government has not been a great procurer. That is not a party political point.

Frankly, saying, ''Don't worry about local procurement, chaps. Here is the man from the ODPM, who will show you how to do it'', does not cut any ice with many in local government who feel that they have better procurement practices than central Government, or many in the private sector who think that their procurement practices go some way further in delivering the goods than even local government practices. I shall not bore the Committee by trying off the top of my head to list the catalogue of disasters, but billions of pounds have been written off since this Government came to power. This is not a party political point—it has happened before—but in this case billions have been written off in abandoned

procurement projects, particularly IT projects, in the past seven years.

I am very concerned about the Firelink project, for example, and the idea that one system will be rolled out across the whole country. That is great if the one system happens to be the right one, but it is like choosing a rifle. If one chooses the wrong rifle, rolls it out and equips the entire Army with it but then finds that it does not work in the sand, one is in serious trouble.

Worse than that, once the base of competitive suppliers of equipment or services has been eroded by picking one champion, as has been done in defence procurement, we become extremely vulnerable to the capabilities of that single champion. Instead of a universe of competing suppliers, each trying to make their product or service that much more attractive, economical and efficient for the user, one is left, some way down the line, without competitive pressure in the marketplace.

Hugo Swire (Conservative, East Devon)

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I totally agree with my hon. Friend's comments, but there is a further point about flexibility. The Devon fire and rescue service is looking at ways of financing future acquisition of extended ladders for vehicles. It might do that through some financing package, which would suit its specific requirements, rather than buying them from some central body or fund. Perhaps the measure is intended to reduce the flexibility of independent fire services.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Under-Secretary implied during his speech that any resistance to central procurement was an abdication of our responsibility to ensure economy in public spending. Nothing could be further from the truth. The debate is about from where one believes the pressure for economy and efficiency in the delivery of local services should come. I believe that it should come from council tax payers.

There may be another debate to be had about the effectiveness of local government democratic institutions in holding local government accountable for the economy with which it spends council tax payers' money, but, frankly, having seen the Government in action, I have little faith in central Government as the means of delivering the best efficiency and economy for council tax payers. That is partly because of the track record of Government procurement and partly because I am not convinced by central Government's approach, which is to do things on a grand scale. That might superficially yield some savings, but, looking at the system overall, and given the additional tiers of bureaucracy and additional elements of reporting and lines of communication involved, I do not believe that it actually produces the savings that are sometimes suggested.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I want to pick up on what the hon. Gentleman said about defence. As a former member of the Defence Committee, I would say that competition for procurement is very strong, but in a globalised framework. There are issues about

protecting British industry and ensuring that it remains competitive, but there is globalisation.

Yesterday, I visited Land Registry, a Government agency, which has just produced an IT project, on time and on budget, to computerise the registration of all property in the UK. It can be done, and it can be contrasted with local government housing benefit, where there were problems in some areas regarding the contracting out of the relevant IT to the private sector. That created all sorts of problems for council tax payers. It is not quite as simple a picture as the hon. Gentleman would like to paint.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I hope that I did not paint too simple a picture. The record speaks for itself. The very fact that the Land Registry project is being hailed as a triumph points, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, to the fact that the great majority of central Government IT projects have not come in on time and on budget. Indeed, off the top of my head I cannot think of another one. Some eventually come in hugely over budget and never perform with the benefits and results that were anticipated. Some are abandoned after hundreds of millions of pounds, or in one recent case, more than £1 billion, have been invested. We must tread extremely warily.

If I wanted to be aggressive about this I would ask the Minister what on earth makes him think he is qualified to determine the best equipment to be installed nationally for the fire service's radio system. Why do Ministers believe that they have the answer to these very complicated problems? Does the Minister not recognise the danger that standardising on a single system, UK-wide, results in a degree of vulnerability?

Let me fast forward a little. Let us assume that, of the various technologies being tendered for the Firelink system, the Tetra proposal is accepted and installed across the country. You will be aware, Sir Nicholas, that many people have very grave concerns about the health implications of the microwave radiation from the Tetra mast. I make no comment about that at all, because I do not know enough about it, but I do know that there is a body of concern. Supposing that, some way down the line, irrefutable medical evidence were to become available, and that the system that had been selected had serious adverse health consequences. We would be left with one system, installed by ODPM diktat across all fire authorities in the country, and we would be in an impossible situation. I am wary of single-source procuring and single-technology solutions, unless we are talking about technologies that are so well established that they hardly any longer qualify for the term ''technology''.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Is not the issue in this procurement the importance, for civil contingency, of producing something that is fully interoperable between the blue light services and the armed forces? Is it not more to the point that if there were a disaster, and the blue light services and armed forces responding to it were unable to communicate properly, the Government would be asked why they had not taken

action to procure something that would allow them to talk to each other?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I do not claim to be sufficiently up to speed on the technology as to know whether it is necessary to procure a single system, rather than to have a standard for interoperability between separately procured systems—perhaps the hon. Gentleman is. I would be surprised if the only way to ensure interoperability was to have a single system, centrally procured by the ODPM, and set up, as now appears to be the Minister's intention, by an independent agency sponsored by central Government. There are considerable concerns about that.

I acknowledge that the amendments, in one sense, do not go far enough to address the concerns that we are talking about and, in another sense, may slightly miss their target. The point of tabling them was to have this debate. This is an issue to which we will want to return, to look a little more carefully at how this procurement is to be done. The Minister is probably not going to speak again, but I anticipate that, if he did, he would tell us that although the ODPM or the Secretary of State will nominally procure this equipment, it will be done by a committee of the great and the good in the fire and rescue service world. I hope that he will tell us that, and that the Deputy Prime Minister will not, on a wet Tuesday evening, decide which is the best system to procure. Obviously, there will be a wider consultation basis, but that cannot deal with a situation in which there are genuine differences of view between autonomous bodies answerable to their local taxpayers about the right way to go.

As I said earlier, when key issues of overriding public safety are involved, I understand the argument for the Secretary of State making the hard decision on which of the two or three competing systems should be imposed. However, when the issue is not public safety but economy of procurement, it is much more questionable whether the Secretary of State should have or use that power.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

We agree with virtually every word said by the Minister, but, unfortunately, what he said is not in the Bill. The powers that it grants far exceed what he said, and I and my party cannot accept that. The Secretary of State could, without referring back to the House, set up organisations to run a radio system or whatever other system he wants. To my mind, that is wrong.

I do not have quite as many fears as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge on standardisation, although I understand his points. There are times when one contractor is necessary because of copyright that may be part of the system and because standardisation is necessary to achieve interoperability. However, the ability to standardise exists for a whole range of equipment, despite the fact that that is unnecessary; it is necessary only to set regulation to say what the standard should be—whether the screw goes one way or the other. It is necessary only to define that; the authorities can then be allowed to decide what screws to buy rather than

being given the choice about what direction they should turn in.

I see the possibility in the clause for mass purchasing of some equipment, but central Government do not have a good record on mass purchasing. Fire service surplus stores could spring up all over the country, much as we used to have Army surplus stores, to get rid of equipment that was purchased but cannot be used because too much was bought. I am not being serious, but I want to make the point that equipment and money must not be wasted because central Government are not particularly good at purchasing.

I cannot accept the provision, having heard what the Minister said, and I want to press amendments Nos. 184, 185 and 186.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 102.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

On balance, I am prepared to allow a Division on amendment No. 184, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

Amendment proposed: No. 184, in

clause 28, page 12, line 18, leave out subsection (2).—[Richard Younger-Ross.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 8.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

When we started I was confident that we would reach clause 30, at least, by the end of this sitting. I seek to help the Committee; I take no part in the debate, but I suggest that we try to make rather faster progress.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 104, in

clause 28, page 12, line 22, after 'imposed', insert 'by order'.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 105, in

clause 28, page 12, line 25, at end insert 'under subsection (2)'.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I think that I can reassure you, Sir Nicholas. When multiple groups of amendments are tabled to one clause, some of the wider issues tend to be debated under the first group, so I am sure that we will be able to make much more rapid progress.

Amendment No. 104 deals with the Secretary of State's power to charge. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will be able to require authorities to use equipment, facilities and services provided by him or by an organisation created and maintained by him. He

will be able to require authorities to pay for the use of that equipment. We have already heard from the Under-Secretary that it is unlikely that charges will routinely be made when the equipment is for resilience purposes—the unconventional part of the fire and rescue authority's functions. We are happy with that. The Committee should consider not that, but other equipment and services, including the overall radio and control room facilities that might be provided by the Secretary of State or an organisation that he has created.

The purpose of amendment No. 104 is to flush out some of the Deputy Prime Minister's intentions on charging. Other than equipment for use in new dimension work, the key areas in which the Under-Secretary has confirmed that the Government intend to provide equipment, facilities and services centrally, either directly or through an organisation established by them, are the communications network and control room equipment. The latter area probably largely overlaps with the former.

I have not understood from what has been said so far whether it is intended to charge fire authorities for the use of communications equipment supplied under the arrangements. I imagine that, although such equipment will have a new dimension role, it will also be used routinely in dealing with calls about cats stuck in trees, which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to relate to the highest questions of public safety. I imagine that the ODPM intends to charge fire and rescue authorities for the use of those equipment services.

Several questions arise from that. How will charges be set? Will they be set on a cost-recovery basis, as fire and rescue authorities will be limited to doing when charging others for services under clause 19? What about the overheads of the organisations created? We are all aware of the tendency of central Government organisations to carry a large bureaucratic overhead. We are also all aware of the history of central Government technology procurement programmes running significantly over budget. The equipment that we are discussing is not strictly IT, but I guess that the radio system will have a large IT element to it.

If there is to be a charging regime based on full-cost recovery, I fear that we shall have one person in command of the procurement process in the driving seat—the Secretary of State who has said, ''Don't worry, chaps, I can do it for you better and cheaper''—recovering whatever it costs him from the authorities that are not invited but required to use it. That is a serious concern, and it raises issues about the basis of calculation of cost recovery—the ODPM overhead involved. I would be very interested in what the Under-Secretary can tell us about the intended charging regime. Fire authorities will have to think about that during their own budgeting processes.

Amendment No. 105 is probing in nature. It would insert at the end of subsection (3)(b) the words ''under subsection (2)''. Perhaps I was naive, but on first reading the Bill I assumed that organisations established or maintained by the Secretary of State for which charges may be imposed on fire authorities under subsection (3)(b) would in every case be those

established under subsection (2). However, the Bill does not say that. If it is the Under-Secretary's intention that the scope of subsection (3)(b) is limited to organisations established and maintained under subsection (2), let that be included in the Bill. If the Under-Secretary does not want that included in the Bill because he has other organisations in mind—

Phil Hope indicated dissent.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but other organisations are already established, such as the Fire Service College. I wonder whether he intends that charges would be levied under subsection (3)(b) in respect of organisations other than those established under subsection (2). Perhaps he would clarify whether that is the case and either accept the amendment or tell us why it is unnecessary.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Amendment No. 104 would require the Secretary of State to make an order every time he wanted to charge for the use of equipment or services provided. I remember sitting in this Committee Room to debate a statutory instrument and the hon. Gentleman berating me for wasting parliamentary time on bringing people together to discuss the allocation of community fire safety moneys to fire and rescue authorities. I was roundly berated for dragging parliamentarians into the Room to do so. I therefore cannot believe that he wants to drag parliamentarians into a statutory instrument Committee every time we want to charge for the use of equipment or services provided by the Secretary of State. That is the implication of his amendment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

If I recall the incident in question, my concern was that the Committee was sitting to consider a grant that amounted in one case to £4,000—considerably less than the cost of the paperwork supporting the Committee. In this case my understanding is—the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that there would be a regime for charging. It would not be a question of a separate order each time a bill was sent to a fire authority; it would be a regime that would determine the basis on which charges were made.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Under section 22 of the Fire Services Act 1947, the Secretary of State can make equipment available to fire and rescue authorities to purchase. There was never any suggestion that that price should be set by order. To do so would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. To pick up on the hon. Gentleman's point, if the Secretary of State instituted a monthly charge for the provision of a service, a new order would be required every time the charge was varied. That does not seem a very good use of parliamentary time.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister refers to the 1947 Act. There is no need to address the problem in that Act because it does not give the Secretary of State the power to require a fire authority to buy from him. The Bill does, which is why we need some scrutiny of the charging process. I entirely dispute the assertion that the amendment would require a separate order every month. If a charging regime required fire authorities to

pay on the basis of full-cost reimbursement for equipment provided, the matter would be covered and a Committee would not be required to sit every month, as the Under-Secretary suggested.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to disagree on whether his amendment would bureaucratically clutter parliamentary time—were we foolishly to support it.

