§ 7.40 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Commitee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The LORD HOLDEN in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:
§ Provision of fire services.
§ 1.—(1) It shall be the duty of every fire authority in Great Britain to make provision for fire-fighting purposes, and in particular every fire authority shall secure—
- (f) efficient arrangements for the giving, when requested, of advice in respect of buildings and other property in the area of the fire authority as to fire prevention, restricting the spread of fires, and means of escape in case of fire.
§ LORD FARINGDON moved, in paragraph (f) of subsection (1), after "requested," to insert "or as a result of inspections carried out under paragraph (d) of this subsection,". The noble Lord said: This is really a very simple little point. The intention is that where an inspection has been carried out by a fire prevention officer the officer shall, if as a result of his inspection he feels it to be necessary, make a report to the owner on the point of the condition of the premises which he has inspected. He is directed under this Bill to make such a report already, should he be so requested. I think it is probable that, in actual Let, if, say, any owner of a factory had his factory inspected by a fire prevention officer, he would very naturally put himself in touch with that officer and say: "What is your opinion of my premises? What are your views on its condition?" But there is no direction that such a report shall be made. I think, indeed, that even if the owner did not ask, there is every possibility that the fire prevention officer, or the inspector, or whatever you like to call him, if he found anything, would tell the owner what he had, in fact, found. However, the aim of my Amendment is to make it incumbent on the inspector to make a report to the owner of the building.
§ The present position with regard to the inspection of buildings, from the point of view of fire protection, is really very far from satisfactory. Of course, in London it is covered by the excellent London Building Acts, but apart from that it is covered principally by the Factory Acts. If you read the provisions of the Factory Acts in so far as they deal with fire prevention, you will, I think, inevitably come to the conclusion that the main preoccupation, and indeed very properly the main preoccupation, of the Factory Acts is the safety of the personnel. It deals mainly with things like escapes and so on. There is also, if I remember rightly, a Section 119 which deals with the endangering by their acts of other personnel by persons employed. But that is not really a very workable section, and it is one under which there have been prosecutions on only about ten occasions. It is well known that the number of factory inspectors at the present time is wholly inadequate. That I think is very generally recognized. Moreover, the in- 459 spection from the point of view of fire risks is really a very highly skilled and technical job; indeed, under the Factory Acts there are already provisions for certain specialized inspectors. I suggest that instead of having specialized fire prevention inspectors under the Factory Acts, those particular duties should be placed upon the inspectors who will be sent round by the National Fire Service. That, very briefly, is the point of my Amendment, and I hope that His Majesty's Government may see fit to accept it. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("requested") insert ("or as a result of inspections carried out under paragraph (d) of this subsection").—(Lord Faringdon.)
§ LORD CHORLEYI have some sympathy with the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has just moved to Clause 1 of the Bill, but I regret that we are not able to accept it. The inspections which are made under paragraph (d) of Clause 1 are intended to provide the fire officers with the information which they require for the purposes of their work in fire fighting, so that they may know the buildings which they have to protect, where the water supplies are available, and matters of that kind. Paragraph (f), to which the noble Lord has moved his Amendment, is really a new departure, in that it gives the owner of a particular property the possibility of asking for advice, and the paragraph provides that efficient arrangements shall be made in order that requests for advice of that kind can be met. The Amendment of the noble Lord seeks, in effect, to thrust advice upon the owners of these properties whether they want it or not.
We feel that these matters of fire prevention, which are dealt with for the first time in this Bill, are matters which will have to be built up gradually, and which, quite possibly, a few years hence will require comprehensive legislation. I suggest to your Lordships that it would be rather an unfortunate thing at the present time to go too rapidly with it, and to try to force advice upon persons who, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, will no doubt, when inspections have been made under the earlier paragraph, be only too anxious to ask for information and to accept the advice of the competent fire officers. To thrust it upon them and, 460 in effect, to suggest to them that something is going to be made compulsory at this particular stage, would defeat the very object which the noble Lord has in mind in getting a much more efficient system of fire prevention installed throughout the country. Therefore, I hope he will appreciate that, while we have much sympathy with the object he has in view, we do not feel that the particular method by which he is seeking to achieve it is likely to bring success. In those circumstances I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD FARINGDONOf course, I do not want to delay your Lordships longer than necessary, and I will withdraw my Amendment, although I think the reply of the noble Lord is almost wholly unsatisfactory. The fact of the matter is that I am not suggesting in my Amendment that these inspections should be compulsory. There is no question of an inspector going round to make a report for a set purpose. The point is that where he is asked—in cases, for example, where he has made an inspection in order to inform himself about the risks in a certain building—he shall make a report to the owner of the building, without committing the owner of the building to do anything about the report or anything else. However, there it is. It seems to me, frankly, that the opposition of His Majesty's Government to this Amendment is largely a disinclination to change the shape of their baby's nose. However, I withdraw the Amendment.
§ LORD CHORLEYI would like to point out that the Amendment does not, in fact, have the effect of securing what the noble Lord has just expressed as his intention. The words of it do not do that.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD WALKDENThe next is a drafting Amendment to improve the wording of subsection (2). I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("have") in line 14, and insert:
(2) For the purposes of such arrangements as are mentioned in paragraph (d) of the last foregoing subsection, any member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of this Act shall, if authorised in writing by the authority maintaining the brigade."—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
461§ 7.40 p.m.
§ Clause 2:
§ Arrangements for mutual assistance.
§ (4) A fire authority shall not be entitled to receive any payment in respect of any assistance provided by them under a reinforcement scheme, so however that nothing in this subsection shall prevent provision being made in the scheme for apportioning between the fire authorities concerned, in such proportions as may be specified by or under the scheme, expenses incurred in taking measures to secure the efficient operation of the scheme.
§ LORD WALKDEN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words down to and including "scheme," where that word first occurs, and insert "(4) A reinforcement scheme may make provision," The noble Lord said: It would be very convenient if we could take this Amendment which stands in my name together with the other Amendment on Clause 3. They are both small Amendments, of which the intention is to remove certain doubts. The purpose is to provide expressly that a fire authority should not make any charge for services rendered. It is designed to make it quite clear that the fire authority cannot be required to call upon owners or occupiers of property on which fires occur to make any payment in respect of services rendered. The Fire Brigades Act of 1938, which is now being repealed, provided for the abolition of such charges, and it was feared that some doubt might arise as to the intention of Parliament if the Amendment to Clause 3 is not made. Therefore, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 13, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 16 and insert—("(4) A reinforcement scheme may make provision").—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3:
§ Supplementary powers of fire authorities.
