HC Deb 15 March 2004 vol 419 cc113-26

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 9, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'(2) An order under subsection (1) may authorise charging for extinguishing fires, or protecting life and property in the event of fires, only in respect of fires which are at sea or under the sea.

(2A) An order under subsection (1) may not authorise charging for emergency medical assistance.

No. 13, in page 9, line 29, at end insert—

'(8) The references in subsection (2) to [odq]sea[cdq] are not restricted to the territorial sea of the United Kingdom.—[Phil Hope.]

Order for Third Reading read.

9.13 pm
Mr. Raynsford

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Let me remind the House of the key measures contained in the Fire and Rescue Services Bill that will help to make the service a better service for the public, and better for those who work within it. This is, as all hon. Members will be aware, the first major legislation on fire and rescue matters for 57 years. It comes after a long period in which the fire and rescue service performed its traditional functions with creditable efficiency, commanding the confidence of the public and ensuring a swift response to fires where they broke out. However, it was also a period in which there was a growing awareness of the need for the service to undertake a more extensive role. First, it began to be increasingly involved in other areas of emergency work, notably road traffic accidents. Secondly, it became increasingly conscious of the importance of prevention. We now know that however good a fire brigade is at responding to the threat of fires when they occur and getting to the scene of fires quickly—the brigades are extremely good and perform with commendable courage and commitment in discharging those responsibilities—we know also that in too many instances people die unnecessarily because they are overwhelmed before a fire brigade can reach them, and in many cases before the fire brigade is even alerted. That emphasises the importance of a greater focus on fire prevention and measures to avoid unnecessary fires occurring in the first place.

It is right that new legislation should put a strong focus on helping to save more lives and to create safer communities. It should contain a new duty on all fire and rescue authorities to promote fire safety. It should give greater encouragement to fire and rescue authorities to work constructively within their communities to identify risks and to ensure that effective preventive measures are in place.

It is vital also that the fire and rescue service should recognise the much wider responsibilities to which fire brigades respond as a matter of course in dealing with road traffic accidents and major emergencies alongside traditional firefighting. It is important also that we recognise the growing importance of provision to underpin national resilience, through powers to ensure a co-ordinated and strategic response by fire and rescue authorities to specific emergencies, including flooding on a massive scale, a major terrorist incident or catastrophic fires.

Mr. Redwood

Does the Minister think that the world would be a better place if more authorities charged for rescuing cats and dogs, or fewer?

Mr. Raynsford

The right hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting issue that I shall address briefly later in my speech. The world will be a better place as a result of the Bill, which will put far greater emphasis on the importance of fire safety and fire prevention work. That is the ultimate objective if we are to save lives and avoid unnecessary fires. Issues about whether charges should be made for certain relatively small aspects of the work of fire and safety services are second-order questions. I shall return to them, but the more important objectives of saving lives, of preventing unnecessary fire and of reducing the number of people whose lives are either ended or blighted by unnecessary fires or other disasters are the priorities that the Government consider to be fundamental.

The Bill will ensure that the fire and rescue service has a clear sense of direction and the means to deliver it. The measure will give statutory force to the fire and rescue national framework, which provides, as has been demonstrated in this evening's debates, the national leadership that was called for so clearly by the independent review of the fire service, which was chaired by Sir George Bain. The review highlighted the failures over many years, and of successive Governments, to address the needs for change in the service and the need to give leadership. We have recognised that responsibility to effect change and to introduce new arrangements that give a proper sense of direction and a momentum for change to the fire and rescue service.

Through our new intervention powers, we shall be able to ensure that fire and rescue authorities act in accordance with the requirement of the national framework and that there are safeguards in place against a failure to provide the necessary arrangements to underpin national resilience and public safety.

Mr. Swire

Before the Minister rubbishes the Fire Brigades Union, which I am sure that he will not, does he recognise that it says that there are some positive steps contained within the Bill? However, it goes on to say that, basically, the underlying proposals downgrade the rescue role of the fire service and produce cuts across the service under the guise of local Integrated Risk Management plans. The Minister has obviously failed to convince that audience. How can he convince other people if he cannot convince the professionals within the fire service that the Bill is not about regionalisation and cost saving?

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman is speaking as if the events of the past two years never took place. He may have been oblivious to what happened, but most hon. Members know perfectly well that there was a difficult and controversial dispute and that inevitably the FBU took up positions that were not wholly supportive of the Government's position. We nevertheless are driving forward a reform agenda that aims both to improve the quality of the fire services and their effectiveness in preventing fires and enhance their well-earned reputation for bravery and effectiveness in dealing with fires and putting them out. The Government have never done anything other than salute the courage and commitment of fire service workers who do a difficult and dangerous job very well. However, it is important to look at ways in which we can make it easier to prevent fires and, by doing so, reduce the risk that firefighters face when they respond to fires.

As for the hon. Gentleman's regional fantasies, an extraordinary characteristic of all our debates has been the Conservatives' Pavlovian response as soon as the word "region" is mentioned. They behave as if they are puppets manipulated by someone who wants to continue dancing to the UK Independence party tune, but we are sensible, pragmatic and forward-looking in our approach, and are not affected by the dogma that the Opposition unfortunately—

Mr. Hammond

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raynsford

I shall do so in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman should listen to what I have to say, because he is, I am afraid, equally guilty of Pavlovian reactions to any references to Europe or regions and is happy to dance to the UKIP tune.

Mr. Hammond

The Minister has added "Pavlovian" to "preposterous" and "paranoid" as his favourite adjectives to describe me. He is obviously stung by his inability to deal with the charge that inappropriate regionalisation is being imposed on the service. He has moved away from defending himself against that attack, and in the past hour or so he started to refer to Europe and the UKIP. Would he tell me when I have ever referred to Europe or, indeed, the UKIP in the context of the Bill?

Mr. Raynsford

I have a long memory, and I recall the many occasions during the passage of the Local Government Act 2003 and during our discussions on the Bill when references to regions produced the utterly predictable response that this was all a European plot to impose inappropriate structures on Britain. That response was entirely unjustified and indicative of a party obsessed with the long forgotten ideological causes that motivated it in the era when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister. One day, its members will wake up, realise that the world has moved on, and become a better Opposition party. Sadly, however, it will be a long time before they have the responsibility of government.

We are committed to ensuring more effective collaboration between fire and rescue authorities and more cost-effective services, which involves working together at a regional level on a number of responsibilities that are best discharged at that level. Our White Paper set out clearly the Government's view that certain responsibilities need to be discharged at a national level. We made clear our commitment to give leadership and show the way forward for the fire and rescue services in the White Paper, the national framework and the Bill, but we accept that a number of services are delivered best and most cost-effectively at regional level. Regional resilience requires coordination with the other emergency services at a regional level. The demands of coping with major threats such as that of terrorism require organisation on a scale that can only be discharged effectively at regional level. The introduction of regional control rooms will bring substantial benefits, including considerable gains in cost-effectiveness. The average cost of answering an emergency call in London is £18, but in the Isle of Wight the equivalent cost is £168. Such wide discrepancies are simply not sustainable, and we have to move forward in a way that guarantees an effective service that delivers the most cost-effective outcomes, but does so on the basis of the absolute underlying principle that public safety and a quick response to any emergency are fundamental.

Mr. Hammond

Does the Minister have any evidence that the closing down of 40 of the fire control rooms in England to leave only nine covering the whole country will improve public safety? If he has such evidence, why did not the Select Committee uncover it and include it in its report?

Mr. Raynsford

As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, although he chose not to refer to it, the Mott MacDonald study looked very carefully at that issue. It concluded that the previous recommendations of some three years earlier had not been implemented and acted upon, and that there was an overriding case for moving to regional control rooms. It even suggested that there was a possibility of moving to three supra-regional control rooms for the whole of England. In the end, it decided that a basis of nine regional control rooms in the English regions was probably the best outcome.

The arguments are clear and they have been spelled out; they are to do with ensuring the most cost-effective systems, but also the most effective and up-to-date systems. That includes new technology that enables the pin-pointing of calls in order to direct fire and rescue teams in the most effective way to the location of a fire or emergency and arrangements that allow integration with the other emergency services through the new Firelink communications system. All those things are about improving effectiveness, giving a better service to the public and responding more effectively to a wide range of possible eventualities.