We have no intention of charging for any of the equipment that we have committed to providing for resilience purposes, as I think the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged. The Government are funding the procurement of the Firelink radio system and have no intention of charging the fire and rescue service for it. Similarly, we have funded the purchase of new dimension equipment to the tune of £188 million, and authorities will not be expected to bear the cost of its use for new dimension purposes. However, the Secretary of State may need to charge for new services that he provides in future, and the Bill obliges him to consult before doing so.

A number of examples have been raised in debate on this clause and previously. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to procure goods and services centrally for the fire and rescue service and then charge for them. He cited the example of fire engines. We have no intention of procuring fire engines for the service and then charging for them. Instead, we are working with the service to improve procurement of specialist equipment and to deliver better value for money and higher standards. We are working with the service, not in opposition to it.

I repeat that we do not have any plans to charge, but if assets that we made available for new dimension work were then used for other purposes, we might need to charge in the event of excessive wear and tear on the equipment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I understand the point about equipment, which the Under-Secretary has made before, but will he clarify it in relation to the communications network?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I was coming to that. I just wanted to emphasise that we shall keep our position under review, but our intention is as I have stated.

Were we to consider charging for communications equipment, we would have to discuss the matter in depth with the fire and rescue services. We have no plans to charge for the provision of the Firelink system, and we have made a ministerial commitment on that. Therefore, there is no question of full-cost recovery in those circumstances. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

A moment ago the Under-Secretary used the words ''excessive wear and tear''. Would the charge be based on the cost of the additional excessive wear and tear or would full-cost recovery relate to the purchase of the equipment as well?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

If I may illustrate the point, perhaps we can get beyond it. If a fire and rescue authority uses some new dimension equipment—for example, high-volume pumping equipment—for a non-emergency

such as pumping out a village pond, it could be charged for that use. As we know from previous discussions, the fire service can charge for the use of such equipment in a non-emergency. I do not want to revisit the charging debate, but I hope that that illustrates that there will be common sense in the system.

Clearly, scrutiny is a concern in amendment No. 104, but scrutiny is implicit in subsections (4) and (5). Fire and rescue services will be required to use and maintain equipment and there will be an order and a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult. Therefore, the system contains sufficient safeguards to make it unnecessary to lay an order in the House—notwithstanding all the arguments about how bureaucratic it may be. The clause contains the reassurance that there will be proper consultation and that we have no plans to charge for the provision of the communications equipment, so there is no question of full-cost recovery. We want to discuss all the measures in depth with the fire and rescue services to ensure that the regime is sensible and that the charging of equipment makes sense to the Government and the authorities.

The intention behind amendment No. 105 is implicit in the clause, in that charges may be imposed in relation to subsection (2). It is therefore not necessary to include such a provision in the Bill.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I do not believe that the effect of the amendment is implicit in the clause, but the Under-Secretary has read into the record that that is the way in which the clause will be applied. That was extremely helpful and renders the question of whether the amendment is implicit in the clause somewhat academic. I am grateful to him for that.

As expected, I am reassured by what the Under-Secretary said. One problem of very broad drafting of Bills is that we have to work to the exasperation of Ministers. We are obliged to look for the most extreme possible use of the very wide powers that Ministers are being given and then, in order to reassure ourselves, use debates in Committees to persuade them to constrain their future use of such powers. I am glad that the Under-Secretary has confirmed that the Government's intention is strictly limited to the acquisition and provision of specialist equipment and that, in the interests of standardisation or procurement efficiency, they will not procure standard equipment such as routine fire appliances for issue to fire authorities.

I am also grateful for the confirmation that there is no intention to charge for the communications system. The Under-Secretary has very cunningly worked out how to defuse resistance among fire authorities to their having a communications system imposed on them. I am sure that some of the initial reaction will melt away when they find out that it will cost nothing, because something that is offered for nothing is usually more attractive to the recipient. I am grateful for the clarification given and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Directions for public safety purposes

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 107, in

clause 29, page 12, line 37, at end insert—

'(1A) An order under subsection (1) may only be made where one or more fire and rescue authorities is or is considered by the Secretary of State to be likely to become, unable to discharge its functions under sections 7, 8 or 9.'.

Clause 29 re-enacts in slightly different wording a major chunk of the Fire Services Act 2003, not including the most controversial section 1(1)(a)—the sunset clause. The clause gives power to direct

''the use or disposal of property or facilities''

of a fire and rescue authority.

In general, we agree, as we did during passage of 2003 Act, that it is sensible to have such a power for use in an extreme situation—for example, in a strike or industrial dispute situation—so that we never again see troops struggling to manage with grossly inadequate and, as some would say, even dangerous 50-year-old civil defence fire tenders when perfectly good, ''state of the art'' red fire engines are locked up, apparently under the control of the people who are on strike. It raised the gall of many during the dispute—I believe from comments that I heard that the Deputy Prime Minister was among them—to see red fire engines behind locked doors and firefighters warming themselves on fire authority premises while troops had to make do with draughty Territorial Army drill halls and the like as a base for their operations. It has to be acknowledged that during the dispute some authorities clearly lacked either the political will or the backbone to confront the union over access to equipment and premises.

I debated the subject with my own chief fire officer during the dispute to find out what was going on on my patch. As the Under-Secretary will know, the situation is a little more complicated than the knee-jerk reaction of passing motorists to seeing firefighters in possession of publicly owned fire stations while on strike. During the strike, the practical consideration in many areas—in fact, I think, in all areas without exception—was that firefighters turned out for real emergencies. The judgment of the chief fire office in my area was that if firefighters were not allowed to congregate on fire authority premises and, effectively, to keep possession of their equipment, they would not be in a position to turn out.

Such matters are easier to discuss in the cool light of day than they were in the heat of the dispute. Then, there was a feeling that the unions were being allowed to gain a propaganda victory by retaining possession of their equipment—I have slipped into the terminology myself; I should have said retaining possession of the fire authority's equipment—and then turning out as heroes if required to effect a rescue or put out a particularly serious fire.

Ministers' first duty must be to secure the safety of the public. However galling it is, the Minister must consider carefully whether public safety would be

better protected by allowing striking firefighters to retain control of equipment on the basis that they will turn out when it is absolutely necessary. I am slightly nervous that, in the hothouse atmosphere of a dispute, the powers under the clause might be used as a knee-jerk reaction in a way that could damage public safety.

One issue that inevitably comes up is that, as the draft framework makes clear, the 19,000 military personnel who were available during the last dispute would almost certainly not be available again, owing to military overstretch, cuts in numbers and even—possibly—privatisation of parts of the defence fire services, denuding it of the specialist skills required. So, the issue in another industrial dispute might not so much be access to red fire engines but who the heck will drive them.

I think that the 2003 Act was sabre rattling with a purpose; the dispute had still not been resolved. The outcome of the strike vote was, to some extent, secured by the expression of determination to draw a line under the issue in the form of the 2003 Bill. The Minister of State, however, went to great lengths during debates on that Bill to emphasise the temporary nature of the powers that he was taking. Time considerations mean that I will not reach into my pile of papers and quote the numerous times when he referred to the time limit that the Government accepted on the powers in the 2003 Act.

It is technically true that nothing that the Minister of State said during the 2003 debate precluded a re-enactment of precisely the same powers in a new Bill. It is not often that I would spend much of my time defending the position of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but when the Minister sought to reassure him and other Labour Members who rebelled against the Government in the vote on that Bill, he conveyed the impression that the matters subject to the 2003 Act would be reviewed and that new, permanent proposals would be made in the White Paper and this Bill. Nothing that the Minister said would have prepared the reasonable, independent observer for the wholesale re-enactment of those time-limited powers—except for very minor changes in the wording. A question of openness arises about the intention that the Government had. The clause will be accepted by the Committee with only a little probing now, but I suspect that the Government will find that their back Benchers will want to express their sense of betrayal that measures that were said to be time-limited in 2003 have been brought back as permanent legislation.

Amendment No. 107 would limit the use of the powers to the circumstances in which Ministers say that they are needed. It provides for the use by the Secretary of State of the powers in the clause when either a fire authority cannot, or he reasonably expects that it will not be able to, discharge its functions under clauses 7, 8 and 9 covering fire, road traffic accidents and other emergencies—typically, a situation such as an industrial dispute or some other paralysis that affects the fire and rescue authority.

Including such a provision would allay the fears of those who spoke during the 2003 debate about the possible use of the powers to privatise fire service facilities and to require the disposal of property and the passing of equipment and facilities to other service providers. As the Secretary of State intends to use the clause only in the case of an industrial dispute or similar emergency when a fire authority cannot discharge its functions, I urge the Under-Secretary, regardless of whether he accepts my amendment, to tighten the wording to reassure a sceptical micro-public on his Back Benches that that is the intention—making the wording fit the stated intention. If the Under-Secretary will not accept such a restriction, he will need to tell us when a fire and rescue authority would be discharging, and would be expected to be able to continue to discharge, its statutory functions but it would be considered legitimate to use the powers in the clause.

Once again, I emphasise the Opposition's belief that fire and rescue authorities must have the primary responsibility for the discharge of their functions. It is right and proper that the Secretary of State should have the power to intervene when they fail to discharge those functions either because they are incompetent-—that is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill—or because something such as a strike prevents them from doing so. It is also proper that he should be constrained not to interfere in that way if they are discharging their functions fully and effectively. The Bill, with the clause but without the amendment, gives too wide a power of intervention. I look forward to hearing how the Under-Secretary will respond to those concerns.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I can provide the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but, unfortunately, I cannot accept his amendment.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the clause was specifically drafted to ensure that in the event of industrial action the Secretary of State could act swiftly to secure assets and facilities—for example, appliances—for those providing emergency fire and rescue cover. Clearly, that is not dealt with under other provisions in the Bill. I echo his point that we are not repeating the measures in the 2003 Act to impose a pay settlement on the fire service. That was the issue of most concern when the Fire Services Bill was considered in Parliament. The power that we are carrying over into this Bill is more restricted than that passed in the 2003 Act because it relates only to public safety.

I am pleased to say that negotiations between the employers and the Fire Brigades Union continue to make good progress. We hope that all parties move forward with a fresh start. The reason for the clause is that the Government have a duty to ensure that public safety is foremost in fire service actions. The amendment would undermine the Secretary of State's ability to take action, which is critical to ensuring public safety.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the requisition of vehicles during a strike when some firefighters turn out in an emergency. We would

consider that carefully in the event of a dispute because it is true that some firefighters did turn out in an emergency. As he recognises, however, that might or might not be so in a future dispute, so it is important to have fall-back measures to use sensitively at the time.

Amendment No. 107 would make the failure or anticipated failure of a fire and rescue authority to discharge its core operational functions under clauses 7, 8 and 9 the trigger for the powers of intervention. It would create further delay, thereby preventing critical preparatory work were industrial action proposed. It would leave the Secretary of State vulnerable to a legal challenge by a recalcitrant fire and rescue authority that refused to allow its assets and facilities to be used by others.

Historically, fire and rescue authorities have argued that their duty to make provision to deal with fires in normal circumstances does not extend to industrial action. They took that view in the most recent dispute. In making failure to discharge an operational function the trigger, there is a real risk that, in the event of fires or road traffic accidents, the Secretary of State's powers to secure assets will be frustrated.

I want to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State intends to use the powers only as a last resort and where absolutely necessary to ensure public safety in the event of industrial action. We expect that, in practice, most if not all authorities would co-operate if their property or facilities were needed to provide emergency cover.

Those planning for emergency cover need the assurance that they will be able to obtain equipment at relatively short notice. Those providing cover need to have access to the most appropriate equipment for their own safety and that of the public. The amendment would remove that assurance and create a serious delay in accessing vital equipment, which would result in a reduction in public safety. I understand that we agree on the clause, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I do not think that we disagree on very much at all, but the Under-Secretary has made an important point, which I had not appreciated. If I understand him correctly, he presents a technical argument in which the legal view is that failure to deliver the service may not be failure to discharge the functions of a fire and rescue authority. Therefore, the test that I seek to impose might not work because even though no fire cover were provided, the authority could be deemed to be discharging its functions.

