Localism Bill

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 30 and 31. I am seeking some clarity with the probing Amendments 29 and 30. The Bill extends the general powers of fire authorities. We discussed that at Second Reading and we understand the reasons why, but concerns about the power of the Secretary of State to then prevent fire and rescue authorities from using those powers or place conditions as the Secretary of State may dictate by an unamendable order have already been raised by both my noble friend Lord Beecham and the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree. The issues around scrutiny have been well rehearsed and could apply equally to these clauses on the fire service. I have a few other questions, and seek clarity from the Minister if she is able to assist me on this. In Clause 9, I seek to understand why new Section 5C makes changes to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and why new Section 5E contains the procedure for the Secretary of State’s orders for new Section 5C. New Section 5C(1) and (2), as the Minister said earlier, ensure that if there is a statutory provision that curtails the new rights and powers of a fire authority, or if something overlaps, they can be removed, and there are procedures for the orders there. It would be helpful to have an explanation on this. When the Secretary of State is seeking to put forward orders under new Section 5C(1) and (2), he has to follow a procedure. He has to consult and he has to publish a draft of the order and an explanatory document outlining the proposals, giving reasons for the order and outlining any consultation that has been undertaken, any representations that have been made as a result of that consultation and any changes that have been made. However—this is what I fail to understand—that procedure does not apply under new Section 5C(3) and (4). There is no guidance and no provision for the Secretary of State to use those powers—other than to consult—for new subsections (3) and (4). There is no duty to publish the consultation or to give information on any changes that have been made. New Section 5A, which will be inserted into the 2004 Act, gives new powers to allow the fire authority to do pretty much anything that it thinks is appropriate or incidental to its functions, but it is then constrained by the Secretary of State, who can in effect withdraw that right by order, as long as he consults. I find it difficult to understand why there is no guidance, no process and no criteria by which the Secretary of State’s actions can be judged to be reasonable or appropriate. That could make things extremely difficult for a fire and rescue authority. Having told the authority that there are virtually no boundaries, as long as what it does is appropriate to its functions, however incidental, the Bill then specifies boundaries but does not say what those boundaries are, other than that they can be changed by the whim of the Secretary of State as long as he consults. Issues of parliamentary scrutiny have already been raised, but there are wider implications relating to why the process that is outlined in new Section 5E, which is similar to the process for the new powers of competence given to local authorities, is not applied to new Section 5C(3) and (4). Will the noble Baroness say what guidance will be published for the fire and rescue services, so that they know what the boundaries are? What criteria will the Secretary of State use? These two new subsections give the Secretary of State the power to prevent fire and rescue services from doing anything that they want to do or allow the Secretary of State to put conditions on that. Unless they and the Secretary of State know what the boundaries are, the Secretary of State seems to be able merely by order to prevent them from doing anything that they have chosen to do. Will the criteria that are used, whatever they are—they are not in the legislation and I am not sure that they will be published at all—be the same for all fire and rescue authorities or will they be performance related in some way? It would be helpful to know why the procedures provided for the Secretary of State in new Section 5E apply to subsections (1) and (2) of new Section 5C but not to new subsections (3) and (4). I do not understand the logic of that. I understood the noble Baroness to say that the reason for the powers in new subsections (3) and (4) was to safeguard finances but that there were no plans to use them—these situations would be rare. However, I do not think that that is adequate when we are putting into legislation something that we feel we may not often use. I am sorry if the argument is rather complex, but I find it difficult to understand why no process is in place for orders relating to what are in effect more draconian parts of the legislation when there is a process for other parts. Amendment 30 is a probing amendment to seek clarification on what can be charged for. As noble Lords will understand, since the Fire Services Act 1947, fire and rescue services have been allowed to charge for what are known as special services—those that are not their core services. The 2004 Act endorsed that. The Government then consulted on a specified list of 12 special services that could be charged for at local fire authorities’ discretion. To date, not all authorities have charged for all those services, although I