I beg to move amendment No. 31, in

clause 9, page 5, line 42, at end insert

', but such an order may only be made with the consent of each authority in the area of which such functions are to be discharged.'.

The clause deals with the fourth category of responsibilities—an unspecified category of emergencies—to be placed on fire and rescue authorities, to be defined by order. We have received a draft order from the Minister, the first that the Government intend to make under the clause. I hope that we will be able to address it in the stand part debate. We have no problem with its general thrust, so the amendments that we have tabled now look slightly off-beam. I should make it clear that we did not have the privilege of seeing it before we tabled them. That does not make our amendments altogether redundant; it simply means that the first order drafted does not reflect any of the problems that concern us.

The Secretary of State has the power to specify a function over which a fire and rescue authority will have responsibility other than those functions that clauses 6 to 8 already confer. The power to confer that function over a wider area than the authority's own has grabbed our attention because, unlike in the draft order, it does not necessarily have to be done in a uniform way across all authorities. We are concerned about a situation in which a Secretary of State confers functions on an authority to be discharged over the area of many authorities.

In the case of a chemical containment, the Secretary of State might decide to designate one authority in a region, which would be his favoured unit of geography—I think the map on the Deputy Prime Minister's wall contains only that unit—as having the function of chemical spillage containment across the whole region. It is perhaps not a very good example, but it serves to illustrate my point. In such circumstances, we have questions about the responsibility of the host authority in whose territory those functions will be discharged and the financing mechanisms, which I will address later.

Amendment No. 31 specifically provides that the recipient authority in whose area the function was to be discharged should consent to the discharge of function by the other authority. We acknowledge that there is a perfectly sensible case for extra-territorial functioning by fire and rescue authorities, but it must be based on consent in a planned and agreed way.

The draft order simply confirms reciprocity in extra-territorial operations and that such assistance will be provided on request. Every fire authority is enjoined to render assistance to every other fire authority on request. We have absolutely no problem with that; it is the perfect formulation. However, the clause goes much further and allows the Secretary of State to make asymmetric arrangements without the consent of the recipient authority.

I will withdraw the amendment. If I do not, it will catch the draft order in an entirely inappropriate way. First, however, I want to hear the Minister's response to the wider concerns about any future orders that impose asymmetric obligations on authorities without the consent of the authorities who are the ''beneficiaries''.

I am not sure that amendment No. 31 recognises how the clause will be used. I understand that it was tabled before the hon. Gentleman saw the draft order, as he explained, but it implies an obsessive view, which I am afraid we are becoming accustomed to hearing from the Conservative Opposition, about the ''regional threat'', as though a move toward regional co-operation on matters of resilience, which is what we are talking about, was undesirable. Most people who have looked carefully at how we are to enhance our resilience know that authorities that are organised on a regional basis, such as the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, are far better placed than others to be able to respond as necessary to some of the potential threats that we must now make provision to face. It is in order to ensure that there is a comparable arrangement in all parts of England that we are requiring authorities to work together, through regional management boards, to put in place robust arrangements that can ensure regional resilience.

I am sure that the Minister would not want to mislead the Committee. I think that he has fallen into using the term ''resilience''. The draft order deals with not just anti-terrorism matters but issues such as major traffic accidents and flooding. Those are important emergencies, but I would not like the

Minister to shelter behind the emotionally protective wall of anti-terrorist resilience.

The hon. Gentleman should by now know that resilience does not refer specifically and solely to anti-terrorist work. It covers preparedness to deal with a range of eventualities, some of which may be the product of terrorism, some of which may be the product of natural disaster. It is important that we have in place robust arrangements to deal with flooding as well as a potential terrorist risk. That is the purpose of the framework that we are putting in place. As the hon. Gentleman will know from looking at the draft statutory instrument, there is a very clear indication in article 7:

''A fire and rescue authority which has specialist resources available to it must so far as is practicable use those resources outside its area in response to a reasonable request to do so from another fire and rescue authority''.

I am sure that he would not object in any circumstances to that kind of situation. Equally, he will know that, in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incident, decontamination will not respect the borders between authorities. It would be bizarre in the extreme if it were impossible for an authority that had suitable specialist decontamination equipment to use it beyond its own borders. He must be aware of that.