Mr. Flook

Has the Minister any idea which of the regions will move more quickly? Does he have any idea whether the south-west will be moving towards regional control centres more quickly than other regions?

Mr. Raynsford

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will know—we said it often in the Committee, of which he was a member—that the process has involved all regions setting up regional management boards, which are in place, and they will be considering over the next few months the detailed arrangements for implementing what is required to be implemented at a regional level. I have always made it clear that some issues need to be handled nationally, some need to be handled regionally, including regional control rooms and other things, and some need to be handled locally. Getting that arrangement right is fundamental to delivering the best possible service. Of course, response and community engagement are best handled at a local level, and that will continue to be the case in all circumstances and all parts of the country.

We also recognise that fire and rescue authorities must work with each other and other bodies to deliver their new functions. In the course of this evening's debate, we have highlighted areas where, on the fire prevention and community engagement agenda, it is clearly advantageous for fire and rescue authorities to work with other bodies, including local authorities, individuals and community groups, to ensure the most effective outcomes. The message about joint working and working across traditional barriers is also very important, and such activity will be facilitated by the Bill.

We are also ensuring that fire and rescue authorities have appropriate powers and obligations to enter into mutual assistance schemes to support the discharge of all their core operational functions. We will continue to maintain the existing ability for fire and rescue authorities to charge for particular services while continuing to exclude the possibility of charging for fighting fires and not extending charging powers other than in circumstances in which it is clear that that is appropriate and can be done in a way that in no way damages public safety and security. I have always said—and I repeat it tonight—that public safety is the overriding priority. Ultimately, that determines our whole approach to the future of the fire and rescue service.

The Bill will help to make the fire and rescue service a better place for all who work in it by repealing outdated legislation to allow a modern approach to recruitment, training and development; by bringing forward new powers to create new multiple pension schemes while protecting existing pension provision; and by taking reserve powers to ensure effective negotiating machinery for the fire and rescue service that recognises its changing role and includes representation of all its employees.

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)

I asked the Minister about devolution on Second Reading. I am still not clear whether the Government intend to devolve the setting up of pay negotiating bodies and pension provision to the Welsh Assembly. It is not clear in the Bill.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I am not in the least surprised that he is confused. The provisions are governed by clause 60, which says: In its application to Wales, the following provisions of this Act have effect as if for each reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales". On a cursory reading of the Bill, especially if they started at the front rather than the back, people might be tempted to believe that the Secretary of State has powers to determine matters in Wales. The policy objective is the devolution of all policy functions and finance matters to Wales. The one matter that is reserved is pensions, for reasons that he will fully understand.

I understand that the Welsh Assembly Government intend to continue to operate the current arrangements for negotiation and bargaining on pay and conditions at a UK level, and I know that the Scottish Executive are equally committed to maintaining that arrangement, which will continue as long as all the parties agree that it should, and it will be a voluntary arrangement reached by the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Williams

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Will there be any provision to ensure that Welsh fire and rescue services and employers are represented on the pay negotiating bodies?

Mr. Raynsford

That will be a matter for the national joint council, which will consider changes to the rather cumbersome existing structures. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is looking for bits of paper to prove that the Secretary of State will have inevitable intervention powers here. I remind him that we have made it clear that we have such powers but will use them only if the NJC fails to come up with satisfactory amendments to the existing arrangements to allow the whole system to operate effectively.

In June 2003, we published our fire and rescue White Paper, responding to the challenge set out by the independent review of the fire service led by Sir George Bain. It outlined our vision for a fire and rescue service better able to meet the challenges of the 21st century—a service that saves more lives by protecting the public and creating safer communities. The Bill is crucial to delivering that vision, and I commend it to the House.

9.33 pm
Mr. Hammond

The 45 minutes that have been allocated for Third Reading constitute a totally inadequate time, so I shall be brief.

