Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in

clause 6, page 4, line 34, leave out 'considers it' and insert 'is'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 29, in

clause 8, page 5, line 22, leave out 'considers it' and insert 'is'.

Mr. Hammond: The pace is a little fast. One needs to catch one's breath between amendments, and I shall take care in future not to miss the opportunity to ask important questions in the stand part debate. I shall come back to the Minister of State at an appropriate point to ask questions that remain unexplained about clause 5.

Amendment No. 26 relates to clause 6. Amendment No. 29 would have the same effect but relates to clause 8. They would introduce a more objective requirement in the Bill, substituting a requirement of reasonableness for what is reasonable in the authority's mind. I am not a lawyer and have not consulted a lawyer on the matter but I sense that there is a significant distinction between what is objectively reasonable and what is done with the intention of reasonableness in the authority's mind. Doing something that it considers reasonable requires only

that the authority goes through a due process before it does what it does.

There is the question of how the national framework intervenes in the definition of reasonableness. Is it to be construed as automatically the case, as a matter of procedure, that if an authority follows the diktats of the national framework it will be acting reasonably? If reasonableness were seen as a purely administrative, procedural test, following the national framework would be seen as a reasonable thing to do.

This is a probing amendment, because I want to understand the rather tortuous wording in the Bill. I do not think that it is there by accident; I am sure that it has been carefully thought through. I imagine that it is designed to limit the scope for legal challenges to fire authorities by third parties by avoiding any obligation to what is reasonable. I can see the attraction of that from the fire authorities' point of view, but our job is to ensure that the balance between the interests of the public and those of the fire authorities has been correctly judged. My objective test of reasonableness would give additional protections to third parties—the public—whereas the test in the Bill will protect fire authorities rather more from third-party actions.

The other issue that I should like the Minister to clarify is the different level of obligation in relation to clause 7, which deals with firefighting responsibilities. It is tempting for us to think of this as the core function of the fire authority, because it is the original responsibility of the fire and rescue service under the 1947 Act.

Phil Hope: Traditional.

Mr. Hammond: Traditional, says the Under-Secretary, which is a better word.

We are told that the purpose of the Bill is to broaden the core statutory functions of fire authorities, so that they take account not only of road traffic accidents and other emergencies but, moving backwards in the chain of causality, fire safety and the promotion of community fire safety. We all support that agenda but the reality is that, in certain significant ways, and this is one of them, fire is still distinguished from the other responsibilities of an authority. The wording in relation to fire is different. When we come to talk about charging, an issue that is of great interest to many members of the public—

Phil Hope: Daily Mail readers.

Mr. Hammond: I can assure the Under-Secretary that many more people than Daily Mail readers are interested in such issues—readers of The Sun, for example.

The way in which firefighting responsibilities are carved out is distinct. There is still a differential between matters relating to fire and those relating to the functions of fire and rescue authorities. I would be grateful if the Minister of State could explain why, in relation to fire safety, the authority

''must . . . to the extent that it considers it reasonable to do so, make certain arrangements'',

but, in the case of fire fighting, a fire authority

''must . . . secure provision . . . efficiently to meet all normal requirements''.

Those are different tests. An explanation would be welcome.

Mr. Raynsford: The amendments seek to remove a fire and rescue authority's discretion to decide what provision is reasonable when seeking to promote fire safety or to protect people from road traffic accidents. The fire and rescue authority must make the provisions that it considers reasonable. That may be a subtle distinction but we believe that it is necessary. Opposition Members have made much of what they consider to be excessive centralising tendencies in the Bill. These clauses protect local discretion to make local decisions, based on local needs and circumstances. By allowing each fire and rescue authority to judge what constitutes reasonable provision for promoting fire safety and protecting the public in the event of road traffic accidents, we are giving authorities the freedom to allocate their resources as they see fit but within the national framework and subject to the comprehensive performance assessment process.

Those decisions are based on the fire and rescue authority's expertise and the data and research available to it at the time. To remove the power of discretion could leave the authority open to excessive demand. Such requests could waste inevitably limited resources, putting at risk those more vulnerable and even leaving the authority open to unnecessary legal challenge. As the hon. Gentleman rightly identified, that is a particular consideration.

Mr. Hammond: The Minister presents a seductive argument—

Mr. Raynsford: As always.

Mr. Hammond: Not as always, if I may say so. The Minister couches it in terms of enhancing local discretion. I am keen to understand whether it is a procedural issue—whether, if an authority deliberated upon what it was reasonable to provide and determined to provide a certain level of service, that would be conclusive evidence of it having met the reasonableness test as framed in clause 6 in the event of a challenge.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that we cannot anticipate what decisions a court might reach, and that is one of the uncertainties that we must bear in mind when considering legislation. The Bill must be clear but it must also give authorities the discretion to reach decisions in the light of local circumstances and their assessment of local needs, without the risk of being subject to unreasonable legal challenge.

That is particularly important in the light of what I might call the new duties in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, in many respects, they are much more open-ended than the traditional duty of firefighting. To take just one example, the Local Government Association has expressed concern that the new duties should not, for example, leave the fire and rescue authority responsible for coning off a

stretch of motorway in the event of a road traffic accident. It might be appropriate for the authority do so, but the decision should be taken in the light of the circumstances. The decision should not be subject to challenge, because that would essentially require the authority to extend its responsibilities into areas that were normally the responsibility of another rescue service.

That is why I say that we need to ensure that the new duties, which are more open-ended in many respects, allow fire and rescue authorities to decide what is appropriate in the light of their experience and resources. They should not be subject to the possibility of demands that are driven by other considerations. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the explanation that he seeks and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister. I understand the need to enable authorities to defend themselves against potentially open-ended claims that someone's building burned down because, six years ago, the authority spent only two hours on fire safety education instead of six. However, I am not sure why the same considerations do not apply to firefighting. One can envisage claims to the effect that the consequences of a fire were more severe than they should have been, because more equipment and personnel were not available and the authority did not recruit and prepare adequately. I should have thought that the same considerations applied.

