Clause 19 - Charging
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
4:30 pm
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 53, in
clause 19, page 9, line 22, after 'charge', insert
'(other than a charge for fire safety consultancy services provided by agreement to owners or occupiers of commercial premises, being services of a type also available from non-fire and rescue authority providers and not being services which the authority has a duty to provide under section 6(2))'.
I suspect that the Minister has already helpfully hinted why the amendment is unnecessary. I shall be delighted to hear him tell me that it is unnecessary because the powers relating to our objective already exist in the Local Government Act 2003.
I declare at the outset that I was put up to tabling this amendment by a fire authority that believes that it will be prevented from charging more than cost recovery rates for valuable consultancy services that it delivers, and wishes to continue to deliver, to third parties on a commercial basis. The amendment is designed to exclude from cost recovery-only charging services that are provided in competition with other professional consultants. I have used those words deliberately to try to define the activities that we have in mind. We are talking not about giving advice to vulnerable people in their homes, but about input to architects and engineers in the design of buildings, or advice and consultancy to property developers and property owners in maintaining and managing their fire and escape plans—services that it is perfectly proper for them to contract from a third party specialist such as a big civil engineering firm, for example, or a properly qualified fire and rescue authority.
There is no reason to preclude the fire and rescue authority from making a profit on that kind of competitive work. In addition, it would be inappropriate to require fire and rescue authorities that provide such consultancy services in competition with the private sector to operate as not-for-profit competitors. That would be grossly unfair to the private sector. As the Minister will remember, we had a similar debate on the trading powers of local authorities when we considered the Local Government Act 2003.
If the Minister were to tell me that the objective that I seek to achieve through amendment No. 53 is already available to fire and rescue authorities through the trading powers in the 2003 Act, that would be fine; but
if he were to tell me that the exception would be available only if authorities achieved excellent status, that would present some problems. Clearly, it is not possible to operate a consultancy on a commercial basis if activities have to be turned on and off from one year to the next—if a fire authority had to say ''This year, we shall do £2 million-worth of arm's-length commercial fire consultancy; next year, we will not be allowed to do any. We would like to take it up again the year after, when we are again excellent, but will not be able to because our customer base will have disappeared.''
There needs to be some way of dealing with that problem. I see no reason why we should not exclude from the restriction on cost-plus recovery work that is clearly third-party competitive work, tendered in the marketplace against other competitors and provided to commercial third parties. I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
The amendment deals with the provision by authorities of fire safety advice on a consultancy basis. It would provide an exception to the principle that authorities can do no more than recover their costs, thereby enabling them to engage in the provision of consultancy services on a commercial basis. It includes the restriction that any such paid consultancy must not cut across an authority's duty to provide general fire safety advice. However, I notice that the amendment does not seek the wider safeguards that we provided in the 2003 Act, which required any such trading by local authorities to be conducted through a company structure, so that there was a level playing field in terms of taxation for providers in the public sector and those in the private sector. I suspect that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will probably agree that that further safeguard is necessary if there is to be a genuinely level playing field and if the kind of allegations about which he is reasonably concerned are not to arise.
I am aware that several authorities already have a significant presence in the market for detailed fire safety advice. For our purposes, such work is probably best labelled ''consultancy''. Section 3 of the Fire Services Act 1947 grants authorities wide discretion in the charges that they set for such work, and some have interpreted that as enabling them to charge more than the full cost of giving advice in certain circumstances. The recent Select Committee report noted that further consultation was needed, and clause 6(2) acknowledges the possibility of drawing a distinction between advice that it is reasonable to expect an authority to provide and additional advice that it may offer. Establishing how the distinction should be drawn is a vexed question on which we sought views in the consultation document that we issued earlier this month. I am satisfied that, if such a distinction can be drawn, we already have powers under section 95 of the 2003 Act to allow authorities to trade in consultancy through a company. However, until we have a better understanding of the responses to the consultation exercise, it is premature to attempt to deal further with the matter.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific points, it is not only excellent authorities that will be granted
entitlement to trade under the powers in the 2003 Act. The Government's policy is that weak and poor authorities should generally concentrate on improving their own service performance rather than seek to trade, and we intend to give a general approval to authorities categorised as excellent, good or fair. No decision has yet been taken on whether a comparable regime would apply in the case of the fire service, but the principle that the general trading permission should, to some extent, be related to categories of performance seems right. However, we also recognise that it would not be realistic for the power to trade to be turned on and off annually, depending on a change in category. Some flexibility and acceptance of the ability of authorities to continue at least for a period of time if they suffer a loss of status in the comprehensive performance assessment hierarchy may well be appropriate. Those issues all need to be considered further. Given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the clause is the right way forward.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise that issue and get the Minister's response to it. It can be dealt with in the consultation process, although to allow opportunity for parliamentary time to discuss it, we had to raise it in the context of the Bill.