A broader issue is raised, and the Under-Secretary might consider whether the Bill presents a good opportunity to make it crystal clear that there is no ambiguity about the matter. Elsewhere in the Bill reference is made to the Secretary of State dealing with failures by fire and rescue authorities to discharge their functions—at least I had read those provisions in such terms. Perhaps it would be useful at a later stage to think about defining ''discharge of functions'', to make it absolutely clear—for reasons of allowing the intervention of the appropriate Secretary of State for failure to discharge—that a failure to provide a service

because of what might be deemed a force majeure event affecting the fire authority is effectively a failure to perform its function. However, I accept what the Under-Secretary says, and I am glad that he acknowledges the complex issues involved. Some very careful decisions would have to be taken before such powers were used in any broad way, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I have two specific questions for the Under-Secretary. I know that parliamentary drafting is very precise, so there must be a reason for the wording of the 2003 Act, as used in the second line of clause 29(1) of this Bill. The 2003 Act refers to giving ''specific or general directions'', while the Bill refers to giving ''general or specific directions''. I know that that could not be an accidental inversion of words, because parliamentary drafting does not work by accident. Someone has decided since 2003 that it must be ''general or specific'' rather than ''specific or general''.

Secondly, will the Under-Secretary tell us whom he would expect to consult under subsection (4)? The wording—used repeatedly in this Bill—is entirely unacceptable. It states:

''the Secretary of State must consult any persons he considers appropriate.''

Having to consult whoever he thinks he should consult is not much of an onerous task. That does not impose any burden at all, so will the hon. Gentleman tell us who will be consulted?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I will have to seek clarification on why the wording is the reverse of that in the Fire Services Act. I will write to the hon. Gentleman if I can find an answer.

On subsection (4), throughout the Bill we have endeavoured to restrain ourselves from listing lots of people and organisations whom we would consult because there will always be some people who are missed off any such list.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Owing to the particular circumstances in which the clause would be likely to be invoked, the question is whether the Minister would consult the union carrying out industrial action when he needed to use the powers.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

We would consult all fire and rescue authorities and anyone else whom the Secretary of State thought was appropriate at that time. That may or may not include the union, and it may include other authorities. It is a comprehensive measure, which gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to consult whomever he believes it is important to consult when a decision must be made.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee G

Clause 30 - Training institution and centres

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 108, in

clause 30, page 13, line 15, at end insert—

'(1A) The Fire Service College shall be deemed to be established by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (1)'.

It is good to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara.

The clause deals with training institutions and provides that

''The Secretary of State may establish and maintain—

(a) a central training institution, and

(b) one or more local training centres''.

However, when we read the explanatory notes, we see that the magic word ''regional'' creeps in again. It is not in the Bill. The explanatory notes suggest that the Secretary of State might want to create regional training centres.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

What about ''European''?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister is quite wrong: the word ''European'' does not appear anywhere. That is yesterday's argument, if I may say so. Let us focus on the issues that are on the agenda. The Government's regional agenda is clearly at the forefront of the issues that we have to consider. The Government's European agenda appears to have been abandoned in the face of the overwhelming hostility of the electorate. No doubt the regional agenda will be abandoned in the face of the overwhelming hostility of the electorate in due course.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Dream on.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Given the amount of public money that the Minister is throwing at the issue, trying to secure the vote that he wants, I am not surprised that he thinks that he will win the argument, but I suspect that the outcome will be somewhat different.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

What has this got to do with the fire service?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The answer is quite a lot. One of the consistent themes that we have had to consider is the Government's clear intention to introduce a regional dimension to the fire service and to create a regional fire authority when an elected regional assembly is created in any region, taking away powers from local authorities. That is precisely what the Minister of State told us on another occasion was not the purpose of the

creation of regional assemblies. Ever since, we have seen that commitment steadily eroded.

To return to the issue of colleges and training centres, we need to know the Government's intentions. There is clearly no problem with the Secretary of State running a central training institution, with local fire authorities running local training institutions, or with groups of fire authorities getting together to run local training institutions.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Regional ones?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The problem is that the word ''regional'' has been corrupted. We cannot use the term in its natural and proper sense. If a group of fire authorities got together and created a training centre for use by six or seven authorities, that might naturally be referred to as a regional training centre. However, the sense in which the Government use the word means a training centre based on the Government office regions—those bureaucratic boundaries that have been drawn on a map.

We need to understand the Government's intentions, because it would be unnatural if the Secretary of State had it in mind to create a training centre in each Government office region. That would be inappropriate and superfluous. It would be a waste of money—just like the rest of the regional agenda.

In anticipation of the fact that there probably will not be a need for a stand part debate, I hope that I can address a few other issues before coming on to the amendment. Why does the Secretary of State need the specific power under clause 30? Why can he not do what he is permitted to do by clause 30 under clause 28(2), which seems to give him a pretty broad power to ''establish and maintain'' organisations that he considers appropriate? I would have thought that training was well within that remit.

I would also like an answer to a question about charging. If the Secretary of State creates training centres and institutions, presumably, he will be able to charge fire authorities that use them. I am not suggesting that that is improper, but there is no clear power to do that under clause 30. There is such a provision in clause 28 for organisations created under the power in that clause. If the intention is to charge and to make the institution self-financing, can the Under-Secretary point to the provision from which the Secretary of State would derive the power to charge?

Amendment No. 108 is a probing amendment. It was difficult to make my hand write an amendment that named a specific institution, because I hate amendments that do that. Its purpose is simply to ask the Under-Secretary to confirm that he intends the Fire Service College to continue in its current role and function, and indeed to have an expanded role and function. I hope that he will say something helpful about the role that he envisages for it. If his scheme includes the creation of further training centres and institutions, how will they relate to the Fire Service College? As the amendment would place a reference to the Fire Services College in the Bill, it will allow that short debate to take place. Once I have heard what the Under-Secretary says, I am sure that I shall be able to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Mr. O'Hara, can I clarify whether, in responding to the amendment, I can speak more fully about the Fire Service College, if we are not to have a clause stand part debate, as the hon. Gentleman said?

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

There seems to be a willingness on all sides to incorporate a clause stand part debate in the debate on the amendment, so yes.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Thank you, Mr. O'Hara.

Clause 30 re-enacts and enhances provision in section 23(1) of the Fire Services Act 1947, which allows the Secretary of State to establish and to maintain a central training institution for the fire and rescue service and one or more local training centres. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary, as I think the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) recognises.

I can confirm to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that the central training institution referred to in the clause is the Fire Service College. It is referred to there instead of being embraced in clause 28(2) because we want to put beyond doubt what the training institutions can do. That is why clause 30 contains detailed descriptions of the purposes of such an institution under subsection (2)(a) to (f). In particular, the Fire Service College is funded on a commercial basis and has a trading fund.

The college in Moreton-in-Marsh has a long-established role as our national training centre for the fire and rescue service. It has internationally acknowledged expertise in operational incident command training, centred on its unique fire ground. The White Paper ''Our Fire and Rescue Service'' recommends building on that role and developing the college into a centre of excellence for the fire and rescue service. The clause gives the college the flexibility that it needs to respond to the changing needs of a modernised fire and rescue service. Subsection (1) therefore re-enacts section 23(1) of the 1947 Act, while subsection (2)(a) to (d) sets out in more detail the college's role in providing direct training for the fire and rescue service and supporting training delivered elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge described regional government as a waste of time and money. I think that that was his phrase. He might like to explain that to the hundreds of Conservative councillors who play an active role in regional assemblies across the country and do so to good effect.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. We need not go any further down that road.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I understand, Mr. O'Hara, but I could not resist the opportunity to make that point.

Components of the national work force development strategy will be delivered nationally, regionally and locally. The Fire Service College's role will be to provide the specialist and operational training that will be a mandatory element of the integrated personal development system at key stages and to maintain standards in training being provided at regional or local level.

Subsection (2)(e) and (f) refer to the provision by the college of training and advice beyond the UK fire

and rescue service, both here and overseas. The UK fire and rescue service will remain the college's primary focus. However, the college has an established reputation in the wider UK fire industry and with international fire and rescue services, for which it has provided training when it has had the capacity to do so. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, we expect that aspect of the college's training to increase, as its distance and e-learning capabilities increase further.

I have visited the college twice in the past six months, and I am looking forward to doing so in the near future to discuss its business plan for the coming year. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister also visited the college in September. We were both impressed by the uniqueness of the fire ground and the potential for the college to build on its reputation as a national centre for incident command training to provide specialist training in urban search and rescue and other new dimension techniques. We are close to opening the new urban search and rescue facility that was started last year.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister referred to the fact that the college is currently established as a trading fund. My question really concerns the basis on which the college has that status. It is clearly re-established by the clause, given that the 1947 Act is being scrapped. I do not see any provision on that other than the one by which the Secretary of State may establish and maintain it. Where does the college derive the right to operate as a trading fund from its new establishment base in the clause?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that, in re-establishing the training centre, we are simply re-enacting the provision in the 1947 Act in subsection (1) of the Bill. Under the 1947 Act, the college had the power to charge. It has been doing so, and many fire and rescue organisations around the country and from overseas attend the college. They pay for the excellent training provided. Whatever concerns the hon. Gentleman has about training and charging, the provision is established, in addition to the 1947 Act, under the Government Training Funds Act 1973, which is unchanged by the Bill—thank goodness—and allows the college to continue to charge.

Training and development are at the heart of our modernisation agenda and when inspiration comes, in the way that it often does in these Committees, it is good to see that the hon. Gentleman values the contribution that is made.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Before the Under-Secretary sits down, I would like to thank him for his answer that explains how the process works very well, but he has not said anything about his current intentions with regard to the creation of further training centres by the Secretary of State. Will he tell us what the plans are?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I regret that I cannot spell those out in detail. We have a national work force development strategy and we know that delivering that strategy, particularly the integrated personal development system that will provide new opportunities for career development for firefighters, will require the provision

of training at a national or central level. That will happen at the Fire Service College. It will need to happen at a regional level where it makes sense to bring together people in a region to carry out training relevant to the region. As we move on to the resilience agenda, one can imagine that services provided at regional level may well require a regional opportunity for firefighters in that area to be trained on equipment in that region.

At a local level, many fire and rescue services provide their own training, and some work together to provide joint training opportunities. The Bill provides the flexibility for the Secretary of State to promote and continue that raft of training opportunities at the appropriate level—local, regional or national—and to deliver skills and career development opportunities for firefighters in every aspect of the fire service's functions. Training and development are at the heart of our modernisation agenda. They are major levers for achieving change in the fire and rescue service. We are investing more than £7.5 million in the college this year, so that it can realise its potential and develop its facilities and infrastructure to match the expectations of the various stakeholders with an interest.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the reassurance that I have given him: the institution referred to in the clause is, indeed, the Fire Service College. I hope that my elaboration of the points that he raised means that he is able to support the clause.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. I have done what my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, in whose constituency the college resides, would have expected. I am sure that the bunting will be out in Moreton-in-Marsh in response to the Minister's confirmation that the college is the central training institution referred to. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Negotiating bodies

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 149, in

clause 31, page 13, line 36, after 'may,' insert 'subject to subsection (1A)'.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 150, in

clause 31, page 13, line 39, at end insert—

'(1A) the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsection (1) if he has secured the agreement of the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly to collaborate in a scheme, the effect of which is that the bodies created under subsection (1) will also have the function of negotiating the conditions of service of employees of fire and rescue authorities in Wales and of fire authorities in Scotland.'.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

This is an important clause. The Committee may be relieved to hear that it is the last clause about which there is likely to be controversy. I will not say the last clause about which there will be lots to say, because I am sure that the Committee will

want to investigate the pensions area thoroughly, but I do not think that that is controversial.

There are a number of issues arising from the clause. In speaking to these amendments, and later to the other groups, I shall try to be narrow because I am particularly anxious that we get the opportunity for a stand part debate on the clause. As you will know, Mr. O'Hara, some amendments which were tabled have not been selected, so it will not be possible to consider in debates on amendments some of the issues that members of the Committee wished to investigate. I therefore hope that we will be able to have a stand part debate as well.

The clause provides for the Secretary of State to be able to establish a negotiating body, and effectively then to give that body exclusive rights and instructions as to how it is to go about its business. Although the Minister of State may be a little coy about this, the provision is a linchpin of the Government's strategy to reduce the Fire Brigades Union's influence over the fire services, increasing the influence of other representative bodies and ensuring what we might regard as a more balanced situation. The term ''negotiating body'' looks like a slight misnomer when the body will be susceptible to direction from the Secretary of State in how it conducts its deliberations. We will explore some of those areas a little later, in succeeding debates.

The amendments address a particular concern arising from the splitting of responsibilities for England, Wales and Scotland. Amendment No. 149 is a paving amendment for No. 150, the substantive amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to establish a negotiating body only where he has reached agreement with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to the effect that the negotiating body could negotiate pay and conditions for fire and rescue or Scottish fire service employees throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

I am a long-term believer in local pay flexibility and negotiation. I remember during the strike last year talking to firefighters from my constituency who, with some cause, were complaining about the difficulty of living in Surrey, with housing costs the way they are, on £21,000 plus £256 weighting allowance. Equally, I remember having a discussion with somebody from the north-east, who honestly, if privately, admitted that £21,000 was not a bad salary considering his local economy. He was faintly embarrassed at striking for £30,000 when most of his friends and neighbours were certainly not earning significantly more than firefighters were before the dispute.