Mr. Raynsford: I can put the point in two ways. First, as I said, the new duties are potentially more open-ended than the traditional firefighting duty, so the degree of discretion is all the more important. Secondly, we have much more experience with the traditional firefighting role, and what it is reasonable or unreasonable for a fire authority to do has become established over many years. For both those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the distinction between the new duties and the traditional firefighting duty is appropriate.

Mr. Hammond: I am looking at this on the hoof, but I think that I am right in saying that the draft order that rolls this theme into the clause 9 functions brings us back to a more objective definition and does not refer to what the authority considers reasonable, but we can no doubt debate that later.

This is a complicated matter, and the Minister is undeniably correct in saying that we cannot predict how the courts will interpret the test of whether the duty has been complied with. The Opposition do not want to impose impossible burdens on fire and rescue authorities, but it is important that the public are properly protected. I have heard what the Minister said, and I may seek to return to the issue at a later stage. At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Pugh: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in

clause 6, page 4, line 40, at end insert—

'(ia) how the use of sprinklers can be an effective means of reducing death, injuries and damage as a result of fires.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Sprinkler and misting systems—

'( ) The Secretary of State shall—

(a) require sprinkler or misting systems to be provided in all:

(i) new schools,

(ii) new housing,

(iii) new homes with multiple occupation,

(iv) new residential and nursing homes.

(b) review section (5)(3)(c) of the Fire Precaution Act 1971 and make provision, where appropriate, for a sprinkler system in—

(a) schools,

(b) residential and nursing homes,

(c) houses of multiple occupation.'.

Dr. Pugh: I shall deal with these in reverse order. One could argue about new clause 3's placing in the Bill and its exact phrasing—whether it should refer to fire and rescue authorities or the Secretary of State. One could argue about its exact scope and what exactly should be included in regulations for mandatory sprinkler systems, but I think that the Committee accepts that one cannot argue about the desirability of sprinkler systems and the crucial part they play in preventing deaths. That is particularly true in the light of recent sad events concerning HMOs, nursing homes and housing in areas of severe social deprivation.

There is empirical evidence that sprinkler systems work. One would hate to think that we could go through a Fire and Rescue Services Bill without highlighting that issue. I am trying to anticipate the Minister's response—I guess he will say that this is a nice idea that could be incorporated into another piece of legislation, perhaps building regulations, and that it does not fit harmoniously or coherently with everything else in the Bill, or at least in this particular clause. That might be a valid concern, but in the past Ministers have not been slow to incorporate into legislation things that they had not initially thought of, and that were not directly implied. One recalls the Local Government Act 2003 going through. Halfway through, the Minister decided that clause 28 was due for repeal. Provisions were added to the Bill. They had nothing to do with the Bill's other provisions but it was thought to be a good idea.

Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): The clause talks about preventing and restricting the spread of fires, so it seems already to refer to such things as sprinklers, fire doors and any other preventative measures. The amendment does not add anything to the Bill—or if it does, it only goes part of the way, as presumably one would then have to list all the other measures as well, which are covered anyway.

Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The suggestion is that the amendment says something that is not in the Bill. If the Minister says that all these measures are included in the Bill, or that regulations are implied by it, then fine. We will have to listen to what the Minister says, but it is not evident that that is the case. Maybe one is tempting him to do something he is very keen on anyway, which is appropriating further powers. There is no evidence

so far that he is at all reticent in that respect, and this is a power he could accrue to himself for the good of everybody.

Amendment No. 72 is a more modest version of new clause 3. It highlights the importance of sprinkler systems in saving lives, and makes a demand to which the Minister could acquiesce now. As far as the Government's overall objectives are concerned, there is something missing from the Bill: any mention of issues such as social inclusion and social deprivation and how they relate to fire deaths. The Minister will be aware that in many areas—Merseyside is a good example—smoke alarms have been distributed freely, at no charge whatsoever. Although there has been a reduction in fire deaths, which is wholly beneficial and desirable, there have still been deaths from fire. There have also been problems with smoke alarm systems. Smoke alarms have batteries, they wear out, and as Merseyside fire service could tell us, young children take out the batteries to use in their Gameboys.

All the evidence seems to indicate that, whatever good advice the fire brigade provides, there is a category of people to whom it does not get through, or who do not properly appreciate its significance. That is why we tabled the new clause. It could save lives, perhaps not immediately, because it would not apply to property that has already been built, but in future, when people would genuinely be glad of it. If the Minister accepts all that and if, as I suspect, he cannot accept new clause 3, why does he have a problem with amendment No. 72?

Mr. Hammond: The way that the Committee works is rather unfortunate, because I am tempted to do the Minister's dirty work for him.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the case for using sprinklers in circumstances for which their usefulness has conclusively been proven on the basis of scientific and other evidence, but amendment No. 72 appears to be utterly redundant. It is self-evident that the powers under subsection 2(b)(i) would include the giving of advice about sprinklers, such as the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to install them, and the distribution of available evidence about their effectiveness. The Liberal Democrats appear to have started with a preconception of what they would like not to be in the Bill, so that they could table an amendment to put it in. Notwithstanding the fact that it is already there, they have tabled an amendment to put it in anyway.

New clause 3 is a more interesting proposition, which rightly picks up on an important debate about sprinklers, which has cross-party support. There is a germ of a good idea in it, but it has been compromised by its over-exuberance. We are all agog to understand the potential of sprinklers and misting systems, and how they can be deployed effectively. I understand that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has commissioned ongoing research into the effectiveness of sprinklers. Recently, I have from people who witnessed tests at the Building Research Establishment that all is not quite as crystal clear as some people would like to think. Some complicated

issues about the effectiveness of different systems need to be addressed.

Dr. Pugh: I am always attentive to empirical evidence.

I believe that we are all aware that most fire deaths occur before the fire brigade get there. We must all deal with that—it does not matter how efficient our fire and rescue services become. We cannot alter that fact simply by improving fire engines or the staff on them.

Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The only people who have shown any inclination not to understand or accept that point are representatives of the Fire Brigades Union, some of whom persist in suggesting that lives will be put at risk if resources are redeployed away from dealing with night-time domestic fires. We all know very well that the vast majority of deaths in such fires occur before the fire brigade attends.

Jim Knight (South Dorset) (Lab): For my sins, I am a patron of the national fire sprinkler network, which brings together the fire protection industry and chief fire officers, and includes representatives from the FBU—which is in favour of sprinklers, notwithstanding some of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Hammond: I did not say that the Fire Brigades Union was not in favour of sprinklers. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) asked me whether I acknowledged the fact that, in the case of night-time call-outs to domestic fires, where the great majority of loss of life in residential premises occurs, the promptness of attendance of the fire brigade is not the material factor in determining whether lives are lost in most cases. He is absolutely right to say that we need to travel in the direction of trying to prevent fires. That is the thrust of much of the Bill, and certainly of this clause. We strongly support that aspect of the modernisation programme.

Mr. Swire: I entirely concur with my hon. Friend. If the Liberal Democrat amendment is to be included, should it not address the question of smoke alarms as well, if we are going to start listing the preventative tasks?

Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely what subsection (2)(b)(i) does. It deals with all the issues, which need to be looked at in the round. Sprinklers are a part of the panoply of equipment and mechanisms that are available to try to detect fires early and to suppress them automatically. That is obviously important. We do not disagree with the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Southport to explore every possible way to reduce the impact of fires, to prevent fires and to suppress them quickly and harmlessly when they occur. However, I think that he has gone a little too far.

The hon. Gentleman talked about sprinkler systems being provided in all new schools. I am attracted by the idea of sprinkler systems in schools, simply because schools are unfortunately the target of a tremendous

amount of arson. That almost invariably causes no loss of life, fortunately, but it causes huge disruption to the education system. For example, a school was burnt down just outside my constituency—arson happens in Surrey, too. It costs the public purse huge amounts.

There is a real case for putting sprinklers in schools, but I am not convinced that it requires legislation. The schools that we are talking about are public buildings, owned by local authorities. Where lives are not at risk—as they are not, generally speaking, in the case of schools—it simply becomes an economic consideration: how much money do we want to invest in sprinkler systems in schools, in order to save how much of the cost of dealing with damaged schools as a result of arson? I would hope that primary legislation was probably not the best way to deal with an internal public purse debate of that nature.

Jim Knight: I would counsel the hon. Gentleman against saying that lives are not at risk full stop when it comes to sprinklers in schools. In one school in the north of England, a corridor was used as a cloakroom for want of space. Some of the coats caught fire and effectively the whole corridor caught fire very quickly. A class was led on its hands and knees out through that burning corridor to escape. There is a danger that we will implement fire legislation only in reaction to tragedies. We need to anticipate them. There is a valid cause for concern about risk to life in schools.

Mr. Hammond: I am interested in the case cited by the hon. Gentleman. My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of arson attacks on schools occur either during school holidays or at night, and not when pupils are in the school. The incident that he describes sounds unlikely to be an arson case, but rather an accidental fire. Although I do not know the circumstances of that particular case, I am pretty horrified at the thought of the pupils being led out of a classroom to safety through the corridor that is the seat of the original fire. That suggests an urgent need for some fire training of the type that could be given under the clause and perhaps a review of the fire escape arrangements for that particular school. I certainly would not like to think of my children being led to safety through the corridor where the fire started. Those are my views on the issue of schools.

As for new housing, if the hon. Member for Southport means private residential housing, his proposal is extreme and would have significant cost implications. I have not heard many people on either side of the debate genuinely advocating that ordinary new homes should have sprinkler systems included. The hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of the general consensus.

We all recognise the particular risks with houses in multiple occupation, although there are also problems with sprinkler systems in such houses. One man's small fire or burnt toast may be someone else's extensive water damage.

Jim Knight rose—

Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman can tell me about the latest misting systems and so on in just a moment. I shall give him the opportunity to do so,

because I am sure that the Committee would be interested to hear about that. There are concerns that action by one occupier of a dwelling in multiple occupation might have an adverse result for another occupier.

The more important point about paragraph (a) of new clause 3, however, is that I imagine that very few new houses in multiple occupation are built. Typically, such houses are converted, large, older dwellings. Such things as purpose-built student accommodation would be categorised as hostel accommodation, rather than a house in multiple occupation, although I stand to be corrected.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of straying into the myth that when one sprinkler goes off the whole sequence goes off. A sprinkler is set off when the heat from a local fire causes the glass filament to break. If the heat does not reach the glass filaments elsewhere in the sequence, those sprinklers do not go off. It therefore does not follow that one person's burnt toast would be someone else's water damage.

Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as he is obviously knowledgeable. However, he may never have lived in a ground floor flat below someone inclined to let the bath overflow or leave the tap on when they do the washing up. I take his point. None of the problems is insuperable. However, the cross-liability issues in multiple occupied dwellings are different from those in single family occupied dwellings.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman doubts that there would be many new HMOs. However, when an older property is converted to an HMO, building regulations are required. Under those regulations, that building in effect becomes a new property.

Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes a slightly different point about how the conversion of a building, as defined under building legislation, would require a sprinkler system to be installed. That point is different from what is written in new clause 3, which says that sprinkler systems are to be provided in all

''new homes with multiple occupation''.

I understood that to mean newly built, although we could debate the point.

