Orders of the Day — Fire and Rescue Services Bill

House of Commons, 21 July 2004.

Clause 2 — Power to create combined fire and rescue authorities

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendments No. 10. If the House agrees to the amendment, I will arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 and 13.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Before I come to the amendments, the House will be aware of yesterday's tragic events, which resulted in the death of two London firefighters, Bill Faust and Adam Meere, who were both from Whitechapel fire station. In paying tribute to them today, the Prime Minister recognised the debt that we owe firefighters and the risks that they run to protect people at home and at work. I echo those sentiments and express my personal sadness at those tragic events. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the families, friends and colleagues of Bill Faust and Adam Meere, to whom I extend my heartfelt sympathy.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

May I associate everyone on this side of the House with the Minister's remarks and the message of sympathy that he sent to the bereaved families and colleagues of Bill Faust and Adam Meere? No one in this House needs reminding of the risks that firefighters take day in, day out in their duty to protect the public, and no one needs reminding of the vital service that our fire and rescue services deliver to the community.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I shall deal first with Lords amendment No. 1, which was tabled in response to arguments put forward by Members of both Houses. As originally drafted, clause 2 generated a good deal of concern. It was seen—we remember the debates in Committee—as giving the Secretary of State carte blanche to create regional fire and rescue authorities, whether or not a referendum was being held on the creation of a regional assembly. Because it left the matter of holding an inquiry to the Secretary of State's discretion, some also felt that it allowed the Government to ride roughshod over local objections.

We have not, of course, always accepted those interpretations, and we made it clear throughout the Bill's passage that we have no plans to regionalise the fire and rescue service outside those parts of England in which an elected regional assembly is supported in a referendum. Assurances have been given in both Houses that the only circumstances in which we envisage using the original power in clause 2(2)(b) involve urgent public safety—in particular, if authorities fail to co-operate on a key resilience requirement such as the creation of a regional control centre.

In the light of the Opposition's continued attempts to present that power as a licence to regionalise by stealth, however, we decided to make our intentions clear in the Bill. Hon. Members may recall that we responded to an Opposition amendment in Standing Committee by agreeing that an inquiry into a combination scheme will be mandatory apart from in a very limited number of circumstances—for example, if the authorities themselves suggest the scheme or where urgent public safety needs cannot tolerate any delay. In our view, clause 2 now addresses all the legitimate concerns raised by Members in both Houses.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 also respond to arguments put forward in both Houses. There has been considerable debate about whether local authorities, as well as fire and rescue authorities, should be included in the list of those consulted on the making, variation or revocation of combination schemes. To allay the concerns expressed, we have stated and restated our aim to allow for the widest possible involvement of all affected stakeholders, including, of course, local authorities. We did not wish, however, to list in the legislation every category of organisation that should be consulted on a scheme, on the basis that such a list could never be exhaustive.

That said, we accept the argument that local authorities are in a unique position and that the Bill should reflect that. Local authorities are the democratically elected bodies representing the people of the areas involved in any proposed combination scheme, and they are also, of course, the bodies from which the existing fire and rescue authorities are themselves constituted. Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 therefore add an explicit requirement for the Secretary of State to consult local authorities on the making, variation or revocation of combination schemes, where all or part of their area forms part of the area which would be, or is, covered by the scheme. I hope that hon. Members recognise that that demonstrates our commitment to an inclusive approach and the Bill's non-partisan nature.

Lords amendment No. 13 is consequential and simply adds a new clause in order to define the term "local authority" for the purposes of the Bill—specifically, the amendments relating to consultation.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am sorry the Minister feels that he must refer to the Opposition parties' attempt to paint this as some sort of covert regionalisation. Perhaps during the next few minutes we shall discover just how far the Government have backed away from that covert regionalisation—or not, as the case may be.

As the Minister said, clause 2(2)(a) of the original Bill allowed the Secretary of State to create a combined fire and rescue authority where that was

"in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness".

I do not think anyone has ever argued that the Secretary of State should not have that power. The original Bill, however, went on to create a second ground, quite independent of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It would have allowed the Secretary of State to create a combined fire and rescue authority simply on the ground that the area he proposed to be the area of the combined fire and rescue authority was that of a regional development agency—in other words, one of the Government's nine English regions.

The Government have made no secret of their proposal, in the event of elected regional assemblies being established in any of the English regions—perhaps I should say "the increasingly unlikely event"—to create a regional fire and rescue service covering an entire region. Be it the north-west region with its 6 million population, stretching from the Scottish border to Crewe, or the rather smaller north-east region with its population of 3 million, the Government in their wisdom have decided that it would be appropriate to have a single fire and rescue authority there.

Many Conservative Members, as well as Liberal Democrat Members—not noted for their hostility to the Government's broader regional agenda—and indeed Labour Members, have expressed serious doubts about the appropriateness of that proposal. We could argue until late into the night about whether regions are appropriate for other purposes, but they were clearly not designed for the purpose of operational effectiveness of fire and rescue services. I am sure that others will cite instances in which regionally organised fire and rescue services might not be the best idea.