My purpose in tabling the amendment is to voice a concern felt by fire and rescue authority employers. Hitherto, there has been a UK-wide approach to the matter, which includes Scotland. Under the current negotiating arrangements, the Scottish fire authority employers are represented alongside their English and Welsh counterparts.

We need to understand how the Secretary of State would use his powers to impose a negotiating machinery if the current negotiations with the national joint council were to fail to agree a new

structure. I understand that his powers would extend only to England. Unless he were to meet the arrangements in the amendment, the negotiating machinery would relate only to England, and Scotland and Wales would have separate machinery.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I was concluding my remarks when we were interrupted. I would like to know whether the Minister recognises and intends that there should not be separate national negotiating forums for Wales, England and Scotland. That is not to say that there should be a single negotiating structure, as there may be horizontally separate negotiating structures for different groups of employees. If his intention is as I have described, how does he intend to ensure that it can be given effect, if he is in the position of imposing the negotiating machinery via the powers in this clause?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The current negotiating machinery, which is under discussion by the parties, is crucial to the modernisation of the fire and rescue service. As I expect that we will have a more ample debate on the wider principles of the negotiating machinery, I shall make no further comments about it now, other than to repeat the obvious point that it was the subject of a central recommendation of the Bain review of the fire service. In this, as in so many other areas, we are working on the basis of recommendations in that report.

As I said, the existing negotiation arrangements are under review. We hope that the review will lead to improved arrangements that meet the needs of a modern fire and rescue service. The clause provides the Secretary of State with reserve powers to establish statutory negotiating bodies for England should the review fail to deliver appropriate improvements.

Amendments Nos. 149 and 150 seek to ensure that a negotiating body established under the clause would negotiate conditions of service for employees of fire and rescue authorities in Scotland and Wales, as well as England. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has rightly pointed out, the existing negotiating arrangements work on a UK-wide basis. We would prefer that to continue.

If, however, we were to decide to draw down the powers in the Bill and establish a statutory body, it would make sense for England and Scotland to legislate in their respective areas of competence. That is logical, in view of the fact that responsibility for the fire and rescue service is already devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland and will be devolved to Wales as part of the Bill. The financial and policy framework is already devolved. It is therefore possible that over time our financial and policy positions may diverge and we would not wish to be bound by statute to negotiate as one. However, I repeat that we have no intention at

present to vary the existing arrangements for UK-wide negotiation.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I think that the Minister is saying that he does not want to be bound in the Bill to proceed with the use of these powers if he has been able to reach agreement with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. If I am interpreting him correctly, he is also saying that he would seek to reach such an agreement. In other words, if he were imposing a negotiating body, he would prefer it to have a UK-wide remit.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Our intention is to continue with the current arrangements for UK-wide negotiating machinery, and to agree that through administrative arrangements if necessary.

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, the difficulty with the amendments is that not only would they bind the Government through statute to seeking agreements from Scotland and Wales before any arrangements could be put in place, but they would effectively give the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly a veto over the establishment of a statutory negotiating body for England. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that would not be a satisfactory position. I put it to him that it is slightly curious for a party that is constantly quoting the West Lothian question at us to believe it appropriate for the Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly to be able to dictate negotiating arrangements in England.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

For the record, the amendments go further than that. I said very clearly that my own instinct is for local pay negotiation. What we are doing is performing one of the functions of an Opposition, which is to bring forward questions from qualified outside bodies that have concerns, and to air them in a way that allows Ministers to respond to them. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment in the spirit in which it was tabled, that of inquiry on behalf of fire and rescue authorities that perceive a problem.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, and I return the compliment by saying that I hope that my explanation satisfies him, and that he will withdraw his probing amendment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

What the Minister said makes perfect sense, but the fact that this issue arises points to one of the items of fall-out—I will not call it a difficulty—from the devolution settlement. Increasingly, things that have been done on a pan-UK basis, to the extent that they require statutory powers to be done, cannot necessarily continue to be done on a pan-UK basis, and that may cause difficulties. However, I am reassured that if the Minister has to use these powers, he will seek arrangements that will allow the body to operate on a UK-wide basis.

There are some funding questions. We all know that Scotland is better funded than the rest of the UK, and that may create tensions. We have seen that in other areas. Without wishing to digress, I point out the example of the funding of elderly people in care homes, to which the Scottish Executive have been able,

because of the greater availability of funding for a public service in Scotland, to take a different approach from that taken by the UK Government for the rest of the country. I foresee potential difficulties.

I invite the Minister to tell the Committee whether, if he goes down the route of using these powers, he will seek to agree how to proceed with his Welsh and Scottish colleagues. Has he had discussions with those colleagues on this matter, and is he confident that a UK-wide solution would be reached?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The answer is yes—I have had discussions with colleagues, and I am confident that such an arrangement can be reached.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister's words will be read with great interest by the people who suggested that this amendment be tabled in order to hear what he had to say. I say, job done, and 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. 182, in

clause 31, page 14, line 3, leave out subsection (2)(b) and insert—

'(b) Persons representing the interests of some or all employees of fire and rescue services, such persons being representative of organisations considered by the Secretary of State to be appropriate and the number of representatives being proportionate to membership of the organisation.'.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 183, in

clause 31, page 14, line 26, at end add—

'(8) A fire and rescue authority will grant leave to representatives of trade unions representing employees in accordance with (2)(b) above, such leave to be granted subject to the provisions provided for in the ACAS Code of Practice—Time off for trade union duties and activities.

(9) The pay and conditions of all part-time employees will be on an equal pro-rata basis to full-time employees.'.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

These are both probing amendments, in much the same fashion as the previous amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I hope that they will take us, in part, to the area to which the Minister referred, and which he was, I think, hoping to discuss in the stand part debate. They may elicit some responses.

Amendment No. 182 deals with the balance of the negotiating body, and the sort of structure that would be acceptable to the Minister. Obviously, we will have to wait and see what happens in the negotiations. Will the negotiating body be proportionate to those who represent the different parts of the Union? Without going round the houses, we are asking whether the Retained Firefighters Union would have a place at the table to negotiate terms and conditions.

Will the Minister go further and say that if fire service middle management decided that they wished to be represented, and they are not directly at present, such a structure would be represented on the negotiating body? We use the word ''proportionate''

in the amendment, meaning representation on a fair and even platform.

Amendment No. 183, is about terms and conditions, and I am not sure why it has been lumped with No. 182.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I should point out that there is a misprint on the amendment paper. Amendment No. 183 has subsections (8) and (9). Subsection (9) is a misprint, and the debate should be confined to subsection (8).

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. I had been advised that we should consider only subsection (8).

It has been brought to our attention that the resources made available to trade union officials are well in excess of the current recommended time off for trade union duties and activities in the ACAS code of practice. It had been put to us that ACAS recommendations should be seen as a maximum, but that would remove local discretion, which we do not seek to do. There should be a reference in the terms and conditions to the ACAS code, which should be the benchmark by which local authorities and fire and rescue authorities are judged.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Amendment No. 182 is an interesting probing of the Minister's intentions. As the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said, we all know that the issue is about getting a proper voice at the table for representatives of firefighters other than the FBU, particularly retained firefighters, who require an appropriate voice in any future negotiations.

In the interests of equity and a more rational and moderate debate about fire service matters, I welcome the opportunity for the Minister to confirm that any negotiating body, either established by him or as a result of current discussions, but ultimately sanctioned by him by virtue of his deciding not to use his powers under the clause, will be a body that contains a mix of employee representatives.

I would be grateful if the Minister were to confirm that any voluntary solution that he accepts, having been persuaded not to use his powers under the clause, must include representatives of employee bodies other than the FBU.

I say to the hon. Member for Teignmouth—

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

Teignbridge.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am not sure where ''Teenmouth'' is. Is there such a place?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is pronounced ''Tinmouth''.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Not another pronunciation error.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is not to be confused with Tynemouth.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am not entirely sure about direct proportionality. The key point is representation on the body. Perhaps the Minister will say more about that.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge made some interesting additional points about the representation of middle management. I strongly urge the Minister to establish a separate negotiating body for them. It

appears to me, as an observer, that one of the problems with delivering any kind of emergency cover during an industrial dispute is that there is no middle management outside the dispute process. Typically, when train drivers strike, there is a cadre of middle managers who can be hauled out of their offices and sat at a ticket barrier, or behind a train driver's console, where they can deploy their former skills to keep a skeleton service going.

A large proportion of the work of fire and rescue services is routine and, as we saw during the dispute, the amount of work that is emergency, ''must-respond'' work is really quite small. Such work could probably be managed quite well by a relatively small number of middle managers, perhaps with some support from small numbers of military personnel. That opens up a prospect of a much more manageable industrial relations situation in the fire service. I suspect that the Minister will not want to be drawn on his precise intentions in that regard, but I hope that he is thinking of having separate negotiating bodies for middle managers. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Teignbridge to think carefully about his suggestion that middle managers should be represented on the negotiating body.

I am a little confused about amendment No. 183, Mr. O'Hara. Are we supposed to be considering part of it, but not the other part?

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

We are considering subsection (8) only.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Will we come to the subject referred to in subsection (9) in due course?

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Yes. It is simply that the two are not connected.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

It was not selected for this debate; I understand. So there will not be an opportunity to discuss what was a rather interesting suggestion from the hon. Member for Teignbridge. However, we will have the opportunity to discuss it under clause stand part.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Member for Teignbridge will not be surprised when I tell him that I believe that amendment No. 182 is unnecessary. However, it has been helpful to have this short debate. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge anticipated, it is helpful to have an opportunity to spell out the Government's intentions in this respect.

Subsection (2)(b) will ensure that employee representatives will be included on the negotiating body. Following consultation, regulations will be drawn up setting out how places on the negotiating body will be allocated. Although the general principle of proportionality is reasonable, there may well be exceptions. In the first place, a strict adoption of the principle of proportionality might result in pressure for a very large negotiating body. Alternatively, if it were kept to a more manageable size, which was one of the strong recommendations of the Bain review, with which we concur, that might mean excluding some of

the minority interests. Neither outcome, in our view, would be desirable.

I will quote from the Bain review and the White Paper to make our objectives absolutely clear. Paragraph 10.26 of the Bain review talks about the new NJC, which is envisaged as replacing current arrangements, and states that on the union side it should represent

''the Fire Brigades' Union, the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Officers Association, the Association of Principal Fire Officers and Unison.''

In our White Paper, which responded to that, we said:

''We also agree with the Independent Review that a new negotiating body should involve representatives of the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Officers Association, and the Association of Principal Fire Officers.''

That is why we intend to specify who should be involved. We envisage three separate negotiating bodies, covering different groups within the present grading structures: first, chief fire officers and assistant chief fire officers; secondly, middle management; and thirdly, firefighters and control room staff. The composition and chair of each body would be determined by the Deputy Prime Minister. The arrangements for non-uniformed staff, who are predominantly represented by Unison, would continue as at present: matters would continue to be handled predominantly through the local government negotiating arrangements.

I hope that that clarifies our intentions and how they fit in with our overall objective. It is compatible with the purpose of the amendment, it but might not be feasible if the amendment were accepted and we were strictly bound to follow its terms.

I fully understand the thinking behind amendment No. 183, but, again, it is unnecessary. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 requires that employers permit officials of recognised trade unions time off during working hours to carry out union activities, including collective bargaining. The purpose of the amendment is already covered in statute and it is unnecessary to duplicate that.

With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Teignbridge will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

I thank the Minister for putting that clearly on the record. I shall have no difficulty in withdrawing my amendment. I accept that the word ''proportionate'' was not intended to be precise to the ninth decimal place; it can mean something that is reasonable rather than exact. We totally accept that a small committee would be more manageable and better. I thank the Minister for his comments and 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. 111, in

clause 31, page 14, line 5, at end insert

'appointed in accordance with advice to the Secretary of State from the Commissioner for Public Appointments.'.

This is very much a probing amendment. I struggled with the drafting of it and recognise that it is rather inelegant. Indeed, I am not sure that the language is appropriate. I seek an assurance from the Minister that a genuinely independent chairman will be appointed. Independence is defined in subsection (3) by excluding certain categories of people. I can think of lots of people who do not fall into any of those categories but would not be considered independent by the layman. In the context of a Secretary of State-imposed negotiating body, we are looking for someone of unimpeachable standing who is recognised, if not warmly, by all parties involved in the negotiating body as beyond pressure from Ministers or any other party, and as being of a robustness and, perhaps, public standing that would give the body the stature that it needs to be genuinely independent.

