Clause 19 - Charging
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
2:45 pm
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will see that I paid tribute to the undoubted architectural skills of Sir Michael Hopkins, the architect responsible, but referred to Portcullis House as not a good example of procurement practice. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will probably agree with me.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) highlighted a malfunctioning automatic fire alarm as another instance where advance approval would be almost impossible to obtain in order to effect a charging regime. Frankly, there are much more complex issues to be discussed in relation to malfunctioning fire alarms. In the evidence that I gave to the Select Committee a while ago, I highlighted the potential perverse consequences of charging in such circumstances. That could lead to the owner of premises removing an automatic fire alarm for fear of paying charges for a malfunction, which in many cases would increase the risk. It is not a simple matter. If there were a regime for charging, the hon. Gentleman would be right. The owner of premises would simply have to decline to give advance consent to make the provision ineffective.
The recent Select Committee report on the fire service to which I referred noted the potential for authorities to recover the costs of dealing with traffic accidents from insurers in a manner similar to that for which provision exists in the NHS. The requirement in amendment No. 70 for express prior consent of the person to be to charged would prevent any such approach, as would excluding duties other than firefighting from the scope of any charging regime. Indeed, the amendment would run entirely counter to the view expressed by the Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) used to be a member. The Select Committee made a clear point and recommendation in paragraph 77 of the report:
''We believe there needs to be more research conducted on the potential for Fire Authorities to charge for activities of the Fire Service. As a statutory role of the Service expands, we expect Government to support Authorities as they seek to recoup costs.''
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has often been only too keen to quote the Select Committee in order to have a go at the Government, but the Select Committee's view runs entirely counter to that which he has put forward. The hon. Member for Teignbridge, whose hon. Friend has been a member of the Select Committee, should reflect that if we are to be serious about our response its report—which we are—the kind of amendments that both Opposition parties have tabled are not the right way forward. The amendments are highly prescriptive, they restrict the scope for fire and rescue authorities to take decisions in the light of local circumstances, and they would in some respects have perverse consequences, of which I have highlighted a couple.
Amendment No. 71 is consequential on amendment No. 70. It reflects the proposal that the latter would require each authority to determine from first principles which service it would provide for a charge, rather than taking decisions in the light of any order issued by the Secretary of State under the provisions of clause 19(1). As the effect of amendment No. 70 would be to restrict drastically the scope for authorities to make charges, the supposed freedom is illusory.
I ask the hon. Member for Teignbridge to withdraw the amendment.