HL Deb 12 July 2004 vol 663 cc1048-66

5.20 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 2.

Baroness Hanham

moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 42, at end insert— and shall only proceed with the proposed scheme, variation or revocation as the case may be if the inquiry concludes that the making of the scheme, variation or revocation is in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the fire and rescue service or services concerned.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with Amendments Nos. 8 and 18 we return to the issue of regionalisation and the powers of the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 8 and 18 ensure that the power of the Secretary of State to initiate a scheme for creating combined fire authorities or to revoke or vary such a scheme—in effect his power to intervene to pursue a regionalist agenda at the expense of what is best for the public—would be limited by the findings of an inquiry that would focus only on whether the plans would deliver greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness to the fire and rescue authority in question.

In Committee, the Minister mentioned that the Government had already given ground by agreeing to hold an inquiry as the norm, were the Secretary of State to decide to use his powers under subsection (3)(b). We welcomed that development. As the Minister pointed out, were an inquiry to conclude that economy, efficiency and effectiveness were not best served by a particular combination or by a proposed change to a combination, the Secretary of State would be obliged to have regard to its findings. We do not believe that that assurance goes far enough. Having regard to the findings of an inquiry is not the same as accepting the findings of an inquiry.

I stress again that the fire and rescue services and the public will need to be assured that the modernisation or bringing together of the service is not premised on regionalisation and centralisation but on delivering improvements and on the best possible service structure. They need to know that there is a process that protects the public interest. An inquiry that finds that the Secretary of State's plans would not promote the greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the fire services cannot be ignored. It would need to be taken into account and accepted. Only an inquiry can decide whether the Secretary of State's plans are genuinely in the public interest or whether they have no operational merit.

I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with a stronger assurance that that will be the situation than he was able to give us in Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker:

My Lords, I will probably never satisfy the noble Baroness on the issue of the Secretary of State's powers. There will be a division between us because, as she clearly indicated, the amendment seeks to limit the Secretary of State's scope for action. The inquiry is an important element and to have regard to it means that it cannot be ignored. I cannot put into the Bill words that are not there.

We do not wish to fetter the Secretary of State. As I have repeatedly said, the Secretary of State must act reasonably at all times. He cannot act on a whim or a hunch or out of prejudice. As a Minister, he has to act reasonably or we can be called to account. Therefore, these amendments are wholly unnecessary.

The Secretary of State can make a scheme only if he can satisfy himself—as I said, that is not a personal satisfaction—that economy, efficiency and effectiveness—or, following Amendment No. 2, public safety—are best served by a particular combination or by a change to one. In deciding whether there are grounds to make a combination, the Secretary of State would have to take the findings of the inquiry into account. He cannot ignore an inquiry. That is the reality. He must give the findings great weight. One does not have an inquiry unless one is going to take account of it. That is the situation in this case.

We do not believe that the Secretary of State's discretion should be fettered. This has been the theme throughout the Bill. There might be circumstances in which an inquiry concludes that a combination scheme, or the variation or revocation of an existing scheme, is justified on grounds of economy, efficiency and effectiveness but the Secretary of State, taking a wider view, has sound reasons, which he would have to explain, to disagree with the findings of the inquiry; for example, on the basis of the overriding needs of public safety. I cannot put forward examples to explain but because it is not possible for the Secretary of State to act irrationally and unreasonably he would have to give great weight to the report of an inquiry, which will be a matter of public record.

We need to have the possibility of the Secretary of State exercising his discretion. We would be failing in our responsibilities if we took that away from him. I know that that will not satisfy the noble Baroness but a need for the Secretary of State to have regard to an inquiry also means that he cannot ignore it.

Baroness Hanham:

My Lords, I am tempted to say that under other legislation inspectors' reports become binding. We do not seem to be in the same position here. I thought that that was a unique situation. We hoped that we might move it into other legislation. That was what the Government were anticipating. This is all about the revocation of a scheme. It would be more appropriate if the Government had to do more than have regard to or take account of, as I think the Minister put it, such an inquiry. I hear what the Minister says and I do not intend to pursue this issue further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [Creation of combined fire and rescue authorities: supplementary]:

Baroness Hanham

moved Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 34, at end insert— ( ) All members of a combined fire and rescue authority constituted under a scheme under section 2 shall be elected members of a constituent authority.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the powers of appointment to the newly formed combined fire authorities. We still have serious concerns about this part of the Bill allowing, as it does, for the Secretary of State to appoint a significant minority of members to each authority. While protesting that fire and rescue authorities remain a local service, the Government are not only grafting on a regional structure but are also taking powers to appoint members. We cannot support this step.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, attempted to explain that such a power for the Secretary of State was needed as a reserve power in case fire and rescue authorities did not nominate people of what the Secretary of State considered to be of sufficiently high calibre. This would apply, apparently, where capacity was needed to deliver modernisation, bringing in wider experience and knowledge that the authority apparently lacked. That was the explanation. This is as patronising as it is tenuous. It is demeaning to the professional authorities that support the fire authorities to say that they need members appointed by the Secretary of State to provide so-called outside expertise. It is beyond what already happens in London where, as I understand it, the whole authority consists of elected members appointed by the Greater London Authority and the boroughs.