I imagine that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the advice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments would routinely be sought on such appointments. The amendment seeks to ensure that that advice would be not only sought but listened to. I would be happy to withdraw the amendment if the right hon. Gentleman could assure us that any person appointed as chairman would be someone about whom the Secretary of State had taken advice from the commissioner and that the commissioner had indicated that the person in question was appropriate for appointment.

The commissioner does not approve or make appointments, so it was difficult to draft an amendment that makes sense, and it may not work. However, I hope that that Minister will accept the general thrust of the point and provide some reassurance.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman quite properly tabled the amendment. He admitted that it may not be drafted in the most professional parliamentary language, but it has the reasonable purpose of obtaining assurances about the process of appointing an independent chair. I assure him and the Committee that the Government regard it as essential that the chair is independent. I also wholly concur with the hon. Gentleman that the person who chairs the body should be of an appropriate stature and character to ensure its effective operation. That is important for the success of the negotiating machinery,.

We believe that the subsections (2)(c) and (3) will ensure the chairman's independence. The detailed process would be a matter for the regulations. If we decide to establish statutory negotiating machinery, we shall consult appropriately before making the regulations.

It is the ODPM's current practice to comply with the principles set out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and we would certainly apply those principles in this instance if an appointment was to be made. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The only caveat that the Minister mentioned there was that it is the ODPM's current

practice. I hope that he was not suggesting that there might be a change in practice ahead.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

If I may repeat what I said, it is our current practice to comply with the principles and it would be our intention to apply them in this instance, if we had to make an appointment. I have to use the conditional tense, because we will not definitely apply this process. If agreement is reached voluntarily in the existing negotiating framework on the creation of a more satisfactory framework, there will be no need for these provisions. The hon. Gentleman should not draw any inference from my use of the conditional tense, other than that it is to guard against the possibility that we never have to use the procedures because agreement is reached through the existing arrangements.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification and I welcome his assurance that it will be a genuinely independent chairman. 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. 112, in

clause 31, page 14, line 12, leave out subsections (4), (5) and (6).

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 163, 164 and 165.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

We tabled amendment No. 112 to probe the way in which the special status given to agreements made by the negotiating bodies worked and to raise some issues about the status of local negotiations, which have long been a part of fire service employment practice and tradition, but which appeared to be outlawed by clause 31.

That is another issue that has been raised by a number of fire authorities on their initial reading of the Bill. They were clearly able to get to the Minister and the ODPM in double quick time. The amendment, the purpose of which was to draw attention to the issue and to probe the Government's intentions on local negotiating machinery, has been largely obviated by the Government tabling amendments that address those issues and make clear how they intend to proceed. None the less, as a result of the accident of my having tabled the amendment first, I must now go first and ask the questions that the Minister would probably have answered anyway had the order of tabling been different.

Government amendment No. 163 answers the charge that there is no recognition in the Bill of local negotiation, but it permits it only to the extent that the negotiating body allows. The Minister will tell me with great pedantry that that is different from the extent to which the Secretary of State allows. However, if he reads the Bill carefully, he will see that in the next clause the negotiating body is bound to have regard to ''guidance'' given to it by the Secretary of State. Therefore, on an issue such as this the end decision rests, in effect, with the Secretary of State. If we cut through the machinery, it is the Secretary of State who will ultimately be in a position to determine the extent to which local negotiation is permitted.

Clearly, local negotiation is important to create flexibility in the system and has always been part of the system. Equally, if people felt strongly that the negotiating machinery that had been imposed was oppressive, or that they did not like it in some way, local negotiation could be used as a way of circumventing that negotiating machinery. I think that we are entitled to ask the Minister what the intended scope of local negotiation is. Will it include pay and weighting or only local conditions' issues, perhaps about the location of people's workplace and other such relatively marginal issues? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about those things.

Government amendment No. 164 is welcome because it recognises the weakness of over-centralising the bargaining process by providing for local negotiation. We welcome that. The mechanism, as I have said, reinforces the Secretary of State's power yet again. He dictates to the negotiating body, which authorises the local negotiation in terms that it has defined. That means that there is not a negotiation in the sense that the layman would understand the term. It is a process the scope and breadth of which will be constrained and determined from the top down.

Government amendment No. 165 brings great relief to me because I spent more time trying to understand and get advice on the meaning and relevance of subsection (6) than on any other subsection in the whole Bill. I assume that the exclusion of subsection (6), which says that subsection (5)—the subsection that gives exclusive rights to deals made under the negotiating structure to have the protection of legal enforceability—has

''effect despite section 179 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992'',

is not a change of policy, but a recognition that there is no conflict between the two.

If that is the case, I will have to congratulate the person who advised me way back in the procedure that that was the case. I will also have to confess that a small excursion into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 reminded me why considering a fire and rescue Bill in Committee is much less hard work than considering an employment relations Bill, one of which I was involved with in a previous incarnation. If the Minister could clarify that there is no practical effect or change of policy direction arising from the elimination of subsection (6), that would be helpful confirmation of my understanding.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I start by saying that we understand the importance of local negotiations in the fire and rescue service. It was never our intention to make the outcome of local negotiations unenforceable. Hon. Members may well, therefore, reasonably inquire why the provisions that we propose to remove from the Bill were included. The original formulation was designed to avoid the effectiveness of any new negotiating machinery that is put in place being subverted by a deliberate ploy to negotiate at a local level, and thereby avoid the national machinery. That was the thinking that led us to the original formulation. Since

publication of the Bill, we have looked again at the draft, and we have tabled amendments Nos. 163, 164 and 165 to enable local negotiations on certain conditions of service to continue to be legally enforceable.

The hon. Gentleman asked me which conditions would be open to negotiation. I say to him that we would not see this as extending to pay, because that could subvert the national framework for agreement. In our recent debate, we talked about the benefit of a UK-wide national framework for negotiation on pay. Clearly, it would be inconsistent if we opened the door to local pay negotiations through these amendments.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

My understanding is that London weighting has been negotiated at a local level, as a local matter. If weighting is allowed to be negotiated at a local level, there is no reason why it could not become a much larger element, which would have a significant impact on pay.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I do not intend to be drawn into too detailed a consideration of the scope for local agreement, as against national agreement, on matters of weighting and any additions that may be made to national agreements. Clearly, this is a very difficult area, and it is probably right that there should be a measure of discretion. However, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that a certain number of items are traditionally negotiated locally, and these can have a significant impact on the level of pay that people will ultimately take home, even if the rates of pay are negotiated nationally. Shift and duty systems, certain redundancy arrangements and mobility and redeployment arrangements have all traditionally been subject to local negotiation, and it is not our intention to cut across those particular elements.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am sure that it is not the Minister's intention, but I think that he is sending the wrong signal here. He is saying that elements other than pay are traditionally negotiated locally and could have a significant impact on take-home pay. That suggests a lack of transparency—a national pay structure, negotiated publicly and nationally, and a series of local arrangements that subvert that in an untransparent way. The use of supplements and dodgy shift arrangements can add to pay in a way that is not transparent. I hope that that is not what the Minister had in mind.

I ask the Minister specifically about London weighting. It is a significant issue in London, and my understanding is that it has always been negotiated locally. Is he saying that that important local negotiation would not be permitted under this clause?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to assume that I was opening the door to the subversion of national pay negotiations. I was making exactly the opposite point. He will recall that I stressed that the reason for the original formulation of the clause was that it would avoid the scope for subversion of a national agreement. He will know that there is quite widespread variation in practice in terms of shift systems and patterns, and those do affect people's take-home pay. They are subject to local negotiations, and we do not intend to cut across that.

Indeed, the whole basis of the new policy that underpins the Bill and is part of the integrated risk management planning framework that is coming in, is that local fire and rescue authorities will be free to explore the right responses to risk in their area and to put in place arrangements that respond to them in the most appropriate way. That is the framework that we want.

There will be scope for local agreement. That would potentially cover local allowances such as London weighting, with the agreement of the new statutory body. That is the key to the new framework. Local discretion will be allowed, but it will be subject to agreement by the new national body to avoid the risk of the national framework being subverted.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister will have to accept that, because of the Secretary of State's power to give guidance to the national body, we will want to probe him a little further than just allowing him to say that that will be with the agreement of the national body. Does he envisage the national body putting limits on the scope of local negotiation, for example, limiting weighting arrangements to a certain percentage of pay? Or will he allow negotiations that have taken place locally in the past to continue unfettered?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman is confusing two quite separate processes. When we deal with the next clause, we will consider the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may give guidance. There are very good reasons for him doing so, which go back to the Bain report. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the reasons for that review.

That situation is quite different from what I was talking about a moment ago, which is the procedure under which the new national body, if one is created, with an independent chairman gives an overall framework and agreement to local negotiations. It is designed to ensure a coherent national framework with scope for local negotiations and will not be susceptible to the kind of direction that the hon. Gentleman fears will be given by the Secretary of State.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am curious. I am not sure whether the Minister is saying that the powers under clause 32 would not allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the national negotiating body about the extent to which it should allow local negotiation. Surely, that would be precisely the kind of thing on which the Secretary of State would want to reserve the power to give guidance.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We are getting dangerously close to pre-empting the debate on clause 32. I am perfectly happy to discuss the matter now, but I had assumed that it would probably be better to deal with it when we came to that clause.

It is not the Government's intention for the Secretary of State to be directly involved as a member in the negotiations, although Bain recommended that the Government should be directly involved. We have not gone as far as Bain on that point, nor is it our intention to give directions in the way that the hon. Gentleman indicated, but

there is a proper role for guidance to be given by the Secretary of State for reasons that I will set out in full when we come to clause 32.

Government amendments Nos. 163 and 164 would allow a statutory negotiating body to make arrangements for local negotiation of particular conditions of service. We have dealt with that. Agreements resulting from those arrangements would be legally enforceable.

While reviewing the effect of clause 31, we concluded that subsection (6) did not add anything to the existing legal position. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that he will not have to do any further quarrying in the infinitely fascinating territory of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. I hope that he will accept my assurance that there is no benefit from subsection (6), which is why we feel that its inclusion is unnecessary and that it can be deleted. Indeed, its inclusion might lead to misinterpretation. Government amendment No. 165 seeks to exclude subsection (6) from the Bill. In doing so, it addresses part of Opposition amendment No. 112.

Amendment No. 112 seeks to remove subsections (4) and (5) as well. That would mean that even if a statutory body were established, employers and unions could continue to negotiate legally enforceable agreements outside the statutory negotiating arrangements. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that would not be a desirable framework, that Government amendments Nos. 163 and 164 have dealt with the concerns that were brought to his attention and that the clause as amended will provide a proper framework for the future. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

As I indicated in my opening remarks, Government amendments Nos. 163, 164 and 165 address the issue. I would not have tabled amendment No. 112 if the Government's amendments had already been tabled. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 163, in

clause 31, page 14, line 21, after 'body' insert

'or in accordance with local negotiation arrangements made by the negotiating body in respect of employees of that description'.

No. 164, in

clause 31, page 14, line 21, at end insert—

'(5A) ''Local negotiation arrangements'' means arrangements made by a negotiating body established under this section for the purpose of enabling conditions of service of employees of fire and rescue authorities to be negotiated at local level.

(5B) Local negotiation arrangements may (in particular) include provision with regard to—

(a) the persons or descriptions of persons by whom, or by means of whom, negotiations are authorised to be carried out at local level;

(b) the conditions of service and descriptions of conditions of service authorised to be negotiated at local level.

(5C) Local negotiation arrangements may be made by a negotiating body in respect of employees of a particular description only if the negotiating body includes persons representing the interests of employees of that description.'.

No. 165, in

clause 31, page 14, line 22, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

This is an important clause. We have already explored some of the issues relating to it. During the dispute there was a feeling that the Government were the spectre at the feast—I could put that point more aggressively, but I am in a relaxed mood this afternoon. [Interruption.] I will not be emollient as the Minister suggests, but I will not be aggressive. It was felt that the Government were party to the negotiations, but without taking any responsibility for their role. Negotiations progressed and civil servants were hovering in the wings—sometimes not so much in the wings—making known what the Deputy Prime Minister would find acceptable. Every time Ministers were challenged about the progress of the negotiations, they simply retreated behind the mantra that they were the responsibility of the employee representatives and the local authority employers, with Government as mere bystanders.

