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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 3—Intervention Code—

New clause 1 deals with issues surrounding the fire and rescue national framework—a detailed document, which sets out what amounts to a blueprint for the organisation, operation and management of fire and rescue services across the country. Let me give hon. Members a flavour of the document. It states:

"by 1 April 2004 Fire and Rescue Authorities must establish Regional Management Boards with … delegated powers that are appropriate to"

their

"aims and objectives; plans for meeting the requirements in each of the six key areas listed at paragraph 2.9 of this document; and sufficient evidence to demonstrate the capacity—both resources and expertise—to deliver those plans."

In turn, regional management boards must

"introduce regional personnel and human resource functions … develop a regional approach to training … establish regional control rooms … and introduce regional procurement"

strategies. Later, the document states that

"Fire and Rescue Authorities, through the Regional Management Boards, must: ensure the phased transition from existing control rooms"

and ensure compliance

"with national protocols on staff roles and training"—

whatever they are. In short, the framework document tells fire and rescue authorities how to organise the discharge of the functions conferred on them by the Bill. It sets out what they are and are not allowed to do, when and how they are required to devolve their functions upward to higher bodies, and the guidance that they should accept from Secretaries of State. The document even lays down detailed human resources policies and strips several functions from the democratically accountable authorities, transferring them up to the regional management board.

For the purposes of this debate, it is not necessary to argue whether having some sort of framework to deal with such matters is right or wrong. The concern that new clause 1 is designed to address is the democratic deficit—the lack of scrutiny of the framework document, which in many ways is meatier than the Bill itself. The framework is given statutory status by virtue of clause 21, and clauses 22 and 23 create a regime whereby the Secretary of State can intervene and penalise authorities if they do not comply with its requirements. The framework is extraordinarily centralising, and it will come into force without having undergone any proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State determines what is in the framework, he issues the framework—after consultation, of course—and he can amend it at any time that he feels it is appropriate to do so.

Without making any comment at this stage about the precise content of the framework, I should explain that the purpose of new clause 1 is to subject the framework to parliamentary approval. Under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State has only to lay the finished document before Parliament, whereas new clause 1(1) provides that the initial framework shall have effect only once the Secretary of State has made an order by statutory instrument, giving Parliament an opportunity—albeit an inadequate one—to exercise some measure of scrutiny over what, as I have already suggested, will be by far the most important part of the collection of documents that will determine the way that our fire and rescue services operate in future: a document that will be at least of equal standing to the Bill itself.

Subsection (2) provides for similar arrangements in the case of any amendments to the framework that the Secretary of State may wish to make. Amendment No. 1 is a consequential provision that would remove from clause 21 the current provision for laying the framework before Parliament.

I hope that the Minister will be able to accede to our request for a simple measure of parliamentary scrutiny of what will be an extremely important document. If, as he repeatedly assured us in Committee, the framework will not amount to a micro-management plan for every nominally independent fire and rescue authority, he has nothing to fear from allowing parliamentarians—who represent the populations of communities throughout the country—an opportunity to consider the framework in its final form after he has completed his consultation, and to approve it so that it is incorporated in statute via the provisions of clause 21.

New clause 3 addresses a slightly different issue. It is designed to qualify the Secretary of State's power to intervene in the operation of a fire and rescue authority under the powers granted to him in clause 22. Under that clause, the Secretary of State may direct a fire and rescue authority precisely how to act or not to act if he believes that it is failing or likely to fail—not failing or likely fail to discharge its statutory functions but failing or likely to fail to comply with the national fire and rescue framework.

These are intervention powers that are over and above the sanctions under the best-value regime enshrined in the Local Government Act 1999, which also apply to fire and rescue authorities by virtue of clause 23. As drafted, these are wide-ranging powers of intervention. In our view, the ability to intervene gives the Secretary of State far too much power vis-à-vis what are supposed to be local community-based services that are delivering a service that is accountable to the local community.

New clause 3 simply requires the Secretary of State to provide some codification of the circumstances and the manner in which he will make orders under clause 22, and the circumstances and the manner in which he will issue directions under any of the many provisions allowing him to do so in a Bill that places huge powers in his hands.

Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State to specify who he will consult. It does not require him to provide an exhaustive list of individuals or organisations. In Committee, the Minister made clear his objection to the listing approach. The subsection requires the Secretary of State instead to define the classes of persons, and critically to specify any other codes or agreements to which he will have regard before intervening.

It is no secret—I am sure the Minister will readily have divined the intention—that I have in mind the Local Government Association's code on intervention. It is a code that was agreed between the LGA and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, defining how the Secretary of State will use his intervention powers after a comprehensive performance assessment where an authority is deemed to be failing. The code includes extensive provisions on support for failing organisations, notice to be given and opportunities for authorities to rectify their deficiencies. Generally, it governs the Secretary of State's approach and ensures that intervention follows a clear scheme that everybody understands and is not arbitrary in any way. I should be grateful for assurance that the regime, which will apply to interventions under clause 23, which deals with best value, will also apply to interventions under clause 22. A loophole will otherwise be created, as the Secretary of State will invariably have the opportunity to intervene under either clause, and it is not appropriate that one intervention route is bound by the provisions of the LGA code and the other is not.

Finally, new clause 3(3) specifies the authorities and recognised organisations representing employees who must be consulted on the code before it is issued by the Secretary of State.

The new clause proposes a modest limitation on a wide power of intervention, and seeks to ensure that it is used as expected by fire and rescue authorities, is not arbitrary and does not become an alternative or loophole for avoiding established intervention procedures. If the Minister can confirm that the LGA code will be applied to any intervention under the provisions of the Bill, we will not seek to press new clause 3 further—[Interruption.] He is saying from a sedentary position that he has already done so, but that had not penetrated my consciousness. He will be glad of an opportunity to put that on record on the Floor of the House so that all local government bodies are aware of it.

New clause 11 requires that, as part of the framework arrangements, the Secretary of State set out annually, on a five-year forward basis, targets for a reduction in the number of accidental fire deaths in the home and of incidents of arson. It requires him to report to Parliament annually on progress in achieving those targets, which is not a terribly onerous burden. After all, the Government have said that reducing accidental fire deaths is the raison d'être of modernisation, so surely they will not object to putting that objective at the centre of the framework structure with clear targets that are updated regularly, thus enabling them to measure the progress of the reforms. The problem is that the Government have reduced the targets. Until last summer the target for the reduction of accidental fire deaths in the home was a cut in the average for 1994 to 1999 of 20 per cent. by March 2004. Gosh, March 2004 is now! The reduction should have been achieved already, but last summer, the Government put the date for the achievement of that important target back by six years, to March 2010. While they have been telling us that modernisation will save lives, and while fire authorities, required to reconfigure their deployments under integrated risk management plans, have closed fire stations, changed manning and crewing arrangements or, as in the case of my own constituency, removed fire appliances from fire stations, and have been busy with their integrated risk management plans, the Government have demonstrated a lack of confidence in the saving lives agenda by reducing the targets for accidental fire deaths in the home.

3.45 pm

I should like to quote from the report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published in January. With regard to downgrading, it states:

"we are disappointed that the Government has relaxed its target to cut down the number of deliberate fires and extended the time available to meet the targets on accidental fire-related deaths. We are concerned that Government did not consult sufficiently with relevant parties before relaxing targets."

It is hardly surprising that the public are increasingly sceptical about the integrated risk management plan cuts that are beginning to filter through locally—they are certainly beginning to do so in my area—when the Government are simultaneously downgrading the very target whose fulfilment is the justification for much of the modernisation programme. The foreword to the framework document, which is signed by the Minister for Local and Regional Government, talks of

"a better service that saves more lives".

Whether the service saves more lives depends on the base line, however, and the Government have simply moved the goalposts—[Interruption.] The Government have moved the goalposts over the past 12 months by downgrading the target for reducing accidental fire deaths in the home.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he has misled the House in suggesting that a change in the actual targets—

Order. The Minister should perhaps rephrase his remarks. I do not think that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) would mislead the House.

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to reducing fire deaths. The fact that there may be a change in the target does not in any way change the commitment to a reduction in the number of deaths, and neither does it indicate that there will be no change or reduction. A change has been made in the light of circumstances which, as he knows only too well, could not have been foreseen when the target was set. That is the result of the collapse in the scrap metal price, which we debated at length. He knows perfectly well that that is the case. Will he accept that, if a target becomes ineffective because of outside circumstances, sticking to it rather than realistically trying to ensure an appropriate response in the changed circumstances is folly? I hope that he will accept that we are doing the most sensible thing.

The Minister referred to the reduced target for deliberate fires or arson, but he has ignored the reduced target for accidental fire deaths in the home. If he would like to explain to the House what unforeseen circumstances have made that target impossible to achieve, I would be very happy to give way to him again. The only suggestion that I have heard from him is that an increasingly elderly population has made it difficult to achieve the targets. I hardly think that that circumstance was impossible to foresee at the time when the targets were set.

I will accept what he says about the arson targets and scrap metal, although I shall have something else to say about them in a moment, but in relation to accidental fire deaths in the home, the Government have reduced the target.[Interruption.] In my book, it is a reduction in the target; other hon. Members will draw their own conclusions. The target of achieving a 20 per cent. reduction from a given base line by March 2004 has been pushed out to a target of achieving the same reduction from the same base line by March 2010. To my very simple mind, that is a reduction in the target—

It is an extension.

I shall leave other hon. Members and members of the public to reach their own conclusions.

On the reduction in arson targets, as the Minister rightly says, the number of vehicles being subjected to deliberately set fires has increased dramatically, partly as a result of a collapse of the scrap metal market and the cost now involved in disposing of vehicles. What are the Government proposing to do about that, apart from downgrading the targets? They are proposing a methodology for the implementation of the EU end-of-life vehicle directive that will by general consent make the problem worse by creating an additional disincentive to the owners of old vehicles to take them to authorised dismantlers.

The Minister of State clearly disagrees, but I had lengthy debates on this in a previous incarnation with a then Industry Minister, and I would be fascinated to hear how the current proposals for implementing the directive will not lead to an increase in the number of abandoned vehicles deliberately set on fire.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how free disposal of end-of-life vehicles from 2007 will not have the effect that he wishes. We think it will.

The right hon . Gentleman misrepresents what the Government are proposing. There will be a gap during which people with existing vehicles will be required to take them to an authorised dismantler, who at current scrap metal prices is likely to charge a fee.

The Government's performance on targets has been rather shabby. The dropping of the fire deaths target undermines the high moral stance that Ministers have sought to attach to the modernisation programme, and reinforces an already sceptical public in the suspicion that modernisation is a cover for some old-fashioned cuts. Frankly, that suggests to us that the setting, monitoring and performance in achievement of the targets must be watched closely. That is why new clause 11 would force the Government regularly to publish, update and explain any changes to the targets, and to give Parliament an assessment of progress in achieving them. That would allow us to measure the real impact of modernisation on these important public safety objectives.

Amendment No. 20 would limit the guidance that the Secretary of State can give in the framework—guidance allowing the Secretary of State to intervene under clause 22 if there is a failure to act in accordance with it—to areas in which decisions could not reasonably be left to fire and rescue authorities. We concur with the sentiments behind that amendment. We see a real danger that the Government's instinct to try to micro-manage from the centre will find expression through the national framework. That is one of our two principal concerns about the shape of the Bill as it stands.

Through amendment No. 17, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) seeks to include a requirement for a specified minimum standard of response to specified categories of incident. I will be interested to hear what he intends, because it seems to us that the amendment would undermine the local discretion that the integrated risk management plan process is intended to introduce for local authorities. I will also be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that, on the new clauses, and in particular on the Government's reduced targets.

I want to speak about amendment No. 17, which I tabled specifically to allow the Minister to elaborate on some of the questions that have just been posed and thus overcome some of the arguments that have been advanced in previous debates to the effect that the exercise is simply about cuts to service. It is important to clarify exactly how the new system of integrated risk management proposals will be implemented.

We should celebrate the work that has already been done. In March, we celebrated another 5 per cent. reduction in fatalities in the past year. We should congratulate the service on that. I tabled the amendment because of the dilemma that runs not only through our debates but through the Select Committee report—a dilemma in relation to the need to ensure some consistency in standards throughout the country. The amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to negate the contention that the new system may introduce flexibility to the extent of creating a postcode lottery in local fire services' response to specific incidents.

In moving away from the traditional national minimum standards system, we need clarity about local discretion. Of course, everyone—including the fire authorities and the Fire Brigades Union—has argued that we need to tailor the modern service response to specific needs. However, there are anxieties. We need to put on record again the fact that we are not considering an overall reduction in investment in the service or a cuts exercise for any individual fire authority. We are considering a long-term, consistent pattern of investment that will improve service provision and the resources on which individual firefighters and authorities can draw.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, during the industrial dispute in 2002 and early 2003, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister both said that the firefighters' pay settlement over and above inflation had to he self-financing out of the savings from modernisation? Does that not suggest that it will be difficult to achieve the objective that he has outlined?