This is not a reserve power; it will be used from day one of the newly formed authorities. The Government do not seem to be able to trust locally elected representatives to get on and run their local services. Amendment No. 9 would guarantee that all members appointed to a combined fire and rescue authority would be elected members of one of the constituent authorities, ensuring local representation and accountability.

In Committee, I explained our opposition to the Secretary of State having a role in appointing members to the new authorities. Amendment No. 10 therefore seeks to curtail the Secretary of State's involvement. Amendments Nos. 11, 13 and 14 are consequential amendments, drafted to deal with changes to the Bill that would be required if Amendment No. 10 is, as I anticipate, accepted. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker:

My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Secretary of State's powers were not reserved. I make it absolutely clear that the powers would be used only in a last resort. My speaking notes do not say, "For 'last resort' read 'reserve'". The authority of the Secretary of State is involved. We have made it clear that we do not seek such powers lightly. We have given assurances that the Secretary of State's powers of appointment would be used only in a "last resort" scenario, where authorities have critically failed to deliver the services required of them. In effect, a reserved power is involved.

To limit appointments to those who are responsible for this failure—that is the implication—is, as we have previously said, contradictory and counter-productive. Appointment of non-elected members by the Secretary of State will be for no other purpose than to bring into the new authorities the necessary leadership and expertise that they have shown they lacked, whether this be managerial or financial or involves another role that is essential to service delivery.

Members will be appointed by the Secretary of State on the basis of their ability to bring these qualities to the new authority. Such appointments will be made sparingly, responsibly and for the limited purposes which we have described. The independence of appointees from the Government will be guaranteed by open process and in accordance with the Nolan principles.

I cannot spell out the position any more clearly than that. This approach does not involve the Secretary of State riding roughshod over local authority representatives on fire services authorities; they will have had every opportunity to have sorted out any problems before the powers are used. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts that the use of these powers will not be the norm; they will be used simply as a last resort.

Baroness Hanham:

My Lords, the provisions do not say that. I know that the Minister tried to explain that the powers would be used only as a last resort but that is not what Clause 3(3)(a) states. That subsection states: In particular, a scheme … may make provision about … the composition of the combined authority (including provision for the appointment of members by the existing authorities or by the Secretary of State)". The authorities are made up either of elected members, which is what we seek to ensure, or of appointed members. There is a real confusion in subsection (3)(c) about who will be on the authorities and what their status will be.

The Government have a great tendency, with regard to appointed members on all sorts of bodies, to try to steer what those appointed members should be doing. We must remember that behind all those authorities there is usually a competent Civil Service. Members of those authorities are there to guide and steer, usually in a political way, how the authority will work.

We cannot have a situation in which a scheme is put forward by combined authorities when there is, as I understand it, no track record of how they have operated. The supposition is that they—or their members are hopeless before they start. If a scheme were put forward on behalf of all elected members and the Secretary of State threw up his hands and said, "No, I cannot have Bloggs, Smith or Jones because they are not competent in the relevant area", that would cause tremendous confusion from the outset. I am afraid that I really am not satisfied by the Minister's response.

Lord Rooker:

My Lords, I should clarify the situation. There are a couple of points that I did not make earlier but I should have done. The amendment requires that all members appointed by their constituent authorities should be elected members of those authorities. In practice, that has always been the case, and it is set out that it should be in the orders establishing the combined authorities. Those orders will make it clear that the norm involves the elected members of the constituent authorities. We expect that to continue to be the case, but we believe that it is not a matter for primary legislation. As I said, these are last resort powers. The norm will be that the fire authorities will consist of elected members from the constituent authorities. That will be clear in the orders setting up the combined authorities. I am sorry if I did not make that clear earlier; it is my fault for turning over more than one page of my notes at a time.

Baroness Hamwee:

My Lords, can the Minister give us an example of what might not be the norm?

Lord Rooker:

My Lords, I refer to a combined authority—which could be set up in any case in the normal way—that failed for whatever reason. If it was a failure there would be a report from the Audit Commission, the inspectorate or some other body that made it patently clear that the authority was not working. It would have every opportunity to put itself right and if it failed to do so the Secretary of State would use the powers as a last resort.