I think there was a broad feeling that if the Secretary of State wanted to proceed with combined fire and rescue authorities based on the nine English regions—or the eight outside London—he should justify that by demonstrating, as he would in the case of any combined fire authority whose boundaries were not coterminous with an RDA region, that it was in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the service. He should not be able to get around that test.

When we introduced amendments to that effect in the Commons, the Government rejected them. They were introduced again by my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield, and again were not accepted. A little later the Government presented their own proposal to amend clause 2, broadening the definition of economy, efficiency and effectiveness to include public safety. That was curious, as we had been told in Committee that the term "public safety" was not required because "economy, efficiency and effectiveness" embraced the concept of enhancing public safety. The Government obviously decided that they had been ill-advised in that regard. They also eliminated clause 2(2)(b) altogether. Under the current Bill, the Secretary of State no longer has powers to create a combined fire and rescue authority simply because it is coterminous with an English regional boundary. That does not mean that he could not create such a combined fire authority. He would have to demonstrate merely that it was in the interests of the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the service and in the interests of public safety to do so.

We have no problem with that. If the optimum structure of fire and rescue services to deliver the best service to the community happens to be coterminous with an RDA region—I would be very surprised but if it happens to be thus—so be it. That must be the sole criterion against which these things are measured.

Since I do not imagine that the Government have abandoned their plan to create regional fire and rescue authorities, should elected regional assemblies be created, regardless of whether they are in the interests of the service in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and regardless of whether they are in the interests of greater public safety, we now need to understand how the Government will create such fire and rescue authorities. The Minister did not utter a word about that, presumably because the power to do so, overriding the criteria in this Bill, will be provided in the, shall we say, elusive draft regional assemblies powers Bill.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Patience.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister says, "Patience." I do not know how long Labour Members are expecting to stay here as we approach the summer recess, but I am getting decreasingly optimistic about seeing the draft powers Bill before I jump on my aeroplane to go on my summer holidays. I understand that the other place will consider the orders that we considered this afternoon tomorrow. Presumably, that makes the earliest time that the Government will be prepared to publish the draft Bill Friday—

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Tomorrow.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

We have an announcement that the draft powers Bill will be published tomorrow. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell the House, because it is clearly germane to understanding these amendments, whether the draft Bill will contain the power that Ministers will, I think, need if they are to go ahead with combined regional fire authorities in any regions that opt, in the referendums in November, to have elected regional assemblies. Then he could explain why it is appropriate to override the test that a Government amendment has now clearly written into this Bill in clause 2 and to provide for delivery of combined fire authorities in regions that do not have to satisfy the tests of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and public safety.

We had these debates when the Bill was considered in Committee and on Report, and they took place again in the other place. While a casual glance at the revised Bill may suggest that the Government made a major concession, I suspect that we will hear that the powers to which we object to create regional combined authorities without passing the hurdles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and public safety will still exist but in a different form.

I welcome amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and consequential amendment No. 13. We had debates about the level of consultation that should take place. It is clearly right that the underlying local authorities as well as the relevant fire and rescue authorities should be consulted. Why do we always have to allow the other place to get the credit for introducing eminently sensible small amendments? Why cannot we agree them in Committee in this place, instead of Ministers exercising a predictable stubbornness throughout the process, allowing the other place to get the credit for improving our legislation? I await with interest what the Minister has to say to clarify the position regarding amendment No. 1.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I welcome the additional safeguards, which will at least give us an opportunity to debate the appropriate arrangements for any new body to oversee the fire and rescue services for my area in Gloucestershire, as well as further afield in the south-west. We have rehearsed the implications for Gloucestershire of losing its tri-service control if the fire service control were taken to a different place. As the Minister knows, Gloucestershire has a bid in to be the centre for either part of the region or the whole of region. I suspect it would be the former.

Lest anyone think that this is an academic debate, while we are debating a change to the place where the fire service is run, there are also debates taking place within the police and the ambulance service about similar reorganisations. I am seeking further assurances from the Government; if these services are subject to any changes, rather than piecemeal debates, we should have an open and transparent debate and look at the strengths and weaknesses of how the services are organised.

Although I am critical of the organisation of counties in some respects, certainly county councils, I see some merit in the emergency services coming together. I am worried that even with the additional safeguards in the Bill, there is a slippery slope down which we are passing. If we lose the fire service from the local area, the police and the ambulance service are bound to follow because of the arguments regarding economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It would be far less effective if the three services were not together.