I do recall that, but I also remember the subsequent debate in which the Government identified a sum of money for transitional investment in the fire service to cover the interim period when the savings could be identified. I am confident that, if the new system is implemented properly, we can overcome the allegations that it is a cuts exercise. I seek clear reassurance, on the record, from the Minister that we are considering increasing not reducing investment.

How far will the integrated risk management plans go to establish a consistent approach throughout the country? If we are moving from minimum standards, how can we achieve consistency of approach? I would welcome the Minister's elaborating on that today so that the Government's intentions can be put on record. I would welcome in particular an outline of what happens if inconsistencies break out in individual fire authorities. What powers of intervention would the Minister have if he believed that a specific fire authority's inconsistent approach would increase risk?

I am anxious about some of the statements that have been made about local approaches, especially responses to automatic fire alarms. How will individual fire authorities identify the level of risk and therefore the appropriate response? Some fire authorities have made statements that have not helped the argument for the need for a flexible approach. For example, the firemaster, as he is called, for Lothian and the borders said:

"Where we get a call from an automatic detector which isn't confirmed by someone as being a fire, we intend to send out one fire engine instead of the two to four we send at the moment."

There has been some suggestion that authorities will invite the general public to investigate whether a fire is associated with an automatic fire alarm. Clearly, that is unacceptable. We need clearer national guidance to ensure that such an inconsistent approach does not break out. It is estimated that there are 1.500 calls through automatic fire alarms when, although it is not confirmed, there is a fire. Clearer guidance on minimum standards would help.

4 pm

How will the integrated risk management ensure consistency? How will the Minister's national guidance and national framework ensure that we do not take a step backwards leading to increased risk or a need for more investment in local provision? What powers of intervention will he have if an inconsistent approach is shown to be putting lives at risk and reducing resources?

I should like to hear from the Minister yet again that this is not a cutting exercise, and that it involves investment and flexibility. I should also like to hear about any consultation on initiatives to measure the need for response. Will it be possible for some to be piloted, so that fire authorities can learn from others what response is most appropriate, what lessons can be learned from a change from existing minimum standards to a more flexible approach, and how mistakes can be identified and rectified. I want to hear the Minister's comments on the overall approach, so that we can reassure individual firefighters in our communities that the Bill will result in a general improvement rather than a reduction in services.

Two themes ran through the Committee stage?lack of scrutiny and centralisation of power. Our amendments and those of the Conservatives tried to deal with both. I compliment the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge ( Mr. Hammond), who clearly worked hard on the amendments tabled in Committee and on those we shall discuss today. We support in principle his new clauses in this group, and some that we shall deal with later—although, as he would probably expect, I shall ask him a couple of questions about one of them.

A national framework always has potential for good and potential for bad, or for unintended consequences. The same applies to powers taken by the Secretary of State, and we want to ensure that these powers are used only to improve fire services and to increase local accountability and democracy. In Committee, the Minister would smile angelically and tell us that, of course, he had no intention of misusing the powers; they were there "just in case". If that is true, I do not think he should have too much difficulty in accepting some of the Conservative amendments, or accepting the principles enshrined in our amendments to clause 20.

New clause I confers a level of scrutiny that, in our view, is missing from the Bill. It demands a statutory instrument enabling consideration of various clauses and, in particular, amendments to the framework. I disagreed slightly with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge when he said that a statutory instrument was the weakest of options, although I know that they are not the best way of testing the Government. I do not know whether he was implying that all these matters should be dealt with on the Floor of the House; certainly, debating all the regulations here would take up rather a lot of time. With that proviso, however, I am happy to support what he said about new clause 1.

In a sense, new clause 3 tackles the same issue that we are tackling through amendment No. 20: constraining the Secretary of State's powers by establishing codes. My only concern, which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge probably shares, is that although we might be able to scrutinise those codes, the Minister will ultimately be able to set them as he wishes. An element of trust is involved. and I would like to go a little further, so I was pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports our amendment.

I turn to new clause 11. Targets are like shifting sands: they are there one minute, and then they are not. The Minister seemed to protest a little too much about the extension of a target date. If one expects a target to end on a set date, it ought to be possible to review it to see whether a tougher one can be fixed, or whether one has gone as far as possible. Extending the target date by several years clearly stops the review process, thereby reducing one's ability to set a lower target.

The original target defined a maximum number of fire deaths in the coming year—beginning in March 2004—that would meet the target. But because of the change, a higher number of fire deaths will still meet the target, as that figure does not have to be achieved until 2010. Is that not the problem?

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point, and I need not comment further.

The targets set by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge are somewhat broad, and we should remember that targets do get adjusted. I have been informed that the target for death by fire has been tweaked slightly to remove death resulting from arson; perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is so. The removal of arson attacks would automatically lead to a reduction in fire deaths, because the target would have been shifted slightly. Such information will doubtless be winging its way to the Minister very shortly.

Is not the point the use of the word "accidental"? We are talking about a target for accidental fire deaths in the home, so it does not include deaths by deliberately set fires. However, to be fair it never has.

My understanding was different, but I am happy to be corrected. Targets have been adjusted slightly in other cases. My concern is that we could become too wrapped up in targets, although having a certain number is a good thing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain why he chose these targets in preference to other, slightly more prescriptive ones.

Amendment No. 20 is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). In our view, decisions should be taken at a local level where that can reasonably be done. We must have trust in fire and rescue authorities that have been democratically elected; otherwise, we will undermine them, and the fact of their election will become pointless. As a result, they will become managers rather than decision makers. We welcome the national framework in principle, but certain decisions must be taken locally. The Minister could achieve that in a number of ways, but I hope that he accepts the broad principle that the elected members of fire and rescue authorities should have decision-making powers, rather than simply managerial ones, and that he will ensure that that happens.

I shall be brief because I took part in the Committee stage, which gave us plenty of opportunities to discuss how integrated risk management plans would function. I have just a couple of points, which relate to how Gloucestershire fire authority envisages its way forward and, more particularly, how local firefighters, through the Fire Brigades Union, are seeking to move the debate forward.

One issue is how IRMPs will fit with other aspects of evolving county and wider arrangements. In particular, we have the community safety plan in Gloucestershire, which is quite an extensive attempt by the county council to draw together different services working in the emergency field. I should be interested to know how my right hon. Friend the Minister envisages the plans working, at least in the short term. The view seems to be that where there have been pathfinder projects, services are further forward than in some other areas, such as Gloucestershire, where there has not been such an opportunity. I should be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say on that. How do we move those brigades forward?

The hon. Gentleman says that Gloucestershire has not had the opportunity of pathfinder projects, but it has pioneered the use of tri-service control facilities. How does he understand their fitting into the Government's stated agenda of reducing the number of control rooms throughout England to only nine?

We rehearsed that point in Committee, if somewhat vaguely, and I am sure that we shall come to it in the next-but-one group of amendments. We in the county of Gloucestershire have some misgivings because a fine service has evolved there, and it is good to see the three emergency services working together. It is fair to say that we are talking to our right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench about the opportunities for what that tri-service may become, but we will no doubt refer to that under the appropriate group of amendments.

To return to the immediate group, I should be interested to hear from the Minister how areas where there have not been the same opportunities for trialling and testing the new procedures can catch up, and how those procedures will fit with other proposals that have emerged through county councils and other parts of the emergency services. How will those sit together with the new set of IRMPs? Much of that is outwith the Bill's scope, because practical, detailed considerations are involved. However, the Government need to show good faith and that there is not a cuts package behind the proposals, and they need to demonstrate how they will modernise services, using the best forms of consultation to ensure that all elements are involved.

I take issue with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who said that he had much time in Committee to make contributions on this matter. When we came to discuss clause 21, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said:

"we need to make rapid progress to consider the next four clauses before the knife falls at 6 o'clock".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 231.]

As that was at 5 o'clock, we did not have quite the necessary time to discuss the issues involved, particularly those relating to new clauses 1 and 3. The House may appreciate the brevity of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stroud, but they could have been longer, because the Committee felt at that point that we were not scrutinising the matter closely enough.

Nonsense.

The Minister may call that nonsense, but I have here the comment made in Committee on 24 February, clear as the light of day.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall the comments of his Front-Bench colleague at the end of the Committee about the adequacy of time for full consideration of the Bill?

I might well be able to, if I had those comments in front of me. None the less, the point about scrutiny is as plain as the light of day at column 231.

Three fears are particularly relevant to new clause 1. The first is that the national framework is too rigid and will undermine localness. Secondly, there is a fear of gold-plating. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said that the Minister had described this as a just-in-case set-up. I can see exactly what will happen in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It will take on board more and more responsibilities, and the document will become a gold-plated version that undermines localness. Thirdly, the entire emphasis of the national framework involves the ultimate aim of cutting costs. The Government have not been particularly open about that in the framework document, and it will be interesting to know how many respondents to the consultation process, which I believe has now finished, referred to the Government's aim of cutting costs.

The Government have said that they see the framework document as a strategic one. The Minister hides behind the fact that the Bain report called for it. I am sure that it did—it called for a lot—but I am not sure that the Government have responded to everything in that report with provisions in the Bill. The framework sets out in minute detail how fire authorities must act in a huge number of respects, including human resources, training, control rooms and procurement. It goes so far as to talk about the swapping of personnel between various authorities and even between different branches of the emergency services. It talks at some length about effectively discharging those responsibilities at regional level. In fact, the word "regional" occurs throughout the document. The Government are looking closely at making regional management boards omnipotent over a large number of fire authorities. That might easily undermine the basis for the working of, for example, Somerset fire authority. That might be the Government's aim.

There is definitely an irony here. The Minister has been keen at every twist and turn, both in the framework document and in Committee, to talk about local accountability, and I am sure that he is going to wax lyrical about it now. The irony is that Somerset county council will no doubt be able to see a nudge and a wink when they are offered. When human resources, training, control rooms and procurement are subsumed into a regional body, a cash-strapped Somerset county council will no doubt welcome the chance of a capital receipt and the chance to release the beautiful Hestercombe house on to the open market. The control room may well end up somewhere else in the south-west, whereas, if these changes were to happen in the fullness of time. it might move to the centre of Taunton, which would make far more sense for any tie-up with, say, Devon, Dorset or Cornwall.

The basis for all those changes is this large framework document, which is 49 pages long; the Bill is only 26 pages. The framework needs to he subject to much more regular scrutiny, and that is why new clause 1 is so important. I hope that Conservative Members will call for a Division on it. At the very least, we need scrutiny, and there are effective ways of carrying that out without clogging up the machinery of government. Parliamentary scrutiny is necessary. It is impossible to deliver what we need in local terms from the framework as it has been drafted.

New clause 1 seeks to introduce a requirement for a statutory instrument before the national framework can take effect. This requirement, unlike that in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) in Committee, would not alter the status of the framework as guidance. I suspect that the change in the amendment reflects the point that we made in Committee that wording the framework as a statutory instrument would probably not help comprehension and implementation by those engaged in the fire service.

Our intention with the national framework is to provide a comprehensive document that will act as a "manual" for fire and rescue authorities. That is reflected by its status as guidance to which authorities must "have regard". By its nature, a national framework should provide strategic leadership—hence the inclusion of subsection (2)(a) in clause 21, stating that the fire and rescue national framework

"must set out clear service priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities".

That provision is very much in accordance with the thinking not only of the Bain report, but of the Select Committee, whose first recommendation is worth repeating. Its report was very good, and I am very happy to cite its first recommendation, which says:

"The Committee broadly welcomes the reforms outlined in the White Paper and is hopeful that the Fire and Rescue Services Bill will bring about real reform in the Service. The Service needs strong political leadership to ensure successful implementation and management of change during a potentially very turbulent period. Government must lead by example, and must provide support at local level to ensure implementation of reform, even in the face of confrontation."

That is exactly what we are doing and the framework has been produced within that remit.

Providing strategic direction is not the only purpose of the fire and rescue framework. To be effective as a manual, the framework should include guidance on all aspects of Government fire and rescue policy and reference to good practice as it develops. There is an enormous amount of good practice in the fire and rescue service; the problem is often that it is not universal. We believe that the good practice of individual fire authorities, if adopted by others, could make a real difference. Spreading good practice is fundamental.

The framework should also help to deal with the capacity support measures that the Government will provide to fire and rescue authorities, making it clear what help is available—an important matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), to which I shall return. It will also help to deal with the independent performance assessment measures that the Audit Commission is implementing. I shall also say more about that later.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge accused us of producing a centralising document, but I have to say that it is not. We have repealed—or are in the process of repealing—a highly centralised statutory framework dating back to the Fire Services Act 1947, which prescribed in considerable detail exactly what was required in every part of the country. In its place, we are giving greater discretion and responsibility to fire and rescue authorities to develop their own integrated risk management plans, reflecting local needs and priorities. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly explained, there must be an overarching national framework to ensure that there is both coherence and consistency and that standards are not allowed to fall below acceptable levels. That is precisely the purpose of the framework.