In the wake of Maryhill tragedy, we are all conscious of the vulnerability of the residents of nursing and care homes. Self-evidently, they are some of the most vulnerable people in the event of fire. The loss of life in that incident seems to have been extraordinarily disproportionate, although we would be unwise to draw any conclusions before finding out exactly what happened. If one thing on the hon. Member for Southport's pick list leaps off the page as a case for fitting sprinkler or misting systems, it is residential and nursing homes.

We should, however, recognise the cost and economic impact of such a move. Most residential and nursing home places are paid for by local authorities, and there is already a supply crisis. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has just come into the Room, and given what we are

talking about, she may be forgiven for thinking that she has strayed into another Committee on which she and I served. There is already a lot of economic pressure on this sector, and requiring nursing and care home providers to fit sprinkler or misting systems will have a significant cost impact. That cost will have to be met from the public purse.

After the Paddington rail crash, the Deputy Prime Minister famously said that he did not care if the Government had to spend £1 billion to save one life; it would be money worth spending. I suspect, however, that the Minister will take a more rational approach to cost-benefit analysis, and will recognise that although saving lives must always be a priority, it would be a pyrrhic victory if we were to cripple the expansion of the care and nursing home sector and fail to get much needed new nursing and care homes built by imposing expensive obligations without recognising the cost implications.

Paragraph (b) is curious. It is fine if it is simply an expression of concern that these matters should be considered, but it does not deal with cost, time scale or the mechanism through which the requirements would be imposed. I have learnt to my cost that, in order to be selected, amendments must be capable of being incorporated into legislation in the form in which they are written. I do not see how paragraph (b) could be interpreted in legislation.

The Chairman: Order. The Chairman selected the new clause for debate. I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not questioning the authority of the Chairman to select an amendment.

Mr. Hammond: I am merely pointing out my own inability—I carefully framed it thus—to understand how paragraph (b), if incorporated in the Bill, would make anything happen. No mechanism is specified, and cost is key. This casually drafted paragraph would have cost implications worth hundred of millions of pounds. Almost all those costs would ultimately be borne by care home fees, housing benefit payments or subventions to local education authorities, and they would have to be met from the public purse.

I entirely sympathise with the objective of focusing on the potential of sprinklers and similar systems for suppressing fires quickly and for reducing the consequences of fires that we are unable to prevent. I strongly suggest, however, that we should not pre-empt the results of current research but wait until the ODPM is in a position to publish it. I also suspect, almost to the point of certainty, that the Select Committee will want to examine the research carefully and that it will publish one of its customarily thorough reports on it. That is the point at which the House will want to have a very serious debate about this issue, and I hope that that will be within a reasonable time scale. Will the Minister say when he thinks the conclusions of the research will be available? I am sure that he will liaise with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) to ensure that the Select Committee is geared up to deal swiftly with this matter when the research becomes available.

I also suggest to the hon. Member for Teignbridge that where the evidence supports the case for the sort of things that he is talking about, it would be most appropriate to deal with the issues by amending building legislation. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) is seeking to amend that to ensure that when there is a change of use of a building—or, in this case, a change of occupation—retro-fitting of safety and security features is required. I suggest to the hon. Member for Teignbridge that in privately owned buildings it would be difficult, perhaps to the point of impossibility, to require retro-fitting, other than when a trigger event such as a change of use occurred. I suggest that building legislation is the proper means of dealing with these matters. I know that the hon. Gentleman likes Select Committees and only has a couple on the go at the moment. If he talked to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, he might be able to wangle his way on to the Committee that will consider the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill.

That concludes what I have to say on the specific points raised by the new clause and amendment. I hope that I will have an opportunity to put some further questions on clause 6 to the Minister in a stand part debate.

Jim Knight: I have explained my declarable interests and mentioned that I am patron of the National Fire Sprinkler Network and treasurer of the all-party group on fire safety. It would, therefore, be impossible for me to do anything but strongly support in principle what the new clause and the amendment are trying to do; the spirit of it is spot on. I am a passionate believer in the benefits of fire sprinklers, notwithstanding the work that the BRE is doing with the Department, which is very much to be welcomed.

I have seen a number of demonstrations that have proven to me the effectiveness of properly maintained and installed sprinklers. I am reliably informed by any number of chief fire officers that no one in this country has ever died from fire in a building with a properly installed and maintained fire sprinkler system. That phrase ''properly installed and maintained'' is very important. We have talked on Second Reading and to some extent in Committee about the problems of false alarms generated by automated fire alarms. In many cases those problems are due to the improper installation and maintenance of the systems. The same could be true of sprinklers, but their benefits are considerable.

I had an opportunity to explain how sprinklers work in an earlier intervention. I was then reminded of the aftermath of the Windsor castle fire, which has been referred to in the Committee. A Minister went along and said what a relief it was that the castle did not have sprinklers because of the damage that would have been done with them all going off. That was palpable nonsense, because they would have gone off only over the fire; they would not have damaged the castle's important heritage and they might have saved it from considerable damage.

In the debate about the cost of added regulation from using sprinklers it is also worth bearing in mind the potential for insurance savings to be built into the equation.

Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton) (Con): I have been listening very closely to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He mentioned the insurance savings to be made. He is obviously an expert, so could he also address—for my purposes if for no one else's—the cost putting sprinklers into these sorts of buildings? I have very little idea of the cost.

Jim Knight: Cost obviously depends on whether the sprinklers are retro-fitted or fitted when the building is being built or substantially renovated, and that is articulated in the new clause. An easy parallel to draw, certainly in new build, is with the cost of carpeting or central heating. Also, some design freedoms can be generated by the use of sprinklers, by which I mean that if fire inspectors are confident that sprinklers will work in the circumstances for which they are required, the need for a fire escape may possibly be discounted and savings may be made elsewhere—fewer fire doors may be needed. Schools that have used sprinklers have been able to open up the design of their buildings and make a much more welcoming and desirable environment for learning and for the community.