§ (2) Before exercising the powers conferred by paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection in relation to any trunk road a fire authority shall obtain the consent of the Minister of Transport, and before exercising those powers in relation to any road maintained by a highway authority, other than the Minister of Transport or the fire authority, they shall obtain the consent of the highway authority maintaining the road; and— 462
- (b) the said powers shall not be exercised except after consultation with the chief officer of police for the area in which the fire alarms are to be placed.
§ LORD ADDINGTON moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "chief officer of police" and insert "police authority." The noble Lord said: There is a little history attaching to this. I understand an Amendment to that effect was moved in Standing Committee in another place, but was withdrawn because the impression was given that these words would be deleted by the Minister who is in charge. Owing to some adjustment, they were re-inserted in a different place on Report stage, so the matter is where it was. The point really is that it is considered that it is not appropriate that any council should really consult an official, whether appointed by themselves or by somebody else, and the persons whom they really want the authority to consult are the police authority and not any specified person. There is no objection to consulting with the police authority; no doubt, the matter would come to that officer for report. It is a matter of principle in the matter of consultations between authorities and, although I think some similar words appear in the Act of 1938, it is felt that the position is not satisfactory. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, leave oat ("chief officer of police") and insert ("police authority"). —(Lord Addington.)
§ LORD CHORLEYGenerally speaking, of course, I should agree with the argument put forward by the noble Lord but, on this occasion, really, it would be quite impracticable to accept this Amendment, because the effect would be to make it impossible for the particular job of work which is aimed at in this clause to be rapidly and effectively carried through. For example, just to take the London County Council area, the Secretary of State is the police authority, and it would mean that every little matter of this kind would have to be referred to the Secretary of State. In areas where the police authority is the standing joint committee, it would cause all sorts of difficulties. As the noble Lord has pointed out, there has been more than one Statute in which consultation with some particular official in regard to a technical matter dealt with 463 by the Statute has been provided for. In this case I should have thought this sort of small technical matter would be better dealt with by consultation with the police chief and the fire authority concerned. I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
§ LORD ADDINGTONI am glad that the noble Lord agrees that the principle that I brought forward is a sound one. In this case there seem to be reasons for not adopting the Amendment. In the circumstances I will not press it and I ask leave to withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD WALKDENI beg to move the words printed on the Paper.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 47, at end insert:
("(4) Save as expressly provided in this Act, a fire authority shall not make any charge for services rendered by the authority.")—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ 7.35 p.m.
§ Clause 4 [County and county borough councils to be fire authorities]:
§ LORD WALKDENThis again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD ADDINGTON moved to add to the clause:
Where, on the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the population of a non-county borough, as estimated by the Registrar General, exceeded one half of the population of the administrative county comprising the borough, as so estimated, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the borough as if it were a county borough, and references in this Act to county borough and to non-county boroughs shall be construed accordingly.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which sounds rather long, is meant to provide for two special circumstances where the population of a non-county borough exceeds half of the population of the whole county including that borough. It follows the precedent of Section 17, subsection (1), of the Police Act, for police purposes. There, just as in this case, the non-county boroughs lost their police powers in the same way
464
as they lost their powers as fire authorities. In the exceptional case where the population of the non-county borough is larger than that of the rest of the county to which the power would go, I understand they will retain the position of a police authority.
§ There are just two cases in point. The main one, perhaps, is Peterborough, where the population of the City of Peterborough is, I believe, 48,000, and that of the rest of the Soke of Peterborough only 9,000. Therefore, out of a total population of 57,000, the City of Peterborough contains 48,000, and it is thought that in that case the City should be the police authority rather than the Soke of Peterborough. The second case is that of Cambridge, in which the population of the Borough of Cambridge is 78,000 while that of the county including the borough is only 140,000. In other words, the population of the county, excluding the borough, is smaller than that of the borough itself. It is thought that in such cases the precedent of the Police Act should be followed, and the council of the non-county borough should be the fire authority. The principle seems to be the same and, therefore, I beg to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD FARINGDONI hope that His Majesty's Government will resist this Amendment. As this seems to be a suitable occasion, I will ask His Majesty's Government to note certain observations I made on Second Reading when I really received no very adequate reply. This clearly is a case, like so many others, where the answer lies in combination. What I gather the noble Lord wants to do is to set up two authorities where in fact it is suggested under the Act there should be one.
§ LORD ADDINGTONTo switch the authority round—instead of the county being the authority the borough is the authority and absorbs the county.
LORD FARINGDONI thought the noble Lord wanted to make two authorities out of one. As a matter of fact, what I wanted to press upon the Government was the desirability of encouraging com- 465 binations—I raised this point on Second Reading—and I do hope that the Government will give assurances that they will encourage such combinations before those schemes are made, because it is going to give local authorities great trouble if they have to make schemes now.
§ LORD CHORLEYI think the point which has been made by Lord Faringdon really comes under Clause 5, which deals with schemes for combination of fire authorities; and I am very glad to assure him that my right honourable friend has very much in mind the extreme importance of schemes of combination of fire authorities. That was brought home very forcibly, as the noble Lord knows, during the years of the war, in which the autonomy of different authorities in connexion with their fire brigades very frequently led to great difficulties in wartime fire-fighting during enemy attack. So I can assure him that this is one of the matters which is very much in the mind of my right honourable friend, and he will take every opportunity of encouraging such combinations.
With regard to the noble Lord's Amendment: as he has pointed out it is modelled on a section of the Police Act of 1946, which was inserted with the express purpose of preserving the rights of the Borough of Cambridge and the City of Peterborough in connexion with their separate police forces. As I pointed out, I think, to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, a police force is really quite different from a fire force, and it is not right to press analogies between them. A fire service is really not comparable with a police service. It is a much more mobile service, and a more technical service. The arguments against small units, I think, are much stronger in connexion with the fire service than with the police service, though very necessary combinations of small police services which have been carried out under the Act, I am sure everyone will agree, have been successful; and they were certainly overdue.