I ask the Minister to give an assurance that if we look at these matters, we do so with the benefit of full consultation. We ought to listen to the people who run the services as well as those who benefit from them. At the moment, they are not convinced about a sub-regional provision, let alone a regional provision. It is right and proper that people should have their opinions listened to.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The hon. Gentleman may wish to draw attention to the fact that regardless of whether the Government create combined fire authorities in a region, regionalisation is taking place through the regional management boards and the creation of just nine fire control rooms for the whole of England.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I am well aware of that and it may be that that train is well on its way. I want to ensure that if that train reaches its destination, the rest of the trains do not have to follow. There is a great deal of interest in this matter, more so than the Government think. People want to be consulted. I hope that Ministers give assurances that there will be a proper debate, that people will be listened to and that the case—if there is one—to stay as we are or to do something slightly different can be factored in rather than wiped out.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

First, I wish to add my words of sympathy and those of my party to those of the Minister and the Conservative Opposition with regard to the two firemen who lost their lives tragically in Bethnal Green. We all know that firemen put their lives at risk every day. The public tend to hear only about disasters such as Chernobyl and 11 September, but other incidents do occur. Indeed, I found this loss particularly poignant and sad because during the war, my father was a firefighter who covered the Bethnal Green area.

I largely agree with the point that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made about giving credit where it is due. It is a shame that it was necessary for the Lords to produce an amendment that says almost exactly what we had already said in Committee. The Minister previously said that the inclusion of a reference to public safety was "unnecessary and potentially unhelpful". He has clearly changed his mind, and I am glad to learn that he has listened to the argument that was advanced.

Of course, amendment No. 1 is not exactly the same as the original amendment. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I pointed out, we are not parliamentary draftsmen; rather, we were simply trying to establish a principle.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Government opposed the principle.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

They opposed it not just in the detail but substantively.

In Committee, we sought to create safeguards in respect of the establishment of regional fire authorities, and the amendments before us go some way towards doing that. Even so, certain issues remain outstanding and the Government will be judged by their actions, rather than their words. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) will know, people in the south-west fear the prospect of a region stretching from his part of the world all the way down to Penzance. There is real concern in the south-west at the prospect of regional management boards and a single control room for the entire area.

The Minister still has the opportunity to say that it would make sense to have two regional control rooms in the south-west. That would be a step forward, and it would make more sense than having just one regional control room located in Bristol or Exeter. The hon. Member for Stroud made a very good case for having a tri-service control room, but he knows that he is fighting a hard, if not losing battle in that regard. The people of Cornwall would be extremely upset to discover that their control centre was in Gloucestershire.

I am not going to rehearse the various debates that we had in Committee. The Minister made it clear then that computers and other new technology will ensure that everything works fine. Since then, I have spoken to various people in the service and they are not convinced; they would like a little more flexibility.

Legitimate concerns about regionalisation remain. Hard-won concessions on inquiries were secured in Committee, and other more minor concessions have been made. The reputation of this House would be higher if, instead of fighting over adding the odd word or phrase such as "public safety", we took a more consensual approach to these matters. Had we done so in Committee, the Bill, instead of being good—substantially, it is good—would have been very good.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I thank Members for their contributions. It is slightly odd to be criticised for being a listening Government—a Government who understand the points that are being made, be it on Second Reading, in Committee, on Third Reading, on Report or in the other place. It seems a shame that we could not get some recognition for the fact that we listened to the concerns of Members from all parts of the House.

I should make it clear that as a result of the amendments, we could have combinations of fire and rescue authorities below, at and above the regional level. That flexibility remains, and the safeguards are in the Bill.

The draft regional assemblies Bill, which will be published very shortly, will explain how, if there is an elected regional assembly, responsibility for fire and rescue services will be at the regional level. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will have to wait—I hope he does not miss his flight tomorrow—but it will not be for long, and when he has seen the draft Bill we can have the discussions about that.

We responded to the concerns expressed in Committee, and now we have an alternative approach.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Without giving away too much about the still under wraps Bill, can the Minister tell us whether it contains any test for the creation of a regional fire and rescue authority similar to the one in this Bill? Is there a requirement that it be demonstrably in the interests of safety or indeed efficiency, economy and effectiveness?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to have early sight of certain parts of a Bill yet to be published, but I regret that I cannot satisfy him on this occasion. I am sure that when he sees the Bill tomorrow he will be as pleased as we are about the powers that regional assemblies will have to provide a better focus for the regions of the north.

I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about regional control centres. The national framework, which he has no doubt seen, clearly states the rationale for introducing a network of regional control rooms, because of the need to support resilience requirements and achieve major efficiencies that consultants have pointed out. I cannot say any more to him about the actual process, as we are right in the middle of it, with bids being received for control centres in various regions and being properly and fully evaluated. The decision on regional control rooms followed wide consultation, and a detailed appraisal is now being made of the bids.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister mentioned the national framework and what it says about regional control rooms. Can he confirm that, following other amendments that the Government tabled in the Lords, it is a draft national framework and it will not have effect until both Houses agree to the order that implements it?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The framework currently before us is already in operation, although it is true that we have made a further concession, and I will say more about that when we get to the relevant amendments. An order will need to be made through the negative resolution procedure for the draft national framework in the future. The current framework is being used by fire and rescue authorities as guidance. We are introducing a contract between central Government and fire and rescue authorities, which will have the strength of being approved through negative resolution as part of this legislation.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am confused, and I seek the Minister's guidance. Lords amendment No. 5 introduces a provision whereby the framework will

"have effect only when brought into effect by the Secretary of State by order."

