|
Clause 8
Road traffic accidents
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 79, in
The Minister said that he had made a concession on inquiries, for which we are grateful. I hope he will also concede that there is room to amend the Bill along the lines of the amendment.
One issue that was dealt with in the 1947 Act but is not covered in the Bill is responsibility in the case of a fire. We intend to table another amendment to reinstate that provision. Firefighters and fire officers to whom we have spoken have asked who is responsible and what is the order of responsibility in the case of, for example, a road traffic accident. Our amendment simply says that if a police officer is not present, the senior fire officer should be responsible. If he was first on the scene, he would know that he should take responsibility until the police arrive. If other services arrive, someone would be in charge. The amendment is fairly straightforward and would certainly simplify life for those who have to operate as part of a group.
Mr. Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman was so brief, I shall intervene on him rather than seeking to catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara. Is there any significance
Column Number: 115
in his choice of mechanism of imposing on the Secretary of State an obligation to ''make a direction''? Why not simply write the requirement—if it is at all necessary, which I doubt—into the face of the Bill?
3 pm
Richard Younger-Ross: Our understanding was that a direction would be the better way forward. I am not a parliamentary draftsman, so I listened to and heeded what others said to me on this issue. There is no particular reason why it should not be written straight in. I hope that the Minister will give a direction on all the responsibilities and all the circumstances, because, with the new responsibilities, the Minister has created far more complex situations—involving a number of fire services and other services coming together in different circumstances.
Mr. Swire: This is an interesting amendment. Can the hon. Gentleman not foresee that a road traffic accident might well have other implications during a civil contingency, whereupon somebody from the armed forces might be better placed to take overall command? Does the proposal not unduly limit the flexibility of the Secretary of State to meet such an eventuality?
Richard Younger-Ross: Part of the purpose of proposing a direction is to give the Secretary of State flexibility in that matter.
Mr. Swire: There is no flexibility.
Richard Younger-Ross: It gives him a direction—Ministers can change directions. The purpose is to spark a debate and to ask whether the Minister will consider the idea. The points are fairly clear.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I shall be very brief. I am delighted, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara. I raise this point now, but I am sure that I could equally have done so during the stand part debate. I have noticed when talking about road traffic accidents to those in the fire, ambulance and police services that there is an ongoing concern about who in this litigious society takes responsibility.
As much as we could never write such a provision in tablets of stone, I wonder whether we are being simplistic and not looking at the way in which the three emergency services must co-ordinate. It is all well and good making decisions that in the light of day appear logical, but they will not always prove to be effective at the site of an accident. I seek some clarification from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the degree to which the proposal would protect firefighters, ambulance staff and police. Increasingly, RTAs are the subject of all manner of controversy.
Mr. Raynsford: I must say to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross)—I hope that I am now pronouncing his constituency correctly.
Richard Younger-Ross: It is ''Tinbridge''.
Mr. Raynsford: Is it ''Tin''? I thought that it was ''Teen''? There is a dispute between the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members from Devon.
Column Number: 116
As and when a third Devon Member, my hon. Friend and Parliamentary Private Secretary, the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) returns, I shall ask her to adjudicate. I am extremely relieved that the hon. Gentleman does not represent the constituency of one of his colleagues with whom I served on a previous Committee. It took me a great deal more time to learn to say Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, so at least his has the benefit of being a single word.
Mr. Hammond: I hope that the Minister will reflect on his policy of creating a south-west region in England, given that he has just seen a demonstration of how hon. Members from opposite sides of the same river cannot even agree on how it is pronounced.
The Chairman: Order. The Minister will return to the point.
Mr. Raynsford: I stand reproved, and will return immediately to the point.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge should not assume that because we have acceded to his suggestion for an amendment on another matter that we will automatically do so again. I am much less persuaded of the need for change, but I will explain why that is not appropriate.
Clause 8(1)(b) recognises the role of a fire and rescue authority in dealing with road traffic accidents. That goes beyond initial rescue and includes protecting the public from the immediate aftermath. Typically, that involves dealing with spillage of hazardous substances. However, the clause also recognises that the duty placed on a fire and rescue authority must be proportionate to its skills and expertise and, therefore, gives individual authorities the ability to make a judgment on what action is reasonable. Amendment No. 79 would go well beyond that. It would require the Secretary of State to direct that firefighters take responsibility for managing the scene of all road traffic accidents unless the police are present. No account would be taken of the circumstances. Such a direction would have to be so general as to be meaningless.
Mr. Hammond: I am glad that I did not catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara, because I might have made a fool of myself. I was under the impression—the Minister will correct me—that there was already a hierarchy and that in the absence of a police officer the senior fire office at a scene would automatically be considered in charge.
Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had lingered a moment, I would have got to the relevant point. There are, of course, good arrangements between the emergency services. The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) highlighted the role of the military in certain circumstances. Those arrangements generally work well. So, there is an understanding between the emergency services.
The point about the amendment is that it would cut across that by creating a formal responsibility in circumstances that might be inappropriate. I recognise that there are occasions when it would be appropriate for firefighters to undertake wider preventive measures, such as coning off a lane of a motorway
Column Number: 117
or closing a road. There are, of course, many examples where such action would fall properly to the police. That type of co-operation already takes place and is a matter of judgment on the ground. It is not appropriate to write it into legislation.
We have received no pressure from fire and rescue authorities to go further on their duties in dealing with road traffic accidents. In fact, the LGA has said that the new duty must make it for the authority to determine what is reasonable in protecting the public after a road traffic accident. That is what subsection (1)(b) does. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Teignbridge will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Hammond: I think that the Minister said that there was no need to give firefighters more formal powers on the management of road traffic. Does not the Civil Contingencies Bill specifically give firefighters a power to direct traffic? During the flooding last January in my constituency, the absence of any enforcement powers for firefighters to control road traffic and prevent vehicles passing down roads that were nominally closed due to flooding was a serious problem when they were the only ones on the scene. There was clearly a defect in legislation.
The Chairman: Order. Before the Minister responds, I should point out that we are not discussing the Civil Contingencies Bill.
Mr. Raynsford: Firefighters already have powers to close roads if necessary. The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman highlighted would be precisely those in which, if a fire appliance were first on the scene and felt it necessary in the interest of public safety to do so, could close a road. As I have pointed out, there are effective operational protocols between the emergency services for dealing with those matters and it is not appropriate to include it all in the Bill.
In relation to those powers, I refer also to clause 43, which we will not reach for a while yet. The hon. Gentleman may wish to use the half-term recess to study its provisions. I think that that will satisfy him that there are more than adequate powers for firefighters when necessary . I hope that the hon. Member for Teignbridge will recognise that the existing arrangements work. There is no pressure to change them. There is an understanding about the role of firefighters, and they have powers where necessary to deal with such situations. In our judgment, it would be a step too far to follow the line that he suggested.
Richard Younger-Ross: I hear the Minister's argument and I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, before I do so, I ask him to consider the fact that the pecking order at the moment is set out in the 1947 Act, and that, effectively, it will be removed by the Bill. Some fire officers have concerns that the informal arrangements have not worked in certain incidents. Hon. Members debated the same issue in relation to the police during consideration in Committee of the Traffic Management Bill. Before Report, will the Minister have a think about the matter? Having done a little more research, we shall certainly bring it up again.
Column Number: 118
| 