I understand why the Minister is reluctant to go down the route expressed by Bain and become a full party to the negotiations because it is much more comfortable to stand in the wings with all sorts of reserve powers that can be deployed, while being able to deny any responsibility for the progress—or lack of it—that takes place. We have to look at the structure in the round and envisage how it would work in the context of another dispute where employers and employees are negotiating and the Government are not a party to those negotiations but are able to give guidance that has to be taken into account. Some may say that that merely formalises the situation that occurred during the last dispute, where Government guidance in practice, as we saw in one or two of those famous moments of brinkmanship, turned out to be the determining factor.

I want to touch on the issue that would have been raised had amendment Nos. 109 and 110 been accepted. To some extent, the Minister has already addressed some of the concerns. Amendment No. 109 would have raised the issue of whether the reference to one or more bodies in subsection (1) was appropriate. The Bill refers to one or more bodies being established, and I thought that there must be a distinction between one body and more than one. Therefore, by removing the reference to one or more, I would be probing the Minister as to whether his intention was to create one body or more than one. However, I have subsequently been advised that ''bodies'' incorporates the concept of a single body, which does for my amendment, but also raises an interesting question about the Bill's drafting because it appears to contain redundant words. Since the advice that the phrase ''one or more bodies'' and the phrase ''bodies'' in line 37 mean precisely the same thing came from a reliable source, I am bound to ask why the Bill refers to ''one or more bodies''. Since the phrase does not add anything—we are authoritatively told—it must be there to send a message of some description. I am at a loss to understand precisely the

message that the Minister intends to send by using now officially redundant words. He told us that his inclination, which is set out in the White Paper, is to have three negotiating bodies for different horizontal strata of the service, so why the reference to ''one or more bodies''?

We welcome the late recognition of local negotiation and the belated clarification about the complexities of applying the 1992 Act. We also welcome the mechanics that he is putting in place to ensure that only matters negotiated through a Secretary of State-created body could be legally enforced.

Is the Minister sure that the arrangements ruling out enforceability of contracts freely entered into between consenting adults outside arrangements approved by him do not offend any measures, such as the human rights legislation or our compliance with International Labour Organisation agreements or procedures? As he will remember, they were much referred to during our debates on the Fire Services Act 2003, although not by me.

I addressed the other Minister on subsection (7). The Bill's architecture means that at the end of many of its clauses a subsection states:

''Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult any persons he considers appropriate.''

The wording is very strange, because to require someone to do something that they consider appropriate does not appear to me to require them to do anything at all. I would prefer a much more objective test of persons to be consulted: any persons who appear to the Secretary of State to be affected by the regulations, or any persons representing affected persons would be sensible. He ''must consult'' is rather meaningless. I have not seen that wording in a Bill before and I wonder why it has been chosen.

In more practical terms, will the Minister tell us whom he expects to consult if he were making regulations under the clause? We might then have a clue about who would be included and excluded. Rather alarmingly, the Under-Secretary told us that the Secretary of State might or might not think it appropriate to consult a trade union actively involved in an industrial dispute when consulting on directions for purposes of public safety during a dispute. I might be quite hostile to the position that the union has taken, but I would hardly think it inappropriate to consult someone engaged in the dispute. I can imagine that the Secretary of State—a protagonist—might take a different view at the time. That is why I seek a more objective requirement for consultation.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

Two issues arise from amendment No. 109, which we have not been able to debate for what I accept are perfectly good reasons. They are the terms and conditions and the status of retained firefighters.

The White Paper stated in paragraph 8.27:

''A major problem for the fire and rescue service is the recruitment of retained firefighters. Nationally it is about 20 per cent. short of complement. . . . The recruitment problems stem in part from the level of pay, the lack of a pension, the lack of

development opportunities and the often inflexible availability system—in short, a lack of recognition of their contribution.''

After considering the White Paper and taking evidence, the Select Committee made a number of positive recommendations. One was that local government should set a good example by allowing flexible working, and another related to entitlement to paid leave.

The purpose of the amendment that we cannot debate was to encourage the Minister to give us his views on the status of retained firefighters and their pay and conditions. We believe that it is wrong that a retained firefighter, of which there are many in my home county of Devon, fights fires alongside a full-time firefighter, but earns far less. I know that that leads to resentment among some—not all—retained firefighters. The Government and the Select Committee recognise that that is a contributory factor in our inability to recruit enough retained firefighters. I therefore hope that the Minister can expand on the Government's thinking on firefighters' pay and conditions and on what he hopes for from the negotiating body on that issue.

Finally, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about London weighting. There is a major issue about how those in the essential services, such as firefighters—retained or full-time—can afford accommodation. Does the Minister envisage that the new negotiating body will be able to assist firefighters in finding accommodation? If so, that would be a way to deal with the shortage in some areas.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Clause 31 provides the Secretary of State with reserve powers to establish one or more new negotiating bodies and to determine their membership and chairs following consultation.

The fire and rescue service needs negotiating machinery that is effective and fit for purpose. In the June 2003 pay agreement both sides agreed to review the current negotiating arrangements, and that review is under way. The powers proposed in the clause provide the opportunity to put effective negotiating machinery in place if the review does not deliver improved arrangements. However, as I have made clear here and in many other places, we want the existing negotiating framework to lead to a voluntary agreement. The reserve powers are to be used only if that does not prove possible.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

What time scales are involved here? We are all aware of the discussions taking place, adjourning and starting up again. How long will they be allowed to run before the Secretary of State decides to establish machinery because a voluntary agreement is not possible?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman was in his current post throughout the period of the dispute and is aware that anyone who sets a timetable probably runs a serious risk of being disappointed. As we know, the negotiations proved protracted. I would not want to put an arbitrary time limit on these complex and difficult discussions. We have expressed the view that a voluntary agreement should be the first and preferred route, but that if that fails there will be statutory provision. Until the Bill receives Royal Assent, scope

for statutory provision is no more than an aspiration. In the absence of the powers, it would be wrong to be too precise about the timetable. However, the hon. Gentleman may reasonably infer that once the powers have been enacted, if there has not been satisfactory progress or the prospect of it, it will become more likely that attention will be given to using the powers to create new and more effective machinery.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Once the Bill has received Royal Assent, assuming it gets that far—[Laughter.] The Minister may laugh, but he would be well advised to remember that Bills must go through two Houses of Parliament. Although he might laugh in this place, he sometimes has to laugh on the other side of his collective face in the other place. The serious question that I want to ask is whether the existing machinery can survive the demise of the 1947 Act and the enactment of the Bill. Is there any part of the existing negotiating machinery that depends on any part of the 1947 Act structure?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

My understanding is that if a voluntary agreement is reached to replace the existing NJC arrangements with new ones that satisfy the conditions that we have set out as objectives, that can happen without the requirement for a new statutory underpinning, but this is a technical issue on which I would prefer to seek further advice before giving a definitive response.

The hon. Gentleman asked how the provisions would change the framework from that which applied during the dispute that occurred last year and the year before. The answer is that the Government were in a curious position throughout that dispute, because unlike in every other major area of public service, there was no provision for us to indicate through the negotiating procedures the overall financial framework within which both employers and employees would need to negotiate. As he will recall, as a result, there were one or two moments when it was suggested that highly inflationary settlements had been agreed, imposing huge additional costs on fire and rescue authorities, which did not have the means to meet them. Inevitably, they would have come to the Government and said, ''Can we have more money to meet these costs?''

Against that background, it is only reasonable that the Government should have the ability to inform the negotiations by setting out in advance a proper framework of understanding showing what employees and employers can expect in terms of financial subvention from the Government. Anyone who suggests otherwise is frankly living in a world of fantasy. It is precisely to address the problems of the failings of the former machinery that we have proposed these changes.

The hon. Gentleman went on to ask about the significance of the phrasing and the reference to ''one or more bodies''. The Interpretation Act 1978 gives us helpful guidance. It tells us that the singular includes the plural except when the context indicates otherwise. I am not sure that that leads us any further forward. However, that is the correct interpretation of the provision. We included the plural to avoid any possible doubt. In line with what I said earlier, our

view is that there probably should be three separate bodies, which would represent: chief fire officers and assistant chief fire officers; middle managers; and firefighters and control room staff.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether local agreements might not be consistent with human rights legislation, with International Labour Organisation agreements, and with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. My question was whether the exclusion of agreements not reached through machinery sanctioned by the Secretary of State might offend those conventions and arrangements. One can readily imagine—not, of course, in this context, but in that of other, less benign nations and regimes—a situation where Government-sanctioned negotiating machinery having an exclusive right to negotiate enforceable labour agreements might be regarded with a sideways look. I wonder how the Minister has been able to assure himself that measures designed to deal with despotic regimes do not bite on a Government-sanctioned negotiating machinery.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman will probably recall the years when his party was in government, and no doubt that was what prompted his reference to despotic regimes.

It is our approach to avoid unnecessary confrontation, to ensure that there is a sensible framework for resolving disputes in a way that avoids disruptive strike action, such as occurred in the fire service 18 months ago, and to ensure that the negotiating machinery works properly. I am advised that there is nothing in the provisions of the Bill that would in any way disapply the requirements of other legislation, including that relating to human rights and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the phrasing

''the Secretary of State must consult any persons he considers appropriate''

is included in the consultation obligations. The problem with any over-precise definition of obligations to consult is that it leaves scope for litigation if parties who believe that they should have been included are not. Inevitably, in a sensitive situation, it is desirable not to take the list approach, which we have debated on previous occasions. That can have the perverse consequence of implying that organisations that are not included in the list should be excluded, when that is not the intention; they were simply not thought of at the time the list was compiled. The other unsatisfactory outcome is a very general definition that is open to widespread interpretation and potential litigation.

Against that background, it seems entirely proper that the Secretary of State—who has indicated clearly, throughout the dispute and subsequently, his wish to consult and involve all parties—has had regular meetings with the full range of parties involved. The Under-Secretary and I have also been involved in

discussions with many of the parties involved and will continue to be involved. That is our intention. We have a positive approach to consultation, and the wording of the Bill allows some discretion without vulnerability to litigation. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that that is appropriate.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge asked about the position of retained firefighters. I assure him that the Government is determined that retained firefighters should have full recognition and should be treated in a way that ensures parity with full-time firefighters. Obviously there are variations in terms of the conditions, because retained firefighters also receive a retainer and a fee for individual call-out. There has to be a proper framework for reaching agreement about what the balance of those components should be and how that relates to the position of full-time firefighters. The principle of parity, though, is one that we agree with.

We believe that retained firefighters perform a hugely important role. It is right that they should have certainty and confidence. As the hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted, that may help recruitment in those areas where there is a shortage of retained firefighters. The service's only recruitment difficulties are for retained firefighters, and we want to ensure that practical steps are taken to help overcome those problems.

As far as involvement in the negotiating processes is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know from my earlier answers that we have made it absolutely clear that we want representatives of retained firefighters to be involved. Some are represented by the Fire Brigades Union and some are represented by the retained firefighters union, but we believe that both representative bodies should be able to play a full part in the negotiating machinery, and we have made that quite clear.

The hon. Gentleman raised a question about accommodation for firefighters. He will know that our initiative to provide opportunities for affordable housing for key public sector workers—the starter home initiative—has provided some genuine opportunities for a range of public sector workers. There is indeed a possibility that that will extend to cover certain groups of firefighters. I am keen that that should be the case. We are well aware of the issue of accommodation.

With those remarks, I hope that hon. Members will agree that clause 31 is an important new component that allows the Secretary of State to act if necessary to ensure that there are appropriate negotiating arrangements in place in future that will remedy the deficiencies that were highlighted during the dispute of 2002–03, and will improve enormously the working of the negotiating arrangements for pay and conditions issues in the fire and rescue service. I hope that hon. Members will agree that clause 31 as amended should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Guidance

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 113, in

clause 32, page 14, line 31, leave out subsection (2).

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 114, in

clause 32, page 14, line 39, leave out from 'constituted' to 'negotiation' in line 40 and insert 'for the purpose of'.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

We move on to clause 32, which deals with the guidance that the Secretary of State may issue. We are quite used to perversion of the language being an inevitable by-product of some parliamentary drafting, but the clause does not deal with guidance in the sense that most people would understand the meaning of the word. The Secretary of State is able to issue guidance to which the negotiating body must have regard. That is not a gentle steer, it is a clear requirement to do or not to do something.

Amendment No. 113 would remove subsection (2). Subsection (2) states that the negotiating bodies must have regard to any guidance issued under the clause. By removing the subsection, the guidance becomes guidance: an indication of what the Secretary of State feels is appropriate. It would be a steer rather than something that has to be had regard to when the negotiation process is under way. It is consistent with the approach that I have taken throughout the Bill that we have to defend the independence of the fire and rescue authorities as separate employers. They are not a branch of central Government. The extent of the arrangements gives the Secretary of State effective control of the negotiating procedure without being directly a part of it.