If—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. We must not get into the next group of amendments. Let us dispose of the first group first.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

On that point of clarification, to come into effect in law, the national framework will require a statutory instrument, but in effect it is being put into operation now in relationships between Government and fire and rescue authorities. It is working, but it is in draft form and becomes legal when the order is made. I am sorry if I have strayed into other territory, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I did not want the hon. Gentleman to be misled.

On the question raised by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) we were not opposed to use of the term "public safety" in principle when we were in Committee. Indeed, I have read the Committee Hansard and it was made quite clear in those proceedings that the Government intended to keep clause 2(2)(b) in the interests of public safety. The fact is that we have listened and responded positively and we are now including a reference to public safety, as the hon. Gentleman requested. We could not accept the amendment that he proposed in Committee because it was technically flawed. I do not want to rehearse the arguments about why it was flawed, but that is why we did not accept it.

With those points of clarification, I urge the House to accept the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 21 — Fire and Rescue National Framework

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 9 and No.14.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Lords amendment No. 5 acknowledges and addresses the concerns that were raised in the House and in the other place about the level of parliamentary scrutiny attached to the national framework—an item that we were discussing just a moment ago. Concerns were raised that Parliament would not get an opportunity to examine the framework before it came into effect. The amendment meets those concerns by requiring the Secretary of State to make an order, subject to negative resolution, to bring the national framework into effect. An order would also have to be made before the Secretary of State can introduce any "significant" changes to the framework. By "significant", we mean that the revision represents a change in policy or a new requirement for fire and rescue authorities. The amendment will provide Parliament with an opportunity for greater scrutiny and I hope that it will reassure those who were concerned that there had been insufficient opportunity to examine the national framework.

Turning briefly to Lords amendment No. 14, it is straightforwardly consequential on Lords amendment No. 5. It removes clause 60(2), which at present disapplies the reference to "Parliament" in clause 21(6) to the exercise of the Bill's powers by the National Assembly for Wales for the simple reason that it is the UK Parliament, not the Welsh one. Lords amendment No. 14, if agreed to, will mean that clause 21(6) no longer includes such a reference—hence clause 60(2) is unnecessary.

Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9 commit the Government to reporting to Parliament on the extent to which fire and rescue authorities are acting in accordance with the national framework at least once in every two years. The Bill as originally drafted stated that the Secretary of State would report on the national framework from "time to time", which had been interpreted as a somewhat vague commitment, and while we always intended to make regular reports to Parliament, we believe that the amendments present a clearer timetable for that process.

Finally, Lords amendment No. 6 builds into the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on and publish an intervention protocol under which the powers to intervene in clause 22 would be exercised. We have always said that we are happy to follow the provisions of the local government intervention protocol in exercising those powers. We therefore propose to consult fire and rescue service stakeholders on the application of the local government intervention protocol to the powers contained in clause 22. That will give fire and rescue authorities and other stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the procedures that we will follow, should intervention under clause 22 prove necessary.

Since the local government intervention protocol is specifically designed to address the needs of poorly performing authorities, we believe that it will be appropriate to apply it to the powers contained in clause 22. However, the amendment gives us the opportunity to review the protocol if, following consultation, it becomes clear that there are additional factors that need to be taken into account. Following all necessary consultation, we will publish the protocol that has been agreed. I hope that this provision, in addition to our previous amendment to clause 21, which makes the national framework subject to parliamentary approval, serves to address the concerns that the Opposition have expressed about the way in which the powers in clause 22 may be used in practice.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I wish that it had been this easy in Standing Committee. I wish that the Minister had agreed at that time that the Opposition's comments and concerns were justified, and that he had said that he would take them on board immediately and incorporate them in the Bill. We could have saved ourselves a lot of time and trouble.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

No, we could not.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister says that we could not have done that, but we will examine that in a moment.

As the Minister said, Lords amendment No. 5 provides for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the national framework. As I shall explain, we think that that is very important. In Committee, we moved similar amendments, although they were less strong than these. Lords amendment No. 91, rejected in Standing Committee, would have required the Houses of Parliament merely to note the national framework.

We agree that the Government's solution is better, and it is more than I dared to ask for in Committee. It is excellent that the Government now require a statutory instrument to be used in this matter. However, it is a pity that the Government rejected our amendment, which required that Parliament should have to do something positive—that is, take note of the document—before the framework came into effect. At the time, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said:

"The process of parliamentary scrutiny has many virtues, but it does not encourage the production of intelligible and easily accessible documents. I counsel the hon. Gentleman"—

that is, me—

"against pursuing the amendment, which could seriously undermine the value of the national framework as an accessible document, which people involved and interested in the fire and rescue services can read and understand without referring to a lawyer."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 243.]