We want to make it possible for fire and rescue authorities to act outside their areas where necessary, and to have the capability to carry out these functions anywhere in England. I want to put clearly on the record that we are talking not just about reciprocal arrangements with neighbouring authorities, because in certain extreme emergencies it would be necessary for resources to be deployed across a very wide area indeed, and that could involve equipment and personnel travelling a considerable distance across the country.

I am going to suggest to the Minister a way to cut his work load. The incidents that he is describing are emergencies as defined in the Civil Contingencies Bill, which so intimately interlocks with this Bill that we can scarcely avoid touching on it, and the ability for fire authorities to respond to a CBRN incident, for example, is surely already provided for in the Civil Contingencies Bill—as a first responder, they would be obliged to accept directions under that legislation. It is not necessary to repeat that provision in this Bill, which should surely be focused on the more routine, if very important, matters that the fire service must address.

No, it is necessary for the provision to be consistent with the provision in the Civil Contingencies Bill. It is right that there should be consistencies between the two Bills. It would be absolutely wrong if the fire service had to look at two separate pieces of legislation to understand its obligations and duties. That is why we are setting out in this Bill the obligations that apply in relation to emergencies. Those emergencies, as we have already established, could be natural disasters or the result of terrorist incidents. They will require a larger-scale response and, in some cases, a specialist response, which will be delivered effectively only if it is possible

to deploy resources from a much wider area than that directly affected. That is why these provisions are there. The hon. Gentleman may call them asymmetric obligations but they are common sense in the modern world, where we need to make provision for a range of eventualities that could require considerable deployment of resources.

I will run through one or two possible scenarios. In the event of an emergency, we would envisage the appropriate response being the regional control room directing the most appropriately equipped fire and rescue authority to supply the equipment or personnel necessary to the area in which the incident had occurred. That would be no different to a control room directing the most appropriate fire and rescue authority to attend a fire, except that, for reasons of national resilience, one will be able to direct across boundaries. That must be sensible.

If, to use the example that the hon. Gentleman gave on Tuesday, there were a major incident in Surrey, under his amendment, a neighbouring authority such as London would be unable to assist unless Surrey consented to an order requiring London to act in the Surrey area. That would clearly be bureaucratic nonsense. I am surprised that he does not recognise that. I can understand where he is coming from because of the concern about regionalisation, but he is creating an obstacle.

Is what the Minister has in mind that an authority where an incident takes place can often stick its head in the sand? I think of foot and mouth, where the vets thought that they were in control and it was only when the disasters happened that they realised that they were not. It is possible that a fire authority could do exactly the same.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will not pursue it, because I would risk being out of order if I strayed into the area of foot and mouth, but he is right that, sometimes, those directly affected are not as aware as they might be of the extent of their needs. The arrangements that we are putting in place will make it easier to ensure that appropriate assistance is provided, using the resources of fire and rescue authorities throughout the country to deal with circumstances that may require a response on that scale. For all those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will accept that his amendment is misconceived and agree to withdraw it.

I am not sure that the amendment is misconceived. I accept that it is poorly drafted in relation to the draft order that the Minister has now laid.

I am not sure that I accept his example. There will be—there are—reinforcement arrangements between Surrey and London. However, it seems to me that a situation that allows an authority to enter another authority's area and begin operating without the formality of a request by the host authority is a recipe for confusion and disaster. The Minister says no but it strikes me that the relationship ought to be that the authority that has the problem—co-ordinated through a regional control room, if such a thing

exists—immediately recognises and requests the appropriate resources from other authorities.

We have no problem with that whatsoever but it is important to maintain the underlying principle that there is, for each area, an accountable fire and rescue authority that is responsible for dealing with incidents or making arrangements for doing so—to use the parliamentary draftsman's preferred terms—in their area. Ultimately, they must be accountable for that to the inhabitants of that area. Although there is no problem with the draft order that the Minister has laid, other orders that he has the power to make under the clause could give rise to some of the concerns that I have suggested.