Baroness Hanham:

My Lords, Clause 3 is entitled, Creation of combined fire and rescue authorities: supplementary". By definition, such an authority has therefore not operated in the past; it will be a new body. It cannot have a track record and the Secretary of State can have no experience of what the authority is like in order to make a judgment about appointed members. The situation may be as the Minister described it but the clause does not state that. I want to test the opinion of the House.

5.36 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 130.

Division
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Ashdown of Norton-sub- Blaker, L.
Hamdon, L. Bridgeman, V.
Astor of Hever, L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Attlee, E. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Barker, B. Carnegy of Lour, B.
Clement-Jones, L. Maddock, B.
Colwyn, L. Mancroft, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller] Marlesford, L.
Cuckney, L. Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Cumberlege, B. Miller of Hendon, B.
Denham, L. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Dholakia, L. Morris of Bolton, B.
Dixon-Smith, L. Moynihan, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Newby, L.
Falkland, V. Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Falkner of Margravine, B. Noakes, B.
Fearn, L. Northbrook, L.
Fookes, B. Northesk, E.
Fowler, L. Northover, B.
Freeman, L. O'Cathain, B.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Park of Monmouth, B.
Geddes, L. Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Glentoran, L. Plumb, L.
Goodhart, L. Rawlings, B.
Gray of Contin, L. Redesdale, L.
Greenway, L. Rees, L.
Hamwee, B. Renton, L.
Hanham. B. Roberts of Conwy, L.
Hanningfield, L. Roper, L.
Harris of Richmond, B. Russell-Johnston, L.
Henley, L. Seccombe, B, [Teller]
Higgins, L. Sharp of Northstead, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L. Shutt of Greetland, L.
Howe, E. Skelmersdale, L.
Howe, E. Smith of Clifton, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L. Steel of Aikwood, L.
Howell of Guilford, L. Stewartby, L.
Hurd of Westwell, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Inglewood, L. Swinfen, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Thomas of Gresford, L.
Jopling, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
King of Bridgwater, L. Tordoff, L.
Kingsland, L. Trumpington, B.
Knight of Collingtree, B. Ullswater, V.
Lindsay, E. Waddington, L.
Liverpool, E. Walmsley, B.
Luke, L. Walpole, L.
Lyell, L. Watson of Richmond, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L. Wilcox, B.
L. Williams of Crosby, B.
McNally, L. Windlesham, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Christopher, L.
Ahmed, L. Clark of Windermere, L.
Alli, L. Clinton-Davis, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L. Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Colville of Culross, V.
Council) Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Andrews, B. Crawley, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L. David, B.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Davies of Coity, L.
Bach, L. Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Bassam of Brighton, L. Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Berkeley, L. Desai, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Dixon, L.
Bhatia, L. Donoughue, L.
Billingham, B. Drayson, L.
Blackstone, B. Dubs, L.
Boothroyd, B. Evans of Parkside, L.
Borrie, L. Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Bragg, L. Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord
Brennan, L. Chancellor)
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Brookman, L. Filkin, L.
Burlison, L. Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Campbell-Savours, L. Gale, B.
Carter, L. Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Carter of Coles, L. Giddens, L.
Gilbert, L. Morris of Manchester, L.
Golding, B. Patel of Blackburn, L.
Goldsmith, L. Paul, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Pitkeathley, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Plant of Highfield, L.
Grantchester, L. Prosser, B.
Grocott, L. [Teller] Radice, L.
Hannay of Chiswick, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Harris of Haringey, L. Richard, L.
Harrison, L. Rooker, L.
Hart of Chilton, L. Rosser, L.
Hayman, B. Sawyer, L.
Henig, B. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Sheldon, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. Simon, V.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Slim, V.
Howells of St. Davids, B. Snape, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Strabolgi, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Irvine of Lairg, L. Temple-Morris, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. Thornton, B.
Jones, L. Triesman, L.
Jordan, L. Truscott, L.
King of West Bromwich, L. Tunnicliffe, L.
Kirkhill, L. Turnberg, L.
Lea of Crondall, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Lockwood, B. Uddin, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Wall of New Barnet, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Warner, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Weatherill, L.
Mallalieu, B. Whitaker, B.
Mar, C. whitty, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L. Wilkins, B.
Massey of Darwen, B. Williams of Elvel, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L. Williamson of Horton, L.
Moran, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Morgan, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.46 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 12: Page 4, line 7, at end insert— ( ) In its application to Wales, this section has effect with the omission of the words "or by the Secretary of State" in subsection (3)(a) and the omission of subsections (4) and (5).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is clearly evident that this amendment has a degree of cross-party support, at least from the opposition Benches. We can but hope that some of this understanding rubs off on to noble Lords opposite.