Yet that is the same national framework that the Minister is now laying before us with a provision that will render it subject to parliamentary scrutiny by means of a statutory instrument. Apparently, he no longer thinks that it will be impossible for people to understand it without the aid of a lawyer. That is an interesting turn of events.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

The hon. Gentleman is too kind to the Minister.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Perhaps I am too kind, and I am sure that other hon. Members will contribute to the debate in a moment.

We are delighted that we have got what we wanted—the proper parliamentary scrutiny of the framework. Coincidentally, the final draft version of the framework has just been published. I confess that I have not had a chance to read it in minute detail but, as the Ministers will know, this has been a busy week for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It would be helpful if the Minister were to tell the House whether there are any substantive changes from the draft that hon. Members absorbed all those months ago.

Anyone glancing at the document will see how substantive it is. It is longer than the Bill. The Bill effectively incorporates the framework, by reference, so that the framework is to a large extent the meat in the Bill's sandwich. It deals with vital matters such as targets. The Minister does not like me talking about targets, but they are one reason why we were so concerned to secure proper parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the national framework.

Last year, Ministers changed the targets for accidental fire deaths in the home, and for deliberate fires. They extended the deadline for achieving a certain percentage reduction in accidental deaths in the home from 2004 to 2010—a massive relaxation of the target. They also reduced substantially the target for the number of deliberately caused fires, saying that the collapse in the scrap metal market made it difficult to achieve.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Correct.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

The Minister says that that is correct, but the changes were sneaked out without fanfare. The fact that they had been made emerged only in debate.

Quite properly, the targets are at the heart of the framework document. They are the objectives that everything else in that document drives towards. If Ministers want to change such substantive matters of policy, that deserves some scrutiny. Changes should not just be sneaked in. The targets presented in the framework document will, I assume, be capable of being scrutinised when we get the statutory instrument in due course, presumably in the autumn or spill-over sittings.

When the Minister winds up, perhaps he can tell us something about the situation on targets for a reduction in deliberate fires. Ministers have made great play of the problems in the scrap metal market as a driver of their need to relax those targets, but I read articles in the Sunday newspapers this week telling us that the scrap metal industry would effectively shut down on Monday and no longer accept redundant vehicles for processing. That was because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in implementing EU directives on landfill and the classification of waste as hazardous, had failed to clarify the status of what is known, inelegantly, as shredder residue from the scrapped car processing industry. My immediate thought when I read that article was of the Minister and his problem with the 35,000 redundant vehicles that the scrap processing industry would no longer accept. What is happening, and what will it do to the targets set out in the national framework for a reduction in deliberately set fires? Are we not on the brink of a massive explosion in the number of abandoned vehicles on our streets? Local authorities will have to deal with them, and many will be the subject of arson attacks.

Integrated risk management programmes and regional management boards are vital components of the Government's programme, as set out in the national framework, but they do not appear in the Bill. The national framework, in many ways, is the substantive document and the Bill is the enabling mechanism.

Lords amendment No. 6 deals with the intervention protocol. We tabled an amendment and debated the issue in Committee that made the same proposal. The Minister gave us an assurance that the local government intervention code would be used, and I understand that that is still the starting point for Ministers. However, Ministers have recognised that, in the special circumstances of the fire and rescue services, especially a failing fire and rescue service, it might be a good idea to have a consultation with the various stakeholders to see whether any mission-specific provisions need to be included in the intervention code to make it fit for the purpose of dealing with a failing fire and rescue service. That is eminently sensible, but it could have been done in the Commons, saving the Lords a lot of time. In fact, it could have saved the Commons a lot of time arguing over the same issues, in Committee and on Report.

Similarly, we are delighted that the Government have accepted, in Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9, a requirement to report not less than once in every two years to Parliament. Those were almost precisely the words of the amendment we tabled in Committee, which stated,

"leave out 'from time to time' and insert 'at least once in every two years'".

The Minister will, no doubt, have a convoluted argument, devised by highly paid civil servants, as to why those words would not do the job as well as Lords amendment No. 9, but we cannot help feeling that it would be nice, once in a while, if such amendments could be accepted in the Commons.

Perhaps when amending clause 24 the Government should have considered including a provision for a report on their performance against the national framework. There will be reports on the performance of fire and rescue authorities and on the Government's interventions where they fail. I have already mentioned that the Government slacked off in achieving their objectives under the national framework relating to targets on dealing with deliberately set fires and accidental fire deaths in the home, so it would be interesting for an annual report to be made to Parliament, in which the Government carry out a self-assessment on how they are achieving those objectives.