My hon. Friend was concerned about whether there might be a fall away from decent standards as a result of changing the 1947 Act framework, and I hope to reassure him on that point. We are absolutely committed to reducing deaths, to improving the effectiveness of the fire and rescue service and to ensuring more effective prevention of fire, which is the key to reducing the number of deaths. All our measures are designed to achieve that purpose.

There is no question of a cuts package: no cuts whatever are envisaged. We are continuing to provide real grant increases to fire and rescue authorities, and we are investing heavily in new equipment for the fire and rescue service—and we are committed to carrying on doing so. That is in marked contrast to Conservative Members, who choose to criticise us opportunistically but who, significantly, did not include the fire and rescue service among those that would be exempt from the shadow Chancellor's pledge for no further growth. When we hear Conservative Members criticise us, we should remember that the Conservative party is committed to cuts in the fire service that will jeopardise the ability of fire and rescue authorities to implement the modernisation programme that we are introducing. Of course, it would be a risk only if—heaven help us—the Conservatives were elected again. I repeat my reassurance to my hon. Friend.

We have been closely monitoring and supporting the development and implementation of IRMPs through the provision of guidance and risk assessment, with support teams working directly with fire and rescue authorities, and through our role as a consultee. The Bill re-enacts the existing statutory duty for a fire and rescue authority to plan and provide arrangements for fighting fires and protecting life and property from fires within its area. Authorities will be required to secure sufficient equipment and training to discharge their duty in normal circumstances and implement effective arrangements for receiving and responding to calls for help.

The published guidance on IRMPs makes it clear that fire and rescue authorities should set their own locally determined standards, which should be expressed in easily understood terms, to measure performance on intervention and prevention. The framework will be closely monitored and will allow us to see whether we are making the progress that we are committed to making, and, if we are not, it will allow intervention to tackle any failures.

On prevention, will the Minister return to the points that we discussed earlier about the targets being moved? It is difficult for the layman to comprehend why the targets are being reduced. The target of achieving a 20 per cent. reduction in accidental fire deaths in homes by March 2004 has been pushed back to 2010, and the target of reducing deliberately started fires by 30 per cent. by 2009 has been cut to 10 per cent. Those reductions occur at a time when a country such as New Zealand has managed to halve such deaths in four years, so it must be possible to meet the targets. If the Bill is about prevention, why have the targets been moved?

If the hon. Gentleman had been following proceedings, he would know that we are discussing new clause 1 and that targets are covered by a different new clause, which I shall deal with in due course. I was responding to issues raised properly in the context of new clause 1 and intend to continue to do so.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that a working group set up by the practitioners forum is examining the issue of automatic fire alarms, which raises important considerations. We know that automated fire alarms produce a substantial number of malfunctions and that if appliances are called out to deal with a malfunctioning AFA when a real fire occurs, it could prejudice the response of the fire service to the other incident. It is therefore important to implement robust procedures to ensure that those incidents that cause genuine concern are responded to in the normal way, and that fire and rescue authority resources are not indiscriminately allocated where there is actually no risk. Finding the means to do that without creating greater risk is difficult, but it is a proper challenge that a number of fire authorities have already begun to address, and I hope that we can make considerable progress through the practitioners forum working group. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised a number of issues about how the community safety plan, which draws together different services, links with IRMPs. I reassure him that IRMPs allow fire and rescue authorities to provide extra resources for prevention work, which may be undertaken by them or in partnership with other bodies. There are many examples of good practice in partnership work, which may involve engaging with teachers and others who are in a position to assist with effective fire prevention activity in particular sections of the community. We want to see continuing work of that nature and will give further guidance through the support team that I have alluded to, which is in place to help authorities establish the new arrangements introduced by IRMPs.

The fire and rescue national framework will play a significant role in driving forward the modernisation agenda, which is required to ensure that we have an effective fire and rescue service that saves more lives, and it is imperative that there are no unnecessary obstacles to delivering that agenda. The requirement for a statutory instrument to be agreed by this House before the national framework or amendments to the national framework can take effect could mean unnecessary delay and uncertainty.

Before the Bill has received its Third Reading in this House, let alone consideration by another place or Royal Assent, we are already well advanced with the first draft of the national framework, which has been out for consultation, and we hope to publish the first definitive version this spring. Thereafter, we will update the framework and, in order to help authorities with their planning processes, we intend to publish the framework in time for the start of their budget setting and business planning rounds each year. Unnecessary delay and uncertainty before the framework takes effect would be entirely unhelpful.

Furthermore, any guidance that updated policy would be issued as a revision to the framework, so that authorities and the Audit Commission were clear about our expectations. For example, we will provide guidance to ensure that medical criteria for firefighter appointment and retention are compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Under new clause 1, all such guidance would require a statutory instrument before having effect. The delay and uncertainty that would result from the requirement for a statutory instrument for each new piece of guidance would again be to the detriment of the smooth and efficient running of the service.

4.30 pm

We do not accept new clause 1, but we accept that Parliament has an important role in scrutinising decisions relating to fire and rescue policy. The Government will continue to be accountable to Parliament in the normal way. Clause 21(6) requires that we lay the plan, and any significant revisions to it, before Parliament and we have ensured in the legislation that, if the Secretary of State proposes to enforce a measure in the framework by exercising the intervention powers in clause 22, the order-making process will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There is already a good example of how that would work in the national plan for the police. The Police Reform Act 2002 requires the Secretary of State to prepare a national policing plan, but there is no requirement for a statutory instrument before the plan takes effect. The Secretary of State must lay the plan before Parliament in the same way that would be required for the framework.

I can reassure the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that we have included in the legislation a requirement to consult in preparing the framework, or significant revisions to it. We have consulted widely, and we will continue to do so on future revisions. Members of both Houses have had the opportunity to comment during that process. Amendment No. 1 is consequential to new clause 1 and seeks to remove the requirement to lay the framework before Parliament. However, it is absolutely appropriate that Parliament is kept informed of the contents of the framework.

Amendment No. 20 seeks to limit the priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities that the Secretary of State would be able to set out in the national framework to those that authorities could not "reasonably decide" for themselves. As I have already stressed, the Government have devolved much more responsibility to fire and rescue authorities. We have repealed section 19 of the 1947 Act, which required that any reduction in the number of fire appliances or firefighting posts, or the closure of any fire station, required the Secretary of State's consent.

We have also replaced the outdated national standards of fire cover with local integrated risk management planning, thereby allowing more local discretion for fire and rescue authorities to deploy their resources in line with their assessment of present local needs and risks. However, we must get the balance right. The independent review of the fire service said:

"successive Governments have not provided the leadership required".

It also said:

"it is for central government to set the Fire Service's strategic priorities and to provide a clear lead on policy development".

The national framework will play a crucial role in providing that leadership and driving reform and improvement in the service. That includes setting priorities and objectives where appropriate, but we will not use the national framework unnecessarily to interfere with local decisions. That would run counter to our overall programme of reform, not least to the principle of local risk management.

We see the national framework as a contract, embodying our partnership approach to reforming the service. It was first issued as a draft for consultation with plenty of time for people to comment before it became a statutory document. Clause 21(5) sets out a requirement for a full consultation process. However, the amendment would create unnecessary uncertainty about what can and cannot be "reasonably devolved" to a fire and rescue authority. That is obviously a subjective issue. The amendment would therefore inevitably lead to ambiguity and could in theory lead to expensive and time-consuming legal challenge. That is the last thing we need at a time when we are embarking on a major reform programme to deliver a better service that saves more lives.

On new clause 3, I have previously referred to the existing protocol covering the use of existing intervention powers across all local authority services that has already been agreed with local government stakeholders and published. The protocol was developed through the framework for partnership, signed in November 1997 by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Government and by the chairman of the Local Government Association on behalf of local authorities. It has worked well and directions have had to be issued to local authorities on only two occasions.

The protocol provides for a sufficient evidence base before any action is taken and for the form and extent of intervention to reflect the type and seriousness of failure and the need for effective improvement. It provides that, other than in cases of urgency, there should he a process of agreement with the authority on how it will address any service failure in the first instance. It provides for the use of intervention powers only if that process fails to deliver the required improvement. It also provides for consultation with the authority concerned on any proposed directions.

In exercising the powers that we seek under clause 22 and elsewhere, we are committed, as I have already made clear, to following the principles set out in the protocol, which already covers the existing powers to intervene in fire and rescue authorities contained in the Local Government Act 1999. I do not believe that it would be sensible to produce a separate protocol for the powers in the Bill; the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has implied as much and, in the light of my reassurances, I am sure that he will want to withdraw the proposed new clause.

Amendment No. 17, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, would require the national framework to set out minimum standards of response to incidents for fire and rescue authorities. I remind him that the independent review of the fire service stated:

"there is a compelling case to move to a risk-based approach and to do so now … it should be for fire authorities to identify the risks and the best means of handling them".

Following the recommendations of the independent review, we acknowledged in our White Paper last summer that national standards of fire cover that set out the speed and weight of response to incidents are no longer appropriate and that they would be replaced by integrated risk management plans, produced by each fire and rescue authority. Each IRMP should set out the authority's own standards for both prevention and intervention purposes, based on its assessment of risk to life in the local community. All fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales have published their draft plans, are consulting their communities and work forces on their proposals and will formally adopt their IRMPs from 1 April 2004.

To require the inclusion of minimum standards of response in the framework would limit the flexibility that we intend to devolve to a local level to ensure that emergency cover and response is determined locally and provided on a risk to life, not a risk to property, basis. The inclusion of minimum standards could skew authorities' decisions on the allocation of resources.

Let me provide a few statistics from the old national fire cover standards. Between 1997 and 2001, there were 2,600 fatalities and 76,300 injuries as a result of fires in England and Wales. Throughout that period, there were recommended minimum attendance standards. Specified attendance time to industrial and commercial—A and B risk locations—was between five and eight minutes, but a breakdown of the figures shows that 80 per cent. of fatalities occurred in C and D risk locations where attendance times were between eight and 20 minutes. That makes the point that if we base the whole approach on risk to life, it is important to move away from the old property-based standards, so that the approach reflects more effectively the risk to life.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that there is no scope for local fire authorities simply to abandon the principle of action designed to save lives, but if we stuck with the old arrangements, there would equally be no scope for local fire and rescue authorities to vary the standards in the light of local circumstances to ensure a quicker and more effective response where people's lives were at risk. I am thinking particularly of night-time fires in houses containing families in residential areas where, under the old standards, the response requirement would have been slower than that for empty commercial property in a city centre. Such an arrangement cannot be right. The focus must be on threat to life and I hope that the IRMPs will allow a more sensitive implementation of what we are all committed to: measures to safeguard lives.

New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to set targets for each fire and rescue authority in relation to the reduction of accidental fire deaths in the home and of deliberate fires, and to report to Parliament on progress in each Session. I am intrigued that the Opposition have moved that provision, as during most of our debates, not only on this Bill but on the Local Government Act 2003, they constantly attacked the Government for what they described as the unnecessary proliferation of centrally set performance targets. However, when it suits them politically, they are only too happy to try to impose targets.

We remain absolutely committed to new national targets, which were announced in the fire White Paper, for the reduction of accidental fire deaths in the home and for the reduction of deliberate fires. As before, progress will be reported in the ODPM annual report, which is deposited in the Library. I should make it clear that there is no question of reducing the targets. We are committed to real reductions in the number of lives lost and the number of non-accidental fires. However, we recognise that since the targets were first set, changes in circumstance and a greater understanding of context have made it impossible for the original aspirational targets—that is what they were—to be achieved realistically. We need targets that can be delivered, rather than notional targets that would generate disappointment if they could not be met.

Will the Minister give way?

No. The hon. Gentleman asked me about this earlier. I noted his comments and I am now responding to them, so I hope that he will listen.

I completely reject any implication that the present targets are insufficiently challenging. If we were to take no action, we could expect an additional 200 accidental fire deaths over the period up to 2010. Instead, the target on accidental fire deaths commits us to saving more than 1,000 lives throughout that period. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress because accidental fire deaths in the home are at an all-time low of 292 for England and Wales. I wholly reject the completely incorrect assumption put forward by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that, as a result of changes to the targets, there will be more deaths and more deliberate fires than would otherwise occur. That is not the case because the numbers are reducing. We are committed to reducing them and we are committed to saving lives, but we are also committed to realism, rather than to targets that are simply not achievable for a variety of reasons.

The Minister cites the number of lives that his target will apparently save. Will he tell the House how many additional lives would already have been saved if the original date for achieving the target of March 2004 had been adhered to?

As I have just told the hon. Gentleman, the latest figures show that we have made significant progress yet again on reducing the number of lives lost. I am surprised that he does not welcome the fact that accidental fire deaths in the home resulted in only 292 losses of life in 2002–03—the lowest level on record. We are reducing the number of lives lost. If people set an unrealistic target, they could in theory claim to be capable of achieving more. However, the original target was not achievable. We realised that, so we set a realistic and extremely challenging target for reducing the number of fire deaths.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already and I need to make progress.

rose—

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman and answered his question. I am sorry that he is not in a mood to listen.