As I said, I recognise that the amendment as drafted simply does not work in a world populated by the draft order that the Minister has published. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in

clause 9, page 6, line 12, at end insert—

'(3A) An order under this section conferring a function additional to its functions under sections 7 and 8 for which a fire and rescue authority must make provision shall also provide for the payment to that authority by the Secretary of State of sums calculated to meet the capital and recurring costs of the discharge of such functions.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 33, in

clause 9, page 6, line 12, at end insert—

'(3B) An order under this section conferring a function on a fire and rescue authority which is to be discharged outside the authority's area shall also provide for payment to the authority by all fire and rescue authorities in the area of which such functions are to be discharged of such contributions to the capital and recurring costs of the discharge of such functions as the Secretary of State shall determine are appropriate.'.

No. 68, in

clause 9, page 6, line 16, at end add—

'(6) When making an order under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall make payment to that authority for all reasonable additional, direct and indirect costs borne by that authority in following that order.'.

Again, the amendment, which provides for the Secretary of State to make payments to an authority on which he confers extra-territorial responsibilities, sits uncomfortably with the draft order. Clearly, the mutually reinforcing extra-territoriality that the draft order contemplates is not something that the Secretary of State should expect to pay for directly, but there is still an important point to consider.

I believe that the Minister has implicitly accepted that the intention is to develop specialist resources within brigades—sorry, fire and rescue authorities. That is a sensible idea. They will deploy wherever they are needed but they will be financed in the ordinary course of events primarily by council tax payers in their home area.

The Secretary of State has made statements about directly financing specialist equipment for resilience purposes, but we need to go a little further than that. If Surrey fire and rescue were to be designated as the specialist CBRN fire service for the south-east region, hurtling off to Milton Keynes or Folkestone, to name but two possibilities, whenever a CBRN incident occurs in either of those places, there would be implications for the council tax payers of Surrey.

It seems appropriate to provide in the Bill that, if the Secretary of State confers specialist responsibilities that are to be prepared and exercised for the benefit of a much wider group of council tax payers, the council tax payers of the specialist authority should not end up bearing the cost. Therefore, amendment No. 32 seeks to impose on the Secretary of State an obligation to match the functions that he confers with funding of the capital and revenue costs of those functions.

Amendment No. 33 takes a slightly different approach in dealing with essentially the same problem—specialisation—and suggests that rather than payment by the Secretary of State there should be equitable arrangements for contributions from all the beneficiary authorities. To take a counter-case, if Surrey does not have to spend any money preparing to deal with a certain eventuality because Hampshire will ride to the rescue, it would be only right that the council tax payers in Surrey should make a contribution to the additional capital and revenue costs of the Hampshire fire and rescue authority in arranging for sufficient resources to deal with an incident in Surrey. An example of sensible lead authority arrangements might be where two or three authorities share a waterfront—an estuary area—and one of them undertakes the specialist inshore rescue facility on behalf of all of them.

Perhaps the Minister can reassure us that the Bill contains such provision elsewhere. I concede that clause 16 deals with reimbursement, but I do not believe that it deals with reimbursement for functions conferred by clause 9. I look to the Minister to explain how the burden would be equitably distributed or, if it is not to be equitably distributed among council tax payers, borne entirely on his own broad shoulders.

Much has already been said by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Amendment No. 68 would do much the same as amendment No. 32. It would be wrong in principle if an authority had to bear additional costs, which could be considerable in some instances, in travelling to other parts of the country or in purchasing other equipment. Amendment No. 68, which may or may not be perfectly worded, would provide that the Secretary of State should pick up the additional costs. I would be happy not to press my amendment in favour of amendment No. 32, or it may be simpler the other way around, but I hope that the Minister will make it clear who will bear the costs in such circumstances.

The amendments would require fire and rescue authorities to be compensated for carrying out any duties that may be specified in an order under

the clause. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will be able to see from the proposed draft order that we have supplied, we envisage that those duties, encompassing such emergencies as flooding and chemical spills, are ones for which the authority is already geared up. Authorities have generally acquired a wide range of equipment and experience for dealing with such challenges. We are simply creating a clear legislative framework to enable them to plan for and respond to such emergencies.

The new challenge is responding to the increased terrorist threat. We recognise that, and we have made appropriate financial provision. We are allocating £188 million over three years. That includes not just the capital costs of the equipment but the training, which is already under way, for the mass decontamination equipment being issued to fire authorities throughout the country. We are also in discussion with the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and the Local Government Association about the revenue implications of responding to new dimension incidents.

It does not matter where the work is carried out—whether in the fire and rescue authority's own area or that of another—the equipment, the training and the additional funding to cover resource costs will still have been provided by the Secretary of State. Therefore, we feel that the provisions in the amendment are unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

The Minister talked about £180 million. Am I correct in saying that that figure is time-limited? The provisions that we want in the Bill would cover a longer period.

The whole basis of what I was saying is that authorities are already under obligation to equip themselves and provide for a range of duties. They are doing so, and they have done so. There is an existing framework for supporting that, which includes both revenue grant from the Government and support for capital investment.

There has been considerable capital investment in the fire service in recent years to develop a number of important new initiatives. That investment will continue to cover the full range of challenges and responsibilities faced by fire and rescue authorities, with the exception, as I pointed out in my earlier contribution, of the new challenge of anti-terrorist work. We are making substantial provision for that over a three-year period, and that will cover training and other arrangements that impose revenue costs, as well as the capital costs of the equipment.

I mentioned that we are in discussion with CACFOA and the LGA about the long-term revenue implications of responding to such incidents, which is a pretty clear indication that we are open-minded on the issue. We have said that we shall meet the costs, and we are doing so. That is why we do not believe that the amendments are necessary. Those provisions are already in place.

Will Minister clarify something? I am thinking of a circumstance where full-time crews from Exeter and Torquay are called to

a major incident near Bristol, for example. Consequently, the retained crews from my constituency or that of the hon. Member for East Devon would be called out and have to work extra shifts, which would be an additional cost. Would that be covered by what the Minister is talking about?

I cannot give a precise answer to that, but there are two considerations. First, such situations will happen in any case. An authority that has a substantial number of retained firefighters will probably be under greater pressure and be expected to turn out more regularly in circumstances where there are substantial other pressures, whether those are fires, road traffic accidents or emergencies. That is part of the normal process and we would expect it to be covered.

In relation to the new dimension programme—the anti-terrorist provisions—we have accepted that the area is one of new investment for capital and revenue. We have made generous contributions to ensure that the necessary equipment can be acquired, that staff can be trained and that they can be committed. Many Members of this House will have seen the extensive deployment that took place, last September, during the anti-terrorist exercise at Bank underground station in London, when that mass decontamination equipment was in active use, and on public display, for the first time. That is part of the process and we are funding it entirely.

Richard Younger-Ross indicated dissent.

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That is a fact. The Government are funding substantially the necessary investment to ensure that there is enhanced resilience in our fire and rescue services to cope with such pressures, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a trade-off between the different services and benefits. The high-volume pumping equipment that has been provided as part of the new dimension programme will be helpful to authorities in their normal function of responding to flooding. That will be a bonus because they will receive the equipment without having to acquire it for themselves. That is one of the spin-offs. The hon. Gentleman should be slightly more realistic and recognise that the Government have been extremely generous in funding that necessary provision. We accept that it is right and proper to do so, but we were a little surprised at the response, which implied that we are being mean-spirited in not giving an absolute guarantee to reimburse authorities for every item of expenditure.

Turning to council tax, it is right to emphasise that we expect all fire and rescue authorities, as well as all other authorities, to budget prudently. The public will not accept continuing large and unreasonable council tax increases or demands, and they expect all authorities to ensure that they deliver value for money. The Government have continued to invest substantially in public services. That is a different picture from the one that we saw when the

Conservatives were in power and, year after year, we saw grants to public authorities—

Order. I must call the Minister to order. He is straying.

I was enjoying myself, Mr. O'Hara. I have made the point, and there is no need to extend the Opposition's agony by reminding them of their inadequate provision.

The amendments are not necessary. There is more than adequate provision, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it would be sensible to withdraw his amendment.

The Minister's last remarks, coupled with his enthusiasm for the words ''efficiency and effectiveness'', make me wonder about the use of those words.

The Minister seems to be saying that in relation to terrorism or new dimension, as new Labour likes to call it, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is paying for the equipment and that it will pay the training costs, so there is no need to worry about the marginal additional revenue implications. I can accept that to some extent because I imagine that, following the sort of major incident that we are envisaging, liberal financial support would be doled out, through the Bellwin formula, to those affected. I am sure that such matters would be dealt with in the case of a very major event. The problem is with events that are pretty large but not large enough for the Bellwin scale, which, from memory, I believe is 1 per cent. of an authority's costs exceeding 1 per cent. of an authority's annual budget.

To a large extent, I can accept what the Minister is saying about new dimension. What he has not done is explain why the ODPM's generosity, as he puts it, of should not be enshrined in the Bill and why the work of addressing the new dimension risk—buying, maintaining and resourcing the equipment—should not be overtly and explicitly paid for by the Secretary of State. There is no need for that in the order before us, but we do not know what orders the Minister might have it in mind to produce in future.

The Minister has not addressed amendment No. 33, which refers not to the grandiose canvas of anti-terrorism, but to a slightly more mundane event that we might think of as an emergency but which, certainly where I come from, is, sadly, routine—flooding every year or couple of years. In those cases, in which it will be appropriate for some authorities to acquire, hold and operate specialist equipment, there is no mechanism for a fair recovery of those standing costs. There is no mechanism whereby an authority holding special equipment and specialising in flood rescue, for example, can share the burden of cost with a group of authorities benefiting from it.

I would prefer those arrangements to be made voluntarily from the bottom upwards, but we must deal with clause 9, which provides for the Secretary of State to confer those functions from the top downwards. Amendment No. 33 simply asks that

with the functions goes a method for recovering the costs incurred.

We have already put in place arrangements for financing new dimension. We have an existing funding mechanism that helps authorities to meet costs, which is a subject of continuing discussion between authorities, the LGA and ourselves. There is no need for the Bill to have any separate provision for that.

We are working from the bottom up, because the hon. Gentleman knows that, in order to achieve exactly what he wants, we have asked authorities to work together voluntarily through regional management boards to put in place the arrangements for mutual aid and support for reinforcement. We have also made provision for the Secretary of State to act if they fail. It would be irresponsible to ignore the possibility that they will not work. The public would not forgive us if we had failed to put in place appropriately robust arrangements to ensure effective resilience.

The Minister again tells us that the powers in the Bill will be used only if something else fails. That assurance is not in the Bill, and he can give whatever reassurance he likes about how he intends to use those powers, but it is the duty of the Committee to consider the Bill.

I recognise that, although the amendments address an issue, they are too widely drafted. For example, they would require complicated arrangements for the mutual and on-request assistance that the proposed draft order envisages. That is not entirely appropriate, so I hope to return with better-drafted amendments on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

As I have said, the power of the Secretary of State as exercised in the proposed draft order is no problem at all, but we must consider the possibility that a Secretary of State will use the powers in clause 9 to take a different approach, creating obligations on individual fire authorities that are more wide ranging and not necessarily exercised with the consent, or at the request of, the fire authorities in whose area they operate.

I also have some questions to ask the Minister about the proposed draft order that he has circulated to you, Mr. O'Hara, and to members of the Committee. In paragraph 3, there is an obligation on a fire and rescue authority

''for removing contaminants from people and capturing any water used to remove such contaminants''.

There is no wider responsibility for the containment or decontamination of things, as opposed to people, or for the containment of the spread of contaminants in the air. Is another authority to be responsible for that, and where is the demarcation? That might be a rather messy demarcation.

Article 4 of the order refers to protecting people from serious harm

''in the event of a serious threat that one or more persons has been trapped in its area''.

I am at a loss to know what is meant by

''a serious threat that one or more persons has been trapped''.

I asked myself the question in several different tones of voice this morning and I still cannot determine what it means. Is it a threat that one or more persons is trapped in a serious way, or is it a real threat as opposed to a hoax threat? The word ''serious'' does not seem clear or to add much to the order. Perhaps the Minister can explain that.

Most importantly, will the Minister explain what is envisaged by article 6? That gives a fire and rescue authority the responsibility for making

''provision for the purpose of rescuing people and protecting them from serious harm in the event of . . .

(b) a major transport accident at sea, where it is the nearest fire and rescue authority to the accident.''

It defines the sea as

''the territorial sea of the United Kingdom.''

As I understand it, the provision is an innovation if it means that coastal fire and rescue authorities have prime responsibility for rescuing people at sea up to 12 miles from the coast. At present, that is a responsibility of Her Majesty's Coastguard, which in practice relies enormously on the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. The RNLI is manned almost entirely by volunteers and funded entirely by voluntary subscription. I am concerned that, in placing a statutory obligation on fire and rescue authorities, the Minister risks undermining the RNLI's long and proud voluntary tradition. I would be alarmed at the prospect of anything in that direction.

The issue clearly affects the coastguard and the RNLI. As might be expected, no one at HM Coastguard was particularly anxious to speak to a member of Her Majesty's Opposition on the subject until they had checked with their superiors. However, I was able to establish during the lunch break that, as far as senior RNLI officials could confirm on the hoof, the RNLI has not been consulted about the measure. Nobody has spoken to it about the implications of the extension of a statutory duty on that organisation.

I should be interested in what the Minister can tell me about his consultations with Her Majesty's Coastguard, through the Department for Transport, and with the RNLI, so that the Committee can be clear that, in creating a statutory responsibility, we will not undermine a very well functioning, voluntary structure. That would give financial donors and those who risk their lives every day to provide the service on a voluntary basis the impression that they need not worry if they do not fulfil such a duty because the Government have designated a state organisation that will have to do so in their stead.

The hon. Gentleman is full of fears and anxieties that the Government have malign

intentions. I hope to disabuse him of those forms of paranoia.

The clause gives the Secretary of State an order-making power to confer a duty on the fire and rescue service to respond to emergencies other than fires and road traffic accidents. The order may also direct fire and rescue authorities as to how they should plan, equip for and respond to such emergencies. The proposed draft order sets out that the new duties should cover chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents, serious flooding, incidents requiring major search and rescue and major non-road traffic incidents. It may also require an authority to respond to an emergency that has arisen outside its own area. We dealt with all that in an earlier discussion.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the wider responsibilities for decontamination would be covered by other bodies. That is an important issue, and my Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are involved in discussions. Both Departments will issue guidance shortly. It will cover decontamination more generally and, in the case of ODPM responsibilities, decontamination in buildings. Those are ongoing responsibilities.

Primary responsibility for buildings will rest with local authorities, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would expect. The role of the fire and rescue service will be to deal with mass contamination incidents and to provide a mass decontamination service. I have already mentioned the exercise at Bank underground station, in which the kit was used. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that it was used in a way that ensured not only that individuals brought out from the underground could go through the decontamination unit, but that the water flowing off was kept in by a bung so that there was no risk of wider contamination. That is all part of the provision of a service to deal with contamination.

Will there be a duplication of decontamination equipment, with local authorities also being financed to hold equipment to decontaminate buildings? Surely it would make sense at a later stage—obviously it cannot be the first line of response—to deploy the fire and rescue service expertise and equipment in support of the local authority.

The considerations involved in responding to an emergency in which individuals have been exposed to a major contaminant and those involved in the longer-term task of cleaning particular buildings or places that may have been affected by contamination are very different. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until we issue the guidance. I have said that we will do so in the reasonably near future, but I cannot give a precise date at this stage.

The hon. Gentleman's second question was on the wording of article 4 of the proposed draft order, which has been issued for consultation. We will be happy to listen to his and others' views on whether we have got the wording right. My interpretation, for what it is worth, is that in circumstances such as those described in the order—a ''landslide'' or

''the collapse of a building, tunnel or other structure''—

there may well be a considerable degree of uncertainty as to whether someone has been trapped. Therefore, the concept of a serious risk that someone is trapped seems to me to be a basis for an assessment. However, I accept that it is not a final document; it is simply a working draft. We will more than happily listen to any representations that the hon. Gentleman chooses to make on the order.