Amendment No. 114 would introduce a more objective test of whether a negotiating body is such a body under the terms of the Bill. At the moment, the definition of a negotiating body in subsection (3)(b) places great weight on whether the arrangements under which that body is constituted

''appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate arrangements for the negotiation of the conditions of service of employees''.

The amendment would seek to reduce that to a requirement that the body is constituted for the purpose of negotiation of the conditions of employment of those employees. In other words, it would be a recognition of the de facto situation. If a body is, de facto, a body representing employees in the negotiating process, it should be recognised as a negotiating body under the provisions.

I think that that is all I want to say at the moment, other than to note that the Secretary of State determining that the constitution of a body is appropriate is not the same as a test that requires a body to be constituted in the customary way for such a body. The requirement seems to be highly arbitrary and I hope that the Minister will say something about the purpose of this curiously phrased subsection.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am afraid that the Opposition have again wholly distorted the purpose of the clause. The preposterous claim that they are somehow defending the independence of the fire and rescue authorities against an over-mighty Government does not accord with reality in any way. If Opposition Members had any experience of the pay negotiating arrangements for comparative public sector bodies, they would realise that the role of the Secretary of State that we envisage in the Bill is far less than in the police negotiations, in which the Home Secretary plays a full part in the negotiating machinery, in the teachers' negotiations, in which the Secretary of State for Education and Skills decides the final outcome for teachers, and in many others. It is preposterous of the Conservative party to claim that this is a centralising measure. It responds to the sensible conclusions of the Bain report to which the Conservative party signed up when they were published 15 or 16 months ago. Conservative Members were full of praise for Bain then, but now, conveniently, they have forgotten.

I shall remind Conservative Members of what Professor Sir George Bain and his team concluded. They were pretty trenchant in their views and stated:

''The current strike seems to demonstrate that the negotiating machinery is ineffective. And during the course of this Review, the evidence we have seen and the discussions we have had have confirmed this view.

Its ineffectiveness can be attributed to a number of factors, including its unwieldy size and its lack of any clear relationship with central government and the policy-making process.

We recommend that the NJC should be replaced by a smaller body, with executive authority to negotiate and the experience and skills to do so. It should include working parties to pursue individual issues, reporting back to the main body, or even standing sub-committees. There should be clear links with Ministers and the policy-making process so that pay and conditions of service fit into context of wider modernisation.''

When they suggested how the negotiating process should proceed in paragraph 10.28, their very first point was:

''Government lays down the policy framework for the Fire Service. This could include annual evidence on pay policy (just like evidence to the Pay Review Bodies).''

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Let the hon. Gentleman listen for a little longer and I will then give way.

That was the Bain recommendation. In our White Paper we set out precisely how we intended to implement those recommendation. Paragraph 7.14 states,

''we intend to take powers to give guidance to any negotiating body which it would have to take into account in its work. The government has a legitimate interest in the outcome of pay negotiations and the impact on public sector pay policy, as well as the impact on the operation of the service, but we should not and do not want to step into the shoes of the fire and rescue authorities as employers. Rather than be drawn into detailed consideration of options as negotiations develop, we will set out our requirements openly before negotiations start. It will then be for the two sides to reach agreement within those limits.''

That is the framework we are putting in place and that is a sensible and responsible way forward. The Opposition's position is, frankly, not credible.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister, as so often, quote the parts of the Bain report that suit him. He told the Committee not half an hour ago that Bain had recommended that the Government should be a full party to the negotiations. He does not want that. He does not want to take the rap for what goes on in the negotiating machinery. He does not want to be responsible. He wants to stand in the wings with powers to issue guidance, which the negotiating body must follow, but be able to stand back, as he did on that fateful Friday morning back in November 2002, and say ''It's nothing to do with me guv, it's about employers and employees negotiating together.'' I would say to the Minister that he should not quote the bits of Bain that suit him without acknowledging that Bain recommended that the Government should take a full, responsible part in the pay negotiations and not merely stand in the wings.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he could not describe anyone more clearly than himself and his party when he talks about standing in the wings and behaving irresponsibly. This Government will take no lessons from the party opposite in handling the firefighters dispute during 2002 and 2003. If the Government had not adopted the stance they did, the hon. Gentleman would now be complaining about the impact of inflationary pay settlements on council tax. We would be hearing a great deal about that from the party opposite. This Government stepped in, in difficult circumstances—as I have already highlighted, there was no proper framework for the Government to be involved, as Bain rightly identified in his report—and we insisted that there must be a clear framework for affordability of any settlement. That is the action of a responsible Government, and it is why we are now putting in place arrangements to ensure that before negotiations begin, the Government spell out the framework in guidance to the negotiating body.

The hon. Gentleman wants to have it both ways. He claims that this is a centralising Government, stepping in and telling the negotiators what to do. He talked about acting to defend the independence of fire and rescue authorities, yet in the next breath he said that we should have been a party to the negotiations. How can he reconcile those two statements? Of course, he cannot. This is an opportunistic Opposition who say one thing at one moment, and another at the next, simply in order to criticise, and not to behave as a responsible Opposition do, which is to try and ensure that there is an appropriate framework in place, allowing improved procedures in future.

I must say that the suggestion that the Secretary of State should be free to issue guidance, but that the body concerned would not have to have regard to it, which is the effect of one of the hon. Gentleman's amendments, is a classic illustration of the irresponsibility and lack of realism of the party opposite. They clearly do not expect to be in government for a very long time. No party that did would be putting forward such ridiculous amendments. These amendments do not deserve any further serious consideration. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman presses them, they will be decisively

rejected, but I actually hope that, in the interests of common sense, he will recognise that they are entirely inappropriate and should be withdrawn.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

There comes a time in every Bill—and it is usually about this stage—when the Minister starts to try to raise the temperature again, because otherwise things flag a little. I normally measure that point in the Bill by how many times per sitting he uses the term ''preposterous''. It is one of his key expressions when stating his views on Opposition positions. I do not see anything preposterous about what I have said today. I thought I was being the opposite of preposterous. What is preposterous is for the Minister now, in the peacetime of 2004, to start abusing the Opposition for the support that we gave the Government during the dispute. The Minister may smile, but he recognises that the Opposition did not take the many chances available during the dispute to be opportunistic, and expressed considerable support for what the Government were doing over that period of time.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Order. I have let the hon. Gentleman make that point, but we should return to the point in hand.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

On the point of guidance I am alarmed at the Minister's suggestion that Governments and parties that seek to be in Government would always support centralising legislation. I can tell him that my party expects to be in government and looks forward to governing over a more decentralised form of management of our public sector institutions, whether they be hospitals, police forces or fire services. Therefore, I am slightly alarmed by some of the things that the Minister has said.

As I read it, the Bain report said that the Government must either be in or be out. Bain clearly had a preference for the Government being in, believing that they should be a full part of the negotiating machinery. I believe that what happened last time was unsatisfactory. The Minister may concur with that. The Government cannot hover in the wings—I cannot think of another way to describe it—either in the negotiating room or apart from the negotiations, exercising a veto but not being responsible for the outcome.

The role of the word ''guidance'' in this context is somewhat ironic. I am thinking now of hot guidance, if I may call it that. The Minister has painted a picture of guidance purely as a framework drawn up in advance of a negotiation, setting parameters. He sought to deflect attention from the possibility that I see in the clause that during the progress of a negotiation, indeed in the middle of the night, the Secretary of State could issue guidance to the negotiating body.

In his own mind the Minister may have a different view about how this will work, because he is privy to the machinations of his own mind. We are not; we can only look at what is in the Bill. I see nothing in the clause that would prevent the Deputy Prime Minister from ringing up the negotiating body when it is ensconced in a hotel in Holborn, or wherever, at

4 o'clock in the morning and issuing it with guidance. That is the kind of guidance that concerns me. It is clearly different from the type that the Minister depicts as wholly benign, a measured mapping out in advance by the Secretary of State of the parameters and financeability of a potential, negotiated solution. I have seen no indication that the Minister wants to rule out the possibility of the Secretary of State issuing on-the-hoof guidance during a negotiation, as occurred during the last negotiation, with ministerial guidance—informal guidance, because it had no statutory backing—being conveyed by civil servants to the negotiating body while it was in progress.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will recall the context of that meeting. In a framework in which the Government had no role in the negotiating procedure, in the middle of the night the parties appeared to be on the point of reaching an agreement that would have allowed a 16 per cent. pay increase, with no link to modernisation and no way of ensuring that savings would be made to help to meet the costs. No responsible Government could face that prospect, which was at considerable variance with what had previously been envisaged, without offering guidance about the affordability of such a package and the fact that the Government could not be expected to stump up the cash to pay for that deal. That was why the Government had to respond. It is precisely to avoid such an eventuality that, in accordance with the clear principles set out in the Bain report, which envisaged the Government starting the process by laying down the policy framework, we are now legislating to allow for an orderly offer of guidance to inform the negotiating process.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I wanted to intervene on the Minister, but then I realised that he was intervening on me. Now that I have resumed the Floor, I can ask him whether he rules out the use of guidance under the clause during a negotiation. Does he limit the guidance to be given under the clause to advance, broad-framework guidance?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Of course not, because in circumstances such as those that occurred in November 2002 guidance is clearly necessary. As I have already stressed, our objective is to set the framework for negotiations with guidance from the Secretary of State on the broad parameters that the parties will need to consider in negotiations over public sector pay policy and affordability. That is much more orderly, and that is what we are providing for.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I thought that I heard the Minister say earlier that if he could set out guidance in advance there would be no need for the middle-of-the-night guidance that he was forced to provide before. We are making little headway and we will once again have to trust the goodwill or judgment of whoever occupies the office of Deputy Prime Minister when the next negotiations or problems arise. I hoped for something more concrete, but I will not delay the Committee any further as we have progress to make.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Hear, hear.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his encouragement. We have not had a contribution from him today—most unusual and most disappointing. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I want to probe the Minister on one issue, for which there may be an explanation. The scope of subsection (3) extends to not only a negotiating body established under clause 31, but any other body appearing to the Secretary of State to have been established in accordance with appropriate arrangements. If we are dealing with a third-party body, which is not established by the Secretary of State and therefore not constrained by clause 31, how are we to enforce the requirement on that body to have regard to guidance given by the Secretary of State?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

That is simply the consequence of the chosen way of proceeding that I have already explained to the Committee. The Government want to encourage a voluntary agreement, in which case, as long as we were satisfied that the arrangements meet the conditions of subsection (3), the body would be treated in the same way as a body constituted by the Secretary of State. We will use the provisions of clause 31 to constitute separate arrangements only where those arrangements do not arise. Guidance has to allow for either circumstance, which is the reason for the wording in subsection (3).

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

If a body constituted by the Secretary of State that has to have regard to guidance failed to do so, he could deal with it because he constituted it. If a body that he has not constituted failed in his view to have regard to his guidance, what would he do? Would he have to use the powers in clause 31 to derecognise it and create a new body?

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the Secretary of State can pull certain levers, including financial support to the fire and rescue service that is provided overwhelmingly by the Government. They would be applied if there were a serious disregard for guidance, leading, for example, to a highly inflationary pay settlement. However there is no explicit provision for taking action if a negotiating party or body does not have regard to the Secretary of State's advice.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that he is confirming that there is not a sense in which action could be taken against the body for breach of its obligation, but there is an obligation placed on the body, which

''must have regard to any guidance''.

If I were a negotiating body established not by any statutory process but by a discussion that I had had informally with other parties, and the Secretary of State chose to recognise me as being an acceptable negotiating body—that is something that he would do unilaterally—I would object to the requirement that I had to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of

State merely because he had unilaterally decided that he wished to recognise me.

If the Minister is telling the Committee that the Secretary of State will use his considerable financial leverage, one is bound to ask why we need the clause at all. He has such leverage and, as we saw, used it in the course of the last dispute.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

The hon. Gentleman recognises that that is the current framework, but it is very messy. The whole purpose of these arrangements is to put in place a more orderly system to ensure that the kind of difficulties that occurred during the dispute of 2002–03 are not repeated. I would have thought that he would have welcomed that.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Of course, I would welcome avoiding the kind of unnecessary and messy dispute that took place. [Interruption.] The Minister says, ''Mmm.'' Perhaps he should have thought of that in the spring and early summer of 2002. We have an answer to the question of how guidance would be enforced against a body other than one constituted under clause 31: there is no formal process, and it would be done by informal means. That perfectly adequate answer tells me what I wanted to know. I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. I wonder whether in consideration of the next set of amendments you might allow a stand part debate on the clause. Given the time, there will be no debate on some of the broader issues, and they will be lost.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

We will just have to see how we go.Clause 33 Pensions etc

Clause 33 - Pensions etc

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I beg to move amendment No. 115, in

clause 33, page 15, line 8, leave out subsection (1)(b).

