I beg to move amendment No. 79, in

clause 8, page 5, line 35, at end add—

'(3) The Secretary of State shall make a direction that a fire officer or firefighter shall be responsible for the management of a road traffic accident except where there is a police officer present.'.

The Minister said that he had made a concession on inquiries, for which we are grateful. I hope he will also concede that there is room to amend the Bill along the lines of the amendment.

One issue that was dealt with in the 1947 Act but is not covered in the Bill is responsibility in the case of a fire. We intend to table another amendment to reinstate that provision. Firefighters and fire officers to whom we have spoken have asked who is responsible and what is the order of responsibility in the case of, for example, a road traffic accident. Our amendment simply says that if a police officer is not present, the senior fire officer should be responsible. If he was first on the scene, he would know that he should take responsibility until the police arrive. If other services arrive, someone would be in charge. The amendment is fairly straightforward and would certainly simplify life for those who have to operate as part of a group.

As the hon. Gentleman was so brief, I shall intervene on him rather than seeking to catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara. Is there any significance

in his choice of mechanism of imposing on the Secretary of State an obligation to ''make a direction''? Why not simply write the requirement—if it is at all necessary, which I doubt—into the face of the Bill?

Our understanding was that a direction would be the better way forward. I am not a parliamentary draftsman, so I listened to and heeded what others said to me on this issue. There is no particular reason why it should not be written straight in. I hope that the Minister will give a direction on all the responsibilities and all the circumstances, because, with the new responsibilities, the Minister has created far more complex situations—involving a number of fire services and other services coming together in different circumstances.

This is an interesting amendment. Can the hon. Gentleman not foresee that a road traffic accident might well have other implications during a civil contingency, whereupon somebody from the armed forces might be better placed to take overall command? Does the proposal not unduly limit the flexibility of the Secretary of State to meet such an eventuality?

Part of the purpose of proposing a direction is to give the Secretary of State flexibility in that matter.

There is no flexibility.

It gives him a direction—Ministers can change directions. The purpose is to spark a debate and to ask whether the Minister will consider the idea. The points are fairly clear.

I shall be very brief. I am delighted, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara. I raise this point now, but I am sure that I could equally have done so during the stand part debate. I have noticed when talking about road traffic accidents to those in the fire, ambulance and police services that there is an ongoing concern about who in this litigious society takes responsibility.

As much as we could never write such a provision in tablets of stone, I wonder whether we are being simplistic and not looking at the way in which the three emergency services must co-ordinate. It is all well and good making decisions that in the light of day appear logical, but they will not always prove to be effective at the site of an accident. I seek some clarification from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the degree to which the proposal would protect firefighters, ambulance staff and police. Increasingly, RTAs are the subject of all manner of controversy.

I must say to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross)—I hope that I am now pronouncing his constituency correctly.

It is ''Tinbridge''.

Is it ''Tin''? I thought that it was ''Teen''? There is a dispute between the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members from Devon.

As and when a third Devon Member, my hon. Friend and Parliamentary Private Secretary, the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) returns, I shall ask her to adjudicate. I am extremely relieved that the hon. Gentleman does not represent the constituency of one of his colleagues with whom I served on a previous Committee. It took me a great deal more time to learn to say Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, so at least his has the benefit of being a single word.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on his policy of creating a south-west region in England, given that he has just seen a demonstration of how hon. Members from opposite sides of the same river cannot even agree on how it is pronounced.

Order. The Minister will return to the point.

I stand reproved, and will return immediately to the point.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge should not assume that because we have acceded to his suggestion for an amendment on another matter that we will automatically do so again. I am much less persuaded of the need for change, but I will explain why that is not appropriate.

Clause 8(1)(b) recognises the role of a fire and rescue authority in dealing with road traffic accidents. That goes beyond initial rescue and includes protecting the public from the immediate aftermath. Typically, that involves dealing with spillage of hazardous substances. However, the clause also recognises that the duty placed on a fire and rescue authority must be proportionate to its skills and expertise and, therefore, gives individual authorities the ability to make a judgment on what action is reasonable. Amendment No. 79 would go well beyond that. It would require the Secretary of State to direct that firefighters take responsibility for managing the scene of all road traffic accidents unless the police are present. No account would be taken of the circumstances. Such a direction would have to be so general as to be meaningless.

I am glad that I did not catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara, because I might have made a fool of myself. I was under the impression—the Minister will correct me—that there was already a hierarchy and that in the absence of a police officer the senior fire office at a scene would automatically be considered in charge.

If the hon. Gentleman had lingered a moment, I would have got to the relevant point. There are, of course, good arrangements between the emergency services. The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) highlighted the role of the military in certain circumstances. Those arrangements generally work well. So, there is an understanding between the emergency services.