Then again there is perhaps something to be said on the grounds of tradition and prestige for preserving an historic police force. But that argument certainly cannot be applied in relation to a completely new set-up of the kind that is contemplated under this Bill. It is possible—indeed I am not sure that a more correct word would not be "probable"—that 466 the present investigations of the Local Government Boundary Commission may easily affect these particular local authorities. In that case we should be inserting a completely useless clause in the Bill. Most important of all, under Clause 20 and also under the First Schedule and Clause 21, which go together, provision is made for consultation with county districts by the new county fire authorities in the preparation of their county establishment schemes. Under Clause 21, in particular, county districts have to be given representation on the county fire brigade committee. I think that bearing these important safeguards in mind, the noble Lord will agree with me that when the time comes it will be perfectly easy to provide that the City of Peterborough and the Borough of Cambridge will in fact play an effective and proper part in connexion with their local fire services, and that they should have no difficulty at all in getting their interest in the fire service adequately represented upon the committee which will play such an important part in the matter. In those circumtances I think the noble Lord will agree with me that an Amendment of this kind is hardly necessary.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREI desire to ask my noble friend not to press this Amendment. Of course it is in general terms, and I must say that at first it frightened me greatly. It is not even confined in terms to Peterborough and Cambridge; had it been I should not have been quite so frightened. But it does open up a vista of an enormous increase in the number of authorities, and it does seem to me that the one hope of efficient working of this Bill all over the country rests in the fact that you are to have as few authorities as possible. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend. Lord Addington, will take the advice of the noble Lord who has just spoken and will be satisfied that there are other ways by which the City of Peterborough and the Borough of Cambridge may perhaps get their own way in the end.
§ LORD ADDINGTONI am very glad to respond to the suggestion which has been made to me. I certainly did not wish to alarm my noble friend the Earl of Donoughmore, in any way. Probably arrangements will be made quite adequately under the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has 467 referred. On the face of it, however, it does seem rather absurd that power should be taken from a larger authority and given to one that is really smaller than the one from which it is taken. It may well be, as the noble Lord says, that adjustments will be made to boundaries, and even that these counties themselves may not remain independent fire units. In the circumstances, having raised the point and having heard the Government reply, I will not press the Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 5 to 12 agreed to.
§ Clause 13:
§ Transitional provisions.
§ (3) The Secretary of State may after consultation with such associations representing local authorities as appear to him to be concerned by regulations make such transitional provision as appears to him expedient in consequence of the transfer to fire authorities of functions relating to fire services of the Secretary of State and of authorities which were fire authorities for the purposes of the Fire Brigades Act, 1938, and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this subsection) regulations under this subsection may provide—
- (d) for the transfer to fire authorities of property, rights and liabilities vested, enjoyed or incurred on behalf of His Majesty for the purposes of the National Fire Service, for the carrying on by fire authorities of arrangements (including arrangements for the making of payments) entered into on behalf of the Crown for those purposes, and for the vesting in fire authorities of property used on behalf of His Majesty for the said purposes but vested in any authority being a fire authority for the purposes of the Fire Brigades Act, 1938;
- (e) for the reimbursement of interest and redemption charges incurred, by an authority for the purposes of the said Act of 1938, in respect of moneys borrowed in connexion with property vested in pursuance of the last foregoing paragraph, for rendering the fire authority in which the property is so vested liable for the reimbursement, and for the determination by the Minister of Health of questions arising under this paragraph;
§ 8.6 p.m.
§ LORD ADDINGTON moved in paragraph (d) of subsection (3) at the end to insert: "and formerly used by them for the purposes of their duties as fire authorities." The noble Lord said: This 468 Amendment relates to Clause 13 (3). This regulates the transfer to the new fire authorities of property which is used by the National Fire Service but which belongs to local authorities that will not be fire authorities under the Bill. That is to say, it deals with property belonging to the non-county boroughs, and to urban and rural districts. As paragraph (d) now stands, the Bill deprives these small authorities of property which they purchased for some municipal purpose quite other than fire purposes, although, for reasons of emergency and patriotism, the National Fire Service or often the A.F.S., before the National Fire Service started, were allowed to use them during the war.
§ It is thought that such a transfer would be most unjust, and therefore the Amendment is designed to prevent such a result. But it will not prevent a transfer to the new fire authorities of the property which the smaller authorities acquire specifically for fire purposes. Under the Bill as at present drafted only two tests require to be satisfied in order to decide whether property owned by a non-county borough or an urban or rural district is to vest in the county council. The tests are: first, that the property is now vested (for any purpose whatsoever) in an authority which was a fire authority for the purpose of the Fire Brigades Act of 1938—that is to say a non-county borough, urban district or rural district. The second test is that it is now used for National Fire Service purposes.
§ There are a good many cases, but I will just quote two instances which illustrate the kind of injustice with which the Amendment is intended to deal. In June 1938, a non-county borough purchased house and grounds as a corporation estate at a cost of about £3,000. I understand that the purpose was to establish a museum. But they had not got that purpose fully carried out when the war broke out, so, the place being acquired and not being adapted to the use for which it was intended, the A.F.S. were allowed to use it during the war. It was later taken over and is still occupied by the National Fire Service. Another instance relates to a house purchased by a non-county borough just before the war for road-widening purposes. There was not time before the outbreak of the war to demolish the house or to proceed with the road-widening proposals and there again it was naturally 469 adopted by the National Fire Service for the purpose of a depot.
§ In both these cases, and no doubt many more where property required for demolition for slum clearance was unoccupied and used by the National Fire Service, that property would be acquired by the county council free of compensation. That is one thing this Amendment is intended to avoid. Without this Amendment the National Fire Service, owing to its vast expansion during the war, has many more properties which were used during the war, and are still used, than were originally required for the peace-time service. The new fire authority would not require all these extended properties, and the Amendment is intended to provide that any property acquired by former fire authorities for the purposes of the then National Fire Service should not be acquired, certainly not without compensation, by the new fire authorities. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 16, at end, insert ("and formerly used by them for the purposes of their duties as fire authorities").—(Lord Addington.)
§ LORD CHORLEYI regret I have to disappoint the noble Lord again. I think he has overlooked the fact that these regulations are entirely permissive. There is no question of automatically taking over these properties belonging to local authorities. The clause requires the Secretary of State to consult the local authorities associations before making regulations, and there is no reason why the regulations should not provide safeguards for dealing with the sort of property the noble Lord has in mind. I think he will agree that each of these properties ought to be dealt with on its merits. Many of them were depôts or something of that kind taken over by the National Fire Service during the war, and very considerable works have been carried out on them, works on which the whole efficiency of the fire service may depend, and it would really be rather absurd that they should be handed back to the local authority in the way this Amendment suggests. Moreover, apart from that aspect, the county council and county borough council which will be the fire authority have to face the task of building up their own organization, and in many cases the efficiency of their fire 470 service would depend largely on their being able to take over property of this very kind. On the other hand, there will obviously be properties which are no longer required, and there should be no difficulty at all about their rendition to the non-county borough or district council which previously had possession of them and is in a position to make vary much better use of them. I am sure the noble Lord, on reflection, will agree that since these regulations are permissive and proper arrangements can be made under them, there is no real reason why he should press this Amendment.
