Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 129, in

clause 43, page 20, line 13, at end insert—

'(aa) if he reasonably believes a fire to be about to break out, for the purpose of preventing the fire or protecting life or property.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 130, in

clause 43, page 20, line 18, at end insert

'and for the purpose of protecting life and property.'.

You missed a memorable sitting this morning, Sir Nicholas, but I am sure that this afternoon's sitting will be equally memorable.

I was speaking in favour of amendment No. 129 and saying what a sensible amendment the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) had tabled in this case.

I thought that we left off when I was on my feet to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it had also occurred to him that, without the benefit of the amendment, a firefighter at the scene of what he reasonably anticipated would involve the outbreak of a fire would not have the power under subsection (2) to restrict access of persons to a place that he believed would be dangerous to them. He would not be able to exercise any of the powers under subsection (2) in the absence of the amendment.

That is a perfectly valid point. In fact, before we were interrupted by the break, I was pondering why the amendment had not been incorporated into the Bill, given that the legislation puts the accent on preventing disasters rather than on simply reacting to them as and when they occur. I was speculating on why such powers had not been included.

The only explanation that I could come up with was that it might have been thought that the powers of the fire services would be made too wide. For example, although a fire service might have perfectly valid concerns that a chemical factory is in danger of going up in flames, there may be other issues about which it and the person who owns the chemical factory would not agree, and there could be litigation or complaint after the event.

Equally, we would not want the fire services to intrude in domestic bonfire incidents and to take it upon themselves to hose down people who are burning garden rubbish. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Bill, but given the common sense that, to some extent, is contained in the legislation, there is a concern as to how the power that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I wish to see incorporated in the Bill can best be phrased.

There is a view that an Englishman's home is his castle, and that he is entitled to mess around inside it, whatever the risk. None the less, most people do not live in castles. Many live in flats or accommodation that is near to other accommodation.

The logic of the hon. Gentleman's comments would be that a firefighter should not have the right to break into premises in which a fire has broken out, and that an Englishman who wishes to burn down his castle should be allowed to do so without interruption.

No, that is not the logic of my position. I am endeavouring to argue that there is not automatically a case for intervention by the fire services if there is not actually a fire, but that some circumstances are sufficiently troubling for a fire service to want to do something before a blaze starts. That is why I support the amendment. I simply ask the Minister why prevention is not incorporated in the clause.

Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 were tabled on the basis of a concern that firefighters should have the powers necessary to deal with emergencies. We believe that the Bill provides such powers. The Government do not wish in any way to prevent firefighters from responding in the most effective way to circumstances in which they might avoid a potential threat to life or injury as a result of fire or other emergencies.

We are aware that some members of the service have expressed a wish to have a power to enter premises by force, if necessary, if they believe that there is an imminent threat of fire. Clearly, that is what amendment No. 129 addresses. The examples given so far have not been entirely convincing, but we are not unsympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed. During an earlier debate, we heard about an instance of the need to enter premises to deal with a problem or to demolish them to create a firebreak so that they would not allow fire to travel from one area to another.

There is no problem whatever with the available powers being used when a fire has broken out, but there may be circumstances in which it is thought that there is a risk of fire but it would probably be more appropriate for other emergency services to effect an entry. Indeed, the police have such powers in certain cases. We must balance the substantial powers enabling a public authority forcibly to enter premises without the consent of the owner against the public interest of ensuring that our firefighters have the necessary powers to be able to cope with risky circumstances.

The evidence that has been put forward so far is not wholly convincing. However, we are prepared to be convinced by stronger evidence and I would welcome any further operational examples of how the existing powers may be insufficient to enable firefighters to deal with a threat of fire. If such evidence is provided and proves to be robust, I would be more than happy to explore the issue further with a view to amending the Bill to accommodate the wish behind amendment No. 129.