The point about the amendment is that it would cut across that by creating a formal responsibility in circumstances that might be inappropriate. I recognise that there are occasions when it would be appropriate for firefighters to undertake wider preventive measures, such as coning off a lane of a motorway

or closing a road. There are, of course, many examples where such action would fall properly to the police. That type of co-operation already takes place and is a matter of judgment on the ground. It is not appropriate to write it into legislation.

We have received no pressure from fire and rescue authorities to go further on their duties in dealing with road traffic accidents. In fact, the LGA has said that the new duty must make it for the authority to determine what is reasonable in protecting the public after a road traffic accident. That is what subsection (1)(b) does. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Teignbridge will withdraw his amendment.

I think that the Minister said that there was no need to give firefighters more formal powers on the management of road traffic. Does not the Civil Contingencies Bill specifically give firefighters a power to direct traffic? During the flooding last January in my constituency, the absence of any enforcement powers for firefighters to control road traffic and prevent vehicles passing down roads that were nominally closed due to flooding was a serious problem when they were the only ones on the scene. There was clearly a defect in legislation.

Order. Before the Minister responds, I should point out that we are not discussing the Civil Contingencies Bill.

Firefighters already have powers to close roads if necessary. The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman highlighted would be precisely those in which, if a fire appliance were first on the scene and felt it necessary in the interest of public safety to do so, could close a road. As I have pointed out, there are effective operational protocols between the emergency services for dealing with those matters and it is not appropriate to include it all in the Bill.

In relation to those powers, I refer also to clause 43, which we will not reach for a while yet. The hon. Gentleman may wish to use the half-term recess to study its provisions. I think that that will satisfy him that there are more than adequate powers for firefighters when necessary . I hope that the hon. Member for Teignbridge will recognise that the existing arrangements work. There is no pressure to change them. There is an understanding about the role of firefighters, and they have powers where necessary to deal with such situations. In our judgment, it would be a step too far to follow the line that he suggested.

I hear the Minister's argument and I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, before I do so, I ask him to consider the fact that the pecking order at the moment is set out in the 1947 Act, and that, effectively, it will be removed by the Bill. Some fire officers have concerns that the informal arrangements have not worked in certain incidents. Hon. Members debated the same issue in relation to the police during consideration in Committee of the Traffic Management Bill. Before Report, will the Minister have a think about the matter? Having done a little more research, we shall certainly bring it up again.

On a technical point, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in the forthcoming Energy Bill there will be an opportunity to right a wrong.

Order. I am a bit concerned about the proliferation of legislation that is being introduced into the Committee. We are debating the Fire and Rescue Services Bill.

I simply say that the nuclear police have no authority to deal with RTAs, even though they have police badges and people expect them to stop and help. The amendment would put them in a difficult position; as things stand, they have no mutual aid powers.

I take the point. I am considering the police in general rather than specific instances. I suppose that the same conditions would apply to railway police. People would not expect them to take charge at the scene of a road traffic accident. That would not be logical. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

This is a welcome clause, which gives statutory responsibilities to fire authorities in respect of road traffic accidents. As the Minister said on Second Reading, most people would be astonished to discover that, for the moment, fire authorities have no such statutory responsibility.

It is important that we note before we progress that the Government are not, as some of their rhetoric suggests, placing the responsibility for road traffic accidents on an equal footing with the responsibility for firefighting. A lot of what I have heard suggests that firefighting, road traffic duties and responding to non-conventional emergencies are to be put on an equal statutory footing—and they are not. We have particular concerns, to which we shall revert in due course, about the scope for charging for road traffic accidents. Fire is clearly being left in a category of its own as one of several statutory duties placed on fire and rescue authorities for which no charges can be levied, but the new areas of statutory duty, such as road traffic accidents, will not be similarly ring-fenced against the potential for future charging.

There is a difference in the extent of preparation that is required to deal with firefighting and road traffic accidents, which is another distinction between the two areas. Questions arise in my mind about the use of others to carry out functions. The Government clearly envisage, as we shall discuss later, the possibility that some functions of fire authorities are carried out in certain circumstances by others. One can see the attraction of that, particularly in remote areas. Collaboration with the police might be more important in dealing with road traffic accidents than it is in firefighting because the police have equipment for dealing with some of the work that the fire services do at the scene. A later clause prohibits the employment of the police. When we reach it, I will ask the Minister to consider whether it is still a

relevant provision given the way in which fire and police services might work together.

Overall, we welcome the general thrust of clause 8 and are pleased to see that the fire services' role in dealing with road traffic accidents is being placed on a statutory footing. If that is not quite an equal footing to firefighting, at least the importance of the role is being recognised.

We debated fire safety and what fire officers can do to prevent fires. Does the Minister envisage that fire authorities will have a role in road traffic safety? A number of senior fire officers have asked that question. They would welcome that power, should it be given to them.