Amendment No. 12 seeks to remove the power for the National Assembly to appoint some of the members of combined fire authorities in Wales, leaving that power in the hands of the county and county borough councils. This issue was debated at some length in Committee. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, replied that the Assembly should have such a power because it is being given to the Secretary of State in England. He went on to mention that the Assembly was under no obligation actually to use the power. However, the case for giving such powers to the Assembly fails to take into account the different legal framework in Wales.

Under Section 113 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 the Assembly has to have a scheme that sets out how it proposes, in the exercise of its functions, to sustain and promote local government in Wales". Perhaps we should have a similar rule here.

My argument is that the creation of a new power for the Assembly to appoint members of combined fire authorities is inconsistent with the Assembly's local government scheme. Such a power weakens local government. It would potentially diminish local government's accountability and autonomy. Furthermore, I am not aware of any policy document from the Welsh Assembly that advocates or justifies the creation of a power for it to appoint fire authority members. This provision in the Bill has not been appropriately foreshadowed, which has denied Welsh local government and the Welsh fire authorities the chance to express views on the matter before the Bill was introduced. The need for this power in Wales should be tested and explained before the House agrees that it is required. I beg to move.

Lord Roberts of Conwy:

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend and the points that he made with regard to the position in Wales referred to in Amendment No. 12 to Clause 3.

As I understand it, as the Bill stands the Assembly will have a similar right to the Secretary of State in England to nominate up to half the members of a combined fire and rescue authority. This will obviously be at the expense of local authority nominations. This invasive power has caused some concern among local authorities. As my noble friend pointed out, they say that it runs contrary to the obligation on the Assembly under Section 113 of the Government of Wales Act, in the exercise of its functions, to sustain and promote local government in Wales". I admit that the local authority nominees have a special position under subsection (5), in that a precept must be approved by a majority of them. However, in a sense that only begs the question why should there be any Assembly nominees at all on the combined authority.

I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, refer to the circumstances in which the Secretary of State or, I assume, the Assembly make such appointments, and I still find myself somewhat confused on the precise circumstances in which either exercises their power. My noble friend Lady Hanham said that the power was likely to be exercised from day one.

It is suspected that there is a centralist tendency in the Assembly. We have seen that in relation to not only this Bill but others, such as the Higher Education Bill and the draft transport Bill to name but two. There is a reluctance to devolve beyond the devolved body itself—to other authorities, including local authorities. As my noble friend said, there is no mention of the proposed power being given to the Assembly in last year's White Paper, Our Fire and Rescue Service, or in any other policy document emanating from the Welsh Assembly Government. The proposal has come out of the blue, without consultation or anyone being given a chance to comment.

The Assembly has confirmed that it has no plans to make changes to the three existing authorities, but that is irrelevant to the issue before us. Why has the Assembly got to have the power to nominate? Is it to overcome local authority opposition to a new combined authority? The reasoning behind it should at least be explained, along with the encroachment on what is, after all, traditional local authority territory.

Baroness Hamwee:

My Lords, I raised the matter in Committee, but I do not think that I need add anything to the debate.

Lord Rooker:

My Lords, I shall do my best to respond. I do not claim to be speaking for Wales, but I am certainly speaking for the Assembly. No one is arguing with the fact that the National Assembly for Wales has not sought to exclude the power, and we have not sought to impose it. The Bill has obviously been drafted in full consultation with the National Assembly, and we take the view that the Assembly should in the end judge whether the power should be used, not this House.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, regarding the White Paper. However, that White Paper does not go into sufficient detail on such issues. At the relevant point, it states that the remaining responsibilities should be devolved, which implies that the National Assembly for Wales would have the same powers as the UK Secretary of State in relation to England, not a selection from the menu. In other words, the responsibilities are devolved from Westminster.

The North Wales Fire Authority has raised a point regarding an alleged conflict with Section 113 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. It was suggested that what we proposed went against the sustaining and promotion of local government in Wales. That is a somewhat tenuous observation. Section 113 simply requires the Assembly to establish a partnership council. It nowhere suggests that local authorities alone must decide on everyone sitting on local government bodies. Indeed, the composition of the partnership council itself, including the balance between the National Assembly for Wales and the local authority members, is to be decided by the National Assembly. That is under Schedule 11 to the Act. The Opposition can pray in aid those issues, by all means, but they are not sufficient for us to accept that we should change the legislation.

