Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 129, in

clause 43, page 20, line 13, at end insert—

'(aa) if he reasonably believes a fire to be about to break out, for the purpose of preventing the fire or protecting life or property.'.

Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 130, in

clause 43, page 20, line 18, at end insert

'and for the purpose of protecting life and property.'.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The clause deals with the powers of firefighters in an emergency. Amendment No. 129 is intended to make what appears to me to be an essential extension to the powers proposed in the Bill. It would enable firefighters to deal with a situation in which a fire was about to break out. There are powers in the Bill for a firefighter to

''do anything he reasonably believes to be necessary—

(a) if he reasonably believes a fire to have broken out, for the purpose of extinguishing the fire or protecting life or property'',

and there are similar provisions in relation to road traffic accidents and other emergencies. Subsection (1)(d) mentions acting

''for the purpose of preventing or limiting damage to property resulting from action taken as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).''

However, what is not provided for is the case that I have in mind: breaking into premises to prevent the outbreak of fire. A firefighter, using his skill and knowledge, might have a reasonable expectation that a fire is about to break out. For example, if he is aware that a gas leak has occurred on the premises and that there is also a source of naked flame, he might reasonably conclude that, unless he can get in there and do something about it, a fire will break out. It would be absurd if he had to wait outside until the explosion occurred, or until he saw the fire, before he could break into the premises and deal with the situation. That would not be in anybody's interest.

The only reason that I can see for the Minister to reject the amendment is if he can show the Committee that firefighters enjoy that power by virtue of some other provision. I have not been able to find such a provision, but I am ready to be enlightened. Such power is essential and if it does not exist, firefighters must have it. They tell us that they need it, and its absence is a gap in the panoply of powers that the clause confers on them.

Mr Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Can my hon. Friend also envisage a time when firefighters might need not only to enter a building, but to demolish it in order to prevent a fire

from spreading and getting more serious? For instance, in an area in which there was a row of thatched houses, there could be a makeshift building in between the building in which the fire broke out and that row of houses. Firefighters might need not only to break into that building, but perhaps even to destroy it in some way.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is right. We have all seen news footage of massive fires in Australia and in the American west. It was necessary to create fire-breaks there, and although we have not, I hope, had to do that for a very long time in this country, it was the traditional method of containing very large fires in big cities. I believe that the power to demolish buildings would be included within the powers given by clause 43, in cases where a fire has broken out. The fire authorities tell me that that is a good codification of their existing powers. It deals effectively and adequately with the powers that they need in case of an outbreak of fire, or of a road traffic accident, but it does not allow them to take any preventive action.

Amendment No. 130 deals with a slightly different point in relation to subsection (1)(c). That subsection give powers to firefighters in case of an emergency of another kind, in respect of which functions have been conferred on the fire and rescue authority. That is what we might call a ''section 9'' emergency, in respect of which the Secretary of State has conferred functions on the authority. The powers given under subsection (1)(c) are:

''for the purpose of discharging any function conferred on the fire and rescue authority in relation to the emergency''.

So unless the conferring of the function specifically includes the function of protecting life and property, that power could not be exercised under the provisions of that subsection in order to protect life and property. The Minister may well envisage that every function that he confers under clause 9 will include the specific function of protecting life and property. But this amendment seeks to make that a general provision, so that whatever the function being discharged under clause 9—be it a function of preventing, or of rescuing people from, flooding; or a function of cleaning up the after-effects of nuclear or chemical contamination—there will always be an overarching reference to the function of protecting life and property. That would authorise a member of the fire and rescue authority in the way envisaged in the clause. That would return the focus to the principal purpose that a fire and rescue authority and its employees must have in mind—protecting life and property. I hope that the Minister accepts that this amendment focuses on that prime responsibility.

Mr John Pugh (Education Spokesperson, Education & Skills; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

I have been somewhat picky about the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge hitherto, but I must say that I consider amendment No. 129 a splendid amendment. It is surprising that the people who drafted the legislation did not include it, because the whole thrust of the Bill is about prevention—on acting

before fires occur—rather than on regarding the fire service simply as an organisation that extinguishes fires and deals with the after-effects of a disaster.

I have questioned why such an amendment was not included, and I have come to the conclusion that those who drafted the legislation were a little concerned that this might be too wide a power and could be used injudiciously. We would all support the idea that where there is a danger of a serious chemical incident, action should be taken to prevent it, rather than simply dealing with its after-effects. However, issues such as access to industrial premises and consequent litigation may have arisen, which perhaps held them back from

including in the Bill a clause such as the amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman. We would not welcome fire and rescue services bursting into our houses if we were playing with matches or lighting bonfires. Clearly, one expects the fire services to use such a power judiciously.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him in order to make a point that I forgot to make earlier.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.