We have had our differences in these debates, but our proceedings have been generally constructive. I say to the Minister that regionalisation is an issue but Europe, in the context of fire and rescue services, thankfully, is not. I want to reiterate our strong support for the modernisation agenda as originally presented, with its emphasis on local management; its focus on prevention and education and the matching of resources to risk to life through genuine risk-based integrated risk management plans; and, critically, its reform of working practices, freeing up resources for that prevention agenda and for the new focus that we need on the response to terrorism.

We were nervous when Ministers declared the result of the IRMPs in advance by saying that modernisation would pay for the firefighters' pay settlement. We were alarmed, as the Minister knows, when the targets were relaxed last summer, as they were a key justification for the modernisation programme. We had fears about the balance between local, national and regional dimensions, especially when we read the Bill and the framework documents, but we have remained supportive throughout of the Bill's core. At its core, the programme is sound.

We acknowledge that, for exceptional circumstances, there is a need for a supra-brigade response, especially to deal with the new threat of terrorism. We have always recognised the benefits of co-operation between authorities, not only in response to unconventional threats but across the board to create appropriate units for providing the best possible service to the public. However, a balance needs to be struck between the national, regional and local tiers. We need to focus on the needs of the service, not unrelated considerations. We must also ensure that the service is driven from the bottom up, with democratically accountable local fire and rescue services working together so that the service is provided at the appropriate level.

Mr. Redwood

Is my hon. Friend worried, as I am, that regional management might mean another tier of management. with higher salaries, more inefficiency and enormous reorganisation rather than the drive for job losses and greater cost control that the Minister imagines?

Mr. Hammond

All the evidence shows that the introduction of a regional tier increases, not decreases, bureaucracy. The Select Committee report pointed out that no evidence had been presented to show that there would be a reduction in bureaucracy. I stress to my right hon. Friend that a bigger concern is that sucking away certain powers to the regional management boards will leave some smaller fire and rescue services with a management structure that withers on the vine. I wonder whether the Government's medium-term to long-term objective is to emaciate fire and rescue authorities to the point when regional combined authorities become inevitable.

We share the Government's view that the Bill recognises the wider role of fire and rescue services by including statutory functions for road traffic accidents and other forms of emergency. We appreciate and approve the focus on prevention and education. Many other aspects of the measure are long overdue acknowledgements of the work of the fire and rescue services.

The Bill suffers from two significant flaws. First, the balance between national and local powers is wrong. with the Secretary of State's huge reserve powers having the potential to undermine the role of local, democratically accountable fire and rescue authorities. The Minister is at pains to emphasise that they are reserve powers, but only time will tell.

Secondly, we are worried about the imposition of an arbitrary and irrelevant regional structure on the fire and rescue service. That structure was designed for a different purpose and no evidence has been adduced for the proposition that it is the most appropriate way in which to run a fire and rescue service. The Government's agenda is nowhere more evident than in their proposal to reduce the number of control rooms throughout England from 49 to nine. No evidence has been produced to show that that is in the interests of public safety. We believe that it will prove sub-optimal and that the motivation for the regional agenda is extraneous to the fire and rescue service.

Our preference is for a fire and rescue service that is based on the maxim, "Quality services locally delivered." We support a service that would confer clear functions and duties, including best value, on local fire authorities, which are accountable to their communities. That would lead them to work together, for example, by merging control rooms and sharing equipment, to discharge those functions, and they would always answer to their communities, not the Secretary of State.

We accept that the Secretary of State must play a role in national preparedness to deal with a terrorist or other major incident, but that must not snuff out the standalone capability of our local emergency services, which will surely happen with regionalisation.

At the heart of the Bill is a positive agenda, which we support. It has been spoilt by the inability to resist the Whitehall obsession with total control of every last detail, and by the subordination of its aims to the regional agenda. We will not vote against it tonight, but urge our noble Friends to try again—as we have tried—to get the Government to see the case for restoring local fire authorities' lead role in the new structure. We want a bottom-up, collaborative approach based on geographical units that are relevant to the fire and rescue service, not some other agenda, so that we end up with a service that is truly rooted in our local communities and is the stronger for it.