We hope that the situation never happens. I make it clear that the powers are those of last resort. It would be highly unusual for the situation to happen, but the fire and rescue service is an emergency service—as much so in Wales as in England. When designing the legislation, we need to ensure that the power exists for any situation that we can foresee or contemplate. If there is complete failure and breakdown of a combined authority, there may well be a need to appoint to the new authority people with experience of failing organisations and a track record of ability to turn them round. That is not an unimportant point to make.

Should such appointments have to be made, safeguards for local democracy are built into the clause, including the appointees being in a minority and excluded from votes on precepting. We have given assurances—I repeat them—that we are not talking about men and women being put in place on the body. The posts will be publicly advertised under the Nolan principles. If the power is ever used, its use will be transparent.

I say with due deference that we have not heard an argument in Committee or today that persuades us that there could never be a need for the power. However, as my noble friend Lord Evans said in Committee, it is a power, not an obligation. It is not the norm, so we do not expect things to start with it. Those with overall responsibility for the fire and rescue service—be they in England or Wales—should not be denied it as a last resort, a reserve power when there has been clear and transparent failure.

Although there is a difference between the parties, if there were a proposal by a Conservative government for a reorganisation, I genuinely believe that they would build in the kind of safeguards that would make us as an opposition say, "What's that for? Why do you need that power?". The answer would be, "We don't use it as the norm but, just in case there's a problem, we wouldn't have to come back to Parliament with primary legislation". The power is a last-resort, reserved power that we would not expect to be the norm.

Lord Hanningfield:

My Lords, one can see from the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hanham just now and from this one that there is considerable concern. Mine is very relevant to the appointment of fire authorities in Wales. The Minister seems to suggest that there could be masses of failing fire authorities. I do not think that the evidence is that many fire authorities, if any, have failed at all. Other issues have normally caused the problems of the fire service.

There is a process now. Fire authorities are appointed from local authorities—they are not the entire local authority. If the fire authority were failing, the best process would be for other members of that local authority to be appointed. That is certainly what would happen in the local authorities of which I know. If people on it were not thought good enough, other people would be put on it. They would be elected councillors. We seem to be getting the message that we want to get away from having elected councillors on fire authorities. I am concerned about that. They are local services, and there should be local authority members on them. It is important that we pick the best local authority members to be on the fire authority.

As the Minister will understand—he has obviously had correspondence on the subject, too—there is some feeling about the matter in Wales. People were not consulted about it, and the provision suddenly appeared in the legislation. In Wales, it is felt to be a very anti-local government move. I am concerned about it, as are several Members of this House. We might have to return to it on Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]

6 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee

moved Amendment No. 15: Page 4, line 18, at end insert— ( ) If a scheme under section 2 provides for members of a combined authority to be appointed by the Secretary of State, it must also provide that the members to be so appointed are not employees of a fire and rescue authority.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 15 at the request of the Welsh fire authorities, which are seeking clarification. The effect of Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 is that someone cannot be an employee and a member of the same authority, but it is not clear whether that section applies to combined authorities. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether there are plans to include in orders provisions that a firefighter who is a councillor may not be appointed as a member of the fire authority that employs him.

The fire authorities feel that it would be adequate to have an assurance from the Dispatch Box that Ministers are not planning to use powers in a scheme under Clause 2 to appoint employees. We believe that that should appear in the Bill, but I shall be happy to hear the Minister's reply. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield:

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There is a long-standing requirement in Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 that employees of local government should not be members of the same authority. We are all familiar with that, particularly in relation to teachers and so forth. However, it is not clear whether that section applies to combined fire authorities. It certainly applies to fire and civil defence authorities in metropolitan areas and London because they are joint authorities for the purpose of Section 80. Are there plans to amend combination orders to make it clear that a fire fighter who is a councillor may not be appointed as a member of the fire authority which employs him? It is an important issue which should be clarified.

Lord Rooker:

My Lords, we have no plans to appoint fire and rescue authority employees to a combined fire authority, but we would not wish to impose artificial restrictions that would prevent it doing so in all circumstances. The amendment is restrictive because it would ensure that no employee of a fire and rescue authority could be appointed by the Secretary of State to be a member of a combined fire and rescue authority. The amendment does not distinguish between employees of the fire and rescue authority in question and those who are employed by another fire and rescue authority. It is therefore an absolute prohibition and for that reason I must resist it.

I realise that there are grave misgivings—putting it politely, but that is what it says here—about the basic proposition that the Secretary of State should have these powers. That has been the theme throughout more than one Bill I have dealt with, and we have also debated that matter. Whether or not we have convinced noble Lords opposite, the power to appoint could in some circumstances be vital to ensure that the authority can take crucial decisions essential to the modernisation of the fire service— which is what the Bill is all about—they want to probe further what kind of people we might want to appoint if the situation arose.