I would not say, however, that sprinklers are the answer to everything. It is important to balance the active protection that they offer with the passive protection provided by things such as fire doors and proper partitioning with a good resilience to fire. We must understand that sprinklers are not a panacea, and there are very important balances to be struck. All the chief fire officers with whom I work are clear that they do not want sprinklers to replace the passive measures that have been used for some time under building regulations.

I mention in passing that on Second Reading I expressed concern about water supply for fire sprinklers. I am very happy to report to the Committee that, since that debate, agreement has been struck with Water UK, and all is joy and harmony as far as that issue is concerned. Either the hon. Member for Teignbridge or the hon. Member for Southport, I cannot remember which, mentioned social deprivation and the concentration of fires in areas of greater social deprivation. Some very useful mapping exercises have been done by the network to demonstrate that very clearly, and it is right to point that out in respect of the people who are vulnerable to fire. It is worth noting the Prime Minister's answer to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) yesterday, when my right hon. Friend gave some indication—the Minister of State may wish to expand on it—of the direction of the review of building regulations. He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley had hit the nail on the head by talking about vulnerable people. That is something we may want to consider if we are thinking about concentrations of fire risk in areas of deprivation.

Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind, as I hope he would acknowledge, that building regulations simply impose an obligation on an

individual; they do not deal with the economic consequences. Although he is right to focus on vulnerable people, it is inevitably the case that most of those people will be those least able to deal with the economic consequences, either through paying higher rent or by facing the capital costs of installing the equipment to which he refers.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is why I am cautious about prescribing retro-fitting of sprinklers. There is an excellent example in Steeple Aston, in Wiltshire, in which an entire estate of new social housing was built with sprinklers. That project was carried out by the West Wiltshire Housing Association in conjunction with others. Built into the initial capital outlay, the cost is relatively small in terms of the borrowing that has paid for those homes. The initiative has proved exceptionally popular with residents. A commercial residential development was being constructed on a neighbouring site at the same time, and many of the people buying those homes complained to their developer that their homes did not have sprinklers, because they had seen them provided for their neighbours who were tenants on the social housing estate.

I want to comment briefly on schools. Although the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is correct in saying that the majority of arson incidents are outside school time, the trend is unfortunately going in the wrong direction. More and more school fires are started during the day, particularly during the examination season, which may explain the logic behind some of those fires. It is certainly a worrying trend, and it is being mapped fairly closely.

While we are considering the list in new clause 3(a) it is also worth thinking about whether we should promote the use of sprinklers in hospitals. We remember the fire at the Yarl's Wood removal centre for asylum seekers, after which there was much debate about whether sprinklers should have been installed. We should also think seriously about using sprinklers in other public buildings.

The amendment and the new clause gave us the opportunity to have a useful debate, one that we may want to repeat on Report and on Third Reading, although I do not know whether my Front-Bench colleagues would welcome that.

Phil Hope: We would.

Jim Knight: They would—I am delighted to hear that.

As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, the amendment is superfluous. The wording in clause 6(2)(b)(i),

''how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property'',

covers the use of sprinklers and mist systems. In principle, I am favour of keeping legislation simple and then using secondary powers and regulations to specify things, because that is more flexible. We would not want to enshrine in legislation something that was superseded by advancements in technology and so forth. I do not want to predict that something better

than sprinklers or misting systems will be invented—I have no idea what that would be—but, given how rarely we have an opportunity to legislate on fire, flexibility in regulation must be commended. I therefore suggest, with great respect to the hon. Member for Teignbridge, that he should not insist on pressing the amendment and new clause.

Richard Younger-Ross: These are probing amendments, which we tabled because we wanted a debate on the issue. In particular, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, we wanted to ask Ministers how far they have got with consultation on, and their consideration of, amendments to the building regulations. We would also like to know what progress has been made on the research that is part of their reason for being here.

It is remarkable how, when they are responding to an amendment, the tone used by Ministers varies according to whether they thought of the idea in the first place, and how the level of their opposition is proportionate to their lack of understanding of the subject. We tabled amendment No. 72 because when a fire officer discusses fire he usually does so in the context of fire regulations. A fire officer does not usually ask an architect going to a site with a builder, ''Have you thought about putting in a sprinkler system?'' That does not generally come up in the conversation.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real problem is the planning system and that, in any large development, planning officers should seek guidance from the fire authority as a matter of course and, more particularly, should press the owners to include sprinkler systems?

Richard Younger-Ross: The system is divided differently. I do not want to get into the detail of where planning and building regulations separate. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but building regulation officers need to determine these matters, and they can do so only in the context of the regulations that are made. Fire officers can make recommendations, but their freedom tends to be rather constrained, depending on whether they are restricted to discussing a set of problems or whether, as consultees in clause 6(2)(b), they would say that sprinklers should be installed. Because sprinklers are not required or considered, fire officers tend not to mention them, amendment No. 72 was intended to change that.

Mr. Flook: I want to make one small point. When we began to debate the programme motion in our first sitting the hon. Member for Teignbridge said:

''In terms of the timing, 10 sittings is more than adequate.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 10 February 2004; c. 6.]

Why are two Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members making speeches on the clause?

Richard Younger-Ross: There are two speeches from the Liberal Democrats because we thought this an important issue that needed to be fully debated. If the hon. Gentleman does not agree, that is up to him; he does not have to speak or intervene.

Dr. Pugh: Does my hon. Friend agree that two speeches from the Liberal Democrats take only half the time used by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge speak to the amendment?

The Chairman: Order. Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to intervene here. I seek to show total impartiality. The Bill is important, and it may be appropriate for me to point out that a knife comes down at the end of the fifth sitting. I have no authority, as it were, over that unless the Committee decides to request a meeting to adjust the knife.