There are three improvements to the Bill in this group and we welcome them. It is a shame about the way they were made.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

Earlier, the Minister complained that we had not given him credit for the fact that the Government were listening. We are grateful to the Government for listening but, although we support the amendments, we are concerned that the tone of the debate has become slightly Shakespearean. I am referring not to the Minister's oratorical style—or suggesting that he is speaking in rhyme—but to the fact that Shakespeare rewrote a lot of history. I suspect that some of what Ministers are telling us today is a rewriting of what actually happened in Committee.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

While the hon. Gentleman was listening to the Minister lauding this listening Government, did he notice that they seem to be better at listening in the House where they do not have a majority than in the one where they normally can command a majority?

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point—that may have something to do with it.

The Government told us that the amendments could not be tabled earlier due to technicalities and that it was not a matter of principle. However, when we were discussing amendments to clause 22 in Committee, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said:

"In our view, the amendments are unnecessary and remove the flexibility for the Secretary of State to respond effectively to a range of circumstances when deciding, for example, on priorities and objectives for the service."

Later, he said:

"I would not want to undermine the document by turning it into a statutory instrument."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 238–242.]

I am pleased that the Government have listened and we give them credit for that. Our debate in Committee would have been shorter and more conciliatory if they had listened to us then, but I am pleased that they have listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) who tabled the amendments in Committee. I congratulate him on tabling them and the Government on eventually listening.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I shall try not to speak in iambic pentameters—[Interruption.] I know about iambic pentameters—I went to a comprehensive school.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) described the amendments as excellent. I am glad that he is so pleased. I want to make it clear that the amendment means that there will be an order by negative resolution to bring the national framework into effect. We are not turning the framework itself into a statutory instrument, but an order will have to be passed by the House.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Can the Minister explain to those of us who are not well versed in the subtleties of such things the difference between the order being effectively in effect, with everybody having to abide by it, and legally in effect? What would be the situation if the House chose not to approve the order to bring the national framework into effect, when regional centres and control rooms have been reorganised on the back of it?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

There will be a lot of disappointed people in the fire and rescue services—as my right hon. Friend the Minister has just told me. The debate on targets that the hon. Gentleman would like us to engage in, but on which I shall not be drawn, is one that he may choose to initiate when we debate the order to bring the national framework into effect. It is a matter for him and other hon. Members to take that option if they so wish.

There are no substantive changes to the original draft. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge wants to see the detailed responses to the consultation on the original draft, he is more than welcome to look them up on the ODPM website, which is excellent, and I recommend other hon. Members to use it.

On the local government intervention protocol, it is true that we have taken on board hon. Members' views. The hon. Gentleman does not like the fact that we did not accept the amendment that he tabled in Committee. Let us say that we have taken the spirit of the intent of that amendment—flawed though it was—and drafted a better amendment. It is the privilege of Government to be able to do that.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) supports what we are doing, and I am glad that we have achieved consensus across all parties on accepting the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 33 — Pensions etc.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may discuss Lords amendment Nos. 15 to 17.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Lords amendment No. 10 would rectify a possible gap in the powers to establish arrangements for the funding of fire and rescue service pensions. My colleague, Lord Rooker, made it clear when moving the amendment in the other place that the White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service", committed us to

"introduce alternative arrangements for local authority funding of service pensions, in consultation with the fire and rescue authorities".

In 2001, a joint Treasury, Home Office and Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions working group reviewed the current finance arrangements for funding police and firefighter pensions and recommended that a new pension account system should be developed. We announced our intent to pursue that option in the 2004–05 fire and rescue national framework, which was published on 16 July.

The underlying principle of the scheme is that Government would pay current pensions and that employers and employees would make contributions to the Government to meet future pension liabilities. In practical terms, authorities would pay pensions from a separate pension account to which employers and employees both contribute. Normally, a payment would be made by the Government to the fire and rescue authorities to balance the account at the end of the year. Provision for those payments could be made under clause 33(2)(e).

An authority's pensions account could be in surplus at the end of the year— the contribution that it and its employees made to future liabilities exceeded the authority's existing pensions payments. Therefore, to ensure that the system works fairly and consistently and to protect the national taxpayer and other authorities, we need to ensure that a balancing payment can be made to central Government. New clause 33(2)(ea), proposed under Lords amendment No. 10, would permit such payments to be made.

Lords amendments No. 15 and 16 amend clause 61, so that all the provisions in schedules 1 and 2, which amend or repeal pension legislation, extend to Scotland. Lords amendment No. 17 amends the reference to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, in schedule 1, so that it applies to Scottish fire authorities in the same way as it does to English and Welsh fire and rescue authorities. Pensions are a reserved matter in relation to Scotland.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I think that the Minister will find that Lord Evans, and not Lord Rooker, moved the relevant amendment in the other place.

The Minister will forgive me for being slightly suspicious and sceptical of any provision enabling money to be paid to the Secretary of State that is inserted late into arrangements for the operation of a pension fund set up for the benefit of employees. We remember the Chancellor's attempt to get himself paid from pension funds, with his £5 billion annual pension smash-and-grab raid. We want to be sure that this is not another smash-and-grab raid on employees' pensions funds.