We are absolutely committed to reducing deaths, injuries and unnecessary fires. That requires real commitment and continued investment, and it ill behoves Conservative Members to try to make cheap points when we know that their spending commitments would not protect the fire service. The service would thus be starved of funds and unable to achieve the commitments towards which we are working. We are hearing a lot of synthetic and unconvincing rhetoric from the Conservative party on the matter.

Clause 21(2)(a) will require the Secretary of State to set out priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities in the national framework. The national targets on accidental fire deaths and deliberate fires are already in the first paragraph of the draft framework. The performance of fire and rescue authorities will be assessed by the Audit Commission, and the performance expectations set out in the national framework, which includes an explicit reference to the national targets, will be a key yardstick for the Audit Commission when assessing performance. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the motion.

May I first deal with the Minister's remarks on new clauses 3 and 11? Let us get the pleasantries out of the way. On new clause 3, I am grateful to him for confirming that the Local Government Association code will apply to section 23 interventions. I know that many people outside the Chamber who were not entirely sure about the situation will be grateful that he has put his clarification on record.

Any discussion of targets seems to evoke a strange response from this usually mild-mannered and reasonable Minister because he goes berserk whenever we draw attention to the targets that were set as part of the public service agreement several years ago. The targets were set by his Government, not by us, someone from outside or civil servants. I hope that he will not try to tell us that that was not the case. He now tells us that those targets were unachievable and unrealistic. I wonder what the Treasury thinks about being told that the targets, which were offered in exchange for Treasury funding in a previous spending review, are unachievable and unrealistic. The Minister does not have a leg to stand on. One moment he tells us that he has not relaxed the targets for accidental fire deaths, but a moment later he tells us that he has and is justified in doing so because unforeseen circumstances have intervened.

What targets for reducing fire deaths is the hon. Gentleman's party committed to and what discussions has he held with his shadow Treasury colleagues on the resources necessary to deliver them?

We are in a situation in which the Government have set targets in the national framework that are lower than those agreed in a previous public service agreement. We are trying to ensure that the Government are held to account for future changes that they are minded to make to the targets set out in the national framework in the way that they made changes to the existing targets last summer.

Perhaps my hon. Friend can give me the answer that the Minister was clearly unwilling to do. We learned from the Minister that the original targets were aspirational. In that case, why was New Zealand able to halve the number of accidental fire deaths in its homes over four years? The Government's extension must be a de facto reduction in targets.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the New Zealand example. That country has been much quoted over the past 18 months in relation to fire, and for good reasons. Many people outside and inside the House might think that the Government, as a natural corollary of their modernisation programme, based as it is around redirecting resources to save lives, would not want to relax the targets for reducing accidental fire deaths, but to tighten them so that they are tougher and more demanding. The purpose of new clause 11 is not to change the targets, but to ensure proper scrutiny of them so that the Government cannot do what they did last summer and simply sneak in a reduced and relaxed target.

The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) asked why I selected those two targets. It was because they are the two targets that the Government set out in the fire and rescue draft national framework. Although reduced, they are the same targets qualitatively as the two targets included in the previous public service agreement.

The debate on new clause 11 has been useful. Members of the public and Members of the House will draw their own conclusions on what is or is not a reduced target. Members of the public and the media are used to looking carefully at the spin that the Government put on any numbers, figures or targets.

The Minister addressed several of the detailed points raised on new clause 1, but he did not address the principal concern. The national framework is above all a strategic framework for the delivery of fire services. It is right and proper that such a framework should be fully scrutinised by Parliament. It is simply not good enough that Parliament will be kept informed, as he put it, as the framework evolves and is eventually introduced and modified. Parliament needs scrutiny and control of the process. His protestation that a negative resolution would be too time-consuming and in some way too costly for such an important measure, which is key to the modernisation of our fire and rescue services, is unacceptable. The Government have not made a case for rejecting new clause 1.

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

The clause relates to retained firefighters, and I think that it is common ground on both sides of the House that they play a crucial part in the modernisation agenda. All too often the focus or the spotlight falls on the large metropolitan brigades, with their need occasionally to respond to major disasters and to think about the response to the new agenda of anti-terrorist preparedness. However, in many brigades throughout the country, retained firefighters are the backbone of the service.

In many ways the challenges of modernisation are greater for those brigades that depend largely on retained firefighters. By and large, they will not see the same savings from changed work practices as those brigades that employ mainly whole-time firefighters. Almost by definition, those brigades with retained firefighters do not already have available a pool of full-time employed personnel to deal with the service's new emphasis on fire prevention. They are faced with some particular challenges as we move forward with this agenda. On the whole, the brigades in question are the smaller ones, with lighter management structures, which in turn pose further difficulties in addressing the issues.

As I look round the Chamber, I am certain that every Member here would be happy to record the huge debt that is owed to retained firefighters for their sterling support of the community when they continued to provide cover during the brief but potentially dangerous fire strikes at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003. I regret to say that in some cases that was done in the face of intimidation and harassment from colleagues. By way of belated but well-deserved reward, those retained firefighters will be included in the new negotiating machinery, and the Minister made it clear in Committee that he intends that they should have proper representation, along with other groups of firefighters and employees of fire and rescue services.

In the new clause, I have sought to address the overarching problem of the recruitment and retention of sufficient retained firefighters to allow the modernisation agenda to proceed successfully. It is increasingly difficult to find the kind of people who traditionally have worked as retained firefighters. I do not want to digress too far into anecdote, but when I was a boy I remember being terribly excited about the fact that the greengrocer was a retained firefighter. Every now and then, to great excitement in the greengrocer's shop, he would tear off in his car to fight a fire. In traditional communities, the small self-employed shopkeeper or business man could undertake that vital community role and provide himself with a worthwhile additional income. As our lives have become more complicated and as pressure on the self-employed has increased—people generally have to spend more time on running a business now—it has become less easy to persuade such people that they can afford the time and potential disruption to their business that being a retained firefighter entails. According to figures produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the retained firefighting force across the country is about 3,000 firefighters or 20 per cent. short of its intended strength, which represents a considerable gap in its ability to deliver what is required of the current structure and set-up. The Minister may wish to comment on this, but my understanding is that as we proceed with things such as integrated personal development strategies both retained firefighters and full-time firefighters will participate in in-job training and personal development programmes, which are extremely worth while but which, almost by definition, require a greater number of personnel to provide cover while people are undertaking training and personal development activities. We are 20 per cent. short now, but once the integrated risk management plans have been put in place, the modernisation agenda has been implemented more fully and the new human resources arrangements are up and running, we will have an even greater need for retained firefighters.

The key to finding such people is recognising the role of employers. Some retained firefighters, of course, will be self-employed, but the great majority will be employees, and it is important that the House should acknowledge the need to focus on persuading employers of the benefit to the community and perhaps to themselves of releasing employees for retained duty. Various proposals were made in Committee. It was suggested, for example, that formal recognition should be bestowed on employers who release employees for retained duty and even that cash rewards or compensation should be made available to employers who sacrifice the efficiency of their business by allowing employees to play a role as retained firefighters.

New clause 2 would introduce a formal recognition of the importance of retained firefighters and of the problem of recruiting and retaining them by establishing an advisory panel to the Secretary of State. In Committee, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), referred to a comprehensive review that he had established on 15 December 2003 looking at issues relating to retained firefighting and the need to recruit more retained firefighters. Why have I tabled the new clause, given that he told the Committee about that? I want to be clear that the Government recognise the need to involve employers from both the public and private sectors in the initiative.

In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that the review would include

"members from a variety of stakeholder groups, including the Local Government Association, CACFOA and the RFU".

When I intervened to ask him whether the employer community was also engaged in the process, he replied:

"The employers will be fully engaged in the process."

However, it turned out that we were speaking at cross purposes, as he clarified his remarks by saying:

"The LGA is in the review team."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 2 March 2004; c. 386–387.]

The Local Government Association is a representative of employers of retained firefighters, but I had intended to convey to him the need to engage the employers of potential retained firefighters—the businesses and public bodies that employ such people in their everyday jobs, which need to be persuaded of the community's need for them to be released for retained firefighting duties. As far as I understood it, he confirmed in the Committee that representatives of employer organisations other than the LGA were not engaged in the review process. I would like the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and various other bodies that represent private sector employers to be included. I would also like representatives of the big public sector employers to be engaged in the process. Of course, the public sector must lead by example. In many parts of the country, large proportions of the population are engaged in public sector employment; indeed, the proportion is as much as a third in some areas.

The point of tabling the new clause was to seek to formalise the advisory panel as an ongoing body that would advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to retained firefighters and also to formalise the membership of the panel so that it included representatives not only of the fire and rescue authorities and the retained firefighters, but of employers from both the public and private sectors. The problem should be put on the table—we are 3,000 retained firefighters short today, and the number may be 4,000 by the time that the IRMP process is completed—and we need to work together to ensure that additional retained firefighters are delivered in the places where they are needed.

In my fire authority, Surrey, there are proposals in the integrated risk management plan to change the manning of a fire station from whole time to retained service. Of course, that will be possible and the saving will be harnessed only if and when it is possible to recruit the additional retained firefighters. The provision of 24-hour retained cover at a single-appliance fire station will take a considerable number of retained firefighters. I have not done the maths, but I suspect that about 20 or 24 individuals are required to provide 24-hour retained cover in a single-appliance fire station, although the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong.

I tabled the new clause to draw attention to the point and to get the Under-Secretary to focus on the role of employers and—I hope—to give some commitment about the engagement of employers in the process. I shall certainly not press the new clause to a Division if he can assure us that employers in the public and private sector will be properly engaged. Furthermore, I tabled the new clause because I know that some hon. Members—not least those from the Devon contingent, which featured strongly in Committee—will have a lot to say about retained firefighters. Devon is a fire authority that depends almost entirely on retained firefighters.

5.15 pm

Having tabled the new clause, I did some further digging. On Friday, the Retained Firefighters Union told me that it had done a quick survey of eight fire authorities picked at random and discovered, shockingly, that not one had a budget for recruiting retained firefighters. That is a serious situation, when we are already facing a shortfall of 3,000, and the shortfall is likely to increase.

It is imperative that we act. Retained firefighters are arguably the most cost-effective part of the fire service. Failing to recruit and retain enough of them will undermine the modernisation process and will certainly slow down the harvesting of its financial savings. The authorities with the largest number of retained firefighters are almost invariably those with the least scope for modernisation savings and the smallest slice of the transitional funding that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made available.

I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that there will be a mechanism whereby employers, both public and private, will be included in the process in a way that fully recognises their key role. I look forward to his response and to the contributions that I confidently anticipate from the aforementioned Devon contingent.

Devon was indeed extremely well represented in Committee, with three members, but the south-west generally did not do too badly either, with five. However, that did not mean that we always got our points across to the Minister.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) spoke about employer representation on the review body. He thinks that he was at cross purposes with the Minister, but I understood exactly what he meant in Committee, so I am surprised that it was not so clear to the Government.

We debated this at length in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman has mentioned our probing amendments on encouraging employers to release people to serve as retained firefighters. We suggested cash rewards, which will perhaps not prove to be the way forward, as a way of recognising what employers do. The Minister responded positively and said that retained firefighters were a vital resource, so I am horrified to hear that there are eight fire authorities with no money to recruit them. That is a scandal.

In fact, it is worse than that. The Retained Firefighters Union polled the eight authorities at random, so the statistical suggestion must be that many more will prove to have no budget.

That is an appalling situation. It could be that the authorities that rely heavily on retained crew are having problems with their budget. The Government are quite rightly seeking parity of salaries for retained firefighters, so they have recognised the need in words, but they have not recognised it in cash terms. Let us consider the example of the combined authority in Devon, which relies heavily on retained firefighters. The 16 per cent. pay increase over three years translates into a 23 per cent. increase in the budget of the Devon fire authority. That authority is finding it hard to make ends meet and says that it would require a further £2 million to achieve the same sort of funding as other fire authorities. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising if recruitment campaigns are cut in the attempt to ensure that resources are put into essential services such as firefighting, the response to road traffic accidents and so on.

The problem will get worse. As work patterns change and our countryside has fewer people working in it and more people commuting longer distances, those available on the ground will become few and far between. It is therefore imperative that greater effort are made to recruit those few people who reside close enough to the station. The Government accept that a genuine problem needs to be tackled. I hope that they also accept that it is not simply a matter of an advertising campaign or a review but of considering the way in which fire authorities are funded to recruit and retain those firefighters. Parity is good as far as it goes but it falls apart if the fire service is left short of cash.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned local authorities. We do not need a review in that case because Ministers are responsible for local authorities. I therefore urge the Minister to write a letter to himself to spur himself to write to local authorities telling them to be more responsive and to encourage their members of staff to become retained firefighters. Many authorities resist that, which is a great shame because a potential resource is not being used. In rural areas, its use is essential.

