Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 27, in

clause 7, page 5, line 6, leave out 'and property' and insert

', property and the environment'.—[Mr. Hammond.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara. It will be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. If you will allow me, I would like to make a short announcement that may be of interest to members of the Committee. I wish to inform you and the Committee that I intend to table a small number of technical Government amendments to clauses that we will reach in later stages of our discussions. I plan to table them before we meet again on Tuesday, 24 February and I will ensure that you and members of the Committee are sent a copy of them next week, so that members have plenty of time to consider them before they are discussed.

May I also mention in the same breath that the Government were asked in earlier sittings whether the amendment on public inquiries that I undertook on Tuesday to consider might be prepared in time for Report. I cannot guarantee that we will complete the work in time, but it is certainly our intention to do so if possible.

That brings me back to the point we reached when we adjourned this morning. On amendment No. 27, proposed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), I was pointing out that clause 7(1)(a) already requires a fire and rescue authority to make provision for dealing with all types of fire. Hon. Members will note that clause 11 gives explicit authority to a fire and rescue authority to equip for and respond to a situation that causes or is likely to cause harm to the environment. Clause 7(1)(b) retains the existing requirement for a fire and rescue authority to make provision for saving life and property from fires.

Amendment No. 27 would add protection of the environment to the requirement. In our view, that is unnecessary. That is not to say that the Government have no regard for the environment or seek to downgrade its importance—far from it—but the amendment could have adverse consequences for the deployment of resources. For example, if a fire and rescue authority were under a duty to make provision for even the smallest fire on, say, open land and to ensure that it could discharge its duty, it could feel obliged to purchase specialist equipment—for

example, a plane designed to scoop and drop water on fires—that is disproportionate to the nature of the risk.

Historically, it has been a matter for a fire and rescue authority to decide whether it responds to a fire on, for example, common land, where the primary risk is to the environment. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that many authorities do indeed deal with such fires on moorland and heathland, but until now that has been done by stretching the boundaries of existing legislation.

Clause 11 gives clear authority to equip for and respond to any incidents where there is a risk to the environment. That would include fires and would allow for the provision of specialist equipment, but it is for an authority to decide what is a proportionate and adequate response to local needs and priorities, taking into account risks assessed in its integrated risk management plans.

Fire and rescue authorities already follow good practice in respect of the environmental impact of dealing with fires and other incidents. Such matters fall within the statement of operational good practice introduced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services in 2001, which all fire and rescue authorities follow.

Amendment No. 27 would place an unnecessary requirement on fire and rescue authorities and could have adverse consequences and create issues around liability. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

I, too, am delighted to have the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. O'Hara. I am a little disappointed by the Minister's response, because I thought that he would want to take the opportunity to place on record that, as indicated in the Civil Contingencies Bill, the Government regard protecting the environment as equally important as protecting property, if not protecting life. Some of the more lurid dangers that the Minister painted are more imagined that real. Unlike him, I do not envisage the problem of fire authorities having grossly to misallocate resources to respond to threats to the environment alone.

There will be circumstances, as I said in my opening remarks, in which the threat to property must be balanced against the threat to the environment. I fear that the fact that the statutory duty relates to property only, and that there is no statutory duty relating to the environment—there is merely a permissive power under clause 11, as the Minister said—will mean that fire authorities are invariably constrained to act in the way that will enable them to discharge their duty to protect property, and that that may have adverse consequences for the environment. The example that I gave earlier was hosing down a building that contained contaminated material in order to put out a fire, while knowing full well that the contaminants would be washed out of the building and damage the environment. It is a question of giving people the opportunity to make balanced judgments.

I was not prepared for a confrontation with the Minister on this. I nurtured some hope that he might at least indicate that he would like to get some wording about the environment into clause 7. I will read carefully what he has said and will see if we cannot draft something tighter to deal with the environmental fall-out from fires that involve risks to property and life. That would help me to achieve my aim, while cutting away from the Minister the lurid defence that the proposal would require all fire authorities to devote all their resources to dealing with fires on open heathland, which is certainly not what I intended to convey. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 28, in

clause 7, page 5, line 10, leave out 'normal requirements' and insert

'requirements which it is reasonable to anticipate, after taking into consideration any arrangements which the authority has entered into under the provisions of sections 13, 15 and 16.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 30, in

clause 8, page 5, line 27, leave out 'normal requirements' and insert

'requirements which it is reasonable to anticipate, after taking into consideration any arrangements which the authority has entered into under the provisions of sections 13, 15 and 16.'.

These two amendments deal with the same issue in relation to clauses 7 and 8. The clauses require the authorities to

''secure the provision of the personnel, services and equipment necessary efficiently to meet all normal requirements''.

In the case of clause 7, ''normal requirements'' relates to firefighting obligations and, in the case of clause 8, to road traffic accident obligations. ''Normal requirements'' seems a rather ambiguous term. These are probing amendments. They tighten up the language and we wait with interest to see how the Minister reacts. Will he tell us that inserting the wording in the amendments would result in something different from what he has in mind when he uses the term ''normal requirements''?