§ LORD ADDINGTONIf I can have an assurance that the transfer will not be automatic, and the regulations will cover all these properties used by the fire services, I will not press the Amendment now.
§ LORD CHORLEYI will very gladly give the assurance that it is not intended to be an automatic transfer.
§ LORD ADDINGTONI will not press the Amendment at this stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD WALKDEN moved, in paragraph (e) of subsection (3), after "1938" to insert "which does not on the appointed day become a fire authority." The noble Lord said: It will be convenient if we take this Amendment and the one immediately following together. They arise from representations made by the county councils. Clause 13 (3) (e) as drafted did not empower the Secretary of State to transfer to the new fire authorities liability for paying the debt charges on appliances bought by means of a loan under the 1938 Act, in the case of those appliances which have been scrapped or which may have been destroyed, for instance, by enemy action. It would be wrong to leave with county district councils the liability to pay loan charges on fire appliances which are in fact no longer available, and these liabilities ought to be transferred to the county councils. At first sight this may seem rather odd, but such transfer is seen to be equitable when account is taken of the fact that the appliances will have been replaced by new appliances, and the fire service is to be transferred to the new fire authorities as a going concern without compensation being required to be 471 paid by county councils, either to the State or to the old fire authorities. The County Councils Association have been consulted about this Amendment and have agreed to the wording we have put down; therefore I am sure your Lordships will endorse it. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, after ("1938") insert ("which does not on the appointed day become a fire authority").—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD WALKDENThis is a consequential Amendment. I move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("for firefighting purposes, for rendering liable for the reimbursement the fire authority for the area including the area of the first mentioned authority").—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD WALKDENThis is a drafting Amendment. I move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 30, leave out ("for that area or").—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to
§
LORD WALKDEN moved, after sub-section 3 to insert:
(4) Where property used and vested as mentioned in paragraph (d) of the last foregoing subsection cannot conveniently be severed from other property vested in the authority last mentioned in that paragraph, but not so used—
Any question arising in connection with the operation of this subsection shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
§ The noble Lord said: This rather long Amendment arises from an assurance given in another place when the Bill was under consideration there. In the discussion on this Amendment, the Secretary of State expressed sympathy with the viewpoint developed by Opposition speakers, and gave the assurance that regulations to be framed under this clause shall provide that there will be consultation between the new and the old fire authorities as regards the property which is in use both for fire service purposes and other purposes of the county district council, and that, in the absence of agreement between the two authorities as to the appropriate course to pursue, the matter should be submitted to the arbitration of the Secretary of State. The Amendment to Clause 13 to insert an additional subsection (4) is necessary to give effect to the undertaking given by the Home Secretary. It has been fully agreed with the Municipal Corporations Association and I hope your Lordships will endorse it. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Walkden.)
§ LORD ADDINGTONThe noble Lord has moved an Amendment which covers rather the same ground as the one I have on the Marshalled List. There is only one difference into which the noble Lord might inquire. I understand his Amendment would cover only cases where there are two buildings the use of which cannot be separated one from the other. The point which I think may not be covered is where a single building is used for two purposes. I would like him to consider the matter before the next stage and see whether the point my Amendment was intended to cover cannot be incorporated in the words he intends to use. The intention of this Amendment, which also comes from the municipal authorities, is to avoid certain difficulties that arise under Section 13 (b) of the Police Act. If the noble Lord will have a look at that point, I will not move the next Amendment.
§ LORD WALKDENI can give the noble Lord an assurance that we will look into it. I had rather hoped that my larger Amendment would fully meet his case, and enable him to withdraw his Amendment.
§ LORD ADDINGTONThere is just that small point.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD WALKDEN moved, after subsection (7), to insert:
( ) The provisions of the Police Act, 1946, as to the transfer of property, rights and liabilities from the council of an area ceasing to be a separate police area to the council of a county or to a combined police authority—
The noble Lord said: The subject dealt with here is rather technical, and has relation to the position of ex-police constables who serve as firemen. It is bound up with another Act of Parliament. The facts are that the Amendment relates to a number of firemen—about 1,000 in all, I understand—who until the formation of the National Fire Service were police firemen. The police fireman was a policeman employed on fire-fighting duties. He had the full status of other policemen. He was a member of a police force. He was sworn in as a constable, and he held his superannuation rights under the Police Pensions Acts. When the National Fire
474
Service was formed, whole-time police firemen were transferred to the service and ceased to be constables. For pension purposes services in the National Fire Service was deemed to be service in the police force from which they were transferred. The Police Act, 1946, required the police forces of non-county boroughs to be amalgamated with the county police forces, and among the forces which thus ceased to have a separate existence were a number of forces which had included police firemen. The Police Act makes provision in such cases for the pension liability of the defunct police authority to be transferred to the new authority—that is, the county.
and (without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) of this subsection) the provisions of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to the said Act of 1946 as to the treatment of pensions, allowances and gratuities granted before the date of transfer in respect of members of a transferred force shall apply, and be deemed always to have applied, to pensions, allowances and gratuities granted before that date to members of the National Fire Service whose service therein fell by virtue of regulations made under the said Act of 1941 to be treated as service in the transferred force.
§ As, however, the police firemen were no longer members of the defunct force at the time of its amalgamation (although they were deemed to be serving in that force for pension purposes), some doubt has arisen as to their present pension position, and the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the pension functions of the defunct police authority were in fact transferred at the appointed day of the Police Act, April 1, 1947. Other property and liabilities held or incurred in connexion with the provision of fire services by the defunct police authorities have not been transferred to the county, although they will, of course, be so transferred on the appointed day of this Bill. We were advised that the insertion of the Amendment relating to pensions might cast doubt on the position as regards other property, and paragraph (b) was included to remove any doubts on that score. I think it covers both points adequately, and I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 3, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 14 to 26, agreed to.
§ 8.23 p.m.
§ Clause 27:
§ Firemen's Pension Scheme.