I wish to make a couple of brief observations. Like other constituencies, Gloucestershire relies heavily on retained firefighters. However, those firefighters can function only if they have a close relationship with full-time firefighters. Sometimes we talk about retained firefighters as though they work in isolation and provide cover to an area on their own, but, in order to provide effective fire cover, the full-time firefighters in a sizeable market town must have a relationship with the retained firefighters in the smaller market towns. Whatever the Government devise, a structure that recognises that relationship is vital.

I do not want to get hung up on the idea of an advertising budget. I accept that advertising might attract some individuals, but the main problem is that the retained fire service operates restrictively. If we had an arrangement under which people would be off call far more often, we could recruit them more easily. However, the system is predicated on the belief that people live and work locally. If either does not pertain, the opportunity to become a retained firefighter is precluded. We may have to consider a system whereby people who work locally but live some distance away are on call when they are at work and those who live locally and are willing to be retained firefighters and on call at times of greatest danger in the evenings and at night are not on call during the day, when they work away from home.

I do not think that this is a matter for statute. I think we should ask ourselves whether we have a service that is fit for the 21st century, and it is clear that the service is not currently working very well. The only way in which the three retained fire stations in my neck of the woods—Painswick, Nailsworth and Dursley—can recruit is by word of mouth. Nepotism often occurs: the sons and daughters of existing retained firefighters often become retained firefighters themselves, because they have been targeted directly. I do not think that is a terribly good thing, because we want the service to be open and accessible, and in any case it is a pretty ad hoc method.

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He mentioned an advertising budget. I do not think that a responsible fire authority would limit a ring-fenced budget to advertising for recruitment purposes. There is much more to recruitment than advertising. I wonder how many people are aware of the retained fire service, of how it works and of the opportunities it provides.

That is certainly true. I am merely saying that I think any advertising should be aimed at employers rather than attempting to recruit directly. Employers may encourage staff to think about becoming retained firefighters, but those who are interested will have probably taken that route already. It is more a question of securing release from employers.

I think we need a set of proposals from the Government, rather than legislation for the statute book.

The Minister will have to resist the temptation to use the Labour party buzzword of the last fortnight—"opportunistic", as applied to everything that the Opposition do—because I think that there is a commonality of interest in this case. The new clause is eminently sensible, and deals with an issue about which we in the west country feel strongly. As we have heard, Devon in particular relies very much on its retained firefighters.

I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that retained firefighters should not be regarded in an individual way, in that they are part and parcel of the deal. In our part of the world, however, they are perhaps more significant than they are in other areas. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) mentioned the costs to Devon fire and rescue service of the increase in retained firemen's salaries—above 16 per cent. over three years, representing a total increase of 23 per cent. in the authority's budget. That means that a £2 million increase is needed for the service just to stand still.

The Bill does not address the issue of rural sparsity, which has an impact on the question of retained firemen. Nowadays we look increasingly to employers in the private sector, and elements of the public sector, to release employees so that they can do community jobs. We have community support police, for instance, as well as established voluntary bodies such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the Sidmouth inshore lifeboat service—if I may give a plug to an excellent service in my area.

We seem to be asking businesses, particularly those in the private sector, to do more and more, while penalising them through higher national insurance contributions and more and more socially based legislation. All that deters them from taking on more people in order to expand. Now we are telling them that, having taken on more people despite all the penalties, they should release those people to do community jobs. We have to be very careful in terms of how much we ask these hard-pressed businesses to do.

However, I take the point that we need to raise awareness of the existence of the retained fire service and the opportunities within it—not only among employers but among the employees themselves. However, I am not convinced that an advertising campaign per se is the answer. It might go some way towards alleviating the problem in the short term, but we need to articulate a career structure in the retained service to show people that there is a career progression, that the terms of employment have been improved, and that the service is a viable alternative for those who cannot become full-time firemen, or for those for whom the fire service has not provided the opportunity to become full-time firemen.

5.30 pm

I do not know the latest figures for retained firefighters in Devon—whether there is a problem, or whether one is likely to arise—but the genuine feeling exists that this legislation is based on the desire to create larger units, which it surely will, and that at some point our service will be subsumed and we will come off worse. Ours is a very good fire authority that works extremely well, using a lot of local knowledge; frankly, it cannot be improved upon. A merger and no increase in the number of retained firemen could result in one of two things: a loss of cover or a cut in services. As we all know, for a rural area the insurance implications of a loss of cover could be very profound indeed. That issue has not been touched on at all.

I take the point, made by the hon. Member for Stroud, about increasing the number of off-call retained firemen, but to go down that road would require increasing the number of retained firemen on call at any given time. I do not see how having more off-call firemen would deal with the problem of a lack of retained firemen. Yet more would be needed, and such a problem cannot be solved in that way.

I should be interested to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about new clause 2. We Conservatives are generally against increasing the amount of legislation, but the creation of such an advisory panel would mean that our retained firemen were being properly represented. The new clause is well constructed. It refers to

"representatives of fire and rescue authorities or organisations representing fire and rescue authorities",

and to

"representatives of private sector employers or organisations representing private sector employers".

I suspect that there are lessons to be learned, particularly in the light of the mobilisation—[Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary would do me the courtesy of listening, he might be in a better position to answer this point. Indeed, when I asked the Minister for Local and Regional Government a direct question earlier, I was not granted the courtesy of a direct reply.

I shall re-run what I said to allow the Under-Secretary to take it on board. In terms of releasing private sector and public sector employees, there are probably lessons to be learned from the recent Iraq war. There was a significant mobilisation of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces, but to be honest some employers were more compliant and encouraging to their employees than others. It would be very interesting if representatives of those self-same employers were included on a advisory panel, which might well be able to answer some of our questions about retained firemen.

Given that the Under-Secretary is not even extending to my hon. Friend the courtesy of listening to his argument, is he not a little worried that such an advisory body would be ignored by a Government who are not interested in the employer's view, and who do not look after retained firemen?

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Having sat through our deliberations in Committee, I know that neither the Under-Secretary nor the Minister is interested in any of our arguments. So far as they are concerned, they are going to implement this measure, in keeping with their attempt to regionalise everything and in line with the artificial regions that they are seeking to create throughout the country. It is part of their regionalisation programme, and anything that stands in the way of that is dismissed.

The Government say that we are little Englanders and that we are not keen on modernisation, but as we know, that is all baloney.[Interruption.] The Minister says "Correct" from a sedentary position, but many of the people who will shortly be invited to vote on whether to have regional assemblies will probably show that it is we who are correct. We leave that, however, to the electorate—something that the Minister is apparently not prepared to do, given that he is prejudging the result of a democratic vote. Historically, that has been shown to be a dangerous thing to do.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) suggested that the Minister might not be listening to employers. There is no real evidence that anything that this Government have ever done has involved listening to employers, particularly in the private sector. They are seen as the bogey men, the people who must pay more each time there is a tax rise. As we look forward to a third term of Labour tax rises, if there is to be one—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members are clearly not listening. As we look forward to a possible third term of Labour tax rises, those employers will be invited to pay more and more tax, but we are asking the self-same people to release employees to act as retained firefighters.

It is incumbent on the Minister for Local and Regional Government to consider having a platform, such as that suggested in new clause 2, to enable representatives of the retained fire services and employers to get round a table and solve a problem that he has to admit exists—we have not invented it. I shall be interested to know the answer, if either the Minister or the Under-Secretary will do me the courtesy of answering the question.

If we are to protect the fire service in our rural counties, we need an advisory panel on the recruitment and retention of retained firefighters. That would make eminent sense. As we have already heard, retained firefighters are the backbone of the service, especially in rural areas. That is certainly the case in Somerset, where only three of the 27 firefighting stations are full time: Taunton, Bridgwater and Yeovil; the other 24 stations operate on a retained basis. In my constituency, that involves some very brave men and women in Wellington, Wiveliscombe and Dulverton. By definition, they are drawn closely from the local community, which is vital in rural areas because many addresses are not tabulated in the way in which we should like them to be, and local knowledge is needed to discover exactly where fires are, and where firefighters must go.

The future is worrying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said, the recruitment and consequent retention of firefighters in the retained stations is dropping considerably. There is already a 20 per cent. shortfall, which is no surprise in rural areas. My hon. Friend mentioned greengrocers, and many farmers and farm workers are also involved, of whom there are now far fewer. As we all know, there are also fewer farms—no doubt because other Government policy undermines them. There are therefore fewer and fewer people who are willing and physically able to be retained firefighters.

It is important to address that issue, and one way of doing so would be better and more fully to understand why employers might be willing to release individual employees to be retained firefighters. It is therefore helpful and sensible to suggest that an advisory panel be set up. It would be even more helpful if there were greater representation of private sector employers. I presume that the 20 per cent. shortfall is increasing rather than decreasing, and although the Government may not agree with the precise wording of new clause 2, I should be interested to learn how the Minister for Local and Regional Government intends to remove that serious impediment to the modernisation of the fire service. Somerset, a rural county that is delivering its firefighting capability very cost effectively, is not receiving its fair share of the transitional funding needed to move to a modernised firefighting service. That is also the case in Devon. If the shortfall is increasing, one solution would be to set up an advisory panel, as proposed in new clause 2, to enable the Government to understand the reasons behind the shortfall and work towards lessening it.

I am not too sure of the situation in Somerset, but Devon requires £2 million in transitional funding and has been loaned £500,000. The important word is "loaned"; the money must be paid back.

I am grateful for that intervention. Only a quarter of the contribution is being made in the short term—rather than in the long term—because it has to be paid back.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made an excellent point about the need to raise awareness. In communities that have retained firefighters, the firefighters' neighbours will probably know what they do part time, at weekends and at night, but the majority of people in communities such as Wellington, Wiveliscombe and Dulverton will not be aware of that. It would help if the Government and local firefighters did more to raise that awareness.

I welcome the announcement that the Minister made on 15 December of a review of the retained firefighting service. It will be interesting, some weeks on, to see whether he is able to inform the House of any progress. In Committee, he alluded to the involvement of the CBI, and I would be interested to hear whether he would consider it appropriate for the Federation of Small Businesses or the Institute of Directors to become involved, and whether they could be asked why they believe there is a shortfall and how they could help to shore up the gap, which seems to be getting larger rather than smaller.

I appreciate the concerns about the recruitment and retention challenges that face the retained section of the fire and rescue service, which have prompted the proposal of this new clause, but I believe that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is misguided in suggesting that a new statutory standing body would be an effective method of tackling these issues. I hope that I will be able to satisfy his concerns about engagement with the public and private sector employers, for example. I note that he has recruited two whole-time Back Benchers—if I may call them that—from the Committee, and one retained Back Bencher, who seems to have slipped in, and who will possibly slip out again later—[Interruption.] I also appreciate that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seems to have taken the whole Committee stage through single-handedly.

Hon. Members will no doubt recall that the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council also acted as a statutory consultee for the majority of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers under the Fire Services Act 1947. That body has already been criticised for its increasing inability to provide any strategic direction on the future of the fire and rescue service. Indeed, Professor Bain's report recommended a new advisory and consultative structure that would widen engagement with stakeholders and ensure a focus on strategic advice rather than on executive functions. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that we have already put this new, more flexible structure in place. The practitioners forum and the business and community safety forum are up and running to ensure that both the providers and the users of the service can inform the process of modernisation.

Which business representative organisations are engaged in the business and community safety forum?

I can confirm that the CBI, for example, is a member of the forum. The hon. Gentleman mentioned other business organisations, and I shall describe in a moment how they are being consulted in the review of the retained fire service.

It was not just the existing advisory and consultative structure that Professor Bain considered to be ineffective. The independent review of the fire service found the existing negotiating machinery also to be ineffective. The Bain report recommended that it be replaced with

"a smaller body, with executive authority to negotiate and the experience and skills to do so".

The new body should have an independent chair and clear links to Ministers and the policy-making process. Significantly, Bain also made it clear that membership of the body should include the Retained Firefighters Union, whose members, like those of the other unions, have a keen interest in the new clause and a very strong interest in effective negotiating machinery. I include in that the National Association of Fire Officers, the Association of Principal Fire Officers and Unison, as well as the Fire Brigades Union.

5.45 pm

In the White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service", we made it clear that we agreed with much of Bain's thinking on the negotiating machinery. Our objective was—and still is—to see three negotiating bodies for uniformed fire and rescue service staff. We want one for chief fire officers and assistant chief fire officers; one for middle managers; and one for fire fighters and control room staff. Like Bain, we also want the new negotiating bodies extended to include a wider range of employee representative bodies. That will benefit all fire service employees and will ensure that issues relating to the pay terms and conditions of retained staff can be tackled effectively.