It is important that account is taken of the arrangements entered into under clauses 13, 15 and 16, which relate to the authority's reinforcement arrangements, any arrangements that it has with third parties for providing assistance and, under clause 16, any arrangements that it has entered into with other parties—third parties or other fire and rescue authorities—to discharge any of its functions. Clearly, the optimally efficient operation of the service overall requires that each authority makes the provision that is required after taking into account those other arrangements.

We certainly advocate—we will come to other amendments that will underline this—an approach that encourages fire authorities, where appropriate, to engage third parties or work with other fire and rescue authorities to deliver specialist services or services that require a critical delivery mass to make them economic and efficient. Part of the purpose of amendments Nos. 28 and 30 is to emphasise the importance of those

arrangements, and to make it clear to fire authorities that the requirement to provide services, personnel and equipment directly will be reduced to the extent that they have entered into proper arrangements under clauses 13, 15 and 16. I hope that the Minister will at least accept the spirit of the amendments, even if he does not like the precise wording.

Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 would qualify what a fire and rescue authority must take account of when determining what constitutes the appropriate level of people, equipment and services to discharge its duty to extinguish fires and to respond to road traffic accidents.

Clause 7(2)(a) re-enacts in a modern form the existing wording in section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947. It retains the requirement that a fire and rescue authority, when making arrangements for securing the requisite resources—that is, people and equipment—to discharge its duty to deal with fires, should meet efficiently all normal requirements. Clause 8(2)(a) replicates that requirement on a fire and rescue authority with regard to the new duty for dealing with road traffic accidents.

The operation of the word ''normal'' is important and is certainly not ambiguous, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge suggested. It is widely understood within fire and rescue authorities and is regarded by the Local Government Association as a tried and trusted formula for defining responsibility in terms of limiting liability. As we all know, we live in a litigious age and there are significant implications. Ordinarily, a breach of a statutory duty does not give rise to private law claims because the fire and rescue authority is expected only to equip to meet efficiently all normal requirements. We should be very careful before making any changes to that well tried, tested and understood arrangement because they could have significant consequences for the future liabilities of authorities.

The inclusion of the word ''normal'' recognises that it is for an authority to consider all its functions, priorities, available resources and arrangements, and, having done so, to decide what is an efficient service to provide on a day-to-day basis.

I am not sure that the Minister has explained how normal requirements differ from requirements that it is reasonable to anticipate. It is not clear that clause 7(2)(a) requires the authority to make

''provision of the personnel, services and equipment''

even in the discharge of functions that it has contracted out under clause 16.

During an earlier debate, the hon. Gentleman pressed the case for what he described as a more objective measure than the authority being able itself to determine what it regarded as appropriate. The words in the amendment,

''requirements which it is reasonable to anticipate'',

have exactly that characteristic. They would be open to interpretation by others because they would be a departure from the existing wording, which has been in place for more than 50 years, is well understood and

has been considered by the courts in reaching judgments that can inform the way in which fire authorities discharge their responsibilities.

It would be a serious move by the Committee and the House to make changes, when there is no perceived need to do so and when there is no wish on the part of fire authorities or, indeed, other bodies to do so, simply on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's concern that the wording may be a little ambiguous. As I understand it, the fire community would prefer to keep the existing wording rather than to change it as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

I recognise the spirit of the amendment but it could, arguably, weaken the duty because clause 13 places an expectation on fire and rescue authorities to enter into mutual assistance arrangements and clauses 15 and 16 offer other service delivery options. However, an authority should not be required to give them undue weight. We believe that that such matters should be determined locally, with all relevant factors, such as integrated risk management plans, being taken into account. As I have said, there is no problem with the current use of the word ''normal'', which has wide recognition and support in the service. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw his amendment.

Does the Minister envisage that, with the new combined fire and control centres that he hopes to create, entailing mutual support between one force and another—that already exists to a certain extent—a problem could arise between a largely retained service, such as the one in Devon, and other services in the neighbourhood, which have fewer retained firemen and more full-time firemen? Could there be a conflict? If so, surely the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is better because it creates a looser arrangement.

Arrangements are generally good between authorities that employ predominantly retained firefighters and those that employ solely, or a majority of, full-time firefighters. There were some barriers in the past, partly because of the Fire Brigades Union's opposition to mixed crewing, but that is changing. There will be more flexible arrangements throughout the country and a strong emphasis on people working together.

By giving undue weight to reinforcement arrangements or assistance arrangements, which are covered by later clauses, the amendment could weaken the duty. For that reason, together with the one that I emphasised—that the word ''normal'' is well understood and the fire service does not wish to change it because it provides some protection for authorities against undesirable and questionable litigation—it seems wise to stay with the existing formulation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

It is interesting to hear the Minister cite, as the conclusive argument, the fact that the fire authorities do not want to change the system therefore it should remain. I hope that fire authorities' views on

issues such as the Secretary of State's appointment of members to combined fire authority boards will carry equal weight in the Minister's mind when we consider those matters later.

