Building Regulations &c. (Amendment) Regulations 2012
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Baroness Smith of Basildon
Baroness Hanham
I shall pursue my speech and make sure that we cover those points when I get to the end. The previous regime of notification tended to penalise the competent, conscientious installer with additional paperwork, while the unscrupulous installer could ignore these procedures with impunity. The changes that have been made reflect a more pragmatic approach. However, while the notification requirements are being reduced, the department will work with the registration scheme providers and trade bodies to raise general awareness of the safety issues and legal requirements, and how to meet them. Promotion of the competent person schemes, to which I do not think either noble Baroness referred, is now a requirement imposed on scheme providers by my department. My officials are working with the forum of competent person scheme operators, including the Electrical Safety Council, to see how the marketing message can be improved and co-ordinated. We will monitor the impact of the changes to Part P to make sure that we are better informed about how this work is going.
The competent person schemes now have around 40,000 registered electrical installers. Professional electrical installers will stay with the register. It is still in their interest to be able to self-certify their work as compliant with building regulations and not have to pay building control charges. This should mean lower prices for the householder. Whenever a registered electrical installer is used, they also benefit from the knowledge that the work has been carried out to standards of quality and safety. The new Part P will retain the core benefits that have been achieved while keeping administrative costs and burdens to a reasonable minimum. The indicators that can help identify the impact of the changes will be kept under review.
In addition, my department will bring forward further regulations later this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me when. They will introduce an alternative route to demonstrating compliance with Part P by allowing for a registered third party, such as an electrical installer, to certify electrical work carried out by somebody doing DIY or an unregistered electrical installer.
It is not exact to say that safe work would rely only on the guidelines. Compliance will still be required and it is only the bureaucracy that has been removed, rather than the requirement to carry out things to safe standards.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but she was addressing a point that both I and the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, raised. In her last sentence, if I have understood correctly, she said that only the red tape has been removed and that compliance is still required. How will we know?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I was asked about monitoring and if I may address monitoring, I hope that I will be able to answer the noble Baroness’s question. The plan will comprise a monitoring and evaluation strategy, which will cover electrical shock incidents and fires of electrical origin. We will also be looking at statistics on the operation of competent person schemes: that is, the number of registered installers and the number of jobs notified to schemes. Other areas which we will be looking at in preparing the impact assessment will be sales of electrical test equipment and awards of electrical qualifications.
There is a number of potential sources of evidence and it is not always easy to isolate the impact of regulatory changes. However, we will keep this carefully under control and will bring forward the available evidence in two years’ time at the time of the review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked me what pressure had been put on the Government to scrap Part P, and where that pressure had come from. I have explained that there was a consultation to which responses were made. As the noble Baroness said, there were some differences of view, but 71% of all respondents agreed that Part P should be amended. The analysis of Part P impacts on improvements in electrical safety was not entirely conclusive. It is difficult to show that Part P is singularly responsible for a reduction in electrical accidents. However, the Government felt that it had been in use long enough to allow us to form a conclusive view on its influence. Therefore, Part P has been retained, although, as I said earlier, a number of people suggested that it should be abandoned.
I was asked about the reason for excluding kitchens. Most minor alteration work to existing alterations is already non-notifiable. The change that we are making is to make all minor alteration work non-notifiable except when it is close to baths and showers. The British standard for electrical installation work has special rules on that.
Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Baroness Smith of Basildon(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their questions, which were, as I would have suspected, practical and straightforward, and I shall try to deal with them in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about data protection. It is correct that local authorities remain the responsible authority, even though they have contracted out to a private company or have made alternative arrangements. They are responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 are met. That position has not changed; that is the way it is at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also talked about bailiffs. The use of bailiffs has worried this House for some time. We are very clear that aggressive bailiff activity is completely unacceptable, and we are committed to bringing forward effective proposals to protect the public and ensure that they act proportionately. The proposals are to implement Part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which would provide legal protection by introducing a comprehensive code that governed, among other things, when and how bailiffs can enter somebody’s premises, what goods they can and cannot seize if necessary and sell, and what fees they can charge. Aggression, force and enforced sale are more or less the complaints that we have heard all along, and we are trying to deal with them.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Is the Minister also aware of circumstances recently when bailiffs entered people’s homes to try to remove property but the poverty was such that they could retrieve nothing to sell anyway?