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 166.

Amendment No. 116, in

clause 33, page 15, line 12, leave out subsection (2)(b).

Amendment No. 117, in

clause 33, page 15, line 23, leave out subsection (2)(f).

Amendment No. 118, in

clause 33, page 15, line 25, leave out subsection (2)(g).

Amendment No. 119, in

clause 33, page 15, line 41, after 'made', insert 'and accepted'.

Government amendment No. 167.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Pensions are a major issue for the fire and rescue services. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Teignbridge wishes to intervene, I will happily take his intervention.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

If pensions are such an important issue, why has the hon. Gentleman filibustered all afternoon, leaving us only 17 minutes to discuss them?

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, he wants to be very careful about the language that he uses. No one has filibustered. If anyone had attempted to, Mr. O'Hara, you would certainly have dealt with them with your customary firm hand. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with the timetable, I suggest that he address himself to the Government Whip, not to Opposition Members. There are two more sittings of this Committee. Most of the remaining clauses are entirely uncontentious, and the amendments are almost exclusively probing or minor amendments. I cannot see that there will be any difficulty in reaching the end of the Bill in the total time available to us. If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with the knife that has been inserted at 5 pm tonight, he must take that up with the Government.

Turning to the question in hand, pensions are a major issue and all fire and rescue services are concerned about the way in which the pension system operates. The Minister has circulated a helpful memorandum on the subject, but I believe that even he would acknowledge that we are not much further forward at present. It is clear that there must be changes to the pension system. The Bill provides a framework to enable that, but my reading of the memorandum is that beyond the broad principles, or aspirations, we are not very far forward in producing the mechanisms that will be deployed to address the problem.

I note, however, that it is intended that firefighters will continue to be dealt with separately from control room and other non-uniformed staff in respect of pensions and pay negotiations. Does the Under-Secretary believe that to some extent that undermines the sensible attempt that the Bill makes to get fire safety and prevention work and community fire education work on a level footing with intervention, as a core part of the fire and rescue service's responsibilities?

As I think everyone concedes, in future firefighters will have to stay in a fire authority's employment for longer. They will not be able to retire at 55, because the world has changed; this is no longer a world in which we can afford to have people retiring at 55. However, it is likely that an increasing number of firefighters will want, at the end of their working lives, to do a period of service in duties other than front-line firefighting. That seems sensible, but we will have to address the issue that pay negotiating arrangements and pension schemes will be different. It is vital to ensure that retained firefighters also have access to the pension scheme. I am pleased that the Government specifically acknowledge that in the memorandum.

Again it falls to me to second-guess the reasoning behind Government amendments Nos. 166 and 167, but first I want to apologise to the Committee for the style of our amendments. I am a great opponent of the lazy opposition school of amending, in which ''leave

out subsection (x)'' is the preferred form. However, in this case, because subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (l), the best way to raise specific issues is to propose leaving out a paragraph so that the Under-Secretary can explain why it needs to be there.

Amendment No. 115 was tabled with the aim of asking two questions. First, why is there a lack of symmetry between subsection (1)(a) and subsection (1)(b)? Paragraph (a) clearly refers to people who have been employed, but paragraph (b) does not refer to people who have died. The Government have now addressed that issue by tabling amendment No. 166, which, using the past tense, refers explicitly to people who have died.

Secondly, why is paragraph (b) necessary at all? Clearly a person who dies, or has died, while employed by a fire and rescue authority or a Scottish fire authority is also, by definition, a person who is or has been employed by that authority. Every person who falls within paragraph (b) will also fall within paragraph (a), so unless I am missing something, paragraph (b) is redundant. I wonder whether there was a particular reason for including it.

Amendment No. 116 would delete subsection (2)(b), which allows employment that is not employment by a fire and rescue authority to be treated as if it were. That is very wide in its scope. The memorandum that the Minister has circulated makes it clear that the subsection deals principally with firefighters who transfer away from operational duties. However, it seems to me that they remain employees of a fire and rescue authority. As I understand it, this subsection is not to deal with firefighters who transfer into non-operational duties with the fire and rescue authority; it can only be to deal with issues relating to firefighters who have ceased to be employed by the fire and rescue authority, because the overarching definition is, as I understand it, ''employee of a fire and rescue authority''. So, I would like the Under-Secretary to tell me what employment he has in mind in subsection (2)(b), which provides for

''treating employment that is not employment by a fire and rescue authority''

as such employment.

Amendment Nos. 117 and 118 seek to leave out subsections (2)(f) and (2)(g) respectively. Those paragraphs give the Secretary of State powers to step into the shoes of a fire and rescue authority and to receive or make payments on behalf of the authority or in respect of a person's past employment. Many authorities would be delighted if the Secretary of State decided to step into their shoes and take over their pension obligations. I strongly suspect that he has no intention of doing so on a general basis. So, before too many bottles of champagne are broken out in authorities throughout the country, perhaps the Under-Secretary could explain the intended purpose and scope of the provisions.

Amendment No. 119 deals with subsection (2)(k) and a specific point that I hope will not be contentious. The paragraph provides for the exclusion or modification of

''rights to compensation or damages in respect of injuries, in cases where awards are made under the scheme''

that the Secretary of State will put in place to persons

''in respect of the injuries''.

The amendment seeks to make it clear that those must be awards that are made and accepted. I take it that the intention is that this is not a unilateral arrangement whereby the making of an award by the scheme or by the employer, without reference to whether the employee accepts the award, precludes or limits the possibility of seeking rights to compensation or damages. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could confirm that.

I dealt with the Government amendment by referring to it earlier, because it largely addresses the purpose of amendment No. 115. I hope that the Under-Secretary can respond to the other part of its purpose.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

By way of introduction, it may be helpful to explain the intention of the clause. It re-enacts existing powers in section 26 of the 1947 Act, which allows the Secretary of State to bring into operation pensions schemes for persons employed by a fire or rescue authority or by a Scottish fire authority. We referred to schemes in the plural so that there is no doubt that, as well as bringing in the new pension arrangements that we believe are necessary for the new, modernised fire and rescue service, we can retain the existing scheme and have a separate scheme for death and injury benefits.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

One of the problems faced by the present pension scheme is that its funding comes out of revenue. Does the Under-Secretary have any proposals to change that for the existing scheme, so that fire authorities do not have it coming out of their revenue every year?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I will come to that point in due course.

The third scheme will be required because we need to separate out death and injury benefits resulting from work-related incidents from the pension arrangements, both in the current and any future pension scheme. It is no longer considered permissible under existing pension legislation to include compensation arrangements in a new pension scheme. We are reviewing pension arrangements and aim to publish our proposals for change for public consultation in June.

The reference to Scotland is necessary because, although firefighting and fire safety have been devolved to Scotland since 1947, pensions remain a reserved matter. We deal in clause 60 with the application of clauses 33 to 35 to Scotland. Subsection (2) sets out the matters that may be included in a scheme made under subsection (1), including such matters as who may be members, the transfer arrangements for people joining the scheme from another scheme, contribution rates for employees and employers and payment of compensation or damages in respect of injuries. It also, at paragraph (e), enables new funding arrangements to be established. That is, I think, what the hon. Member for Teignbridge is concerned about. Firefighters' pensions are currently paid from revenue, and

pension contributions are treated as revenue by fire and rescue authorities. Central Government revenue support grant reflects year-on-year increases in those pension costs, but it is based on average costs across the country rather than the actual spend of an authority.

The problem for fire and rescue authorities, which also arises for police authorities, is that there is volatility in pensions expenditure caused, for example, by the uneven incidence of lump sum retirement payments. That was considered in 2001, and possible solutions were identified. We will be considering those in the context of the modernisation programme. As a consequence, we are providing for an extension of the matters which may be included in any scheme to cover the provision of employer contributions and the payment of contributions into a fund. We can then make different arrangements for financing and funding pensions if that appears, following consultation, to be the best practical solution to the present problems confronting authorities in financing pensions.

Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 remedy a small omission in the Bill. We need to retain the powers that the Secretary of State already has under section 16 of the Superannuation Act 1972 in relation to pension schemes made by order under section 26 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Section 16 allows for any scheme made under the 1947 Act to have effect from a date earlier than the making of the order, so we need to ensure that orders made under clause 33(3) can operate on the same basis. That enables us to remedy, for example, any defect in the pension scheme which may become apparent as a consequence of a decision of the courts, perhaps in relation to another pension scheme, or where consultation has delayed amendments necessitated by changes in pension law more generally. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

I turn now to the amendment No. 115 tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. The purpose of subsection (1)(b) is to enable any scheme made under the clause to make provision for the payment of pensions, allowances and gratuities in respect of persons who die while employed by a fire and rescue authority or by a Scottish fire authority. It replicates provision made in section 26(1) of the 1947 Act and puts it beyond any doubt that any scheme may make provision for the payment of benefits in respect of people who die while in service, whether they die in exercise of their duties or for any other reason. That is why we are repeating in the Bill that provision from the 1947 Act.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

You do not need to do it.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The hon. Gentleman says that, but we repeat it to put the matter beyond any reasonable doubt.

Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 would seek to limit the freedom of the Secretary of State to recruit permanent staff into Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate, or into other posts, particularly training

posts at the Fire Service College. While such staff may be willing to transfer any pension rights into a scheme established for their new employment or to defer their rights in any scheme established for the fire and rescue service, that may not be satisfactory, or in the best interests of the individual, who may be disadvantaged by such a change in their pension arrangements.

If we are to ensure that we can attract good staff to central service, which will benefit the advice and training that can be given, we need to ensure that members of the fire and rescue service do not believe that their benefits, including their pension, will be adversely affected. The provision will also allow us to respect our obligations to members of the fire and rescue service who join the reserve forces and would otherwise run the risk of being adversely affected because a fire and rescue authority would not be able to treat any periods of service in the reserve forces, the Territorial Army, as pensionable service.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara, will you clarify whether it is possible for the Programming Sub-Committee to be reconvened at any point when the Committee is sitting?

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

As long as there is time to do so. I do not know that there is time for the Programming Sub-Committee to meet and for me to wield the knife, as I am instructed to do, at five o'clock.

Nick Raynsford (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Further to that point of order, Mr. O'Hara. May I suggest that we have an immediate meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, if that is in order? It may facilitate arrangements to lift the knife so that this debate can continue on Tuesday morning.

Edward O'Hara (Labour, Knowsley South)

Let us do that.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Resolved,

That proceedings on the Bill from Clauses 25 to 51 should conclude at 5 pm at the 10th sitting.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Amendment No. 118 would prevent people who move from employment with one fire and rescue authority to a new authority, or who take employment with the Secretary of State on central service, from transferring their pension rights under arrangements which are set out in the Firemen's Pension Scheme Order 1992 and which predate that order. Under those arrangements, payments representing the cash value of pension rights earned by the individual's service in the employment of the first employer are calculated by reference to actuarial tables and are paid to the new employee. Acceptance of the amendment would mean that the existing arrangements for transferring pension rights could not continue to operate under any new scheme. These have worked well in practice and are understood by firefighters, which is why we cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 119 would not seem to provide any safeguard for either a fire and rescue authority or a firefighter. I shall explain that. The 1992 order

provides for injury awards to be made when a firefighter is permanently disabled as a result of a qualifying injury and is retired. If the person has a qualifying injury—one that, for example, occurred in the execution of his duties—he is entitled to an injury award which is determined by reference to loss of earnings. If the person is entitled to any other benefits—for example, payable by the Department for Work and Pensions—the award will be reduced by an equivalent amount to avoid duplication.

I can give the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge the assurance that he requires. If the firefighter is not content with an award, there will be rights of appeal under any new scheme as there are under the existing scheme. If the firefighter received an injury award, he would not be prevented from suing for negligence any person or body, including a fire and rescue authority, and that would not affect any benefits paid under the 1992 pension scheme. However, certain compensation payments paid under the firefighters conditions of service—the grey book—are liable to be offset by other compensation payments because they are regarded as an alternative to no-fault compensation payments, and the offset safeguards the financial position of the fire and rescue authority. Entitlement to benefits under the 1992 order is a right subject to the provisions of the scheme and not a

matter at the discretion of the fire and rescue authority. There is no need for a requirement in such circumstances for an individual to accept any award.

With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have dealt with all his concerns and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to explain the purpose of the provisions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 166, in

clause 33, page 15, line 8, after 'die' insert 'or have died'.

No. 167, in

clause 33, page 15, line 44, at end insert—

'(2A) An order under this section may take effect from a date which is earlier than that on which the order is made.'.—[Phil Hope.]

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Five o'clock until Tuesday 2 March at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.