§ (2) The Firemen's Pension Scheme (hereafter in this and the next following section referred to as "the Scheme") may provide—
- (i) for excluding in the case of an injury in respect of which an award is made by a fire authority under the Scheme, any other right to compensation or damages from the authority in respect of that injury or the
475 consequences thereof, so however that no provision made by virtue of this paragraph shall affect any right under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or the National Insurance Act, 1946;
§ LORD WALKDENThe Amendments to the bottom of the page are all drafting Amendments, and it might be convenient to take them together. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 25, line 22, leave out ("provide") and insert ("include provision").
§ line 39, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment").
§ line 40, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment").
§ line 43, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment").
§ line 45, leave out ("of the service") and insert ("of service in employment").
§ Page 26, line 10, leave out from ("any") to beginning of line 11 and insert ("employment specified under").—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ LORD WALKDENThe next Amendment is a consequential Amendment on an Amendment we have already agreed in respect of Clause 13. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 14, leave out from ("authority") to ("of") in line 15 and insert ("by which a person has been employed in employment specified under paragraph (b) of this subsection or which has incurred any liability in respect of the payment of a pension in the event of a person's retirement from employment so specified"). —(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD WALKDENThe next three Amendments are all drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 26, line 17, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment")
§ line 23, leave out from ("employment") to ("paragraph") in line 24 and insert ("specified under")
§ line 31, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment").—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§
LORD WALKDEN moved, in paragraph (i) of subsection (2) after "for excluding," to leave out all words down to and including "in respect of that" and insert:
or modifying, in the case of an injury in respect of which an award is made under the
476
Scheme, being an injury sustained in the execution of duty in such circumstances as may be specified in the Scheme, any other right against the Crown or other authority in whose employment the injury occurred to compensation or damages in respect of the.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to provide injured people with an alternative remedy at law. It is intended to re-enact substantially an existing provision in the Fire Brigade Pensions Act (which is now being repealed), the point of which was that a fireman should not be able to prosecute an alternative claim for damages—for example, at Common Law, or under the Workmen's Compensation Acts—in respect of an injury sustained on duty, and at the same time to draw a pension under the Act in respect of that injury. The provision could not, however, be re-enacted without alteration, because the injured fireman in future must receive his injury pension under the National Insurance Scheme, which is the successor to the Workmen's Compensation Acts. There remains, however, the question of alternative remedies—for example, at Common Law—and the Bill, as drafted, was designed to exclude them. That is what we want to correct.
§ The subsection, however, is too widely drawn, and operates in cases in which it was never intended to be applied. An Amendment is, therefore, necessary. That being so, the opportunity is being taken to modify the subsection so as to allow the Secretary of State, when he comes to frame the scheme after appropriate consultations, either to exclude any form of compensation other than the injury pension or, alternatively, to abate in respect of the injury pension the amount of such compensation. The reason for this is that the Government have under consideration the whole question of alternative remedies, and it is intended eventually to introduce a Bill to deal with the matter. The Secretary of State must have sufficient freedom of action to make our scheme accord with the decision of Parliament. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 44, leave out from ("excluding") to ("injury") in line 47, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question, Whether the clause, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
477LORD FARINGDONOn this clause I would rather like to put a question to the noble Lord in connexion with certain remarks which I made on the Second Reading. I referred then to Fire Service gratuities. The point is one which I made at some length and I will not make it again. I have no doubt that the noble Lord on the Front Bench has a note of what I then said in connexion with the slight anomaly which arises here. Men who came into the fire service during the war and who have remained on in the fire service will draw a war gratuity which they can use to pay their arrears of pension contributions, whereas a regular fire service officer will not have received the gratuity and will, of course, have paid the contributions out of his salary during the war. It is suggested that it might be possible to treat war service in those cases as counting two years for one. I believe that in actual fact this is already possible under a fire service order, but it is only used nowadays in particular cases where it is required to facilitate retirement.
§ LORD CHORLEYThere is, of course, a good deal of feeling, and not unnaturally so, among firemen upon this particular matter. It results from a decision which was taken under the Coalition Government that certain types of men— policemen, firemen and others who were employed in their own occupations during the war years—should not be eligible for war gratuities on the basis that they were doing the jobs for which they had enlisted in the various kinds of service, whereas other men who were doing it specially as a war-time job would be granted gratuities. The grievance to which the noble Lord has drawn attention results from that decision, and it is one which cannot be righted by this two years' scheme in the way he has suggested. It would obviously be quite impossible to apply that particular remedy, which is on the face of it not a very satisfactory one, as I think most people will agree. Even if it were more satisfactory than I suggest it is, it could not be accepted with regard to policemen, railwaymen and other types of workers. That would involve a very wide range of men of one kind or another, and it goes far beyond the scope of a Bill of this kind. Therefore, whilst I recognize that the noble Lord speaks on behalf of men who feel keenly about this 478 matter, I hope that he will agree that there is no practical remedy for it.
LORD FARINGDONIt is very unsatisfactory, if I may say so, to be offered sympathy where what one really wants is a loaf. The noble Lord appears to appreciate the justice of the feeling which I have been expressing, but also to take the line that there is nothing to be done about it. The possible solution I offered was not one to which I myself was particularly attached, but I believe that there are even greater difficulties in the way of granting a gratuity. I do suggest that if His Majesty's Government recognize the justice of it they should find some method of righting it.
§ Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
§ 8.35 p.m.
§ Clause 28:
§ Firemen's Pension Scheme to supersede other statutory schemes.
§ …if any person—
- (i) who was a member of the former brigade immediately before the eighteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-one; or
- (ii) who by virtue of having been a member of the former brigade was designated under paragraph (1) (b) of regulation 3 of the National Fire Service (Preservation of Pensions) (Police Firemen) Regulations, 1941, as a person in whose case those regulations should have effect; or
- (iii) who immediately before the said eighteenth day of August was engaged in service or work in such circumstances that under the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act, 1939, his service or work fell to be treated as a period of approved service in the former brigade; and
- (iv) who in any case becomes on the appointed day or on the termination thereafter of such service or work as aforesaid a member of the former brigade,
§
LORD FARINGDON moved, in subsection (2), after "brigade," where that word last occurs, to insert:
or in cases where since there is no vacancy he cannot return to his former brigade on signature of an undertaking to return at any time when a vacancy may occur.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises from a rather curious fact in this Bill. Where men have belonged to a
479
brigade in which the pension rights are more favourable than they are to be under this Act, if they return to their original authority the men will be entitled to benefit from the pension terms of that authority. The principal authorities involved here are, I think, London, Birmingham and perhaps Leicester and Leeds—but anyhow several of the county boroughs. Unfortunately, whilst no doubt the men concerned would be willing to return there are no vacancies for them. For example, I understand that there are about 300 men who desire to return to London, where, however, the establishment is complete. Again, I think there are some 44 men who might desire to return to Birmingham. It would, therefore, seem extremely unjust that a man should be debarred from the advantages of a pension scheme to which he has subscribed in the past by the fact that he cannot fulfil the terms under this Act which would entitle him to it. My Amendment is aimed at giving him these advantages on signature of a certificate to say that he is willing to return to his original authority at any time there is a vacancy. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 17, after ("brigade") insert the said words.—(Lord Faringdon.)