note that, with the downward pressure on the fire and rescue service budget, a number of fire and rescue services are now looking to charge for more services and are putting proposals to the authorities. The current position is that the Secretary of State has to set out by order, following consultation, the services for which a fire and rescue service may charge and who it may charge. Those services which are charged for are quite clear and must be specified. The proposals in the Bill are completely the opposite. They basically say that the fire and rescue authority can charge for anything that is not in the list. It is a very limited list, and it is therefore likely to lead to more authorities charging for more services. I have a number of questions; if the noble Baroness is able to answer them, it will help my understanding. I am not clear about what are regarded as core services. The Bill lists three areas which it describes as emergencies that cannot be charged for, but there are a number of grey areas. The Explanatory Notes for the 2004 Act referred to issues where the fire and service authority would look to give community support. The example was a provision in Section 12 of the 2004 Act which provides the fire and rescue authority with the power to agree to the use of its equipment or personnel for any purpose it believes appropriate wheresoever it chooses. For example, a fire and rescue authority may agree to help pump out a pond as a service to its community. I think that your Lordships would agree that that would be an appropriate task for a fire and rescue service to undertake. However, having given this example in 2004, are the Government now saying that this is a service for which the fire and rescue authority could charge? Has any assessment been made of the income that is likely to be generated from this extension of charging powers? Has any assessment been undertaken before embarking on this legislation of just how many authorities currently charge and for which services? How is this likely to change? For example, local authorities can charge for animal rescues. Few do, so Mrs Jones’s cat up a tree would be rescued; anyone who was listening to Ronnie Corbett on Radio 4 as we were driving into the House today would have heard his story about this. If a farmer’s cow was in a ditch, for example, most fire and rescue authorities would undertake that. Few would charge for it. Has any assessment been made of the impact on insurance premiums? There is a lack of clarity, but there is likely to be increased charging for domestic and commercial flooding incidents. If they are a result of intemperate weather causing floods, that could not be charged for. However, a burst pipe could be charged for in some parts of the country but not in others. That could lead to insurance companies assessing the risk of whether or not the householder is likely to claim against their insurance. I wonder if it is the Government’s intention to seek, through charging, increased revenue for fire and rescue authorities to compensate for the cuts in fire authority budgets. We need greater clarity. It is important to understand exactly what can be charged for by which authorities. The authorities need to know that, as do the public and businesses, who may find an increased burden on them as a result. Amendment 31 is specific. It proposes that fire safety and prevention issues should not be charged for and should be regarded as a core service. Under the 2004 Act, that was changed. It was stated in the Explanatory Notes that the fire and rescue service already carries out a wide range of activities to promote community fire safety, "““with the aim of preventing deaths and injuries in the home and reducing the impact of fire on the community as a whole””." This includes fire safety education, especially for vulnerable groups, smoke alarm installation, chip pan safety demonstrations and fire safety checks for households and others. It goes on to say that most fire and rescue authorities undertake training, working with young people, local businesses, agencies and partnerships. This work is currently carried out on a discretionary basis, and the effect of Section 6 would be to impose a statutory duty. Under the Bill, although it is a statutory duty, it is not included in the list of items that cannot be charged for. Is it the Government’s intention that in future fire and rescue authorities’ fire prevention and fire safety work should be charged for? In making the case that they should not be charged for, I refer the noble Baroness to her own department’s fire statistics, which show how many more people now have smoke alarms in their homes as a result of the work undertaken by fire and rescue services, and the fall in the number of deaths as a result of fire safety and fire prevention measures. In 2001, there were 228,300 deaths due to fire. That figure fell in 2008 to 130,000. That is a significant fall. We should praise our fire and rescue services for the community safety and fire prevention work that they have undertaken. It would be a tragedy if that work was now to be charged for and we saw a rise in fatalities as a result of not carrying out the fire prevention work that our fire and rescue services are capable of delivering. I apologise to the noble Baroness for asking so many questions but I hope that she can offer me reassurance on the points that I have raised.