Although the Minister did not commit himself, I am reassured. Firstly, he said that the power to trade in those circumstances is likely to be extended to excellent, good and fair authorities. We will come on to deal with the fact that, in the context of the Bill, authorities will be marked not according to how well they discharge their functions, but according to how faithfully they comply with the Government's framework document. That is not a measure of excellence that we would necessarily recognise. Secondly, I am reassured by the Minister's recognition that trading cannot be turned on and off. It is a tricky issue. I suspect that it would take a year or so to deal with it, and I hope that the Minister has had representations on that issue from the authorities involved.
Finally, the Minister commented on the use of arm's-length companies. I suspect that those fire authorities that suggested that we raise the issue in Standing Committee will be most displeased to learn that I now agree with the Minister on that point. Using an arms-length company and ensuring a level playing field for tax and premiums is the right way forward. I do not suppose that would be hugely welcomed by those authorities that have been receiving revenues without having to have a separate structure. It is obviously important to ensure a level playing field. I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance on that point. I hope that a sensible regime comes out of the consultation—one that allows the one or two potentially world-class consultancy operations in our fire and rescue community to prosper and reduce the burden on council tax payers by making good profits on their consultancy business.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 55, in
clause 19, page 9, line 24, after first 'the', insert 'marginal'.
This is a probing amendment. It would insert the word ''marginal'' before ''cost'' in line 24. The amendment thus suggests that authorities be limited to recovery of marginal cost. That may not be what the Government intend, and the term ''marginal cost'' in the context of fire and rescue operations may not be obviously self-defining. The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government on how they intend to operate the regime of limited recovery of costs.
In an organisation such as a fire and rescue authority, which needs to be able to respond to an emergency—I do not want to raise anybody's hackles by phrasing that in the wrong way—there is, by definition, surplus capacity of significant amounts of time as personnel await the occurrence of an incident. It is therefore difficult to talk about marginal cost. The manpower is there anyway, so it would be absurd if the costs that could be recovered were simply the costs of the petrol used getting to and from the incident. It would probably also be inappropriate to charge for the cost per hour of the wage and salary bills of the crews attending.
There are complicated issues around the recovery of costs where a range of activities are undertaken. If I have correctly understood subsection (5), it intends a balancing of the books to take place for each class of event for which charging occurs, rather than for a pool of charging across the whole authority. Rescuing cats from trees will constitute a set of books that balance over the year, and getting people out of lifts will be a different activity that must balance across the year. The same crews, appliances and overheads will be involved, all of which will also be used in non-chargeable work. Has the Minister discussed proper accounting with bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy so that we can understand what we are discussing when we read that
''the authority's income from charges does not exceed the costs to them for taking the action for which the charges are imposed''?
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
Considering the effect that the amendment would have were it to be taken literally, I was very relieved to hear the tone in which the hon. Gentleman moved it, as it would be yet another highly restrictive and centralising measure from a party that likes to believe that it has atoned for its past errors and is becoming more supportive of local freedoms.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the folly of restricting charging to marginal costs by stating that it could relate to the cost of the petrol involved in attending an incident, which would be completely unrealistic. I am grateful to him for clarifying that it was a probing amendment, because it is unduly restrictive—much more onerous than current arrangements—and it is at variance with the approach adopted by local authorities when setting charges for delivery of discretionary services outside the fire arena. The accepted approach is to seek to recover the full cost of the service provided, although
authorities retain their discretion to recover less than the full costs if they consider it appropriate.
In paragraph 18 of the consultation document, we make it clear that authorities should draw on familiar and accepted accounting practices when determining the level of the charge that would be levied under an order in clause 19. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had consulted with CIPFA. If he reads paragraph 19, he will find that we guide fire and rescue authorities to draw on the existing and familiar principles as set out in CIPFA's best value accounting code of practice. We go on to make one or two other helpful suggestions. We have also provided suggestions about the bases that fire and rescue authorities may wish to adopt, which are highlighted in the CIPFA definition of ''total cost''. To restrict an authority's ability to charge to mere marginal costs would be a retrograde step. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that and will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The Minister has not provided quite as much information as I had hoped, but I do not intend to press the amendment. Although I entirely accept that restricting recovery to marginal costs would seriously restrict the revenue that could be raised, I do not accept that it is more prescriptive than the Bill. The amendment and the Bill are highly prescriptive, telling authorities precisely what they can and cannot recover. The allocation of costs between chargeable and non-chargeable services will be a complex matter. The CIPFA approach is the right one: using an independent body and relying on generally accepted accounting practices is the right way to go. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)
We now come to amendment No. 156, with which we will discuss amendment No. 54. I call the hon. Member for Teignbridge to move the lead amendment.
Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)
On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. The amendment really relates to amendments Nos. 70 and 71, and I suppose that I should have asked for it to be considered at the same time as them. I do not wish to debate the issue now. Last time when I said that I did not want to move an amendment, it caused great consternation to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, which was completely unintended. I understand that if I do not move this amendment, the hon. Gentleman can still move his amendment. If that is so, I shall not move it, but I seek your guidance, Mr. O'Hara; otherwise I shall just move the amendment formally if that is more appropriate.
Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)
So the hon. Gentleman wants to give the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge the opportunity to move his amendment?
Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)
Yes.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I do not wish to move my amendment.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
This is an interesting debate. The clause deals with charging authorised by the Secretary of State for any services delivered by fire and rescue authorities, except for fire-related activities. We believe that that undermines the principle of placing other emergency functions on an equal footing with fire work, and erodes the core status of the fire and rescue authorities' other emergency functions. Although the clause replicates precisely the prohibition on charging under the 1947 Act, that is misleading, because we now have a much wider definition of the statutory responsibilities of the fire and rescue authorities.
Under the 1947 Act, fire and rescue authorities were not allowed to charge for anything that they were statutorily required to provide, and they were allowed—without reference to the Secretary of State—to charge for services that they provided on a discretionary basis. We now have a strange and much less satisfactory situation in which authorities will be allowed to charge for services that they have a statutory obligation to provide, although they must have permission from the Secretary of State and what they can charge in relation to their discretionary activities is limited. I do not consider that anyone could argue that that is not a centralising move.
As the Committee will understand by now, we are worried that there may be an attempt to shift the full burden of road traffic accident intervention on to the motorist through the charging of insurers, which will lead to higher insurance premiums. That is unacceptable. It is another attack on motorists, who are rapidly becoming a persecuted minority in this country, and it would increase the incentive to drive without insurance, which is a growing menace throughout our society.
We prefer fire authorities to be given a right under the Bill to charge for non-statutory services—for everything that they do under clauses 11 and 12—which would include the vast majority of the items that the Minister reeled off earlier, and clearly exclude charging for functions that they are required to deliver under clauses 6 to 9, and medical assistance of the type that would usually be delivered by the NHS, except in the rare circumstances—perhaps not so rare—in which the fire service is the first on the scene of an incident. Hopefully, in future, the fire service will more often be ready and able to deliver medical assistance.
I am pleased that the Minister has been able to clarify the position on charging for consultancy work. We look forward to further clarification when the results of the consultation process are published. We would rather see a clear power under the Bill for fire authorities to charge for non-statutory services, generally on a cost-recovery basis, and to charge commercial rates for works that they undertake in competition with commercial competitors. The Bill needs to contain a specific exclusion of charging for emergency road traffic accident work to reassure motorists who fear that they are about to be the victim of yet another smash-and-grab raid by the
Government. The Minister has said in rather loose terms that he is not changing anything and that things are carrying on as before, but I predict that, without an assurance from the Government or a change to the Bill, we will see a development in that direction very soon. I suspect that that we will want to return to this point later in the passage of the Bill, and that our noble Friends in the other place will also address it. I am not going to ask my hon. Friends to vote against the clause at the moment, but, having failed to persuade the Minister about the amendments that we have tabled, we will want to return to these issues in due course.
Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)
I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is preparing his second press release saying how hard done by motorists are. Without question, it is appropriate that those who are responsible for causing accidents should pay for the consequences of their actions. I have no difficulty supporting the clear intention behind the clause. I do have concerns, however, about who decides that such charges should be made, and about the level of the charges. With amendments Nos. 70 and 71, we were trying to allow greater flexibility for local authorities. We would have left it to the local authority to decide whether the fire authority should charge for attending on road traffic accidents. A number of the fire authorities that I spoke to would resist charging for attending on road traffic accidents, because they do not regard such charging as appropriate. They made it clear to me that they would not wish to charge.