We are not making terribly good progress. We have got only to clause 6; we need to get to the end of clause 20 by the end of the fifth sitting. It looks as though, at best, we will not get beyond clause 7 by the end of this, the third sitting. I suggest to Members, and I am trying to be helpful to the whole Committee, that we appreciate the time constraints that we face.

Richard Younger-Ross: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. That is why Liberal Democrat Members made very little comment on the earlier amendments. We wished to make progress and not just waste the Committee's time, but we feel that clause 6 is particularly important and must be considered.

The amendments seek to probe changes to building regulations that are currently being considered, and also retrofitting of sprinklers, because I am not sure whether the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering that matter. I noted from the Select Committee report on the fire service that the Minister had had discussions with the Department for Education and Skills. Was that about sprinkler installation in new schools or retrofitting in schools? The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned a fire in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) at the Tiffin Girls' school.

Mr. Hammond: It was a different school.

Richard Younger-Ross: It was another one. There were two fires very close to each other. The school in question was totally destroyed by fire, but if it had had a sprinkler system, it would not have been destroyed. The advantages to schools fitting the system would be considerable. The Select Committee said that the estimated costs of fitting the systems would be recouped in five years because of the reduction in insurance costs.

The Association of British Insurers listed in detail the costs to the industry and the country. They are on record, so I will not repeat them. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority was also strongly in favour of fitting sprinkler systems. On housing, it said:

''We believe that the use of sprinklers elsewhere in the world, especially in residential properties, has shown that a dramatic drop in the number of fatalities from fire is achievable.''

That is why paragraph (a)(ii) of the new clause would insert ''new housing''.

It may not be necessary to consider sprinkler systems for all new housing, but there are some circumstances in which it would be appropriate. If one considers the standards to which housing associations construct, one finds that they already install mains fire

alarms—not the type where the batteries can be removed to use in one's Gameboy. Perhaps in our debates we can encourage housing associations to consider the fitting of sprinkler or misting systems, particularly in houses in multiple occupation.

Another Standing Committee—which I should be attending at exactly the same time as I am here—is considering legislation on licensing HMOs at the moment. If we are to change that, we ought to consider having sprinkler systems in HMOs.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made the point that if sprinkler water came through into a flat following a fire in the flat above, there would be some damage. However, when I compare that with the risk of a toaster setting a flat on fire and leading to me dying in my bed at night, I would rather have a slightly soggy ceiling.

Jim Knight: The water damage from a sprinkler is estimated to be about 5 per cent. of what would be caused by a hosing down from a fire appliance in the event of a fire.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman will also know that if a misting system is fitted, there will be no damage below because the quantity of water released is very slight. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made a good point about the cost to residential and nursing homes. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has already estimated that £1 billion is required to bring nursing homes up to a reasonable standard. A cash problem should not determine whether a matter is suitable for legislation. When it comes to new-build, there is no excuse for us not considering the matter. I hope that the Minister will deal with the issues of new-build and retro-fitting in his summation.

Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 72 and new clause 3 both aim to put sprinklers at the centre of fire prevention and I want to make clear that we believe that sprinklers have a significant role to play. I think that all parties recognise that.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) has particular expertise in this area, and was rather too modest in not listing all his involvements. Not only is he patron of the National Fire Sprinkler Network, but he is also treasurer of the all-party group on fire safety. He is the director of the Fire Protection Association and he chairs the fire protection council. My hon. Friend spoke with considerable authority on the subject; so, too, did other Members, who have taken an intelligent interest in the issue and it is right to say that there is general concern. That is why we commissioned new research on the effectiveness of residential sprinklers. The research has now been published and is available from the BRE, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday. A summary of the work is also available from the ODPM website so that any hon. Member or other interested party who wants to examine the research is able to do so.

The conclusions of the research underline the potential role of sprinklers in providing additional fire protection, particularly in homes for children,

homes for elderly people, homes for disabled people, higher risk houses in multiple occupation and high-rise residential developments. We shall undertake further work on the matter as part of our review of part B of the building regulations, which deals with fire safety in new and substantially altered buildings.

In recent years, we have extended the ambit of the building regulations to cover provision in converted buildings where there have been substantial alterations, so that they are not restricted to newly built premises. That is part of the answer to the question that the hon. Member for Teignbridge posed about retro-fitting.

There are premises that might be high risk where there is no proposal for major works to change those premises. In those cases, the building regulations would not apply because they are existing premises. There is a wider issue of retro-fitting in some of the most vulnerable instances, which is an issue that the Government have addressed in the case of multiply occupied houses. Committee members will know we have proposals for a more effective regime for taking action to deal with potential problems in such properties. There is a framework to ensure that the issue can be addressed not just in respect of new buildings, but where there are substantial alterations through the building regulations, and in certain other circumstances.

The research highlights the vital importance of measures other than sprinklers. Effective smoke alarms make a great contribution towards saving lives; they play a crucial role in increasing people's chances of surviving a fire. The current building regulations recommend that all new residential dwellings should be provided with interlinked mains-operated smoke detectors. Our challenge is to ensure their extension to the 20 per cent. or so of homes that still do not have working smoke alarms. The issue is much wider than sprinklers.

Sprinklers can help to protect particularly vulnerable groups, but only if they are properly maintained and in good working order. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was right to highlight the fact that the research undertaken by the BRE has shown that the issues are complex; it is not an open and shut case that the installation of sprinklers automatically provides a panacea. They must be well maintained, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset rightly said, and there can be circumstances in which a sprinkler cannot suppress a fire because there is a barrier between it and the source of the fire. Let me illustrate; if a fire were to occur under the table in front of me, many sprinkler systems would not be able to deal with the source of that fire as quickly as might be desirable in order to enable people to escape without the risk of being overcome by smoke. I emphasise that sprinklers have a hugely important role to play, but they are not an alternative to other measures such as shutting fire doors, installing smoke alarms, fire safety education and effective management of buildings.

Amendment No. 72 seeks to add an explicit requirement on fire authorities to give advice on request about how the use of sprinklers can be an effective means of reducing death, injuries and damage

to property by fire. That amendment is unnecessary. Clause 6(2)(b)(i) already requires fire authorities to give advice on request about how to restrict the spread of fire in buildings. Where justified by a proper risk assessment, the fire service may already advise the installation of a sprinkler system. For instance, Merseyside fire and rescue service has undertaken about 160,000 home fire safety checks and, as a result, has installed some 250,000 smoke alarms and about 100 sprinkler systems in particularly high-risk buildings. That is an indication of the extent to which some of the most forward-looking fire authorities already act in the spirit of what hon. Members seek to achieve.

The amendment runs the risk of suggesting that measures not specifically mentioned, such as smoke alarms, are not included in the general duty to promote fire safety. That touches on the argument that we have had several times about the problems of a list system, in which some but not all potential remedies are listed. It is particularly applicable here.

Mr. Hammond: The Government are in favour of list systems.

Mr. Raynsford: I will not rise to that attempt by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to widen our debate to cover alternative types of list. I suspect that he was thinking of proportional representation and I have no intention of allowing the good humour in the Committee to be interrupted by any such digression.

New clause 3(a) seeks to make the provision of sprinkler or misting systems compulsory in all new schools, housing, HMOs and residential and nursing homes. On the basis of substantial research evidence, we believe that blanket installation of sprinklers in all new buildings would add significantly to costs without commensurate improvements to safety. As I have said, fire safety is our top priority. Achieving our objectives requires a range of responses, including educating people to behave safely and to take simple precautions, as well as providing a safe environment; an environment that combines effective management with a suitable level of physical fire protection measures in relation to the assessed risks. For higher risk HMOs and residential homes, suitable fire protection may need to include a sprinkler system as well as other measures. That would not necessarily apply across the board as a blanket provision.

New clause 3 (b) seeks to ensure, through a review of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, that a sprinkler or misting system is installed where appropriate in existing schools, HMOs and residential or nursing homes, but not ordinary housing. The provision is unnecessary in view of the proposed reform of fire safety law. That reform will replace the fire certification regime with a risk-based one under which sprinklers may be required if they are necessary in the circumstances for the protection of vulnerable people. The new regime will apply to all premises with the exception of private housing and would include schools, residential and nursing homes and houses in multiple occupation.

I hope that the hon. Member for Southport will recognise, having heard that explanation, that the issue is being addressed in an extremely constructive way, and that he will now feel free to withdraw the amendment.

Dr. Pugh: I thank the Minister for his constructive response. I could not miss the chance to thank also the hon. Member for South Dorset for his informed approach. He certainly brought a level of expertise to the debate that was probably required.

Our unhappiness about subsection (2)(b) is the perception that there is a limit to what advice can do, particularly when trying to reach socially excluded groups. Such a problem is identifiable in Merseyside even where they have ready distribution of fire alarms. I shall not get wound up about the elegance of the amendment, but shall study what the Minister said.

The Bill is fundamentally about fighting fire. If it had been about fighting crime, it would have three dimensions; the reaction of the police to a crime, alarms that detect crime and ways of designing out crime. It seems appropriate that a Bill on fire should have an emphasis on reaction, on advice and on incorporating something that will design out tragedies associated with fire. If we could do that in some little way, we as legislators would have done a good day's work. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: I am aware that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge may request a stand part debate. It is worth making the point that I am not responsible for the programming motion. The Liberal Democrat amendment was spoken to by the Liberals for just over 16 minutes. Her Majesty's Opposition spoke for 20 minutes. We need shorter speeches. I do not want to cut contributions; that is not what Standing Committees are about. However, I believe that people can speak more briefly and still make their point.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hammond: I shall be brief, Sir Nicholas; you have just underlined the iniquity of the timetabling system.

I have three brief questions for the Minister. We support the general thrust of focusing on the promotion of fire safety as the core of modernisation. What is the implication for the staffing profile of the fire and rescue services? It is not immediately obvious that people who were recruited to shin up ladders and haul heavy hoses around will necessarily be the best people to conduct the fire prevention and fire education programme. Over time, I would expect there to be a change in the profile of the work forces of the fire authorities. Although it is essential to focus on fire prevention and education, it is also important that we do not diminish beyond the critical point the resources available for intervention when prevention fails.

Secondly, a technical question. I cannot see a provision in clause 6 specifically empowering an authority to issue free equipment such as smoke detectors. It includes stuff about giving advice. Will the Minister reassure the Committee that there is a power to issue and install smoke detectors, and can he point to the provision that gives fire authorities that power?

Finally, will the Minister confirm that nothing in the Bill prevents advice under subsection (2)(b) being charged for?

Mr. Raynsford: You rightly emphasised the importance of brevity, Sir Nicholas, and I shall be brief. You referred to the time that Members from both Opposition parties took over their speeches on the previous group of amendments, but not to the time that the Government took to respond, and I am sure that that was simply because we took a great deal less time to do so.

The Chairman: The figure was nine minutes.

Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Sir Nicholas.

The cornerstone of our policy is the prevention of fire. That is why clause 6 requires fire authorities to promote community fire safety, thus preventing deaths and injuries in the home and reducing the impact of fire on the community. We recognise that fire prevention is first and foremost about educating people, and we must change attitudes and behaviour if we are to make people—especially the most vulnerable—safe from the devastating impact of fire. That is why subsection (2)(a) places an entirely new duty on fire authorities to provide information and publicity and encouragement to prevent fires and, therefore, deaths and injury by fire.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked a couple of questions. First, who will be best equipped to carry out such tasks, and secondly, what can be done beyond giving advice? In the latter respect, he mentioned the free installation of equipment such as smoke alarms.