9.40 pm
John McDonnell

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Bill. I thank him both for his inclusiveness in involving us in discussions, and for the open and transparent way in which he explained the details of the Bill. Much in the Bill reflects the views of firefighters, fire managers and fire authorities. It reflects a modern fire service, and the range of services that are now provided. I am grateful to the Minister for addressing continuing concerns, particularly the clear establishment of minimum standards to be set through guidance across the country but also the advocacy of maximum quality of service.

Clause 32, however, still causes concern. It relates to guidance in the context of industrial relations. Let me sound a note of caution. The Bill arrived in the climate that followed one of the bitterest disputes in 25 years. We introduced legislation giving Government powers to impose a settlement, and we introduced a sunset clause that will, we hope, reach fruition shortly as a result of the constructive discussions that have taken place. What I do not want is for clause 32 to be interpreted by this or any future Government as a way of interfering in industrial relations again, and imposing settlements on firefighters. Tonight they will be on shift—men and women who risk their lives daily to protect us and our communities. We do not want to drag them into the bitterness of another dispute like last year's.

9.42 pm
Richard Younger-Ross

It has been a pleasure and an honour to serve on the Committee, and to lead for my party today. My father was a firefighter in the London docks during the war, and as a child I was brought up with the fire service.

As has been said, there is much in the Bill to support. As we said on Second Reading, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has made clear, we wholeheartedly believe in the modernisation process. Most of our debates have been very constructive. The Minister, for instance, was able to accept an amendment that we tabled in Committee; at least, he produced a similar amendment today providing that there should—not must—generally be an inquiry, which is an improvement. Nevertheless, some parts of the Bill could do with a little more improvement. Like the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), we intend to ask those in the other place to consider how they might be able to improve it.

I want to make five brief points. The Bill still tends towards centralisation. We reject the Secretary of State's power to force fire authorities to combine even when they are working well. We believe that if an authority is to combine with another, that must be at its instigation, because of reorganisation or because it is failing in some way. I do not believe that the Secretary of State's power to act for the sake of what are, effectively, cost savings is democratic. It pulls the rug from under local democracy.

A lot still needs to be protected in terms of democracy. The Secretary of State is taking powers to remove elected members from committees. He can determine that a person is not fit to serve. When the Secretary of State can say, "We do not think this councillor is fit to perform this duty", a stiletto is pointed at the heart of local democracy. That is not a power that the Secretary of State should ever have. Local authorities determine who should be on their committees, and it is up to them to say who is fit to perform the role; it is not a matter for the Secretary of State.

On accountability, we need still to consider what comes to this House and what does not. The Secretary of State has again turned down the reasonable request—from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge—that the national framework be considered in this House via statutory instrument. As was said earlier, it is flawed and it is very disappointing that we will be unable to consider it.

Mr. Redwood

Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Bill will entail big council tax rises to pay all the reorganisation costs?

Richard Younger-Ross

The Bill should save money, and we accept the principle that reorganisation should involve a cost saving. However, achieving parity for firefighters could involve an increase in costs, which we would support. That would be reasonable in order to secure equal pay for equal work.

Mr. Hammond

indicated assent.

Richard Younger-Ross

I note that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge nods.

Some spurious arguments were advanced today in respect of a well-thought-out amendment to establish a boundary review. Most people accept that, in this context, the regions of the south-west and the south-east are nonsense. They were created for different purposes and are not suitable as fire authority regions. Regardless of whether the other place can change the Bill's wording, I urge the Minister to accept the need for a boundary review at some point.

We were nearly able to discuss sprinklers and their installation on Report, but we just ran out of time. The Minister gave a very good answer in Committee to the question of fitting sprinklers in new buildings, but we did not address their retrospective fitting. I urge those in the other place to table amendments to establish a review of existing properties, so that we can consider the practicalities of the retrospective fitting of sprinklers in schools, care homes and houses in multiple occupation. The cost of doing so could he saved through reduced insurance costs, and if we can save lives through such retrospective fitting, we should do it. That is not to say that we should give up on passive fire protection systems; rather, we see sprinklers as an additional protection. I urge the Minister to ask his noble Friends in the other place to look at the proposal sympathetically. There is a way forward, and I am sure that suitable wording and processes can be found to make it a reality.

