| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support the amendment. It seems to be reasonable as it would not remove the restriction altogether, but allows for sensible, practical arrangements to be put in place. I have been unable throughout to understand the complete restriction, given what we have heard about recruitment difficulties in some areas, and those who undertake a civilian role in the police, or those who are not on shift duty for the police service providing support for the fire service. I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment. The noble Baroness is not asking him to put detail into the Bill. The amendment would allow for reflection and detailed consultation with the two services, which is important. I am sure that the police have something to say. I am aware that
20 Jul 2004 : Column 124
we have been hearing from the fire service, not from the police on the issue. The opportunity is there for the Government and I hope that they will take it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I hope that I can give further clarification. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we have not heard from the police, but we shall hear from the police and the Home Office now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that the clause was too restrictive and would prevent a person who is also a police officer being employed for any purposes, and not just firefighting. She gave examples of part-time working in a fire control room or in an administrative role. It was also suggested that a process could be in place so that a police officer and his employer would know in advance what his position would be at an emergency incident.
We are very concerned here with the duties that a person holding the office of constable might be required to perform if employed by a fire and rescue authority. I want to make it absolutely clear that the prohibition would not affect special constables or community support officers, who, of course, are employed by police authorities, or the civilian administrative staff of police authorities. We are talking about police constables.
We remain satisfied that there could be a conflict of roles at an incident if an off-duty police constable were employed as a retained part-time firefighter and confusion over which employer had the primary claim on the officer's services. I do not think that it would be practical to agree responsibilities in advance because by its very nature an emergency is unpredictable and police officers and firefighters have to make decisions in difficult and dangerous situations. It is better, therefore, to make a clear distinction.
Furthermore, the Association of Chief Police Officers has made it clear that it would wish the present prohibition, which has been in place since 1947, to remain, not only because of its concerns about confusion at times of emergency over primacy of role, but also because retained firefighters can be called out at no notice, which could impact upon police constables' ability to perform their next tour of police duty, with consequences for the efficiency of the police service.
We have reflected on the possibility of accepting the amendment. There have been internal discussions in government and we have had discussions with our colleagues in the Home Office. However, we have taken the view that it would be wrong to introduce the power to make a change by regulation when we have no intention of exercising that power.
As I said, the prohibition impacts only on persons who hold the office of constable. I have not seen any examples of where such a situation would occur, but this is not a change that we are prepared to make. The Association of Chief Police Officers is against it and I believe that we should take account of that advice.
20 Jul 2004 : Column 125
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we have been around this circuit a few times. I do not understand the logic put forward by the Minister. If a police officer acts as a retained firefighter, he acts as a retained firefighter and not as a police constable. I am certain that he would understand that he wore that hat. The possibility that I believe is being suggested by the Minister that a police constable who acts as a retained fire fighter would suddenly decide that he was a police officer, and leap into the breach when he was fighting a fire, or acting under command, seems to me to be absolutely ludicrous. I am certain that this happens at the moment, that police officers supplement retained firefighters in one way or another, even if they are not in the front line of fighting fires. I believe that it is a great pity that the Government are taking their present line.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not addressed the issue of a police constable being a retained firefighter. One does not know how long it will take to fight a fire and what brigades will turn up to it. Such a constable may not be able to turn up for his next shift as a police officer. We have to consider that because of the nature of the areas concerned.
We are talking about police officers, who are not on duty, undertaking this job. However, police officers are never off duty. Whatever they do, they are always police officers. They may do something in their spare time—when they are not clocked on—but the noble Baroness has not addressed the issue of police officers who are not fit, or who are too tired or not available to turn up for their shifts as police officers the next morning or later the same day or for the night shift, undertaking such jobs. This is not an unimportant point and it is not one that we should ignore.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies and with the leave of the House, perhaps I can ask whether this is a matter for the forces involved rather than Parliament trying to dictate how the matter would work. Any employee in any situation will look at how it will work in practice. I feel very uneasy, sitting in London SW1, suggesting the detail of the matter. That is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I did not address the point, but retained firefighters are made up of all kinds of people who have all kinds of responsibilities within the community. The only reason we are addressing police officers is that they are the only people mentioned. The Government may just as well restrict nurses, doctors or anyone in the community who has a specific role to play and a specific responsibility. Presumably everyone else is entitled and can make that decision and the employers can make the decision.
It seems to me very strange indeed that police officers will be excluded in such a way by definition specifically because, as I understand it, the Government are afraid that such people may forget which hat they are wearing and suddenly become police officers. That is what the Minister says. I do not intend to test the opinion of the House but I remain unhappy about the Minister's response.
20 Jul 2004 : Column 126
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Powers of fire-fighters etc in an emergency etc]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 10:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to government Amendment No. 11. These amendments have been prepared in response to the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on Report, and which had been raised at earlier stages of the passage of the Bill in both Houses: that Clause 43 as drafted would not allow a firefighter to make an appropriate response to situations in which, while there was as yet no evidence of fire, there was clear evidence that the ingredients for a fire were present.
In consideration in Committee in the other place, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions challenged those who considered that the scope of the clause was too limited, to provide better examples of the type of incident which could cause such problems. As I made clear on Report, all the examples received both in this House and the other place are, in our view, satisfactorily covered by the powers already provided in the clause and no extension of the powers seem to be necessary.
While the House accepted that point in relation to the specific examples given, a concern remained that an opportunity to plug a potentially serious gap was being missed. My ministerial colleagues and I have reflected further on the point alongside our objective of ensuring firefighters are equipped with adequate powers to deal with the often life-threatening incidents that they face.
While the likelihood of such an event occurring remains in our view small, we believe that it would be prudent to take the opportunity offered by the Bill to give firefighters this modest but potentially important extension of powers. The power could be exercised only where the firefighter had a reasonable belief that a fire is about to break out and, without it, there might be occasions on which a police officer had to be called before action could be taken, unnecessarily distracting the officer from other duties and perhaps increasing the risk of a more serious emergency developing because of the delay in taking action.
We have listened to what was said on the previous occasion and we believe that it is right to make these very modest changes. It is an opportunity that it would be silly to miss. The clause already gives a firefighter power to do anything necessary when a fire has broken out and this amendment will allow intervention if he reasonably believes that a fire is about to break out. Any action that he takes will have to be justified by the circumstances of the case. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |