'The Secretary of State may give direction for—

(a) A fire and rescue authority to compensate employers who release employees to undertake operational and training duties under the retained duty system.

(b) A fire and rescue authority to expand monies on awards to employers in acknowledgement for their support of their community in releasing employees to undertake operational and training duties under the retained duty system.

(c) For all public sector employers where practical to support their employees who undertake operational and training duties under the retained duty system.'.—[Richard Younger-Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I shall be exceedingly brief so that we can try to fit in the other new clauses as well. Essentially, there are three probing provisions, which I hope will elicit a response from the Under-Secretary. Paragraph (a) is intended to find out to whether there is any possibility that fire authorities will be able to make payments to employers to encourage retained firefighters. Are there any circumstances in which that could occur? Paragraph (b) is probably less controversial, and is designed to find out whether fire authorities would be empowered to make awards to employers who had been particularly good in allowing large numbers of staff to become retained firefighters.

Paragraph (c), which might be easier for the Under-Secretary to deal with, relates to what he would do to encourage public sector employers, and in particular local authorities, in that respect. They can be reluctant to allow people to become retained firefighters. What actions would he propose to encourage, push, shove or cajole them—we are, after all, talking about the same Department, the ODPM—into allowing people to become retained firefighters?

I support the hon. Gentleman's underlying intention in once again looking for ways to address the problem of recruiting and retaining enough retained firefighters. One aspect of that is incentivising potential retained firefighters. Another aspect is ensuring that, as with the Territorial Army, their employers are willing to co-operate in a scheme that may bring some indirect benefits to their operations but will certainly bring some inconveniences. We should not rule out the possibility of compensating employers.

However, I take issue—I know that it is not the hon. Gentleman's principal purpose in raising these points—with the idea that the Secretary of State could give directions. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman meant was that the Secretary of State might commit the fire authorities to doing these things. I certainly favour making the arrangements at the local level. The situation varies in different parts of the country and different authorities. I would favour the maximum

discretion for fire authority employers to put together schemes with other local employers to release retained firefighters.

The new clause is intended to be supportive of the retained section of the fire service. However, the financial implications for the fire and rescue services of paragraphs (a) and (b) would be considerable, particularly in areas, not least Devon, where a large proportion of the fire cover is provided by retained staff. While the proposal in paragraph (c) would not have a direct financial impact for fire and rescue authorities, the Government believe that the support of public sector employers should not be singled out as the subject of specific legislation in this regard.

However, the Committee will be aware that on 15 December 2003 I announced a comprehensive review of the issues affecting the retained section of the service. Indeed, I did so at a meeting of the Retained Firefighters Union. That review is now under way and will examine the many factors that contribute to the recruitment and retention challenges faced by the retained section of the fire and rescue service. In addition to the issues that the hon. Member for Teignbridge raised, they will include equality and diversity, public awareness, deployment, community participation, the role, reward and conditions of service, and—I emphasise ''and''— engagement with the business community. The team that we have established will look at ways to engage effectively with a wide range of employers, both private and public, to engender better understanding of the retained firefighter's role and the benefits to the employer of encouraging and supporting their staff in undertaking this role.

The review team includes members from a variety of stakeholder groups, including the Local Government Association, CACFOA and the RFU. The review team will seek advice as appropriate.

I am listening carefully to the Under-Secretary, but I did not hear him mention any representatives of employers organisations. As a crucial part of the process is engaging the employer community, can he explain why they are not engaged in it?

The employers will be fully engaged in the process. It is essential that we understand the motives, and the reluctance, of private and public employers whom we wish to attract into releasing their staff to become retained firefighters. Therefore, the review team is seeking advice from a wide range of public and private sector employers and the national bodies that represent them.

The hon. Gentleman was concerned, as was the hon. Member for Teignbridge, about the reluctance of public sector employers. We have specifically included in the review team the Local Government Association. In addition, we have included the practitioners forum and the fire business and community forum, which was established deliberately to engage with the business community in fire safety matters.

The Under-Secretary answered my last intervention with a classic display of bluster, and I want to be sure that I have understood. There is not included in the review team any representative of employers organisations. Is that correct?

No, it is not correct. The LGA is in the review team. It is a representative body of employers in the public sector—indeed, in the whole of local government.

The implication behind the hon. Gentleman's questioning is that we are not taking into account the views of private sector or other public sector employers. I can tell him categorically that that is not the case. We are working closely throughout and we have established a business and community forum to provide a voice specifically for private and public sector businesses, which will be consulting widely. The work needs to continue at a much more mundane level. We need to understand in practical terms what will assist local employers, public and private, to release staff for what we believe will be of benefit not only to the community but to employers from their retained staff who take part in such activities. We shall seek advice from a wider community and other relevant bodies to identify a range of solutions for the changes. The CBI is directly represented on the business and community forum and we have plugged right into the business community.

The retained review team will submit its report, with recommendations for future action, to the forum this summer. The report will include an implementation strategy and programme for delivery. As the review is taking place and the consultation that the review team is undertaking will take detailed account of many of the hon. Member for Teignbridge's concerns about what works, I hope that he will withdraw the new clause.

It is nice to hear that there is a review team. Whether I welcome it will depend on what it says at the end rather than the first bit of the process.

The first paragraph of the new clause refers to costs. An employee may sometimes miss more than 50 days, 100 days or whatever in a year. In such circumstances, will there be a threshold at which a payment may be made? Perhaps that could be fed to the review team rather than a great spending commitment that I am sure would be thrown back at me very quickly. I am not proposing that.

Oh go on.

I am not making a large spending commitment and that is on the record.

I do not believe that paragraph (b) would cost a lot. It is just a matter of recognition and there could be a cup, a shield, £100, £200 or whatever. There are low-cost ways of recognition and they could be suggested to the review team. I was not asking for something on local authorities to be in the Bill. As the Minister is in

the ODPM, I hoped that he would say he could consider the matter in another way, using other powers to try to encourage local authorities.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, and clause, withdrawn.