|
Column Number: 353
Standing Committee G
Tuesday 2 March 2004
(Afternoon)
[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]
2.30 pm
The Chairman: We are round Tattenham corner, looking at the straight and the finishing line. I am sure that we shall get there agreeably. I am not privy to what is important to the Opposition or, for that matter, to the Government, apart from their Bill, but I hope that we can discuss all the important and relevant matters, even if only briefly. Clause 43
Powers of fire-fighters etc in an emergency etc
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 129, in
clause 43, page 20, line 13, at end insert—
'(aa) if he reasonably believes a fire to be about to break out, for the purpose of preventing the fire or protecting life or property.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 130, in
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): You missed a memorable sitting this morning, Sir Nicholas, but I am sure that this afternoon's sitting will be equally memorable.
I was speaking in favour of amendment No. 129 and saying what a sensible amendment the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) had tabled in this case.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con): I thought that we left off when I was on my feet to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it had also occurred to him that, without the benefit of the amendment, a firefighter at the scene of what he reasonably anticipated would involve the outbreak of a fire would not have the power under subsection (2) to restrict access of persons to a place that he believed would be dangerous to them. He would not be able to exercise any of the powers under subsection (2) in the absence of the amendment.
Dr. Pugh: That is a perfectly valid point. In fact, before we were interrupted by the break, I was pondering why the amendment had not been incorporated into the Bill, given that the legislation puts the accent on preventing disasters rather than on simply reacting to them as and when they occur. I was speculating on why such powers had not been included.
Column Number: 354
The only explanation that I could come up with was that it might have been thought that the powers of the fire services would be made too wide. For example, although a fire service might have perfectly valid concerns that a chemical factory is in danger of going up in flames, there may be other issues about which it and the person who owns the chemical factory would not agree, and there could be litigation or complaint after the event.
Equally, we would not want the fire services to intrude in domestic bonfire incidents and to take it upon themselves to hose down people who are burning garden rubbish. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Bill, but given the common sense that, to some extent, is contained in the legislation, there is a concern as to how the power that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I wish to see incorporated in the Bill can best be phrased.
There is a view that an Englishman's home is his castle, and that he is entitled to mess around inside it, whatever the risk. None the less, most people do not live in castles. Many live in flats or accommodation that is near to other accommodation.
Mr. Hammond: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's comments would be that a firefighter should not have the right to break into premises in which a fire has broken out, and that an Englishman who wishes to burn down his castle should be allowed to do so without interruption.
Dr. Pugh: No, that is not the logic of my position. I am endeavouring to argue that there is not automatically a case for intervention by the fire services if there is not actually a fire, but that some circumstances are sufficiently troubling for a fire service to want to do something before a blaze starts. That is why I support the amendment. I simply ask the Minister why prevention is not incorporated in the clause.
The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 were tabled on the basis of a concern that firefighters should have the powers necessary to deal with emergencies. We believe that the Bill provides such powers. The Government do not wish in any way to prevent firefighters from responding in the most effective way to circumstances in which they might avoid a potential threat to life or injury as a result of fire or other emergencies.
We are aware that some members of the service have expressed a wish to have a power to enter premises by force, if necessary, if they believe that there is an imminent threat of fire. Clearly, that is what amendment No. 129 addresses. The examples given so far have not been entirely convincing, but we are not unsympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed. During an earlier debate, we heard about an instance of the need to enter premises to deal with a problem or to demolish them to create a firebreak so that they would not allow fire to travel from one area to another.
Column Number: 355
There is no problem whatever with the available powers being used when a fire has broken out, but there may be circumstances in which it is thought that there is a risk of fire but it would probably be more appropriate for other emergency services to effect an entry. Indeed, the police have such powers in certain cases. We must balance the substantial powers enabling a public authority forcibly to enter premises without the consent of the owner against the public interest of ensuring that our firefighters have the necessary powers to be able to cope with risky circumstances.