I cannot take the same view of amendment No. 130, which would expand subsection (1)(c) and the powers of firefighters to deal with emergencies other than fires or road traffic accidents. The word ''emergency'' is defined in clause 55, which limits the power to specify functions under clause 9 to

''an event or situation that causes or is likely to cause—

(a) one or more individuals to die, be seriously injured or become seriously ill, or

(b) serious harm to the environment''.

The amendment would not add anything because the concept of risk to life is already implicit in the definition of emergency, and the wider reference to a threat to the environment is probably preferable to the more narrow definition of a risk to property. I can envisage circumstances—for example, a chemical or biological attack—in which there might be a significant risk to the environment, but no tangible risk to property. The existing framework, depending on the definition in clause 55, is preferable, and the amendment is not only unnecessary, but restrictive.

With that assurance that we are sympathetic to the principle behind amendment No. 129 but remain in need of more convincing evidence of circumstances in which current powers are not sufficient, I ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the amendment.

On the Minister's response to amendment No. 130, I am prepared to be flexible, but I think that he is wrong to say that it might restrict the operation of the clause, because it is drafted to provide an additional ground for action for the purposes of protecting life and property. It was certainly not intended to restrict the actions of firefighters.

I expected the Minister to take a slightly different tack and to say that it was inconceivable that in conferring functions under clause 9 he would not include a function of protecting life and property in the order that he makes. I do not think that it is implicit in

the drafting of clause 9 and the definition of emergency that that must be the case because I think that it would be perfectly proper for the Secretary of State to confer on a fire authority a support function in relation to a class of major emergency under that clause. Where it was envisaged that a number of authorities had different designated roles in a major emergency, it is not inconceivable that the function conferred on a single authority might not involve the protection of life and property. Such a function might be some much more prosaic support role. None the less, I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that he is satisfied that the protection of life and property remains at the centre of those powers.

I am grateful for the spirit in which the Minister dealt with amendment No. 129, which is a genuine attempt to try to address a gap in the armoury of powers being given to the fire and rescue authorities. Of course, he is absolutely right that it will be preferable for the police to effect a forced entry in any circumstances that I can think of other than when a fire is raging, if they are on the scene. However, one of the themes that has run through the Government's thinking on the modernisation of the fire service, particularly in relation to medical co-response, which we will deal with later, is that it is not always the case, especially in rural or sparsely populated areas, that all the emergency services arrive on the scene together or within a few seconds of each other. There may be long periods when ''the wrong service'' is the only service in attendance. It seems to me that, in those circumstances, it is sensible to ensure that the services have cross-cutting powers so that they can deal with the situation on the ground, so far as that does not have any unintended and adverse consequences.

I agree with the Minister that the classic example in which a firefighter peers through a window, notices that the gas hob has been left on and immediately notices a candle burning on the table is not utterly convincing as an everyday scenario in 21st-century Britain. However, there will be situations in which a firefighter can deduce by using his specialist skill and knowledge that there is a risk to the premises. I suspect that, in such circumstances, a conscientious firefighter would feel obliged to act in a way that would be technically illegal and take the risk of doing so. That is something that we should avoid asking firefighters to do. We should avoid putting them in a situation in which they have to stand by and watch something disastrous happen or act outside the law.

I take on board the Minister's challenge, although I am not sure why I am doing so, because it strikes me that it should be for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to circularise the 49 English and Welsh fire authorities asking them whether they need that power and whether they can provide working examples, but I am happy to share the work load. I know that the ODPM is seriously under-resourced, and I am sure that my researcher will be only too happy to take on that burden. Having heard what the Minister has said, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment and to return to the issue on Report if it is practical to

do so, or in the other place if the time scale means that we cannot take the discussion any further by the Report stage.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We have about 18 clauses and two schedules to consider in the next two and a quarter hours. I hope that there will be expedition, but I can only guide from the Chair. It is up to the Committee to decide what it debates and what it does not, subject to the amendments. I call Mr. Philip Holland.

It is still Hammond.

I knew that I was going to make that mistake again. I hope that, with that total and abject apology from me, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, Mr. Philip Hammond, will now speak.