When Lord Evans moved the amendment in the other place, he said:

"However, it is possible that an authority's pension account will be in surplus at the end of the year—in other words, that the contribution that it and its employees make to future liabilities will exceed its existing pension payments. Therefore, to ensure that the system works in a fair and consistent way, we need to ensure that a balancing payment could be made to central government."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 May 2004; Vol. 661, c. GC 414.]

I had always worked on the assumption that if employees and employers over-contributed to future liabilities, the benefit of that over-contribution would accrue to future contributors, who would need to contribute a little less.

I hope the Minister does not think that I am labouring the point, but this is a fairly unusual provision. It also seems unusual that the Treasury, which presumably has some oversight of the provisions when they are drafted, should have missed a tiny clause providing for payments to be made to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister elaborate on how, when and where it was decided that the provision, which was not included in the original drafting, was necessary? Who spotted the need for it, and in what circumstances do the Government expect that such payments will be made?

What auditing will there be of the pension arrangements? If payments are to be made out of a pension fund to the Secretary of State from contributions that have been made or partly been made by employers and employees, it will be reassuring to know that proper independent auditing of the pension fund accounts is taking place to ensure that the Secretary of State does not have a slush fund that he could get his hands on. The matter should be dealt with properly at arm's length.

The Minister said that amendments Nos. 15 and 16 add to schedule 1 new statutes that extend the scope of the provisions to Scotland. However, he did not make clear to the House whether the Government determined that the change was required because of the other change that had been made through amendment No. 10 or whether it was simply an omission or error in the original drafting. Were statutes that should have been specified in schedule 1 omitted? If it is the latter, that is again an example of the dangers of rushed legislation. If the additional provisions in schedule 1 arise from the changes made by amendment No. 10, that is a different matter, and I accept that they are consequential on the amendment. Will the Minister clarify that?

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I am relieved by the Minister's explanation of the provision for making payments to the Secretary of State. For one minute, I thought that we were going to pay the Secretary of State's pension and that this was a new incentive scheme for Ministers on some form of productivity deal.

May we clarify who will make the decision on the payments and on what criteria, how that decision will be independently assessed and verified and what role the House will play in determining or verifying the payment? Is this a standard clause as used in other public sector pension schemes that have been introduced by legislation in recent years?

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

The points made by the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were extremely valid. If the fire service and fire officers are to have any faith in their pension schemes, those questions put need to be answered. I shall say no more because the points have been concisely made.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I understand the concerns that hon. Members have expressed, so I am pleased to say that I can clarify matters and give them the reassurances that they want to hear.

A pension account is simply an account held specifically for receiving pension contributions and making pension payments. A pension fund—that is what we are not talking about—is something in which pension contributions are invested to pay for future pension liabilities. Let me say a little more about this so that the House can be clear about the matter.

The firefighters' pension scheme is currently financed in the same way as police pensions—on a pay-as-you-go basis. There are no pension funds. Individual fire and rescue authorities administer the scheme locally, and they meet the cost of pension outgoings, such as pension awards, lump-sum payments and outgoing transfer values, from their revenue accounts.

There are two main problems with the current arrangements. First, volatility exists because of significant fluctuations in the number of firefighters retiring or transferring out of an authority's employment in any given year. Indeed, many fire and rescue authorities cited one-off pension payments as a major factor behind this year's high increases in council tax precepts. Secondly, there is a problem with transparency. The high proportion of expenditure by fire and rescue authorities on pension payments obscures the actual level of available resources for operational work. As pension costs increase over time, the proportion of an authority's expenditure on pension payments will also increase.

The option of allowing fire and rescue authorities to pay pensions from a separate pension account to which both employers and employees contribute, with a payment from central Government to balance the account at the end of the year, would alleviate those problems. However, it would be possible for an authority to end up with its pension account in surplus at the end of a particular year, so to protect the national taxpayer any such balance should be able to travel in the opposite direction.

Early indications from the Local Government Association and fire and rescue authorities show that they would welcome changing the financial arrangements. I make it clear that the Secretary of State would recoup only audited surpluses from fire and rescue authorities' pension accounts. That would happen after all pension payments and awards for a year had been made. I hope that my clarification of the technical points satisfies hon. Members.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

I am slightly confused, although perhaps there is just a linguistic problem. The Minister carefully set out the distinction between a pension fund and a pension account and said that payments will be made to the Secretary of State from a pension account. However, Lords amendment No. 10 refers to "a fund". Is he saying that the fund to which the amendment refers is not a fund, but an account?

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I think that I am. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I asked similar questions during my discussions about the amendments, which is why I am able to give him such reassurances.

I was asked whether the consequential amendments were tabled due to an error. There was an oversight, so we are dealing with that now. Given my explanations and reassurances, I hope that hon. Members will agree to the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].