We have finished that one.

I assure the Minister that we shall come back to it.

As the Minister was speaking, it occurred to me that we must interpret the word ''normal'' in its context. In 1947 the normal requirements that fire authorities were being asked to prepare for must have meant peacetime requirements, not the exceptional exigencies of running a fire service in wartime. The phrase ''normal requirements'' suggests to me, 55 years on, a backward-looking approach to what is normal. What have we provided in the past? What has been needed in the past?

My purpose in substituting ''normal requirements'' with reasonably anticipated requirements was precisely to address the point that the Minister made: we live in a fast-changing world in which we must provide not just for what has normally been required over the past 55 years, but for what we can reasonably expect to be required in the future, going beyond fire to the terrorist threat of non-fire emergencies. That is precisely what the Minister wants to do in the Bill. He must consider not only the kinds of emergency that the service has had to respond to in the past—I do not want to rehearse a discussion that we had on Tuesday, horrific as some of those incidents have been—but, as he reminded us, the possibly more serious and horrific incidents that may occur in future. Therefore, he has taken on board, in the context of clause 9 emergencies, the fact that we are moving into a different era and need to look forward. Should we not do the same in relation to clause 7?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, clause 9 covers more extreme circumstances, which we shall come to in due course. We are dealing with clause 7, which covers a fire authority's normal firefighting responsibilities. Although I hear the hon. Gentleman's case and understand the logic, I do not hear any clamour for change to the well tried and tested definition of the normal expectation of a fire authority, which is to respond to its core function, often described in the Committee, of fighting and putting out fires.

The Minister well knows that clause 9 refers to everything other than the functions that fire authorities have under clauses 7 and 8. He throws down a clear challenge to me to find practitioners who appreciate my argument. I hope to rise to that challenge between now and Report.

The Minister talked down the significance of clauses 15 and 16. We will come to those clauses in due course. I see the potential for the arrangements to become very significant and change the nature of fire authorities' requirements for personnel, services and equipment.

I hoped to clarify whether the level of provision that authorities are directly required to make meets normal

requirements after taking into account any arrangements made under other clauses. I do not see that caveat; I see an obligation to secure the provision of personnel, services and equipment necessary to meet all normal requirements.

I was looking for confirmation from the Minister that when a part of the function has been contracted out under clause 16, it is common sense not to oblige the fire authority to secure provision of the services, equipment and personnel. Although I am happy to withdraw the amendment, I will return to the matter so that I receive reassurances from the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I have a couple of points to put to the Minister. We had an interesting debate, which you may not have had a chance to read, Mr. O'Hara, about ''economy, efficiency and effectiveness.'' ''Efficiently'' now stands alone in subsection (2)(a), without any reference to effectiveness and economy. Will the Minister explain the significance of that?

Subsection (2)(c) states that an authority must

''make arrangements for dealing with calls for help and for summoning personnel''.

Rather tantalisingly, that looks to me like a requirement on a fire and rescue authority to provide a control room and methodology for handling calls from the public. I would support that, but the Minister has a different agenda that would remove the responsibility from fire authorities and centralise it in regional control rooms. In light of his proposals, what does paragraph (c) mean?

Will the Minister explain whether subsection (2)(e) is a new obligation on fire authorities? Is the obligation to

''make arrangements . . . to prevent or limit damage to property resulting from''

firefighting actions about not exposing fire authorities to further litigation, or is it about presenting in a different form an obligation that they are understood to have already?

Essentially, clause 7 re-enacts the existing statutory duty under section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947. The traditional intervention role that it defines remains a core function.

An authority is required to make arrangements for the efficient discharge of its duty in normal circumstances—in particular, to secure equipment, personnel and services. My layman's understanding is that efficiency is the right emphasis in the context because the authority will work to meet its obligations to ensure the benefits of efficiency, economy and effectiveness more widely, and, in any case, it will do that under the duties spelled out in the Bill. The use of the term ''efficiently'' is simply a reflection of the wish to have the authority act efficiently to give effect to its obligations.

The second question that the hon. Gentleman asked about clause 7(2)(c) was whether there is an implication that existing fire authorities should be responsible for having their own control room. That is not the case. It is the same provision that applies under the existing definition in the 1947 Act. It simply requires the authority to make arrangements for dealing with calls, and that can be done either by running its own control room or by having a joint control room with other authorities. Joint control rooms have been established in certain areas. Indeed, the whole of London is moving to a single control room, although admittedly that is a single fire authority. Nevertheless, there is a wide range provisions on control rooms in existing arrangements and they are not changed by the Bill.

The third item the hon. Gentleman asked about was the arrangement for ensuring that reasonable steps are taken to prevent or limit damage to property resulting from action taken for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1). That is an existing duty that fire authorities understand and under which they operate. He asked about the potential for causing damage to the environment in certain circumstances. I simply say to him that the measure replicates provisions in the 1947 Act.

I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurances he sought. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.