Members will know that, under the pay agreement for the fire and rescue service 2003, the current negotiating machinery is being reviewed. I hope that that review will result in the improvements that both the independent review of the fire service and the recent White Paper articulated—a matter that later amendments touch on—but, if it does not, the Bill will enable the Government to take the powers needed to bring about those improvements themselves. I still hope that that will not be necessary.

Hon. Members will be aware that, both in the White Paper and the draft national framework, the Government have recognised the vital contribution of the retained section of the service and have acknowledged the need to find solutions to the long-recognised problems of recruitment and retention, which have been mentioned this afternoon. That is why I announced on 15 December that there would be a review of issues affecting the retained section of the service. Under the more flexible arrangements afforded by the new consultative structure, a team has now been formed to take forward that review.

The review team's key remit is to examine the factors that contribute to the recruitment and retention challenges faced by the retained section of the fire and rescue service. That will include issues surrounding equality and diversity, public awareness, engagement with the business community, deployment, community participation, and the role, reward and conditions of service as they relate to recruitment and retention issues.

The retained review team met for the first time on 21 January. Its membership is drawn from across the fire and rescue service community and includes representatives from the Local Government Association, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Brigades Union, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Scottish Executive justice department.

Although the focus of the review will be the fire and rescue services of England and Wales, the Scottish Executive justice department's participation has been invited because the issues that the retained review team will be investigating also have relevance to the Scottish fire service. ODPM will also liaise with the Northern Ireland fire service about the work of the review team. Only the key service stakeholder groups will be directly involved on the review team. However, other organisations—including public and private employers' organisations—will be involved in helping to identify a range of options for tackling the recruitment and retention challenges. I made it very clear in Committee that employers would 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 staff to become retained firefighters. The review team is therefore seeking advice from a wide range of public and private sector employers and the national bodies that represent them.

Let me go further to provide more reassurance to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. A workshop has been arranged for the end of April, which will involve the review team, other representatives from the fire and rescue service, organisations that rely on volunteers in order to provide a service, Government Departments, employers' organisations in the public and private sectors and bodies that promote opportunities for voluntary work both to individuals and to employers. We anticipate that the workshop will provide the review with valuable insight into how the challenges of recruitment, retention and business community engagement can be effectively overcome.

The business community will include the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, which will bring a welcome nod from Conservative Members, and Business in the Community. I might add that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, along with the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, will also be invited. We would like to invite those bodies, along with others that I shall not read out, to participate in the workshop, and I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.

On recruitment budgets for retained firefighters, I am sure that the review will want to take into account the survey, which has been mentioned this afternoon. The retained review must examine recruitment budgets, which are matters for individual fire and rescue authorities, because we do not know whether they separately identify whole-time and retained firefighters. When we make judgments about budgets, we must know the detail, which is exactly what a review team and a workshop can identify. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is providing centrally produced recruitment literature for use by all fire and rescue authorities.

The Minister will know, because it has been in all the papers, that there is a massive campaign to recruit special constables. Does he envisage that the Government might lead or encourage such a recruitment campaign for retained firefighters?

The retained review is all about examining what works and what does not. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the ODPM is producing a video that includes information on retained firefighters, which can be issued to raise awareness in the local community about the wider role of retained firefighters. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge pointed out that the issue is about not only adverts but understanding the wider contribution that retained firefighters make and that we want them to continue to make in future.

Can the workshop's remit be extended to discuss with the Institute of Directors and other employers' organisations what incentives can be offered to employers who regularly release their employees as retained firemen?

The problem with identifying one or two organisations is that the list tends to grow. I cannot say whether the workshop will examine that point, but it is the exactly the kind of issue that the review team must examine to ensure that we are getting things right.

A number of hon. Members have raised questions about different things that the review might do. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked whether greater flexibility in the times when retained firefighters are required to be on call might help recruitment, and the review team will certainly examine that issue. Individual fire services are already examining the requirement to be on call, with flexibility in mind, and they are offering differing contracts depending on what times retained firefighters can offer. My hon. Friend's contribution was helpful and it addresses the issue of the availability of retained firefighters in terms of their living or working close to a fire station.

The hon. Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for Taunton (Mr. Flook) discussed funding. I do not want to get diverted into a debate about funding, but when they bid for extra cash for Devon, which is understandable, they might like to have a word with the shadow Chancellor, who has just announced a policy to freeze funds for local government—I do know how he will square that with his Back Benchers. Conservative Front Benchers often say that they will clamp down on public spending, but Conservative Back Benchers keep standing up and asking for more cash. I do not want to introduce discord into the debate; I simply point out some of the contradictions in the position adopted by Conservative Members.

The physical hard work undertaken by retained firefighters in their firefighting activities has been pointed out, but the Bill's purpose is to broaden the role that the fire service plays, which includes promoting community fire safety. We will attract many more people into the fire service, whether they are whole-time or retained firefighters, who will undertake a variety of roles. The extra numbers mean that firefighters can focus on prevention, which is important in reducing fire death.

That is interesting. Does the Minister envisage fire authorities engaging retained personnel to carry out routine, non-emergency response duties? As far as I know, the bulk of the retained work is responsive, and the nature of the role will change slightly if retained firefighters report by pre-planned arrangements to do preventive work.

The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the bulk of the work is responsive. When I described the fire service's wider role in prevention at the Retained Firefighters Union conference, a retained firefighter said that retained firefighters could not do that. Before I could respond, a Welsh retained firefighters' representative stood up and gave an excellent account of how retained firefighters are doing precisely that in Wales. The flexibility and diversity of the role provides many opportunities for retained firefighters to contribute to the overall targets that we are endeavouring to achieve.

I have answered in full the questions about how we will consult on the future of retained firefighters, and I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he requires. The review team will, we hope, submit its report to the practitioners forum in July, and its report will contain its recommendations, its implementation and communications strategies and its programme for delivery. Given today's debate and the consultation, which will take place not only through the workshop but in other ways, I hope that we have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that new clause 2 is not necessary and that he will see fit to withdraw it.

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but I detect a touch of complacency. He does not recognise the crisis that the retained service currently faces—the retained service is short of 20 per cent. of its personnel and as the role expands that shortfall is likely to get considerably worse.

I am interested in the workshop that the Minister is holding. As he anticipates, I shall write to him to suggest some other organisations that might appropriately be invited to participate in order to ensure that the business community bodies represent the employers found in the areas where the retained service operates—on the whole, that is not city centres or even large towns but rural and semi-rural areas. If the Minister has an observer ticket for that workshop, perhaps he will write to me. I promise to keep my mouth closed, but I would be interested to see what goes on.

It is disappointing that the Minister has not made a commitment to add business membership to the review team, which is the ongoing body that will report to the practitioners forum in the summer. Despite everything that Ministers say about changing the culture of the fire service, which I am sure that they genuinely want to achieve, their approach is still exclusive. The review team is made up entirely of insiders—employers, civil servants, expert advisers and union officials—who will listen to what people in the real world have to say, but those slightly awkward people from the real world have not been risked on the inside of the deliberation. I would feel more comfortable if the Minister had said that he would put representatives of the business community on to the review team, which might then achieve rapid progress in the direction that we all want to go.

Perhaps the best way to make progress would be if the Minister were to have a quite word in the ear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, preferably before Wednesday, to suggest that when he is thinking about incentives to business to do various worthwhile things for the good of the economy, he might spare a thought for those businesses that could be persuaded to release employees for retained firefighting duties, which might make a rapid difference to the available pool of retained firefighters. I do not intend to press new clause 2; I simply wanted to raise the issue. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and hope that we can regard the debate as ongoing, because it is in everybody's interests that we address the retained firefighter crisis.

I have one final point. The Minister said that he was not sure whether fire authorities had separate budgets for recruitment of retained firefighters or whether that was subsumed within a larger budget. Given the scale of the crisis and the significance of retained firefighter recruitment in some fire authorities, appropriate fire authorities should identify separate budgets for that purpose. When the Bill reaches the statute book, the Minister will have various powers to ensure that that happens and I hope that he will consider doing so as a means of making progress on the issue.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 12.

The new clause deals with the scope of the power of the Secretary of State to authorise charging under clause 19. The current regime, under the 1947 Act, confers only one statutory function on fire authorities—that of extinguishing fires and protecting life and property in the event of fire—and prohibits charging for the discharge of that activity, but by omission it allows charging for all other areas of fire service activity. The practice is that few authorities charge for emergency work. I shall focus in this short debate on road traffic accidents. We should not confuse this issue with the power that exists, and could specifically be granted to fire and rescue authorities under the Bill, to charge for non-emergency functions, such as the use of equipment and manpower, or the establishment of the authority to carry out everyday functions such as pumping water out of a basement or filling a swimming pool. Those are useful functions, but they are not central to the emergency role of the service.

An essential part of the purpose of the Bill is to put road traffic accidents and other emergency work—for example, chemical and nuclear decontamination in the event of a terrorist attack, or rescue from floodwater—at the heart of what the fire and rescue services do. All those roles will have the same essential statutory basis as the current requirement to extinguish fires and protect life and property in the event of fire. The Minister has argued repeatedly—somewhat disingenuously—that because the Bill has a continuing prohibition on charging for fire-related activities, it reflects the 1947 Act. However, as I see it, that Act bans charging for the statutory function of the fire authority. There is only one statutory function at present. To retain the status quo, we would need to extend that ban on charging to all statutory functions, including attending at road traffic accidents and other emergencies. New clause 4 does not go that far. It does not suggest that the ban on charging should extend to the statutory functions of fire prevention and fire education work under clause 6. It simply suggests a prohibition on charging for the emergency statutory functions of the fire and rescue authorities under clauses 7, 8 and 9.

On the one hand, the Bill extends a clear additional statutory function, but on the other it seeks to keep open the ability to charge for the discharge of that function in an emergency. That is not an acceptable proposition, and it is not what our constituents expect us to legislate for. The Bill also provides for the charging of third parties, which is a thinly disguised reference to insurers. Charging motor insurers would represent another stealth tax on the Government's favourite victim, the motorist. What about the uninsured—the millions of people who drive on our roads every day without insurance? They are an increasing problem. Would they pay? How would the Government collect charges from people who do not have an insurer to pay up on their behalf, when they cannot collect two thirds of the fines imposed by courts on similar people? Will not this be simply another example of an additional charge or tax on the law-abiding, insured majority, while the public purse continues to support the antisocial minority?

Is my hon. Friend worried that if a fire authority was particularly keen to recoup its costs in the way that he describes, there might be an argument about payment before someone received the service that they deserved in an emergency situation?

My right hon. Friend raises an important point, but it is not a question of "might". At least one fire authority—the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority—is keen to charge in that way and has made it clear that it would like powers to charge for road traffic accident rescue work. Another practical problem might arise if fire authorities were allowed to charge for attending road traffic accidents. What if someone were involved in a road traffic accident and was trapped in his vehicle but physically uninjured? Such a person might tell the fire brigade, which has raced to the scene with lights flashing and sirens blaring, that he does not want to be cut out of his car and receive a bill for £250. He would rather wait while his friendly local mechanic or a chap he knows from down the pub, whom he has just phoned on his mobile phone, comes along to cut him out.[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is central to our relationship with the emergency services that it never crosses our minds to ask whether we will be charged for the services delivered. When we pick up the phone and dial 999 because we see smoke, we do not wonder first whether there will be a charge for calling the fire brigade.

I am against charging for emergency services that are part of a statutory function, although I am not necessarily against charging for non-emergency work. I am also against discriminating against the law-abiding majority by limiting charging to those with insurers able to pay. That is the Government's idea of the way to make such charges a painless tax. I made the same point when I was health spokesman in 1998 during the passage of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999. I sought an assurance in Committee on behalf of motorists, but all I got was a lecture from the Minister about bad landlords causing people to be trapped in lifts. Any hon. Members who have offices in Portcullis House will know that it has the eight lifts most likely to break down nearby, but they are not maintained by someone whom I would regard as a particularly bad landlord. I hope that the Minister will deal with motorists involved in road traffic accidents, instead of trying to refocus the discussion on people trapped in lifts.

Amendment No. 2 would leave out clause 19(2), which prevents charging for extinguishing fires, and replace it with new clause 4, which would prevent charging for fires, road traffic accidents and any emergency functions conferred on fire and rescue authorities by clause 19. That is an enabling clause that will give the Secretary of State power to confer functions by statutory instrument. We have the benefit of the Secretary of State's preliminary thinking, in the form of a draft statutory instrument that was circulated in Committee. To broaden the House's understanding of what is involved in clause 19 functions, the draft statutory instrument includes chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incidents; search and rescue in cases in which there is a serious threat that one or more persons has been trapped in the area as a result of a landslide or the collapse of a building; major flooding; and major rail, water and air accidents. It would be unthinkable to charge people for interventions in such emergencies, so why on earth cannot the Government rule out doing so?