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

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 12.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 to clause 43 will extend the powers of a firefighter so that he or she can do anything that he or she reasonably believes to be necessary if he or she believes that a fire is about to break out for the purpose of preventing that fire. The question of whether to extend the powers of firefighters in such a way has been discussed in both Houses during the passage of the Bill—I remember our exchanges in Committee well.

Although in our view the likelihood of such an event occurring remains small, we believe that it would be prudent to take the opportunity offered by the Bill to give firefighters this modest, yet potentially important, extension of powers. I emphasise that the power could be exercised only if firefighters had a reasonable belief that a fire was about to break out, so they would thus have to account for and justify their actions.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

Once again, the amendments are technical and, once again, we asked for them in Committee. They address real issues raised by real firefighters who gave us real examples. I was disappointed to hear the Minister say again that he thought the powers were unlikely to be needed. We recited in Committee examples of firefighters facing the dilemma of seeing a dangerous situation developing that they could easily intervene to prevent, but could not do so legally. The perhaps slightly artificial example is the candle knocked over on the table when the gas jet on the cooker is turned on. Under the Bill as originally drafted, the firefighter would not have the power to break in to prevent that from happening. He would have to stand, looking in through the window, until the explosion occurred, whereupon he would be permitted legally to break into the premises and extinguish the fire, which two minutes earlier he could easily have prevented from happening.

We thought that that was absurd. The fire commissioner for London also thought that it was absurd. I am glad that the Government have finally decided to agree with us. It is not satisfactory for only a constable to be legally protected when breaking into premises in that situation. A constable may not be to hand. Goodness knows, the way things are going they might become rare commodities indeed.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

There are a lot more under Labour.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

There may well be, but they are all standing around Westminster and people in Surrey cannot find one when they need one. If the Minister doubts that, I invite him to come and have a look. I am very willing to take him on a tour of Guildford town centre on a Friday evening—[Interruption.] Yep, a night out with Hammond is on offer. He could reciprocate by inviting me to spend a Friday evening in Corby, but we will leave that on ice for the new Session.

There is no doubt that a firefighter presented with a fire that is about to break out would undoubtedly break in and do what needed to be done, but he would expose himself to a risk in doing so. If people act in good faith while serving the community, it is right that they enjoy the protection of the law. We are pleased that at the last knockings, as it were, of the Bill we have managed to persuade the Government that that should be the case.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

The Government should be given slightly more credit. The Minister said in Committee that they were sympathetic to such an amendment. In his summation, he made sympathetic noises on extending the powers, so much so that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) withdrew his amendment. We can congratulate the Government wholeheartedly on saying that they would listen and then returning to the House with an amendment.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

It appears we have consensus. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House that we were sympathetic to such an amendment. We wanted more evidence and examples. Those were forthcoming and we have the evidence to agree to the amendment.

I do not get many offers of a good night out in Guildford, but if this amendment has achieved nothing else, it has provided the opportunity not only for that but for the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) to visit Corby, my constituency, which has the Rockingham motor speedway, one of the finest racing tracks in Europe.

Schedule 1 — Minor and consequential amendments

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

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

If the Minister wants the opportunity of visiting Guildford, he does not have to go to the house of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). My mother lives in Weybridge and we would be quite happy to show him around.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I am not going to visit anyone's house.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 17 agreed to.

Schedule 1 — Minor and consequential amendments

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may consider Lords amendment No. 19.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

The amendments amend schedule 1 to make minor consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1985 and the Severn Bridges Act 1992. Unfortunately, the need for these amendments was not picked up at an earlier stage of drafting, so the changes were made during the Bill's consideration in the Lords.

Philip Hammond (Conservative, Runnymede and Weybridge)

It is more sloppy drafting due to the pressure of legislation, the artificial curtailment of debate and the improper consideration of Bills.

There may be those who think that there could be no question to ask on these amendments, but I have one question for the Minister. Lords amendment No. 19 deletes the reference to

"fire authority under the Fire Services Acts 1947 to 1959"

and substitutes the term "fire and rescue authority". We understand why: the Bill introduces that term. Why is it not necessary to provide a statutory reference to the term—in other words to a fire and rescue authority under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004—when clearly the architecture of the Severn Bridges Act previously required the term "fire authority" to be clarified by the words

"under the Fire Services Act 1947 to 1959"?

I know that the Minister will have given consideration to that point and I would be grateful if he could clarify that apparent inconsistency.

Phil Hope (Labour/Co-operative, Corby)

I was, of course, well aware of the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. Unfortunately, I am unable to respond at this precise moment, but I can assure him that the change is of minor consequence. I will write to him and clarify the point that he has raised. [Interruption.] Inspiration has arrived. Lords amendment No. 19 amends section 8 of the Severn Bridges Act 1992 so that it refers to fire and rescue authorities under the Bill rather than fire authorities under the 1947 Act. It is consequential to the primary legislation.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to.