9.49 pm
Mr. Drew

I shall continue the process of handing out plaudits by handing out mine to Ministers. They have listened, and within reason we have made good progress. As the lack of a Division at the end of Third Reading will show, this is a consensual Bill.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said about sprinklers. To an extent, this has been a "something and nothing" Bill. The "something" is that at long last, we are introducing legislation that reflects a modern fire and rescue service, unlike the antiquated legislation that has been in place for so long that most people cannot remember why it was enacted. But other issues, such as sprinklers, have been deliberately avoided or regarded as inappropriate for this Bill. We had a useful debate on such issues in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) spoke very knowledgeably about what needed to be done, as one would expect, given his expertise. The Bill might not be the right vehicle for such matters, but they cannot remain an off-stage discussion.

Mr. Hammond

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and there has been consensus on both sides that once the research has been properly concluded, the issue of sprinklers must be addressed, if appropriate. From his discussion with his right hon. Friend the Minister, is it his understanding that the Secretary of State has the power to move forward on that agenda without the requirement for further primary legislation, or will we be waiting for a further primary legislative opportunity?

Mr. Drew

I certainly believe that that is the case, and I hope that it will be confirmed soon after tonight's debate, but I understand the problem, because that matter will affect other Departments and other Bills. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have heard and taken on board the hon. Gentleman's point.

Richard Younger-Ross

rose—

Mr. Drew

I had better not give way, because we need to allow other people to contribute.

Another point that has been clearly made from this side is that we do not see the Bill as a cuts package in any way. Elements of it may involve a degree of rationalisation, but we have not discussed—

Mr. Redwood

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Drew

No, but I will sit down in a moment to allow the right hon. Gentleman to contribute.

The key issue is how the resources are reallocated. If we want a modern fire and rescue service, working with the other emergency services, it is crucial for it to be properly funded. As I have said on numerous occasions, I have no problem with the regionalisation agenda as a strategic direction, but the Bill is not the way to deliver that, and it must not be used to do the work on the ground. If there are resources available, we must reinvest them not just in equipment but in the people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, are there day and night, doing the work, and are to be commended. If we are to make the fire service fit for purpose in the 21st century—particularly against the background of the developments that we are, sadly, seeing in this world of ours—we must make sure that those people have the resources to do the job properly.

9.52 pm
Mr. Redwood

The hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) are being a little optimistic tonight—perhaps whistling in the dark—knowing as they do that they are under a three-line Whip to vote for the Bill, which I suspect is a harbinger of cuts and reductions in the fire service that they love and want to support.

Mr. Hammond

Just for the record, I should tell my right hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has not been shy, when fire and rescue matters have been before the House in the past, about defying his Government's Whip and voting with the Opposition.

Mr. Redwood

I quite agree, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has reminded the House of the hon. Gentleman's entirely honourable record. I was simply trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman that he should use his independence and freedom yet again, because I think that the Minister is selling him a pup on this important issue.

I fear that this will be a typical Labour modernisation. We will see cuts in the service on the ground, among the people who have to deliver on not-very-good pay, but a massive expansion of bureaucracy, management and the administrative cadres. We will see large-scale recruitment of extra people called regional-this and regional-that: there will be regional chief executives, regional finance directors, regional chief officers, regional deputy chief officers and regional assistant chief officers across the country, who will be on huge salaries with cars and all sorts of perks. At the same time, the Minister will want to achieve some offsetting cost reductions. He will not achieve enough, but I am sure that he will squeeze the service on the ground. He therefore wants to go ahead with the plan to cut the number of centres around the country that deal with the emergencies and allocate the work. That is why he has got it in for the counties: he hopes that he can achieve some savings from demolishing county fire administration and replacing it with much dearer, grander, more expansive and more multi-layered administration at regional level.

Mr. Hammond

rose—

Mr. Redwood

I see that my hon. Friend is provoked yet again.

Mr. Hammond

I was thinking that my right hon. Friend might want to try to provoke the Minister into a response by pointing out that his Department's internal estimates are that the cost of setting up the nine regional control centres, including the cost of redundancies from the existing control centres—because there will be considerable redundancies—is in excess of £100 million. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could provoke the Minister into a denial of that figure.