Subsection (2) of new clause 4 addresses a different issue: charging for emergency medical assistance. The background to the provision is the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999, which authorises charging, via insurers, for the costs of national health service treatment provided after a road traffic accident. Our position during the progress of that measure was—as it remains—that we resist unfair discrimination against the motorist, who should not be seen as a soft target simply because, if he is a law-abiding individual, he will generally have insurance. A programme is currently under way to promote coresponse and, indeed, first response by fire and rescue authorities, whereby if a fire and rescue authority is the first on the scene of an incident, it will increasingly—I shall come to that point later—be able to deliver emergency medical assistance. Furthermore, especially in rural areas, fire services could in future be the first responder to other types of medical emergency—for example, cardiac arrests—if the fire station was significantly nearer to the patient than the nearest ambulance station. We simply cannot have a situation in which people pay according to whether the fire engine or the ambulance gets there first. That would be outrageous and our proposal attempts to deal with it.

The Minister has obviously understood our concern, which we debated in Committee, and I am delighted that he responded with Government amendment No. 12, especially subsection (2A), which bans all charging for emergency medical assistance by fire authorities. However, I find myself in the curious position of having to tell him that I think he has given too much. We risk the opposite scenario, in which the victim lying at the roadside would no longer have to listen to the ambulance approaching from one side and the fire engine approaching from the other, hoping that the ambulance got there first so that he would not be charged by the fire service. As a result of amendment No. 12, he could be hoping that the fire engine got there first, because under the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999, if the ambulance arrived first, he might be charged by the NHS.

I anticipate the Minister's defence to my objection. A patient treated at the scene by a fire brigade will not always be taken away in an ambulance to an NHS hospital. Often, people at the roadside with minor injuries decline, for all sorts of reasons, to get into an ambulance and go to hospital; a plaster is stuck on the injury and they go off about their business. However, I hope that the Minister can give us a pragmatic answer to avoid creating a new injustice in resolving the one that we identified in the Standing Committee.

Amendment No. 12 limits the prohibition on charging for fires, so that fire authorities will be able to charge for fires under the sea—that is, in tunnels—or fires and rescues at sea. Can the Minister give us some information about that proposal? I understand that, at present, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has lead responsibility for rescue from fires at sea, which includes extinguishing them. What is the current practice on charging? From discussions with the Kent and Medway Towns fire authority, I know that the current interpretation of the 1947 Act is that it prevents charging for work carried out in relation to fires in the channel tunnel. None the less, there is an elaborate mechanism to allow the Kent and Medway combined authority to extract a substantial annual sum from the operators of the channel tunnel for providing cover for the tunnel. It would be useful if the Minister would clarify what the situation will be for the channel tunnel and other subsea structures, as well as how the amendment will affect rescue at sea? Government amendment No. 13 makes amendment No. 12 consistent with other parts of the Bill, by making it clear that references to "sea" are not restricted to sea within the territorial limits of the United Kingdom.

6.15 pm

I cannot believe that the British public want charges for emergency responses from our fire and rescue services. If we introduce charges for the attendance of the fire service at a major road accident, what will come next? Will we charge for the police to go to the scene of a burglary? Will we charge for cutting people out of a train wreck or plane crash, or for decontaminating them after a terrorist attack? I do not think so. That cannot be what the Government have in mind. So what is their refusal to limit the scope of charging all about? It is clear that it is about a desire to double charge motorists and to make them pay for a service for which they pay already through their council tax. I have asked the Minister once, and I ask him again, for a categorical undertaking that, if the Government will not accept our new clause, Britain's 27 million motorists and their insurers will not be charged by the fire and rescue services for emergency attendance at road traffic accidents. Anything less than such an undertaking will leave Britain's motorists in no doubt about what the Government have in mind for them: yet another stealth tax on law-abiding, insured drivers.

Some of us on the Labour Benches thoroughly concur with some of what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has said, so we look forward to our right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government allaying our worst fears about what could happen. Of course, there is always the difficulty that we worry more about what might happen rather than what is likely to happen. In Standing Committee, we probably spent more time on clause 19 than on any other part of the Bill, although there was only one Division, despite the fact that several amendments were discussed.

The problem for some of us is that the consultation paper is somewhat opaque. Some of us do not understand all the nuances of every last dot and comma of the Bill, and the consultation paper should have gone some way towards clarifying how the charging policy would work in practice. I may be alone, but I am not much the wiser about that, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assuage our fears about several things.

We are concerned that the proposals would make the current ad hoc arrangements worse. Currently, some fire and rescue authorities can make a charge if they feel that a person's behaviour has resulted in gratuitous waste of their time and resources. However, we need some explanation of the proposals. Given that all three emergency services spend most of their time actually dealing with emergencies, I am not clear how there can be a process that settles in advance whether an incident is such that a charge should be levied on a motorist or a person who has the misfortune to be stuck in a lift. The proposals are a recipe for disaster unless we can lay the ghost of those fears and ensure that charges would not lead to problems in the future. I hope that my right hon. Friend will lay the ghosts completely so that we can move on. Charging must be put in its proper context—as a very small part of a much more important piece of legislation.

I support much of what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has said, but I disagree with what he said about new clause 4—we disagreed on that in Committee. He has a great future in a Treasury team because he has the ability to double count figures in the same way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer does whenever there is an announcement on new Government spending—that is not meant as a compliment.

The hon. Gentleman talks about double charging as if there will be two sets of charges, but that is blatantly not the case. If there is a system of charging in specific instances, the running costs of the relevant authority are reduced. If those costs are reduced, the charge to the taxpayer is thus reduced—the taxpayer does not pay in that instance. Double charging would occur only if the money raised disappeared or were wasted, and I do not believe that that will be the case.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how far the Liberal Democrats extend that thinking? Will they introduce charging throughout such areas as the national health service and the education sector?

No. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman hypothesised that there would be a great roll-out of a programme through which the Government would charge for this, that and the other, but that is not the case. In the case of road traffic accidents, one can say that someone is to blame, so charges can be recovered from whoever is at fault. There was no one who could be said to be at fault or to blame in the other cases that he mentioned. He cited an aeroplane crash, but it would be difficult to determine with whom the fault lay in such a case. If terrorists blew up a plane, it would be almost impossible to recoup costs from those individuals. However, in the specific case of a road traffic accident, it is more than possible to recoup costs.

Is the hon. Gentleman thus saying that if people smoke too much against advice, they should have to pay for their lung cancer treatment?

I am not saying that, but as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, people who smoke too much sometimes find it difficult to get certain forms of treatment because doctors are reluctant to treat them.

We are considering a specific case in which someone is at fault. I understood that when the Conservative party was in power. it accepted the established principle that ambulances have always been able to charge for attending a road traffic accident. It is not unreasonable to extend the call-out charge for attending an RTA to firefighters. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge seems to be trying to create a new category of people whom he can support, and he seems to be creating a new category of victims.

Motorists—27 million of them.

Yes, all of a sudden there is a concept that motorists are victims. Motorists sometimes do get a raw deal, and most of them feel that they are victims if they get parking or speeding tickets. However, it is not unreasonable for the person who was at fault for a road traffic accident to be expected to pay a charge for an emergency service to attend.

I accept several of the concerns that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised. If a charging regime is to exist, we must be clear about what it is. Will the Minister define the limits of such a regime so that the fears—the irrational fears, I hope—that a great charging regime will suddenly exist can be laid to rest?

What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do about the increasingly large number of motorists who do not have insurance? The way in which the Government word the provisions suggests that they envisage avoiding that difficult problem by levying charges only on insurers, thus letting uninsured motorists—those who are breaking the law—get away scot-free.

I accept that that is a valid point. Uninsured people should be expected to pay the charges, but a problem would arise if they were not able to afford them. We need a new system to stop people driving without insurance. I would need to talk to our transport spokesman to find out what our exact policy is on that, but other systems, such as displaying evidence of insurance in car windscreens, might be a way of dealing with the problem. It is of course wrong for people not to be insured and to get away with it, but that is not what we are debating. The hon. Gentleman cites the example of people escaping payment, but that argument is rather like saying that as some people avoid paying tax, we should not pay tax. That argument is nonsense, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows it.

I support new clause 4, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) argued his case powerfully. I was shocked when I read the Bill and realised that it would enable the Minister or his successors to authorise charges for rescuing people caught up in terrible accidents. The mind boggles as to how that might take place. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that when the fire service arrived on the scene, there would have to be negotiation with victims on how they would pay? Would they have to show a credit card or carry cash, or would they be allowed to defer payment? Would they be able to argue over the price? Would they get a quote in advance, or would they have to pay whatever bill was sent to them and their insurers after the rescue?

My hon. Friend made a powerful point in response to an intervention that I made. I was thinking of a poor victim who desperately needed to be rescued from his or her vehicle and perhaps needed to be taken to the local hospital. Such victims would be in no condition to think through such matters and would agree to any charge that might be made thereafter. However, my hon. Friend cited the even more difficult case of a person who needed to get out of his or her vehicle, but was in no immediate pain or danger. Such people might well want to shop around and use a mobile phone to find out whether a private sector contractor could arrive in a reasonable time and do the job more cheaply. The fire service would presumably have to give them a quote, so the whole situation would become laughable. I speak as someone who wants less government, lower taxes, far fewer quangos, officials and regulations, and far less intervention in daily life than currently exists under the Government. However, there must be a core of public services that we, the taxpayers, get free in return for our massive taxes. If I had to set out a shortlist—it would be a much shorter list than that which the Government produce for us against our will—of things that should be supplied free at the point of use and paid for by the enormous tax revenues that are collected, the service that we are discussing would be high up the list. I would want good defence, criminal justice and emergency services that worked when we were in need of emergency service provision. I cannot believe that a Labour Government, who raise so much money from us all and mug the motorist every day with their massive fuel taxes, licence fees, hidden taxation on motoring and congestion charges, can have the audacity to come to the House with the measure and to take it through Committee without understanding just how much people will hate the proposal and how wrong people would think it to have to pay a fee at the point of accidents such as those that I described. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) speaks up for good, honest Labour Back Benchers who are as shocked as I am to see the Minister coming before the House, without any shame on his face, to demand payment in such dreadful circumstances.

When the Minister responds to the debate, he may well argue that he does not wish to impose charges on all people in the dreadful circumstances that I described. Of course, he could point out that, under the Bill, he would have to authorise a charge before one could be imposed, but I am worried about not only the Minister, but his possible successor before the election. I am not sure who that might be if he is replaced in a reshuffle. I think that he should be promoted to the Cabinet, but he is far too competent for that. We know that competence is not valued in gaining promotion to this Government, so he may be moved sideways. The next Minister—

Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make his remarks germane to the amendment rather than to people's promotion prospects.

I stand suitably corrected, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The amendment addresses the charging regime. I am worried that, if we leave the Bill unamended and do not listen to the common sense of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, we could have a Minister who authorises charges in the awful circumstances that I described.

How can the right hon. Gentleman justify his statements, given that his party's policies resulted in charging people for eye and dental check-ups?

All parties have gone along with that policy, and this Government have gone further than the previous Government in privatising dentistry. I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker would regard that as way wide of the amendment, which relates to the idea that a Minister could impose charges in the difficult circumstances that we are discussing.

The Minister will also argue that he aims to charge insurance companies rather than the victims of the accidents. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge explained that the people most likely to get into accidents are those who steal cars or drive without proper licences and insurance, and they will not be covered by the proposal. That is grossly unfair, especially if the innocent victim of such an accident is on the road legally and has insurance. Would the innocent victim's insurance company end up paying for that accident and would his no-claims bonus disappear?

Equally bad is the Government's plan to extend the levy that insurers have to pay to meet the costs of uninsured drivers to cover this scheme, imposing a still greater burden on law-abiding drivers. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will contemplate that.

My hon. Friend is right. I was about to say that the burden will undoubtedly fall, as it always does, on the law-abiding decent motorist, who will pay the bill one way or another.

The Minister will know of the proposals before the European Union, which will doubtless come into effect, that will force up the price of insurance for younger women and middle-aged men, who have better driving records than others, in the false name of equality. He is asking us to approve another proposal that will sandbag and increase insurance costs for all motorists on top of the dangerous legislation that is about to come into effect that will tackle two groups that, on average tend, to drive rather better than others—something that should be reflected in their premiums. I hope that he understands just how badly motorists will view a further major increase in their premium cost, which will be a direct result of the Bill if he is foolish enough to reject my hon. Friend's excellent amendment.

Motorists have had enough of this Government. They have been sandbagged, taxed and treated extremely badly by them. This is yet another measure in that campaign. If the Minister wishes to win the votes of motorists at the election, he should back off tonight and support my hon. Friend.

I take up where my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) left off and seek clarity on the document circulated by my right hon. Friend the Minister. The letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), the co-Chairman of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. includes the consultation paper on secondary legislation. Item 8 of the annexe on page 13 deals with a critical issue that will cause consternation across the country. It could make or break a Government, let alone an individual Minister. It is the issue of cats up trees.

On the rescue of animals, it is current practice in the majority of authorities for the rescue of animals to be effected free of charge. Item 8 states:

"Current practice in the majority of authorities that do charge for animal rescues"

is that

"some draw a distinction between domestic animals and livestock but as this is not universal practice we do not propose to include such a distinction in the Order."