The evidence that has been put forward so far is not wholly convincing. However, we are prepared to be convinced by stronger evidence and I would welcome any further operational examples of how the existing powers may be insufficient to enable firefighters to deal with a threat of fire. If such evidence is provided and proves to be robust, I would be more than happy to explore the issue further with a view to amending the Bill to accommodate the wish behind amendment No. 129.
I cannot take the same view of amendment No. 130, which would expand subsection (1)(c) and the powers of firefighters to deal with emergencies other than fires or road traffic accidents. The word ''emergency'' is defined in clause 55, which limits the power to specify functions under clause 9 to
''an event or situation that causes or is likely to cause—
(a) one or more individuals to die, be seriously injured or become seriously ill, or
(b) serious harm to the environment''.
The amendment would not add anything because the concept of risk to life is already implicit in the definition of emergency, and the wider reference to a threat to the environment is probably preferable to the more narrow definition of a risk to property. I can envisage circumstances—for example, a chemical or biological attack—in which there might be a significant risk to the environment, but no tangible risk to property. The existing framework, depending on the definition in clause 55, is preferable, and the amendment is not only unnecessary, but restrictive.
With that assurance that we are sympathetic to the principle behind amendment No. 129 but remain in need of more convincing evidence of circumstances in which current powers are not sufficient, I ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Hammond: On the Minister's response to amendment No. 130, I am prepared to be flexible, but I think that he is wrong to say that it might restrict the operation of the clause, because it is drafted to provide an additional ground for action for the purposes of protecting life and property. It was certainly not intended to restrict the actions of firefighters.
I expected the Minister to take a slightly different tack and to say that it was inconceivable that in conferring functions under clause 9 he would not include a function of protecting life and property in the order that he makes. I do not think that it is implicit in
Column Number: 356
the drafting of clause 9 and the definition of emergency that that must be the case because I think that it would be perfectly proper for the Secretary of State to confer on a fire authority a support function in relation to a class of major emergency under that clause. Where it was envisaged that a number of authorities had different designated roles in a major emergency, it is not inconceivable that the function conferred on a single authority might not involve the protection of life and property. Such a function might be some much more prosaic support role. None the less, I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance that he is satisfied that the protection of life and property remains at the centre of those powers.
I am grateful for the spirit in which the Minister dealt with amendment No. 129, which is a genuine attempt to try to address a gap in the armoury of powers being given to the fire and rescue authorities. Of course, he is absolutely right that it will be preferable for the police to effect a forced entry in any circumstances that I can think of other than when a fire is raging, if they are on the scene. However, one of the themes that has run through the Government's thinking on the modernisation of the fire service, particularly in relation to medical co-response, which we will deal with later, is that it is not always the case, especially in rural or sparsely populated areas, that all the emergency services arrive on the scene together or within a few seconds of each other. There may be long periods when ''the wrong service'' is the only service in attendance. It seems to me that, in those circumstances, it is sensible to ensure that the services have cross-cutting powers so that they can deal with the situation on the ground, so far as that does not have any unintended and adverse consequences.
I agree with the Minister that the classic example in which a firefighter peers through a window, notices that the gas hob has been left on and immediately notices a candle burning on the table is not utterly convincing as an everyday scenario in 21st-century Britain. However, there will be situations in which a firefighter can deduce by using his specialist skill and knowledge that there is a risk to the premises. I suspect that, in such circumstances, a conscientious firefighter would feel obliged to act in a way that would be technically illegal and take the risk of doing so. That is something that we should avoid asking firefighters to do. We should avoid putting them in a situation in which they have to stand by and watch something disastrous happen or act outside the law.
I take on board the Minister's challenge, although I am not sure why I am doing so, because it strikes me that it should be for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to circularise the 49 English and Welsh fire authorities asking them whether they need that power and whether they can provide working examples, but I am happy to share the work load. I know that the ODPM is seriously under-resourced, and I am sure that my researcher will be only too happy to take on that burden. Having heard what the Minister has said, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment and to return to the issue on Report if it is practical to
Column Number: 357
do so, or in the other place if the time scale means that we cannot take the discussion any further by the Report stage.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
|