The clause is an important part of the new statutory framework for the fire and rescue service. It places a duty on all fire and rescue authorities to make provision for rescuing people from road traffic accidents and protecting them from serious harm in the aftermath of such accidents. Historically, the risk of fire was the trigger for attendance by firefighters at a road traffic accident. However, while advances in vehicle design have seen a decrease in the incidence of fires following accidents, calls to free people from wreckage and to deal with the aftermath of, for example, the spillage of hazardous substances have, sadly, increased dramatically. Fire and rescue authorities now rescue twice as many casualties from road traffic accidents as they do from fires. All fire and rescue authorities now deal with road traffic accidents. The clause puts what has become a mainstream function on a clear and appropriate statutory footing. That has been widely welcomed. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge welcomed the clause.

As with clause 7, the fire and rescue authority is required to make arrangements for the efficient discharge of its duty to deal with road traffic accidents. In particular, it must ensure that equipment, personnel and services are available. Clause 8 also places an authority under an obligation to ensure that personnel are trained, that it has in place appropriate mechanisms for receiving calls—we have dealt with that—and that it can contact staff and obtain information necessary to exercise its functions. Those provisions closely mirror the duties in respect of firefighting. The hon. Gentleman should not be too concerned about the slight differences in the definition. They do not imply a downgrading of the road traffic accident element, which is a significant part of the role of fire and rescue authorities.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge raised the question of whether the fire and rescue services should take greater responsibility for road safety. That would be a step too far. It would run across existing arrangements and would involve considerable expectation of further activity by fire and rescue services at a time when they already have substantial obligations and responsibilities in other areas. We do not believe that it would be right to extend their functions in that area, although we recognise that they have an important role to play in ensuring that the

public are safeguarded in the event of road traffic accidents and during their aftermath. That is a hugely important role, but we do not see them taking over responsibility for road safety from others.

Although I cannot put my hands on it at the moment, I know from one of the briefings that I received that at least one fire authority interpreted the Bill as giving it powers to carry out road safety work. Is the Minister saying he does not want fire authorities to be the lead authority, or is he saying that it would be ultra vires for a fire authority to carry out such work?

I fully sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. At this stage in the Committee, the proliferation of paper is such that it is not always possible to put one's hands on things at the right moment.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is very much our view that fire and rescue authorities should not take the lead responsibility. However, we recognise that there are circumstances in which they have special expertise and skills to contribute to road safety, as well as fire safety, campaigns. However, it is important that a process of ill-thought-out mission-creep does not transform them into the lead authority in respect of road safety. We expect the fire rescue authorities, when discharging their duties, to take reasonable steps to limit damage to property resulting from their actions. That again mirrors the firefighting provisions.

My right hon. Friend did not really answer my point on the hierarchy that almost exists between the different services, and I have a question on the back of that. Do all fire appliances have the necessary resources to ensure that they are properly equipped to deal with road traffic accidents? Areas such as mine, which have a high preponderance of retained firefighters, cannot, with the best will in the world, have the same level of kit. Will my right hon. Friend say something about that, as it is not in the Bill?

I can say two things to my hon. Friend. First, existing operational protocols determine that, at road traffic accidents, the emergency service that is first on the scene can exercise a lead role. I expect that, in the world in which we live, there will be a growing need to define the circumstances in which there is interdependence between the services, for a variety of reasons. We believe that that is the right way forward, rather than putting a hierarchy in the Bill.

Can my hon. Friend remind me of his second point?

It was on resources. I asked my right hon. Friend whether the Bill should state that any fire appliance that has to deal with road traffic accidents must have sufficient resources because of the differing status of full-time firefighters and their equipment, and retained firefighters.

The duty requires the authority to equip for, and respond to, a range of responsibilities, including road traffic accidents. That suggests a need to ensure adequate provision. It will be for the individual fire authority to determine how that is best deployed. There have been some interesting

debates about whether there is a case for creating new rescue centres in critical locations close to parts of the road network where accidents occur regularly and where the presence of a team that can respond quickly might be effective in saving lives. Such a centre could be considered by the fire and rescue authority, which might want to discuss with the other emergency services the most co-ordinated approach to adopt.

As regards the equipment to be carried by an individual appliance, again it is for the authority, in developing its integrated risk management plans, to consider how best to respond to the range of risks.

The Bill gives a general framework. The national framework, which we are publishing and will be given statutory effect by the Bill, goes much further in setting out our expectations. It is for the authorities, in defining their IRMPs, to set out how, locally, they can best respond to those challenges.

The Bill creates an important new duty, which sets the right basis for the service to plan ahead and make the necessary provision to contribute to the important work of saving lives and rescuing people from road traffic accidents. I hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.