§ LORD CHORLEYThe noble Lord's Amendment is really founded upon a misconception, the misconception being that these firemen will not be able to return to their former brigades. Actually, all professional firemen will have the option of returning to their former brigades or, of course, of accepting a post in one of the other brigades. It may be that they will not be able to return to their old brigades at the rank which they had won in other parts of the country as members of the National Fire Service. Obviously, it would not be practicable that every officer should be given an option of returning to his old brigade at the substantive rank which he has since achieved. But he will have the option of returning to his old brigade, and he will have to make up his mind whether he wants to go back at a lower rank or retain his position at the higher rank in the brigade in which he served during the war years. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is a reasonable option and really remedies the sort of 480 grievance which the noble Lord had in moving this Amendment.
LORD FARINGDONI take it that what the noble Lord has said is correct, but I must confess that it is somewhat of a surprise to me. Of course I had not suggested for one moment that officers would be able to go back at the rank which they had obtained. As we are on this subject, may I ask the noble Lord another point which arises on the question of returning to a lower post? It is felt very strongly by the officers of the service that they might well receive some compensation for loss of office in cases where they have to return to the rank they held before the war, because had they remained with their own authority there is no doubt that they would, in the natural course of events, whether in peace time or in war time, have obtained very considerable promotion. Because they may have gone into the provinces and there done quite invaluable work, they may have to go back to the rank which they held before the war, and this is a matter which does seem to them to impose a certain hardship.
First of all, perhaps the noble Lord could reassure me that he is quite satisfied that all officers can go back to their original authorities—which I confess surprises me a little—and secondly that the Government will consider paying some compensation if these men are to wipe out the whole of their service during the war years. I am not talking about the rank they may have attained, because it may be a considerably greater rank, but in a matter of seven years any man does expect to make certain advances in his career. To have to return to the same situation as he was in seven years earlier would, I suggest, impose very considerable hardship.
§ LORD CHORLEYOn the first point the noble Lord raised, I repeat what I have already said, and I give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. All professional firemen will have the option of returning to their former brigades. With regard to the last matter, I really cannot give him a categorical undertaking that nobody will suffer, but it seems to me that it is very unlikely indeed that there will be any cases of the kind he suggests. If there are one or two, obviously they will not be in a worse position than many men 481 in the Armed Services of the Crown who achieved high rank and have had to go back to civilian occupations at a much reduced one. These are men who have done distinguished service in many parts of the country, and I think there can be no question that practically every one of them will be given the opportunity of service in the new county and county borough brigades at a much higher rank than that which they originally held in the brigade from which they came. Obviously there may be exceptions to that, but I think we may take it that they will be very rare indeed.
LORD FARINGDONI thank the noble Lord very much for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 28 agreed to.
§ Clause 29 [Supplementary provisions as to preservation of pensions, etc.]:
§ LORD WALKDENThe whole of these six Amendments are closely related. They are all drafting Amendments. I am sure your Lordships will agree to them. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 31, line 16, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment")
§ line 23, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment")
§ line 24, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment")
§ line 25, leave out ("service") and insert ("employment")
§ line 31, leave out ("service or")
§ line 33, leave out ("service or")—(Lord Walkden).
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 30 to 36, agreed to.
§ 8.42 p.m.
§ Clause 37:
§ Application to Scotland.
§ (2) For any reference to the Minister of Health there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State; for any reference to a county borough there shall be substituted a reference to a large burgh within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1929), and any other burgh shall be deemed to be included within the county in which it is situate; the expressions "county" and "council" mean, in relation to counties combined for the purposes mentioned in subsection (7) of Section 482 ten of the Act of 1929, the combined county and the joint county council; for any reference to a county district there shall be substituted a reference to a small burgh within the meaning of the Act of 1920; for any reference to a combination scheme there shall be substituted a reference to an administration scheme; for any reference to statutory water undertakers there shall be substituted a reference to a local water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946; for references to the Water Act, 1945, and to Sections thirty-two to thirty-four and thirty-six of the Third Schedule thereto there shall be respectively substituted references to the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, and to sections nineteen to twenty-one and twenty-three of the Fourth Schedule thereto; for references to the chief officer and deputy chief officer of a fire brigade there shall be respectively substituted references to a firemaster and a deputy firemaster; and any reference to a fire authority shall, unless the context otherwise requires, he construed as including a reference to a joint committee constituted in pursuance of the provisions hereinafter contained.
§ (3) It shall be the duty of the councils of the counties and large burghs comprised in any one of the areas set forth in the Fourth Schedule to this Act to prepare and submit to the Secretary of State within three months after the passing of this Act a scheme (herein-, after referred to as an "administration scheme") for the provision in that area of the services required by Section one of this Act, and the Secretary of State may by order approve any scheme so submitted to him.
§ LORD MORRISONThis is a drafting Amendment. I move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 7, leave out from ("thereto") to end of line 9, and insert ("for any reference, in relation to a fire brigade, to the chief officer, there shall be substituted a reference to the firemaster").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD FARINGDON moved in subsection (2), to leave out "for references to the chief officer and deputy chief officer of a fire brigade there shall be respectively substituted references to a firemaster and a deputy firemaster," and to insert:
references to the chief officer or deputy chief officer shall apply to persons who in the past have held the positions of firemaster and deputy firemaster, these officers in the future to be known by the same designation as in England.
The noble Lord said: This is a matter which I mentioned on the Second Reading. I confess it is a Scottish affair, in which I tread rather warily, though, being wholly Scottish in my origins, I may claim some little right to speak; but in this case I am informed that the Scottish Office desire a change in their title.
