Clause 7 - Fire-fighting
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara. It will be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. If you will allow me, I would like to make a short announcement that may be of interest to members of the Committee. I wish to inform you and the Committee that I intend to table a small number of technical Government amendments to clauses that we will reach in later stages of our discussions. I plan to table them before we meet again on Tuesday, 24 February and I will ensure that you and members of the Committee are sent a copy of them next week, so that members have plenty of time to consider them before they are discussed.
May I also mention in the same breath that the Government were asked in earlier sittings whether the amendment on public inquiries that I undertook on Tuesday to consider might be prepared in time for Report. I cannot guarantee that we will complete the work in time, but it is certainly our intention to do so if possible.
That brings me back to the point we reached when we adjourned this morning. On amendment No. 27, proposed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), I was pointing out that clause 7(1)(a) already requires a fire and rescue authority to make provision for dealing with all types of fire. Hon. Members will note that clause 11 gives explicit authority to a fire and rescue authority to equip for and respond to a situation that causes or is likely to cause harm to the environment. Clause 7(1)(b) retains the existing requirement for a fire and rescue authority to make provision for saving life and property from fires.
Amendment No. 27 would add protection of the environment to the requirement. In our view, that is unnecessary. That is not to say that the Government have no regard for the environment or seek to downgrade its importance—far from it—but the amendment could have adverse consequences for the deployment of resources. For example, if a fire and rescue authority were under a duty to make provision for even the smallest fire on, say, open land and to ensure that it could discharge its duty, it could feel obliged to purchase specialist equipment—for
example, a plane designed to scoop and drop water on fires—that is disproportionate to the nature of the risk.
Historically, it has been a matter for a fire and rescue authority to decide whether it responds to a fire on, for example, common land, where the primary risk is to the environment. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that many authorities do indeed deal with such fires on moorland and heathland, but until now that has been done by stretching the boundaries of existing legislation.
Clause 11 gives clear authority to equip for and respond to any incidents where there is a risk to the environment. That would include fires and would allow for the provision of specialist equipment, but it is for an authority to decide what is a proportionate and adequate response to local needs and priorities, taking into account risks assessed in its integrated risk management plans.
Fire and rescue authorities already follow good practice in respect of the environmental impact of dealing with fires and other incidents. Such matters fall within the statement of operational good practice introduced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services in 2001, which all fire and rescue authorities follow.
Amendment No. 27 would place an unnecessary requirement on fire and rescue authorities and could have adverse consequences and create issues around liability. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.