Baroness Hanham
I know that that matter has been raised, but that will be covered by what we are trying to do with the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The noble Baroness is correct that if there is nothing there that enables a debt to be dealt with, bailiffs ought to report that to local authorities and not just go ahead. We have had a lot of discussions on bailiffs and the Government are very sympathetic to what has been said. Efforts will be made to try to restore some confidence in the bailiff service, which is not very strong at the moment.
The data protection standards will, as I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, remain as at present, with the local authorities being responsible for them. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked what an offence committed by a body corporate is. It is when an offence has been proved to be committed with the consent or connivance of, or attributed to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary, or other similar officer purporting to act in any capacity. The number of occasions when a body corporate may be involved in an individual’s council tax seems to me to be remarkably slim, but it is there just in case.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
No, I think not. My question was about corporate bodies in relation to the power to require information by the authorised officer. Regulation 6 is entitled, “Delay, obstruction etc of authorised officer”. It refers only to an individual, but an authorised officer can require an organisation or a body to provide information. I do not think that that is the question that the noble Baroness is answering. I am happy for her to write to me on that.
Baroness Hanham
I shall write to the noble Baroness, if she does not mind, on the people who are entitled to ask for information. I apologise for not answering her question correctly.
The proof of intention to commit an offence is not very easy, but it can be obtained or come from information that is made available, such as anonymous tip-offs, discrepancies between records that people become concerned about, reports of fraud from the DWP, and so on. It may not appear very often, but there are areas where it would be possible to demonstrate intention.
I hope that I have more or less picked up all the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. As I say, they are essentially practical, but if I have missed any, I will come back, but as I say, I hope that I have addressed the main points.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Baroness Smith of Basildon(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Before this legislation, I had never come across or heard the word “misinstalled”—it is a curious turn of phrase—but clearly if an alarm is misinstalled the idea of it being maintained at relatively regular intervals is of course the responsibility of the business holder in that company. That has to be undertaken. That is why this is a reasonable amendment.
The only question I have on that concerns the evidential burden. If the business owners had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the alarm system was properly maintained, would any action be taken against the company which had failed to do so or would it be a matter for the business? There is a slight legal quagmire here, and although I am in no haste to make extra work for lawyers, I broadly support the amendment. It is entirely reasonable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for tabling this amendment and I hope that she will not be too offended when I say that I am not going to accept it.
The fire and rescue services often raise the issue of the number of mobilisations to faulty fire alarms, perfectly reasonably, at non-domestic properties. We agree that this is a significant issue and we have addressed it in the Bill by proposing that, following local consultation, fire and rescue authorities will be able to recover their costs in cases of persistent false alarms in non-domestic premises where fire alarms have malfunctioned or have been misinstalled—I believe that is the word.
It is certainly true that some fire representatives support the amendment—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, laid out who they were—and want to widen the scope of the clause to cover a wider range of incidents. However, on the other side of the coin, there are others who do not agree with the amendment and are concerned that it is confusing and will lead to additional burdens.
It is vital that we keep charging provisions as straightforward as possible and do not create uncertainty for businesses or fire and rescue authorities which seek to recover their costs. If we were to widen the scope of the clause in this way, it would mean that the fire and rescue authority would have to provide evidence that a business had not properly maintained a piece of equipment. Going down this route could only open up a significant potential for challenge that would benefit neither businesses nor the fire and rescue sector. The Bill already allows for authorities to charge under a wide range of scenarios that can lead to malfunctions and the amendment would not add anything to that.
On that basis, I am not persuaded the amendment helps. It would not achieve its intended purpose in significantly widening the number of scenarios under which an authority could charge. Instead, it could unhelpfully complicate the Bill’s provisions as drafted and leave those extra provisions open to legal challenge. I hope with that explanation the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Baroness Smith of Basildon(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, it has had a slightly longer shrift than I thought it would. I think this amendment was slipped in on the basis that there would be a two-minute discussion on it. I might have known that it would generate a bit more than that. I hope that I can deal with it quite swiftly. In the draft national planning policy framework there is a very clear description of what is expected in terms of the planning responsibility. The Government’s objective is that the planning mechanism should fully support the transition to a low-carbon economy in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. That requirement is contained in the national planning framework, which is subject to the consultation.