I beg to move amendment No. 131, in

clause 43, page 20, line 30, after 'with,' insert

', or fails to comply with a direction given by,'.

I noted your earlier protestation that you have no knowledge of the plans of Her Majesty's Opposition, Sir Nicholas, but refusing to recognise them is stretching the point too far.

The amendment addresses subsection (3), which creates an offence of obstructing or interfering with an employee of a fire and rescue authority in the exercise of his powers under the clause. The amendment adds to that the offence of failing to comply with a direction of an employee of a fire and rescue authority using his powers under the clause. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that failing to comply with a direction is the same as obstructing or interfering, but I asked myself whether I could possibly construe obstructing or interfering with an employee as merely ignoring him, and on any natural interpretation of the language I could not make it work.

The practical situation that prompted me to raise the issue is drawn from my own experience. During the first few hours of the flooding last January, when my constituency was badly affected, the police were rather thin on the ground—to put it mildly—and firefighters effectively provided the only authority at the scene of incidents. I believe that as yet firefighters still have no powers to close a road. Technically, the county council had closed roads, and firefighters merely attempted to enforce the closures. I stand to be corrected—I detect a shuffle of papers—but I understood that to be the technical position.

Under the clause, firefighters will have powers to close roads, but one problem with relatively minor flooding is that properties that would not otherwise be flooded become so by virtue of the wake created by vehicles travelling at any speed along the road. That was a great problem last January, as people in four-wheel-drive vehicles driving through 4 in of water, which would not normally flood dwellings, created a 4 in tidal wave that did. Firefighters attempted to

prevent vehicles going down roads that were supposed to be closed, but people simply ignored them. As firefighters had no power to enforce closure, such behaviour was not an offence at the time. The county council, as the highway authority, would have had to enforce the closures.

It is unclear whether subsection (3) makes provision for someone ignoring a firefighter who tells them that they cannot, for instance, go into a building or down a road. If a member of the public picks up a firefighter and hurls him out of the way, he will be interfering with him; and if he intervenes to prevent the firefighter from stopping another vehicle, he will be obstructing him; but it is unclear whether having heard the firefighter say, ''You may not enter this building'' or, ''You may not enter this street'' then retreating into the background, waiting until he is looking the other way or dealing with something else before going around him will constitute an offence.

If the Minister can be categorical that ignoring an order not to drive down a highway or not to enter a building or a place will clearly be an offence, I will take his word for it. I would like him to explain how that is so, but if he is categorical we will accept that, and the amendment would be redundant.

I also support the amendment. The offences mentioned in the clause are obstruction and interference. As I understand it, the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would add the offence of failing to comply with an instruction. There seems to be a clear and obvious distinction between putting an active impediment in the way of firefighters and simply not complying with what they say. We are talking about cases that will probably go to court, which will involve criminal prosecutions, and in which people's liberty will be at stake. The law should be as explicit as possible, because serious cases will arise. They will probably arise more commonly in association with major incidents. It ought to be fairly clear in the Bill what is prohibited.

With amendment No. 131, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is rightly concerned to ensure that firefighters have the powers needed to deal with emergencies without interference. We believe that subsection (3) creates an offence that is already wide enough to deal with failure to comply with a direction. Let me explore one or two of the circumstances in which the offence might apply.

The hon. Gentleman gave the example of flooding and suggested that vehicles proceeding along a road that was partially flooded could create a tidal wave that threatened to flood other premises. He quite rightly highlighted the importance of the firefighters who were first on the scene being able to close the road and prevent traffic from increasing the problem of flooding. Firefighters do in fact have the powers to close roads, but they are currently available only for firefighting purposes. Under current powers, firefighters would not be able to close roads in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman. However, under the wider powers given to them by the