On the first question, a wide range of people are well placed to give advice. Often, firefighters with practical experience can get the message across in a way that is most likely to be effective. I think particularly of the young firefighters scheme and other schemes that seek to engage young people in the work of the fire and rescue services. Engaging with firefighters can be a very effective way of communicating to young people the dangers of playing with fire. Equally, on a visit to the Merseyside fire and rescue service, I was conscious of the significant role played by a person from the Chinese community, who spoke to that community about fire safety in the area. That was a culturally sensitive response to the needs of one of the service's communities.

I am also conscious of the fact that, under current pension arrangements, many firefighters find it financially advantageous to retire a little over the age of 50. They have considerable experience, which could be used in an educational role, even though they may not be fully fit for active firefighting. I therefore say to

the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that, although there is no blanket answer, it is right that all fire and rescue authorities should be thinking about how best to get the message across.

Mr. Hammond: My specific concern was to find out the extent to which the Minister expects there to be dedicated fire-prevention and fire-education officers. To the extent that active firefighters double up, the intervention capacity will remain. However, having a large group of dedicated prevention officers within a fixed budget would inevitably diminish intervention capacity.

Mr. Raynsford: As I think that I said, I suspect that we require a mixture. In certain circumstances, there may be a case for dedicated education officers, but they might not necessarily be members of the fire and rescue authority. There are provisions for working in partnership with others, and the local authority may be able to play an important role. I shall answer the hon. Gentleman by saying only that flexibility is essential, but it is right that fire and rescue authorities should address the issue, as the Bill will require them to.

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Raynsford: Of course I will give way to a Merseyside Member.

Mrs. Ellman: The Minister referred to the activities of the Merseyside fire and rescue service. Is he suggesting that it is a model in that respect and that he would like its practices to be copied elsewhere?

The Chairman: A simple, one-word answer, Minister.

Mr. Raynsford: I shall resist that temptation, because I do not want to cause offence to other authorities. I believe that Merseyside has gone a long way in that direction in an impressive manner. That was one reason why I chose to visit Merseyside fire authority recently to hear about its success in rolling out fire-prevention and safety measures.

The second question that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked was about the free installation of smoke alarms. The answer is in clause 11(3), which we will come to later. It is not in this clause, but the Bill must be read as a whole. We will, no doubt, return to that matter when we reach clause 11.

Most fire services already do such work as part of community fire-safety programmes. Depending on local needs and circumstances, the work may include fire-safety education, chip pan safety demonstrations and home and fire-safety assessments. In many areas, the fire service also provides training programmes for young people, investigates suspicious fires and works with local businesses and partnerships. Of course, we must also do everything that we can to make buildings as safe as possible through physical fire-protection measures. That is why we are re-enacting, in clause 6(2)(b), the duty from the 1947 Act, which requires fire authorities to give advice on fire safety in buildings,

including means of escape and restricting the spread of fire.

The tragic fire at the Rosepark nursing home in Glasgow, which has been referred to and which resulted in the deaths of 14 elderly residents, is a shocking reminder of the consequences of failure. It is too early to say whether shortcomings in management, human error or equipment faults were the cause, or whether a sprinkler system could have saved lives. We will certainly consider the findings of the investigation closely when they become available and will seek to act on them to guard against a repetition of that appalling tragedy.

The Building Research Establishment intends to publish research. It has already made available research commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the effectiveness of residential sprinkler systems, which highlights the importance of effective smoke alarms and the role that they play in increasing the chances of surviving a fire. The building regulations already recommend that all new residential dwellings be provided with interlinked mains-operated smoke detectors.

The research also suggests that sprinklers may have a role to play in providing additional fire protection in homes for children, elderly people, disabled people and higher-risk houses in multiple occupation, as well as high-rise residential property. As I said, we will be undertaking further work on that as part of our review of part B of the building regulations. In the meantime, we are supporting prevention work by the fire service through the community fire safety innovation fund, including home fire-safety checks and smoke alarm installation.

Community fire safety works: smoke alarm ownership has gone from 9 to 80 per cent. in the past 20 years and we estimate that 80 lives a year are saved. Fire-safety education in schools is helping to reduce deaths from fires started by playing with matches: from about 40 to about 10 in the past 10 years.

There is much more to do. For example, 20 per cent. of households—typically those most vulnerable to fire—still do not have a smoke alarm. We estimate that if all households were covered we could halve fire deaths in the home, saving about 150 lives a year. That is an extraordinarily vivid illustration of the importance of that work.

Mr. Hammond: Why, then, has the Minister not set his targets to reflect that level of ambition? He has pushed back the date for achieving a 20 per cent. reduction in fire deaths in the home to 2010.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that we have set a very challenging target—a 20 per cent. reduction. We will have an opportunity to debate the issue on many occasions, as we already have. We have been realistic and set achievable targets rather than trying to live with one that was set without proper understanding of two crucial considerations. The first is demographic change—the considerable increase in the proportion of elderly people, who are the most vulnerable to fire. The second is the collapse in the scrap metal market, which led to the huge

additional problem of the abandonment of motor vehicles that became particular targets for arsonists. Those developments were not taken fully into account when the targets were set. We properly appraised the likelihood of achieving a significant reduction in the number of lives lost through fire and in the number of fires that were deliberately set, and set ambitious and demanding targets to a realistic timetable. The provisions will help to achieve those targets.

All too often, community fire safety is seen as a worthy but optional extra that does not need to be planned, resourced or evaluated in the same way as firefighting. That can result in patchy, short-term provision that leaves some of our communities poorly served. The new duty is an essential step towards the vision that we set out in the White Paper of a modernised fire and rescue service with fire prevention at the centre of its work. It will ensure that all fire and rescue authorities plan for, prioritise and implement work to improve community fire safety.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.