We would not necessarily want to use the power to appoint to these authorities, which I have made clear. It sounds repetitious, but that is the case. Much will depend on the reasons for the combination scheme in the first place, but we are clear that we can envisage circumstances in which the constituent authorities have demonstrated that they lack the capacity to carry through change either because of insufficient expertise or a failure of leadership—not an unimportant point. The provisions allowing the Secretary of State to appoint a minority of members could then come into play.

References have been made to other legislation, some of which imposed political restrictions on fire and rescue authority employees which would prevent them becoming an elected member of their own authority. But that is not an argument for preventing an employee sitting on an authority in a non-political capacity. Many public bodies have executive directors; for example, it is proposed that the Northern Ireland fire chief automatically is a member of the Northern Ireland fire and rescue service board.

A prohibition on the officers of another authority being appointed could be quite restrictive; for example, we can envisage the circumstances where we might wish to appoint, say, a chief fire officer of a neighbouring authority to sit on a combined fire and rescue authority which we would be establishing. As I say, we have no plans to do so, but we can envisage circumstances in which that might be helpful to all concerned from the point of view of expertise, leadership and experience. It would therefore be negative absolutely to rule out such an opportunity, as proposed in the amendment.

We have said that appointments to fire and rescue authorities will be subject to an open appointment process. The order which establishes the authority will set out the process, including such matters as the public advertisement of the roles and an independent assessor. It follows therefore that we would not simply appoint an existing employee without open competition and advertisement. It is not as though the department and the Secretary of State can act on a whim, putting people on the authorities behind closed doors. It would not be like that. It will follow public advertisement with an independent assessment—but only in the kind of circumstances I have said we can envisage. It would not be the norm.

Baroness Hamwee:

My Lords, in that situation, I suspect it would be difficult for anyone other than someone who fits the kind of specification spelled out by the Government to be appointed. These things tend to happen when someone has in mind a particular person and writes the person spec in order to achieve the right outcome, with all the processes gone through.

I am still not wholly clear that this situation should be so completely distinct from other fire authorities, but I do not intend to pursue the point today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 [Combined authorities under the Fire Services Act 1947]:

[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]

Clause 6 [Fire safety]:

Baroness Maddock

moved Amendment No. 19: Page 5, line 28, at end insert— (iii) the use of sprinklers, misters and other devices as effective means of preventing and restricting the spread of fires

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that the role of sprinklers in fire prevention is given the prominence that we and others believe it deserves when fire authorities are carrying out their responsibilities under the Act in promoting fire safety.

Like many others, particularly local government, we believe that the promotion of the use of sprinklers will support the new prevention powers provided in the Bill. Local authorities in particular remain concerned about the lack of promotion of sprinklers in schools and also in domestic properties. Perhaps we need to reflect on domestic properties in other legislation and in another place, but it is worth noting how strongly the House of Commons ODPM Select Committee recommended that building regulations be changed to encourage and ensure an increased use of sprinklers in domestic properties.

In Committee, we had a long debate on schools and I have not changed my mind. As the Government want to expand provision in schools—we heard their recent Statement on education—it is even more important when putting more money into new schools to ensure that they are protected by sprinklers. Every year in the United Kingdom 2,000 schools are damaged by fire, and 70 per cent of those are started deliberately. That costs hundreds of millions of pounds each year.

The common perception is that most fires which are deliberately started in schools occur outside school time at weekends and so on, but in fact a third of them take place when pupils are in school. I think it is true to say that, thus far, there have been no fatalities from school fires. However, if more are started during school time—I hope that that is not the case—obviously the provision of sprinklers will be important.

The cornerstone of the reform programme currently under way in the Bill is a move away from an overdependence on intervention once fires have started to an approach that is focused far more on preventing fires in the first place. I hope that the Minister will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. This is an important matter. It is possible that this is not the right way to insert such a provision into the Bill, but I think that we need to send a clear message that sprinklers are important in terms of the building programmes that we would all like to see in schools in future.

The White Paper talks of regularly reviewing the changing trends and new developments in building design. It mentions that the Government were going to look carefully at this issue and carry out research on the role of sprinklers in residential premises. It would be helpful if, in replying, the Minister could give an indication of where the Government are in relation to that matter. It is an important part of what we are doing today.

Perhaps if I tell the Minister that I was one of the people who voted for him recently, that will encourage him to give me a favourable reply. It is always nice to vote on the winning side. Perhaps I shall receive an encouraging reply, even if he is not prepared to accept the amendment in its present form. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield:

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 20, which is grouped with Amendment No. 19. I recognise the similarity between our amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I support much of what she has just said. However, it may be worth reminding ourselves of the issues touched on by both amendments.