Bill, it will be possible to do so. Our view is that if a motorist deliberately ignored a clear instruction by a firefighter not to drive a vehicle down a road because that would create the risk of further flooding, that would be interference with a firefighter in the course of their duty, and subsection (3) would bite.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of direction. There are important issues, in the context of major incidents, relating to who should be in a position to direct the public for safety purposes if, for example, it was necessary to establish a cordon. The operational doctrine that applies to joint working between the emergency services normally leaves the police to fulfil that function. However, there will be certain circumstances in which it is appropriate for a firefighter, in the absence of the police, to prevent members of the public from putting themselves at risk or getting into a position in which they could obstruct the firefighting activity. Subsection (3) gives sufficient latitude for firefighters to issue instructions in those circumstances, with the expectation that they would be followed and that failure to follow them would render the person responsible liable for an offence of obstructing a firefighter in the course of their duty.

We would be cautious about extending the definition to a point at which it might raise legitimate doubts and call into question the normal presumption that it is for the police to oversee the control of the public, the creation of cordons and so forth.

I can think of a specific test case. Often there is a ghoulish interest in disasters, and the emergency services find it problematic that a number of people gravitate towards such incidents and hamper their work. If the fire services were to announce on local radio that they wanted people to stay away from an area but some motorists disobeyed the instruction because they wanted to observe the plane crash, or whatever the incident was, would they have committed an offence? Would the offence be classified as obstruction?

That is a classic instance when it would be appropriate for the police to take the lead. Where there has been an incident and radio advertising says ''Keep away'', clearly the police will be involved and it will be right for them to take the lead in giving directions to the public rather than the firefighters.

We are concerned with circumstances more akin to those outlined by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, where firefighters are first on the scene, the police have not arrived and we need to ensure that the public do not do something that might get in the way of the firefighting operation or put themselves at risk. We believe that the clause gives firefighters sufficient power to achieve the required result without raising any questions about the normal relationship between them and the other emergency services. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister of State. During his remarks a thought came into my mind. The power that firefighters are being given, particularly over motorists, must be publicised in some way. The motorists that I am thinking of—I saw the incidents happen—did not believe that they were at risk of committing an offence. They ignored what firefighters were telling them because it was inconvenient to them and because they perceived that, as they were not being instructed by the police, they could choose to ignore the instruction. In fairness to motorists, they need to be made aware that the law has changed. Will the Minister give some thought to advising motorists that firefighters are to have statutory powers to stop and regulate traffic and to prevent them from entering a highway or a building or place?

The Minister said that he was satisfied that the offence of obstructing or interfering was of sufficient scope to deal with the problem. I am not entirely convinced about that—I stand to be corrected, because I am no expert on police powers—because my understanding is that police officers do not have to rely on offences of interfering with them or obstructing them in their duty. If the public ignore directions from police officers, particularly concerning moving traffic, they are specifically guilty of offences: the police do not have to rely on the general, catch-all approach of obstruction in the execution of duty. I agree with the Minister that we are only talking about situations where firefighters are alone at the scene. However, if we are serious about underlining the importance of their role, there should be appropriate symmetry. I have listened to what the Minister said and we do not disagree about what we are trying to achieve.

I hope that it will help the hon. Gentleman towards what seems to be his destination of withdrawing the amendment if I say that we shall certainly take on board his suggestion that we should consider how the new powers can best be publicised. We shall issue guidance to fire and rescue authorities on their new powers once the Bill has received Royal Assent and we shall consider how we can make the public more widely aware that, in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, firefighters will be able to issue instructions that would involve a breach of the law if they are not complied with.

I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps one of those handy little flyers in a vehicle excise renewal notice or something like that would be appropriate. I believe that many of those in the example that I cited of the flooding last January thought, ''My vehicle is capable of driving through 6 in deep water because it is a brand new, four-wheel-drive vehicle'', and did not think through the implications for householders living on those streets. I am pleased that the Minister has taken that point on board. I am not 100 per cent. convinced, but given that the Minister clearly recognises the issue and is attempting

to address it practically, it would be inappropriate to press the amendment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.