483
I dare say His Majesty's Government have more information on the point than I have. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 7, leave out from ("thereto") to the end of line 9, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Faringdon.)
§ THE EARL OF ROSEBERYI hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. After all, "firemaster" is a very old term. If you call a man a firemaster you know what he is. If you call a man a chief officer he may be something in any other body—it may be the Navy or some other Service. I should say that if the Government wished to make any alteration at all they might call chief officers in England and Wales "fire-masters" and "deputy firemasters."
§ LORD MORRISONThe noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, raised this question on the Second Reading. I should be interested to know on what evidence he based his statement, as the Scottish Home Department has no evidence that there is any such desire on the part of Scottish fire officers. The Scottish title "fire-master" has a long and honourable tradition behind it, and inquiries instituted since the Amendment was put down have failed to reveal any desire for the proposed change.
LORD FARINGDONI entirely share the feeling of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and I would much prefer to use the word "firemaster". But this matter was put to me by the Officers' Association and I assumed that they had had contacts with the Scottish officers; therefore I put down the Amendment. I realize that the noble Lord has had inquiries made, but I will myself prosecute inquiries, and should I be convinced that there is such a demand—and I believe that people should be called what they like to be called—I shall put down an Amendment on the Report stage. With that proviso, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "within three months after the passing of this Act" and insert
before the first day of January nineteen hundred and forty-eight or such later date as the Secretary of State may in special circumstances allow.
484
The noble Lord said: Under the Bill as originally drafted it was contemplated that the administration scheme should be drawn up and approved by the Secretary of State within three months of the passing of the Bill, the establishments being determined thereafter. In terms, however, of the new Clause 20 and of the Second Schedule moved in Committee in another place, establishment matters are to form part of the administration schemes for the joint areas and the joint committees will have to submit that part in draft to the councils of all the small burghs in their areas. In these circumstances it seemed appropriate to extend the three months' time limit originally proposed for the preparation of administration schemes to the same limit as is proposed in Clause 20 for the preparation of establishment schemes by fire authorities in England and Wales—namely, January 1, 1948, "or such later date as the Secretary of State may in special circumstances allow." I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 17, leave out ("within three months after the passing of this Act") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MORRISON moved to leave out paragraph (f) of subsection (4). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 44, leave out paragraph (f). —(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MORRISONThis is a drafting Amendment. I move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 11, leave out from ("in") to ("including") and insert ("connexion with the provision of fire services").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MORRISONThis Amendment and the next are drafting Amendments to correct the inadvertent restriction of the application of the sanctions against disclosure of trade secrets such as may be obtained in entering factories and workshops. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 13, leave out ("a factory, workshop or workplace") and insert ("any premises"). —(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 15, leave out ("in the factory, workshop or workplace") and insert ("therein").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD MORRISONThis is a drafting Amendment. I move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 8, after ("grants") insert ("in respect of expenditure incurred by them").—(Lord Morrison.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
(23) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the provisions of this Act are unduly onerous and unlikely to provide a satisfactory service, he may by regulation exempt, conditionally or unconditionally, any areas or portions of areas mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to this Act from all or any of the provisions of this Act.
§ The noble Earl said: If I may move this Amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, I should like to point out that there is a fundamental difference in this Bill between England and Scotland. Whereas the Bill in England is creating local fire authorities, it is not doing so in Scotland. I think the noble Lord knows that when this was discussed in another place there was criticism of the Bill from all sides. The two big associations, the Association of County Councils and the Convention of Royal Burghs, did not agree to the terms in which the Bill has been framed. It is true that their criticism was in somewhat opposite directions. Nevertheless they did not agree with the form which the Bill in fact took. We are not taking this matter very far here, but we thought that a wider measure of discretion should be allowed to the Secretary of State in applying the measure.
§ May I show the diversity of the Scottish aspect as compared with the English aspect? I ask your Lordships to look at Clause 5, which concerns a voluntary scheme of combination of fire authorities. If you look in the Fourth Schedule in which the combined areas in Scotland are specified, however, there is no question of a voluntary association at all. How the 486 northern combination, consisting of Zetland, the Orkneys, the Outer Hebrides, and the crofting counties, will form into effective areas in three months' time, I do not know. All this Amendment is trying to do is to bring some wider latitude into a Bill which is, in fact, not an agreed one. I would like to move the Amendment with this alteration: taking out the word "exempt" appearing in the third line, and inserting the word "modify".
§ I think that the burden of this Bill on certain of the outlying counties will be very heavy. In the seven crofting counties it will cost £35,000 a year to run. That means an 8d. rate. The rate is already extremely high and I do not think an increase is necessary or right. The position may improve next year. No doubt it may be improved by Government grant. But this Bill should stand on its own merits. Finally the scheme itself has really a very limited value to outlying places. It will be of value to Inverness, to Dingwall, and to Fort William, but to the Feat areas of the country in outlying places it is of no value at all. Access is very difficult, and when you do get to the place there are no hydrants. It will also be a heavy burden on the taxpayers, and will bring great difficulties. If the Government will allow this wider measure of discretion to the Secretary of State it will give satisfaction, and I think, in the circumstances, it is justified. I beg leave to move the Amendment as it stands.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ THE EARL OF ROSEBERYI should like to support what my noble friend has said. I confess that I could not have supported Lord Lovat, and I do not like the word "exempt," because "exempt" is a hard and fast word, and if you exempt anything you must cut it out. I would not like to leave out the Highlands, because I know, from my experience during the war, how extremely keen and able some of the fire services were in even the most remote parts. It is quite true that there are a large number of places there that cannot really be served at all. There are, of course, some in other parts of Scotland, but those are the places which I think my noble friend Lord Selkirk would like left out of the Bill at the present time, 487 but I would not like it. I would appeal to my noble friend, Lord Morrison, to produce an Amendment on the Report stage which is like this Amendment but has not the word "exempt." One cannot alter the word "exempt" to "modify" without making the whole Amendment ungrammatical.
I would like to point out that there are places at the present time in the Highlands which cannot possibly be helped by the fire service. On the other hand, the whole hydro-electric scheme, which is costing £30,000,000, was planned, I understand, to help factories to be built and people to be employed in the Highlands; and there may come a time when the Highlands will be vastly more populous than they are now—in fact, that is what we are all looking to in Scotland—and those places will obviously want a fire service. There may be places, therefore, which we do not want exempted in the Bill, but we would like the noble Lord to produce something which would take away the hardship from these crofters who have no possible chance of using a fire service, at the same time modifying it so that if, as we all hope, prosperity and factories and towns come to the Highlands it will still be possible to reimpose the fire service in those districts. I would ask if it is possible to help in this way to some degree.