Mr. Redwood

That is the sort of figure that I would have guessed, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend, who has studied this much more closely than I have, has done this very accurate costing. Of course there are going to be redundancies and cuts—I think that some hon. Members who value the fire service have been misled on this occasion—and of course there will be a massive expansion of jobs and non-jobs as the regions are set up. This is an attempt to drive England into a series of regions that are neither natural, sensible nor efficient. This is not the way in which anyone with any sense of history, tradition, business practice, efficiency or service delivery would organise things.

It makes absolutely no sense to have a fire region covering everywhere from Dover to Milton Keynes, but leaving out London at the very heart of that region, when all the main transport links go through or just round the edge of London within the Greater London area. It makes no sense to suggest that Cornwall, Devon and Somerset all wish to be lumped together. People in Exeter do not want to look to Bristol or Truro; people in Truro do not want to look to Plymouth or Bristol; and people in Bristol are not wild about either Exeter or Plymouth.

It is dangerous for the Government to think that they can impose this "redprint" for ruin, this regionalisation, on the fire service as the soft underbelly of local government in Britain. The Government hope that the counties will not regard this as such a strong attack on themselves as the complete abolition of the counties and their replacement with regional government would be. They hope that they can start the process off by tackling it service by service, and they have picked on the poor fire service in this Bill.

The Minister should think long and hard before trying to destroy the very good administration and delivery that exists in the many county fire services around the country. He should understand their esprit de corps, and their sense of loyalty, place and tradition, which are very important in a badged and uniformed service such as the fire service. He should also understand that there will be no such loyalty or sense of achievement and tradition if he insists on introducing these expensive regional quangos above the county services.

Mr. Hammond

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the responsible level of management is moved further from local communities to regional tiers, it is likely that local people will become more sceptical about whether the integrated risk management plan changes that are being introduced on the ground are really changes for the better and not just cuts? The further away they are, the more likely people are to be sceptical.

Mr. Redwood

My hon. Friend is right. These measures involve cuts in local democracy and accountability and in certain local jobs that need doing, coupled with the massive expansion of a new alien bureaucracy at regional level, which will be dearer, worse and less efficient, and without that sense of place, presence, tradition, efficiency and loyalty that is so important in the delivery of these services in proud metropolitan boroughs and proud counties around our country. England is a country of cities and counties; it is not a country of regions. Regions are entirely artificial constructs, and they cause anger, disagreement and dissension. I have never met anyone in Liverpool who wanted to look to Manchester for their government. I have never found people in Sunderland very willing to accept the sovereignty of Newcastle. Labour Members who represent many of those cities should understand that, and realise just how unpopular—as well as expensive and undesirable—this regionalisation will be.

Unfortunately, once again, there is not enough time to debate the intricacies of the Bill. I would, however, like to make a few comments on charging. We had a very unsatisfactory response from the Minister in our interesting mini-debate on this subject earlier today. At one stage, I thought that he was using his intelligence and common sense to accept our proposition that it would be quite wrong to start charging people who had been damaged in a serious motor accident, when the fire service turned up to rescue them. At one point, he seemed to have rejoined the human race and to be saying, "Yes, that would be inhuman, it would be wrong. I will give the House a guarantee that people will not have to reach for their credit card when the fire service turns up." I then asked him whether he would put that on the face of the Bill, but he said that there was no need, as he had given his word.

My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge then tried to make the words clearer, so that he could then withdraw his amendment that would have prevented such charging, and the Minister backed off. He said that the Bill gave powers, but there was no present plan, and that after the next general election, if the Government were still in office, they might want to look at the matter again, and that perhaps studies would soon emerge that would mean that they would want to do that. He suggested that the power was there, but that perhaps local discretion had to be exercised.

The Minister used weasel words. He left open the possibility that people will be charged when they have had a serious accident. I would be happy to give way if the Minister wants to revise his view and categorically state that that there was never any intention whatever to charge people when they had been involved in accidents in their cars. I see from the Minister's—

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [26 January].

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.