So the person to be charged is the owner or keeper of the animal concerned. That introduces a charging policy for fire brigades that, altruistically and with clear commitment to animal rights and good husbandry, turn up to remove a cat from a tree. What happens if the cat does not have a collar? Do we impound the cat? If we impound it, at what point does it become dispensable—

Disposable.

Indeed. When does the cat become disposable? What happens when we cannot identify who has called the fire brigade? What if there is no owner or keeper? Does the onus fall on the person who made the emergency call-out for that fire service?

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on an important point. What if the cat did not need or want rescuing? The cat may not be able to explain that to the fire brigade in attendance. The owner might be traced later and he could take exception to paying to rescue a cat that was perfectly happy up a tree.

The proposal clearly contradicts the new line of policy of choice developed at the Labour party spring conference over the weekend and completely contradicts the policies pursued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We need clarity on the matter. It is one of the anomalies on charging policy that will cause consternation and political reaction across the land.

I shall try to bring us back to a calm environment after the flights of fantasy of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who took us into a distant land. I noted his kind remarks about my position. I am grateful for them. On the day that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has, for whatever reason, sadly resigned from the shadow Cabinet, taking a great chunk of expertise, skill and decency from that body, I suspect a touch of frustration on the part of the right hon. Member for Wokingham that he has not been offered a promotion as part of the consequent reshuffle. He must feel very unloved by his party.

Amendment No. 2 would remove the prohibition on charging for extinguishing fires and protecting life and property in the event of fire. The Fire Services Act 1947 prohibits fire authorities from charging for their response to fires. We have sought to continue such a prohibition in clause 19(2). To do otherwise would be to extend significantly the scope of the charging arrangements. I am sure that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) intends that his amendment should be read with new clause 4, in which he seeks to extend the range of services for which a charge cannot be levied.

New clause 4 would extend the restrictions on the services for which a charge might be made. Subsection (1)(a) replicates the restriction that the Government included in the Bill when it was introduced. However, subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) would also apply to road traffic accidents at which there was no incidence of fire and to a variety of other emergency situations.

The new clause would not cover the circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned relating to animal welfare. We debated those in Committee, but the amendments do not cover that subject. We propose to make no change to existing arrangements under which some fire and rescue authorities make charges for animal rescue. We do not think that it is right to make arbitrary changes without full consultation and discussion. I assure him that we are essentially preserving the status quo.

With the passage of time, from the position that existed under the 1947 Act, the fire and rescue service has acquired a great deal of experience and skill in dealing with the effects of road traffic accidents, even though there has been no obligation on the service to render rescue assistance. We have introduced a new duty for the service to respond to such incidents in clause 8, recognising the reality and putting on a proper statutory footing the responsibilities of the fire and rescue service.

At the same time, we have recognised that fire authorities already have a power to charge for dealing with the non-fire assistance rendered at such an incident, although to the best of our knowledge they have not made use of it. The order-making provision in clause 19 will allow us to ensure that there is no move towards charging for road traffic accidents or other incidents without further detailed consultation, while preserving the principle of being able to charge for such incidents if it is appropriate. That is entirely consistent with my explanation that we are simply preserving the status quo.

It is pure scaremongering on the part of the Opposition to imply that we intend to sting motorists. We have no such intention. As I have emphasised, we are simply preserving the status quo. What we will not do is rule out any arrangements similar to those operated by ambulance trusts to recover some costs in some circumstances—generally, of course, from insurers. That policy might come forward as a result of further consideration. We certainly would not want to rule it out if there were strong, sensible reasons for adopting it. We have no plans to do so; it is not part of our agenda, but we will not rule out arrangements that might command support in the wider fire community.

I am not clear why the Opposition believe that, in all cases, including those where there is clear fault, the cost of dealing with such incidents should always be borne by the taxpayer rather than the responsible party. That is a recipe for increasing the costs to be met by council tax payers. People thinking about factors behind rising council tax will draw conclusions from the Opposition's stance on the issue. Conservatives Members may complain about council tax levels, but in trying to make it impossible for fire and rescue services to recover the costs of certain incidents, some of which I shall explore in a moment, they are essentially proposing the transfer of costs in some circumstances from the polluters, insurers or parties responsible for those costs to the general taxpayer. I should not have thought that such a principle would be easy for Conservatives to defend in the wider debate about keeping down council tax. I look forward to engaging with them in that debate. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge may claim that we are proposing changes that could result in considerable increases in insurance premiums for 27 million motorists, but I must tell him, as I did in Committee, that Transport 2000 has estimated that the impact on the average premium of arrangements to mirror those operated by the NHS would be around £3 a year. He is really wide of the mark in scaremongering on that.

The recent Select Committee report on the fire service noted the potential for authorities to recover from compensators the costs of dealing with traffic accidents in a manner similar to that in the NHS. We believe that further work is needed on how any such scheme might operate for the fire and rescue service, and on the impact that it would have on authorities, the insurance industry and the public. Those further investigations should be conducted before any proposal is made, let alone introduced. In the light of that, we do not think that it would be appropriate to close off the possibility of charging, as countenanced in new clause 4. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) the reassurance that he is seeking. We certainly have no plans to extend charging for services delivered by fire and rescue authorities, but we are aware that some authorities currently levy charges for certain activities and we are certainly not going to cut off those options arbitrarily, as the new clause proposes.

We are equally aware that some fire and rescue authorities have given thought to when they might wish to charge for various activities. The independent report on the fire service—the Bain report—gave some impetus to that thinking. Any such proposal should be very carefully evaluated from an operational and a financial point of view, and we should consider taking it forward only if its introduction could be carried through without in any way compromising public safety. Public safety will always remain our absolute priority and the overriding consideration. Nevertheless, we certainly would not want to close off options entirely.

I am largely reassured, but let me give the Minister one example of how we could get into difficulty. On nice summer afternoons, at the many fêtes and bazaars that we all attend and open, there is often a fire engine, which is usually popular with children. We will surely never get into the realms of charging for the presence of such appliances, which is often the most effective education about the fire service. That is the danger if we consider charging for things that are not deemed emergencies. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that?

I am sure that we would want fire and rescue authorities to continue precisely such activities free of charge for public education purposes, but my hon. Friend will know that fire and rescue services might be asked to provide water-pumping facilities for some commercial activity, for which it is entirely reasonable to recover a charge. We would not want to rule that out. If authorities are not promoting public safety but providing a useful ancillary service, recovering costs would be entirely proper and reasonable. 6.45 pm

I put it to the non. member tor Runnymede and Weybridge that the range of incidents that may fall within the provisions of clause 9 is not confined simply to the new terrorist threat. It can include major incidents of flooding or damage caused by accidental or negligent discharge by a company of a large volume of harmful chemicals. New clause (1)(c) would exclude such incidents from the scope of charging. Is it right that a major commercial undertaking that is responsible for massive pollution and consequent disruption should escape any possibility of being charged for the work of the fire and rescue service in dealing with such an incident? What message would such a prohibition on cost recovery give to potential polluters and to council tax payers? Is the hon. Gentleman so confident that, as he said, it is unthinkable for charges to be levied in such circumstances? If so, would the Opposition spokesman for environmental protection agree?

The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wokingham asked about the possibility of charging in an emergency. There is absolutely no intention of charging to extract payment before taking emergency action to save life or prevent serious harm. On the possibility raised by the hon. Gentleman that, owing to the Government amendment, a road traffic accident victim would hope that the fire service would attend first, neither the fire and rescue service nor the ambulance service charges for medical assistance. The ambulance service charges for conveyance to hospital. That is its appropriate role, and not one for the fire and rescue service.

Will the Minister write that assurance into the Bill so that all can see that authorities will never charge in such circumstances?

That assurance has been given on the Floor of the House and previously, and will remain the case. The right hon. Gentleman knows, as he referred to it, that the Bill contains powers under which the Secretary of State must authorise any extension of charging, so if there were any question of varying from that principle, we would be open immediately to scrutiny of whether we were upholding it.

I understand that Conservative Members may fear that every person unfortunate enough to suffer a tidal surge may find themselves confronted with a bill for pumping out, but in many cases such people will have building and contents insurance. If it is felt appropriate to charge for such activity, clause 19(3) might be used to allow authorities to recover from insurers the costs of responding to flooding incidents.

The Minister is talking about pumping out. Is he giving a categorical assurance that the powers will never be used to levy a charge for rescuing people from flooded buildings?

Yes.

Will the Minister give a similar categorical assurance that the provisions will never be used to levy a charge for rescuing people from cars after a road accident?

I have already made that absolutely clear and I am happy to do so again. As I have repeatedly said, all that we are doing is preserving the status quo under which, as the hon. Gentleman knows because he has studied the matter carefully, the 1947 Act, which prohibits charges, applies only to the extinguishment of fires. As he rightly pointed out, there is scope for charging for other services. In general, fire and rescue authorities have not levied charges—some have for certain activities—and we are not intending to cut across those arrangements. We are implementing a framework that will ensure that, if there are to be charges for any service, they should be determined by the Secretary of State and subject to the Secretary of State's agreement by order, which can be considered by this House. That is the proper and necessary safeguard.

rose—

I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me and to listen. It has always been our intention that there should be no question of charging for rescuing people from road traffic accidents or, indeed, from life-threatening situations, including flooding.

New clause 4(2) is designed to ensure that fire and rescue authorities are not empowered to charge for providing emergency medical assistance where there is no corresponding power for an NHS ambulance trust to impose such a charge. I agree with the sentiment behind the provision. In Committee, I offered to table an amendment to that effect if the hon. Gentleman would accept that there were situations in which it was right for fire authorities to levy charges. He declined my offer. I think that he is wrong, but I have tabled the amendment none the less and in terms that offer greater reassurance to the public than would his own, which I ask him to withdraw.

Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13 correct an omission from the Bill. The 1947 Act was amended, with effect from September 2003, to allow fire and rescue authorities to charge for firefighting activities at sea. The power of an authority to respond to such a request for assistance had been introduced under the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997. The 1947 Act as originally enacted did not allow for a charge to be made for any firefighting purpose, but nor did it enable an authority to use its resources to assist in dealing with a fire offshore. There was considerable concern among salvage operators that such a power should exist and they and marine insurers were content to bear the cost. It is not surprising that they should prefer to pay for a service that an authority was not obliged to provide than risk the total loss of a vessel. It is right that the Bill should contain a similar provision and that the cost of such an intervention should not be expected to fall on the budget of an authority as a normal expense.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned the channel tunnel. As I pointed out in Committee, the tunnel is in the happy position of being notionally part of Kent for firefighting purposes—it is not treated as a place under the sea. The Government amendment makes no change to that conceptually difficult position.

Government amendment No. 12 also fulfils an offer made in Committee and goes further than the amendment tabled there by the hon. Gentleman. It prohibits charging for any emergency medical assistance and requires no linkage to NHS arrangements. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

I have sought to protect the interests of 27 million motorists in Britain, but must admit that I have been clearly trumped by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) defending the interests of animal lovers in Britain. God knows how many millions of those there are—certainly more than there are motorists.

I am not entirely clear about what the Minister just said. I sought a commitment that the powers under clause 19 would never be used to authorise charging for the discharge in an emergency of any of the statutory functions of a fire and rescue authority, and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman confirmed that in the last few minutes of his speech. If he can now confirm that he will never, in any circumstances, use clause 19 to authorise charging in an emergency for the discharge of any of the statutory functions of a fire and rescue authority, I shall be happy to withdraw the new clause.

No, I cannot do so. As I clearly explained, we can envisage emergencies, such as pollution incidents, arising in circumstances in which we believe it would be entirely appropriate to charge. My point, which I repeat, is that we do not in any circumstances envisage fire and rescue services failing to take action to rescue someone in an emergency, such as road traffic accident or flooding, simply because a charging regime has been introduced. That is unthinkable. The services will rescue people immediately—that will be their primary priority. If there were a charging regime, that would come into effect afterward, but it would certainly not affect the decision on whether to effect a rescue.

The Minister has clearly been called to order by voices off. That is not what he said a few minutes ago, when I understood him to have given us the reassurance that we sought—that there would never be charges for emergency intervention. If he is saying only that the services will not ask for a credit card before carrying out the rescue, that is wholly inadequate.

On behalf of this country's 27 million motorists and all those who live in low-lying areas and have to worry about flooding, we seek an assurance that they will not be charged for the discharge in an emergency of the statutory functions of fire and rescue authorities. The Minister told my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) that it is difficult to square our insistence that emergency services be provided free with concerns about increasing council tax. I say to him that I suspect that most of our constituents would put emergency response in such situations very high on the list of things that they feel should be provided free of charge by a public service.

The Opposition believe that it is fundamentally wrong to introduce any possibility of charging for emergency response in the discharge of a statutory function. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause and to protect motorists throughout the country.