§ LORD MORRISONI think we are fortunate in that the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, who played such a useful part in fire prevention in Scotland during the war, should have been able to come and join us in our deliberations. He has been very candid. He has said that he does not like the word "exempt," and neither do I; nor, I think does the noble Earl, the Earl of Selkirk. It looks as if a part of Scotland is backing out and leaving certain counties high and dry, without any provision for fire protection. The problem is as to whether, under the present Bill, it will be possible for the Secretary of State to take full cognizance of the variations that exist in Scotland by having a sufficiently well modified scheme. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that there had been criticism throughout Scotland and in another place. I have read those criticisms, but it would not be a Scottish Bill if there were no criticism! In my brief experience of 488 being connected with Scottish legislation, I have come to take it as a matter of course that there is criticism, and violent criticism, on all subjects; and there must be something seriously wrong with the Bill if there is no criticism, however small, going on.
It seems to me that we are in agreement on this point: that it would not be in the best interests of the citizens of these areas that they should have no fire protection at all. They have as much claim to protection as the inhabitants of the big cities. If that proposition is accepted, I suggest that what the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, asks for might be effected under the Bill as it stands, by Clause 1, subsection (1), where fire authorities are required to provide such fire services as may be necessary to meet normal requirements, and by Clause 1, subsection (3) where the Secretary of State is empowered to prescribe standards of efficiency, which may vary according to the requirements of, and the facilities available, in different kinds of locality.
The future fire authorities in the Highland counties have already indicated to the Secretary of State their view that special arrangements ought to be made to meet the particular requirements of their areas, and they have been assured that the Secretary of State will have those requirements particularly in mind when making regulations under Clause 1, subsection (3) The effect of this Bill as it stands is, in fact, to require the Highland authorities, in combination, to provide such fire services as the circumstances of the area justify. The noble Lord has pointed out how difficult it will be to get them to enter into voluntary combination or co-operation. I know that perfectly well, but you cannot allow the public to suffer merely because local authorities, month after month, go on failing to agree. There comes a time when somebody has to step in and make them agree, unless the particular area is to be left entirely unprotected.
I would like, if I may, to say one word—although I did not spend the war years in Scotland—in relation to something which was borne upon me in London, and that was the importance of fire prevention. It is at least as important as fire extinguishing; in fact, it is easier to prevent a fire than to put it 489 out, and it does seem to me that, as a nation, we have failed very much in the past in not concentrating our efforts on fire prevention. We found it necessary during the war to do that, of course, but it was rather remarkable how many fires were caused by people having large stocks of combustible materials lying about on their premises. I think in areas like Sutherland, where the population is something like seven per square mile, it is silly to talk about fire engines and that sort of thing, but a good deal of the work could be done, at no great cost by fire prevention appliances, even if they consisted only of buckets of water and sand provided at the right place.
The noble Lord has pointed out that a figure of £35,000 has been mentioned. A suggested cover scheme has been put to the authorities in the Highlands of Scotland which would involve the maintenance of a station run on a full-time basis at Inverness. That scheme envisages fifteen stations manned on a part-time retained basis—that is to say by part-time firemen receiving a small retaining fee—in the main centres of population in the area; and twenty-six stations, manned wholly by unpaid volunteers, in the area in which the provision of some degree of fire cover seems to be desirable. Steps are already being taken for a modified form of manning, and these have been put up to the fire authorities. The Secretary of State will be very ready to consider any further suggestions which these authorities may make in the direction of revising standards of manning. It is impossible at this stage to give definite figures as to the cost, for the simple reason that it will depend upon the nature of the proposals submitted by the joint committee under Clause 20, as well as upon the standard of efficiency insisted upon by the Secretary of State. No useful purpose can be served by the Secretary of State insisting upon a scheme which would place a crippling charge upon the area.
In reply to the financial case, I only want to say that the Government have indicated—the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said this in a cynical way, but perhaps he did not mean it!—their intention to secure, by a review of the financial relations between the State and local authorities now in progress, that Government assistance is given to those areas 490 where the need is greatest. It can confidently be anticipated, therefore, that under the new arrangements for Exchequer assistance to local authorities the very special needs of the Highlands will be taken into account. The object of the new finance schemes will be to give the needy areas like the Highlands such assistance as they require to maintain their local government services on an appropriate standard without placing an unreasonable burden on the ratepayers. If effect is given to this principle there is no reason why fire services on a standard appropriate to Highland needs should involve the ratepayers in an oppressive rate burden. The Highlands cannot have it both ways. If they are to be relieved of any obligation to supply a fire service, they can have no case for special Exchequer assistance for local government, which is justified only by the necessity of providing essential services without undue expense to the ratepayers in these low valued areas. I suggest that this Amendment means putting the clock back. During the war, under the excellent work of the noble Earl, the area was better covered for fire protection than ever before. Possibly, Scotland would have preferred nationalization to continue! In any case, that cannot be, and I can only say that I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment, but, if between now and the next stage the noble Earl would like to have consultations on the matter with myself and the Departments concerned, I shall be very pleased to take part in them.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his very helpful statements. A great deal of information is, in fact, new and I am sure that it will be welcomed as some idea of what is intended. There is no doubt that there is considerable anxiety about these matters. Whether or not it is justified I do not know, but those who do know are worried about it. I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord has appreciated this point, and I will accept his offer to discuss whether some other Amendment can be put forward. I have in mind some such words as:
modifies the application of this Act in such areas as he may think wise.I will draft it out; something of that sort may be acceptable. I would endorse what the noble Lord said about fire pre- 491 vention; so far as I know, there is not one word about fire prevention in this Bill from beginning to end.
§ LORD CHORLEYThis is the first Bill which really does introduce fire prevention.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKI beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ First Schedule agreed to.
§ 9.5 p.m.
§ Second Schedule [Application to combined fire authorities of provisions as to establishment schemes and management schemes]:
§ LORD WALKDENThe Amendments to the Second Schedule are purely drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 42, after the second ("scheme") insert ("or management scheme, as the case may be").—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 46, leave out ("section") and insert ("Schedule").—(Lord Walkden.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to. Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining Schedules agreed to.
§ House resumed.