Both amendments seek to encourage the use of modern technology to reduce the number of fire deaths by promoting the use of sprinklers and other such devices. Here, we have a relatively simple technique that would be hugely effective in reducing the instances of fire and resulting deaths. It must be given all the serious attention that it can be afforded.

As I mentioned in Committee, the numbers of fires and fire deaths continue to fall year on year. That is a welcome development. However, one death is still one too many, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree.

Our amendment would encourage the promotion of sprinklers in new-build schools and care homes. Arguably, those two cases, more than others, need such protection. The annual cost of fire damage in schools is around £100 million—the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, mentioned that in some detail—with one in 15 schools suffering from a fire in any given year. Sprinklers would be a very simple, effective and relatively cost-efficient method of protecting school property.

Our amendment does not seek to impose sprinklers on a mandatory basis—far from it; it merely encourages a fire authority to promote their use whenever possible. The number of lives saved and the protection of property would be substantial.

Quite rightly, this is one area that has attracted considerable cross-party support. The Minister detailed some of the work that his department has undertaken on this issue, and I should also like to hear answers to some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The Minister mentioned his desire to consider this matter in the context of his department's review of building regulations. That is a very important area to look at and I welcome that commitment.

However, I urge the Minister to go one step further by considering the inclusion of this or the Liberal Democrat amendment in the Bill. I remind him that we are seeking not to make such a provision mandatory but merely to give fire authorities the opportunity, upon request, to promote the use of such technologies. I cannot see how the Minister could possibly be opposed to such a development and I hope that he will be able to give us a good answer today.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Rooker:

My Lords, I am certainly not opposed to the spirit of the amendment, and I agree with virtually every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. I hope that I can give a positive response. I am not sure that it will go much further than what was said in Committee, but I think that the Committee response was fairly positive, particularly when afterwards I read some of the other documentation.

We accept that fire suppression systems should play a major role. There is no question about that. As the noble Baroness said, it is a question of fire prevention rather than fire-fighting. The fire service itself makes it clear that it wants to spend its time preventing fires in the first place. Therefore, we do not rule out fire suppression systems on the basis of cost without examining evidence. A risk assessment needs to be carried out on the specification and installation of appropriate suppression systems. These are highly technical and complex issues, and it is not as straightforward as simply fitting sprinklers, as might be thought to be the case. Of course, the technology is developing very fast; it is not standing still.

So far as concerns new buildings, we think that the matter is best dealt with through building regulations. Following the recent terrible fire at the Rosepark nursing home in Glasgow, the protection of vulnerable people in care homes has been at the forefront of all our minds, particularly those looking at this system.

The issue is raised again in Amendment No. 20. Recent research by the Building Research Establishment suggests that there may be a role for fire suppression systems in providing additional fire protection in care homes, whether for children, the elderly or disabled people. Residents in higher risk houses in multiple occupation and tall blocks of flats might also benefit. We shall examine this positively in more detail as part of our current review of Part B of the building regulations, which deals with fire safety in new and substantially altered buildings. Amendment No. 20 also refers to fire suppression systems in new schools. I was briefed on this matter by two officials this morning. I picked up one of the papers this morning and saw that at the weekend a school had been severely damaged. Therefore, such fires are common. There is a real problem here and we have every right to be concerned. It is no good simply to say, "We're not doing anything because three-quarters of the fires are started outside school hours". That is not good enough because there is still no school for the kids on the Monday, even if the fire occurred at the weekend and no one was injured. That is no argument. Obviously safety is important, and the lost course work and the disruption to the work of the school must be taken into account.

However, the figure for insured losses from school fires has fallen. I understand that it fell by about a quarter last year to an estimated £75 million. We take the matter very seriously. I do not believe that in most cases the possible insurance saving from the installation of a sprinkler system would be a sufficient reason for following that route. Fire risk is normally only one component of the total premium, and many schools are insured as one of a group of schools. In addition, a fire suppression system in one building will not make an appreciable difference to the overall risk or, indeed, to the premium. Therefore, fire suppression systems must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

A new fire safety guidance document for schools, Building Bulletin 100, is being prepared by the Department for Education and Skills at present in close co-operation with officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It will cover risk assessment and allow a variety of fire engineering solutions to meet the assessed risk. The guidance will be subject to public consultation later this year and it will be included in the review of Part B of the building regulations. Therefore, work is under way this year, and I have no doubt that the matter will be raised in both Houses at the appropriate time later in the year.

We are about to commission research to examine what design constraints are relevant to domestic fire suppression systems and to identify the potential for systems which are effective in a domestic setting but which can be produced and installed at lower cost. That will inform a cost-benefit analysis of systems at various levels.

