| Fire and Rescue Services Bill
|
|
Mr. Hammond: The Minister has addressed twice now the conflict that might arise from constables acting as retained firefighters but the amendment draws a specific distinction between constables acting as retained firefighters and constables working in non-operational roles as employees of a fire and rescue authority. Phil Hope: I appreciate the distinction that is being made. A retained firefighter either firefighting or performing any other role could still create a conflict of interest that would be unacceptable to the police and, in particular, to chief constables. Mr. Hammond: The Minister has again used the term ''retained firefighter''. I accept what he says on that matter. I am considering a situation where, for example, a police officer with particular skills might want to work part-time for a fire and rescue authority in a support role, perhaps using forensic or evidence-sifting skills. Phil Hope: I fully understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. He draws a distinction between firefighting and performing some other role for a fire and rescue authority. None the less, there is still a conflict of interests. The overriding priority for a constable would be to tackle or to respond to an emergency or a crime. That would mean that his ability to undertake other roles was put in jeopardy. Those other roles, while they might not involve fighting a fire in an emergency, may none the less be important. It could be crucial that those roles were undertaken. That could jeopardise the ability to deliver services—for example, an important fire safety exercise. We would not wish such extra duties and roles to be jeopardised by a conflict of interests between them and a constable's primary duty as a police officer. Other employees of a police force—community support officers, special constables and other people employed in civilian duties—could take on the role of a retained firefighter or another fire and rescue authority role because there is not that conflict of interests. The clause is not designed to deal with the relationship between a police authority and a fire and rescue authority, nor with the management of its resources by a police authority. Earlier clauses, such as clause 16, would come into play. With that assurance, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Hammond: I am a little perplexed. The Minister's tone was perfectly reasonable but I sometimes have the impression that, having gone down a route, Ministers then dig in, probably advised that the clause under debate is vital.
Column Number: 333 The Minister has adduced no evidence to the Committee that a constable working part-time in a non-operational role for a fire authority is in a different position from a constable working part-time in a non-operational role for any other class of employer. Of course, the Minister can come up with an example of a part-time employee of a fire and rescue authority doing time-critical and vital work, who then gets the summons from his chief constable to perform his police duties even though he is off-duty. That occurs only rarely.The Minister can produce such an example, but a responsible fire and rescue authority would not put someone who was liable to be called away in such a role, any more than they would employ as a retained firefighter someone in another profession who is likely to be unavailable for substantial periods of time because they have other time-critical work to do. I do not suppose that trauma surgeons would be employed as retained firefighters, nor members of the Territorial Army—if that is that organisation's correct title. Those are people who are likely to be called away for other vital duties. It would not be beyond the wit of a fire and rescue authority to manage such a situation. The Minister has not convinced me that employment in a non-operational role with a fire and rescue authority is qualitatively different from all sorts of other employment. There is a bit of a hangover mentality here. Ministers have been at pains to talk about modernising the fire service and moving away from the uniformed, quasi-militaristic 1947 Act structure to a much broader, community-based service, in which many employees might not do any firefighting or operational front-line duties in the conventional sense, but would none the less perform important roles. Yet on this matter the knee-jerk reaction is to think of the fire and rescue service as if it were like the police force or the military, with all sorts of special circumstances. I am surprised at the Minister's attitude. I was not expecting him to say that it was necessary to retain a ban on a police constable taking part-time non-operational work with a fire and rescue authority outside his normal working hours. I find it curious that the Minister finds it necessary to put that into the Bill. I wonder about the rights of police officers to take on other roles outside their working commitments that involve no conflict with their police work. It is not an issue of great political difference; it is a practical question about the working of the Bill. Fire and rescue authorities have raised that question with me and I imagine that the matter has also been raised with the Minister. I shall continue to pursue that question outside the Committee and try to persuade the Minister. I may give the Minister some examples that show that such restrictions are no longer necessary. They point backwards to a structure and character of the fire brigade that are no longer appropriate in a world in which we talk about a community-based fire and rescue service. Column Number: 334 Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman advances a powerful argument for his original amendment; he certainly improves our understanding of it. However, there is still the possibility of a real confusion of functions. A private employer and a police force rarely have much to do with one another unless the scene of a crime is connected with the private employer. However, there is a range of things in which both the fire service and the police service are involved, such as investigations into accidents. If there were people working for both services, that would introduce a complication that would not exist if a police officer worked simply for a private firm. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that? Mr. Hammond: Of course, it would depend on the role; fire and rescue authorities would have to be careful about that. However, a significant number of fire and rescue authority employees do not perform duties that would give any cause for conflict. I am mindful of the need for police employment regulations to prevent the sort of situation about which the hon. Gentleman speculates, but that can be done by police employment codes and regulations. It is not necessary to write a total prohibition into the Bill. If I had a little more time, I am sure that I could think of examples of things that police officers might want to do that it would be absurd to ban them from doing because of the notion that their doing them would bring into danger the whole emergency service structure. I hope to persuade the Minister outside the confines of the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 2 March 2004 |