The hon. Gentleman's third question was on article 6(1)(b), which deals with rescue at sea. I should say straight away that it is in no way our intention to undermine or reduce the roles and obligations and important work of the RNLI and the coastguard service. They are both highly respected and perform a hugely important function. We think that they should continue to do so. However, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that resources could be stretched by a major disaster. In those circumstances, if the fire and rescue service could provide support and assistance or act in a way that would help to save lives, it would be unfortunate if it did not do so. This is not something new. The Fire Services Act 1947 already provides for the fire service, as it was then designated, to contribute towards rescue at sea in certain circumstances.

The point is that the document appears to give the fire and rescue authority the lead obligation. It states:

''A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of rescuing people and protecting them from serious harm in the event of''

an ''accident at sea'', but not for the purpose of assisting the other rescue bodies in a really major incident.

As the Minister will know, the danger of creep of statutory services into areas where voluntary services have been active is that people become lazy; they start to rely on the fact that the statutory services have an obligation to provide something, and feel that they no longer need to dip into their pockets to support its provision voluntarily.

The hon. Gentleman has got it all wrong. We are discussing a complex world, in which incidents may need a multi-agency response, and in which preparing to provide the necessary resources and skills to rescue people in an emergency should be welcomed rather than viewed as a threat.

I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example of the current arrangements in respect of the Solent, where there is a multi-agency approach to dealing with emergencies. Such emergencies might include environmental problems—in which the Environment Agency would be involved—but the Hampshire fire and rescue service is also a key player, and can contribute significantly to dealing with any such incident. That is common sense and is part of the overall preparedness that we are putting in place to cope with the wide range of eventualities for which, sadly, we must make provision in today's world.

Will the Minister specifically address my question about consulting the coastguard and the RNLI prior to laying the instrument?

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman at this point whether there has been prior consultation with those bodies. However, the document is a draft for consultation, and if the RNLI or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have observations, I am sure that they will make them, and we will be happy to consider them before we issue the final document.

I support the point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. He has hit on an important problem that will occur if fire authority duties creep into new areas—[Interruption.] The word ''creep'' was used earlier by the Minister. We would not disagree that it is reasonable for a fire authority to have a fire tender in a port or a dock to be used for putting out fires from the water. However, in small coastal towns such as Teignmouth—not ''Teenmouth''—a voluntary organisation works very well. When there are incidents such as floods—one happened at Hazelwood park—conflict arises between the different services. There is a danger that the order will instruct fire authorities to provide boats or rubber dinghies or more services than at present. As a result, the fire service may expend resources on services that are provided more than adequately by organisations such as the RNLI.

The hon. Gentleman exaggerates the scenario. It is important that the fire and rescue service considers the contribution that it can make to a range of potential emergencies. We would not be doing our duty if we did not ensure that that very important service was not only helped and equipped to cope with emergencies, but encouraged to think creatively about the contribution that it can make. However, as a result of the publication of the Bill, we do not expect all fire and rescue services to be rushing out immediately to see whether they should be acquiring large quantities of new kit to do things that they have not previously done.

We expect the fire service to be thinking intelligently, thoughtfully and creatively about how the services that it offers can mesh with those provided by others to meet particular crises such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. That is a sensible way forward. However, I again remind him that the whole provision for mass decontamination and other new-dimension investment has been funded by the ODPM. We are committed not just to meeting the capital costs, but to providing ongoing funding of associated revenue costs.

We are obviously in dialogue with fire and rescue authorities on many other issues, and we touched on the procurement of the Firelink radio communication system. Once again it is the ODPM that is meeting the cost of providing that equipment to ensure that all fire and rescue authorities have interoperable equipment to the highest possible standard to ensure that they do their job to the best of their ability. We do not shirk from our responsibility to fund the fire and rescue service properly. I assure the hon. Member for

Teignbridge that if special needs and special provisions were not being adequately met we would want to consider whether there was a case for additional funding from Government.

Obviously, we expect fire and rescue authorities to contribute. After all, they are fire and rescue authorities in their own right, and not simply agents of government. It is, therefore, appropriate for them to make a contribution, but we have not been slow in meeting our responsibilities for additional investment to cope with emergencies. I hope that both the hon. Member for Teignbridge and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge recognise that the clause is an important and new provision defining the hugely important role of the fire and rescue service in respect of emergencies.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.