We would argue that, whatever the level of research—this is not an unimportant point—it will remain vitally important to have effective smoke alarms. A fire suppression system is one thing but a smoke alarm is another. It gives those extra vital few minutes to increase the chance of escape. As I mentioned in Committee when I referred to my own experience of visiting the Fire Service College—on my own rather than the "state visit" with a group of Ministers—when I was able to don the equipment and the gear, it is the smoke that kills. That is why a smoke alarm is vital to give those extra few minutes.

We take this issue extremely seriously. The matter is actively being dealt with via building regulations. This is not pie in the sky and a promise for the future. The issue will be dealt with in building regulations, but it has to be dealt with on a risk basis in a technical way with a proper benefit analysis. Obviously, public safety is crucial in the buildings I mentioned where people are vulnerable such as those with disabilities and children, and those living in a care-type home who do have total control over their circumstances. It behoves us to ensure that there are the maximum safety measures.

Baroness Maddock:

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full reply. I hear what he says about the various areas that may be dealt with under other legislation in future. However, I have one question. Under Clause 6(2)(b)(i) as drafted, the fire services are requested to give advice on how to prevent fires and restrict their spread in buildings and other property. Will such guidance to local authorities include advice on sprinklers? I hear what the Minister says about the problems; that is, they are not the total answer; there is much technical detail; they must be used in the right way and one has to understand how they work. However, it seems to me that if fire officers are to carry out the role of fire prevention, they need to have the latest information that the Government have on sprinklers.

Lord Rooker:

My Lords, I am told that on Report I should not reply at this stage, but I shall as the noble Baroness was kind enough to say that she voted for me. The way I read the Bill, obviously firefighters are not giving just advice but their professional. considered advice. If the firefighters think that something should be done, or that something should be fitted, in all the circumstances that would be good advice to give. The way the Bill is drafted, nothing can be ruled out.

Baroness Maddock:

My Lords, that is helpful and goes quite a long way—

Lord Rooker:

My Lords, I should have said, "Yes".

Baroness Maddock

My Lords, that is even more helpful and goes some way to satisfying my concerns and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 20 not moved]

Baroness Hamwee

moved Amendment No. 21: Page 5, line 28, at end insert— ( ) Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (promotion of well-being) shall apply to every fire and rescue authority which is not a local authority within the meaning of the section as if it were such a local authority.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment refers to "the power of well-being", as the shorthand goes. It seeks to extend the specific power which local authorities have to combined authorities. The Minister said at the last stage that he had not received robust examples of where the powers in the Bill are insufficient. He was quite robust in saying that.

I have limited the amendment because I realised in Committee that it was incorrect to refer to all authorities, as those which are not combined authorities will have the power in any event. However, it is a power, not a function, and I suppose the short question is: what is the harm? I think that both the Minister and I would be cross with ourselves if our collective imaginations had not come up with convincing examples so that this power were not included but there was a real example where the absence of power was critical. I do not know whether that has been sufficiently oratorical to win the Minister round this time. I look forward to what he has to say. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker:

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness on this occasion. Nothing has really changed since Grand Committee. As she knows, the power of well-being is available to all the principal local authorities in the country. As a result, county fire and rescue authorities have access to the power of well-being by virtue of being a department of the principal local authority for their area. However, combined fire and rescue authorities, the metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities, or the London Fire Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) do not share this multipurpose characteristic, nor are they directly elected. So, to that extent things have not changed since Grand Committee.

The Bill recognises and facilitates the modern role of the fire and rescue service. With the reform of the fire service, that is not an unimportant point. In our view, the duty to promote fire safety under Clause 6 will provide all fire and rescue authorities with powers to work with other agencies and local partners to help save lives and create safer communities. The provisions in Clauses 5, 11 and 12, when taken together, significantly extend the local flexibility and discretion for all fire and rescue authorities to help to discharge their functions and provide a service that responds to local priorities. So, in that sense, there is a change but it is obviously not a change that goes as far as the noble Baroness would require.

Baroness Hamwee:

My Lords, the Minister said that the members of combined authorities are not directly elected. I do not know whether by that he means that they are not necessarily elected members of authorities—

Lord Rooker:

My Lords, indirectly elected.

Baroness Hamwee:

My Lords, I was going to say that we have been trying to rectify that. One is accustomed to looking at provisions and asking who benefits as a critical way of understanding why something is being put forward. I come back to my question, but this time it will be merely rhetorical as I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment in any event, and say that this is not an issue of asking for whose benefit—perhaps it is for the benefit of the wider community—but of asking what is the harm. I really do not see what is the harm. Although nothing has changed, I do not think that the point has been answered. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield

moved Amendment No. 22:

After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—