I hope that we do not get too excited and start saying that everyone will bring in high charges, because that is not the intent of the fire authorities. If such charges are brought in, we will point to the grubby fingers of the Minister at that time—I am sure that the present Minister would not do that. He is shaking his head, and I am sure that he will clarify matters for us in his speech.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I have spent the past hour and a half asking the Minister to confirm that he would not, in any circumstances, introduce generalised charging for road traffic accident extraction, and he has made countless statements, always avoiding that pledge. How the hon. Gentleman can say that he is sure that this Minister would not introduce a power to charge for dealing with road traffic accidents is beyond me.
Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)
I was always told that irony never worked very well in the Chamber. I was making the point ironically, rather than literally. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's intervention will give the Minister an opportunity to make it clear that it is his intention not to force fire and rescue authorities to charge for dealing with road traffic accidents, but to empower them to do so if they want. I hope that that is the preferred option.
We may return to charging and flexibility at the next stage in the consideration of the Bill. I have not prepared a press release on this, so that point is not related to press releases. I am not sure whether there will be a press release.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
I have to say to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that when in a hole it is usually wise to stop digging. In the course of the debate on this clause, the Opposition have revealed themselves to be wholly opportunistic and to be pointing in different directions simultaneously. First, they desperately try to appeal to ''the poor, hard-done-by motorist'' who is held up as the victim of a rapacious Government who are trying to extract money from him—which we have no intention of doing. Next, they say that they are really the friends of fire and rescue authorities, although they are currently trying to cut off a source of revenue for many authorities. Then, they try to pretend that they are the friends of the council tax payer, although some of their amendments to the clause would have forced up council tax by denying fire and rescue authorities current sources of revenue. Their approach would encourage bad practice in all sorts of ways by lifting the pressure from people who may be encouraged by the presence of charges to improve their performance in a way that enhances public safety. The example of lift maintenance was an absolute classic.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Will the Minister now, because he has been asked several times and has the resources at his disposal, give the Committee a figure for the total amount of charges raised by fire authorities in England for carrying out road traffic accident extraction work?
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the practice varies significantly from area to area. A number of authorities do not produce detailed figures that allow a full analysis to be conducted. Some that do impose charges are cautious, because they are conscious that they may not comply with some interpretations of the law that charges should only cover costs. That is a point the hon. Gentleman recognised earlier, but he may have forgotten that fact. Not surprisingly, therefore, it is difficult to obtain precise figures. The hon. Gentleman will know, because he is an assiduous MP and has undoubtedly consulted on the matter, that fire and rescue authorities value the ability to impose charges in certain instances. Their revenue is to some extent—it varies from authority to authority—dependent on that, and arbitrarily cutting it off, which would be the effect of a raft of amendments moved by the Opposition, would have a serious adverse financial effect. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in surprise. I have to tell him that all he has to do is talk to representatives of fire and rescue authorities; they will immediately give him examples of how their finances could be undermined by the amendments he has proposed.
Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)
I fully understand that the Minister is unable to give a precise figure because not all of the data is to hand, but he should be able to give an estimate of how much is raised annually. Those figures must be to hand. I think I can speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge when I say that we would settle for an estimate rather than a precise figure, although we hope to get that later.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman has sat on the Committee long enough to know that I do not offer
figures in which I have no confidence, and despite his blandishments, I shall not offer broad-brush estimates on issues that need to be researched more thoroughly. We come to the nub of the argument.
Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)
If this is genuinely a matter of principle, surely the figure does not matter. If Conservative Members are against the charges, the figure is not the relevant factor. The relevant factor is whether there should be an additional source of revenue for particular activities, or whether that whole cost, whatever it is, should be transferred to the council tax payer.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
My hon. Friend, as always, makes a very valid point. The truth is that the Opposition say one thing to one group of people, and another to a different group of people. When they are talking to representatives of motorists, they say that they are opposed to all charges. When they are talking to representatives of local authorities, they say that they are in favour of local discretion. Their amendments today would have taken away local discretion on a whole raft of measures. When they are talking to fire and rescue authorities, they say that they want to encourage good practice and fire safety, but then they turn to another group of hard-done-by people whose votes they are trying to garner, and say, ''We will protect you from charges from the wicked Government.'' This is an unprincipled Opposition.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
I will give way in a moment, but I shall just let the hon. Gentleman sit and enjoy the next passage, because I am enjoying myself. They are an unprincipled Opposition who say whatever they believe will appeal to one group of people at one point in time without thinking of the consistency of their position. That is not a credible position for a party that aspires to return to government.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I have to say that that is very rich indeed coming from a Member of the present Government. I shall tell the Minister what is unprincipled. It is unprincipled to tell Committee members that removing a stream of revenue that fire authorities currently enjoy will have a serious adverse effect on council tax while repeatedly failing to quantify the amount of revenue involved. The amounts involved in charges for areas that would have been excluded by the amendments that we have discussed today are very small, and nothing like the £100 million that he wrongly suggested—
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
No.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
That he wrongly suggested was recovered by the NHS ambulance trust.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
I said NHS.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The record will show that the Minister said ''NHS ambulance trust'' in his first stab at it. It is nothing like that amount. He talks about being principled, so before he tells the Committee that there will be serious adverse revenue consequences, he must define the amount of money involved. He cannot do that, so he should refrain from making such remarks.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
As the fire and rescue authorities are not required to provide data on that issue, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that not all of them do so. Therefore, it would not be possible for me to give an accurate estimate. As I said to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), I shall certainly not give an estimate off the top of my head, but I remind him of the evidence that I quoted earlier. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority cited just one area in which it raises some £700,000 a year, which helps to resource its fire and prevention work, being the equivalent of 25 firefighters. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge thinks that that is an insignificant sum of money, he is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I am not sure which planet the Minister is on, but I have told him once that the example that he is quoting, the £700,000 for lift rescues—
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
No, for advice.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it would have been explicitly excluded by amendment No. 49, which excluded
''the provision of anything which it is the authority's duty to provide under section 6(2)''—
which includes advice. Therefore, once again the Opposition say one thing in one context and another in another. They do not know what they are arguing. They are flailing around desperately trying to garner votes from different interest groups, and their approach deserves contempt.
The Government believe that this is a complex and difficult issue.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
It is a very difficult issue. Authorities currently charge for a number of services. We have no wish arbitrarily to restrict their income-generating activities, provided that those activities do not inhibit the delivery of the most effective service to protect public safety. That is the priority. However, with that proviso, we are keen that authorities should continue to be able to derive some revenue from charges. We are not, therefore, tempted to follow the Opposition's proposals arbitrarily to restrict those sources of revenue, which would have a significant adverse impact on council tax. How the Opposition can take that line at a time when there is widespread public concern about levels of council tax beggars belief. The Conservative party is only too happy to blame the Government for high council taxes, but it has demonstrated all afternoon that it is keen to pursue measures that will force council taxes up.
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green is nodding his head furiously in the back row, but I do not think that it will get him a job. Let me try a different tack.
The Minister will not give us a figure for the amount of revenue that he says fire authorities would have lost as a result of the amendments that have been defeated this afternoon. Now he is talking about their power to charge. Let me ask him this, because he is also responsible for the operation of local government finance. In his forward-looking projections, how much revenue does he assume fire authorities will raise—let us say in 2005–06? Will he give the Committee an indication of the order of magnitude? Are we talking about £100 million or £1 billion?
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman has clearly not understood that we are engaged in a consultation process on this issue. I was saying that it is a complex and difficult issue, on which we have no intention of rushing into a series of ill thought-out proposals. On the contrary, we must pay attention to a number of priorities.
The first of those is to do nothing that will in any way inhibit the ability of a fire and rescue service to deliver life-saving services in the most effective way. That is the overriding priority. Secondly, we want to ensure that regimes are in place that do not provide perverse incentives against desirable outcomes. We want to discourage false alarms. We want to discourage poor lift maintenance. All those factors need to be taken into account.
Thirdly, we need to consider the revenue implications for fire and rescue authorities, particularly at a time when there is widespread and justified public concern about high council tax levels. Fourthly, we need to think about arrangements that provide a balance between the discretion that fire and rescue authorities should enjoy, and the consistency required to avoid anomalies between practices in different parts of the country. That is a difficult issue, and there are many others too.
Without boring the Committee by pursuing this further, I should like to make the point that the Government are serious about this issue. We are following the approach recommended by the Select Committee: this requires further research and consideration before decisions are made. We have made provision for that. There are order-making powers in the Bill, but we have no intention of using them, and certainly no intention of changing the status quo until we have completed an extensive consultation exercise and have had the benefit of informed advice on what might be appropriate arrangements to put in place in future. That is the responsible and sensible way forward, and that is what the Government are doing. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)
I should point out that we have another five clauses and six groups of amendments to get through before 6 o'clock.