There is already a climate change duty on plan-making. That duty seems sensible and was introduced by the previous Administration. I do not think that we are likely to change that at present. It is not worth rehearsing how the duty works but a local council’s development plan policy documents taken as a whole—that is, their local plan—include policies designed to contribute to mitigating and adapting to climate change. The neighbourhood plans have to fit in with the local development plans, so the neighbourhood plans cannot duck the issue. Therefore, there is a clear line between the local development plans and the national policy framework as one leads into the other—it goes down from the national to the local to the very local and there is a requirement to take it all into account. Local communities when they are preparing plans will be in no doubt about the planning requirement.
We have proposed in the framework that the planning system should aim to secure, consistent with the Government’s published objectives, radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These objectives include the carbon budgets set in law which now cover the period to 2027. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is correct to say that the emphasis on how you do this will differ in different places. Kensington High Street in my borough is one of the worst areas in this regard but then all the traffic in the world comes past our front door. It is difficult to see how one borough can make the full contribution that is required but it has to contribute to the target. That is clearly understood in the national policy framework. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has raised wind farms previously and I am sure that he will do so again but at the moment the planning is pretty clear on what is required. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Baroness as I think she has understood what we were seeking to do—to get these issues taken into account. I thought that when the amendments were moved at a previous stage we were on the right track but that we did not quite tie up the loose ends. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. Like her, I was surprised that the debate took the direction it did but I should know that at any mention of climate change the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will always talk about renewable energy and wind farms. However, that was not the intention behind the amendment. It was exactly as the Minister described. As I say, I am grateful to her for her helpful explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Baroness Smith of Basildon(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, government Amendments 110, 111 and 113 accept the recommendations of the DPRRC to change the procedures to be followed when making orders relating to the general powers of fire and rescue authorities. Amendments 110 and 111 make orders to expand the scope of an existing order subject to the affirmative procedure, as recommended by the DPRRC.
In response to the amendment tabled on 20 June by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, I said that it was never the Government’s intention to enable charging for all community fire safety or prevention activities and that I would reflect on the best way of achieving that aim. Amendment 113, tabled in respect of England and Wales, retains the existing position that fire and rescue authorities cannot charge for the giving of advice, on request, about preventing fires and means of escape in any premises. The amendment retains the existing ability of fire and rescue authorities to charge for the giving of advice in relation to non-domestic premises unless that advice is requested under Section 6(2)(b) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 which sets out the criteria for fire safety; the noble Baroness will know more about this than I do. Fire and rescue authorities will not be able to charge for the giving of advice in relation to domestic premises in any circumstances. Charging is optional and up to full cost recovery, not for profit. This amendment will replicate existing arrangements on charging for giving advice as set out in the 2004 Act. I await the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I rise to speak to our Amendment 112 and comment on the government amendments in this group.
I welcome the Government’s amendments and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments. I appreciate that it caused some confusion when I first raised this. As the noble Baroness generously said, when she first wrote to me, her officials and government Ministers had understood that the legislation as drafted would not allow for charging. It was completely inadvertent, as she said, and they had not appreciated that a consequence of the Government’s proposals to expand and increase charges would lead to community fire safety being charged for. Indeed, she wrote to me to that effect. I thank her because, when it was recognised that our concerns on this were justified, she raised the matter in the House and immediately wrote to me as well to clarify the position and agreed to bring forward government amendments to correct the error. I am grateful to her for doing that.
I have to say to her that this is a fairly large Bill, about 500 pages long. It is very detailed and quite technical in parts, and some of the discussions we have had have sometimes seemed quite complex. We have concerns that some parts of this Bill may have been rushed through to the House before they were fully and properly drafted. It is to the great credit of the noble Baroness that she has been ready to engage and debate on these issues, and at times has been prepared to concede and bring forward amendments to try to improve this legislation. So I am grateful to her for the amendments she has brought forward today, in so far as they go.
I am sorry to raise the matter in this way, but I am looking at the difference between the amendment in my name and the amendment from the Government, which refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act. Our Amendment 112 would not allow charging for community safety or fire prevention work, whereas the government amendment refers to Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which is purely about the fire safety work that a fire authority must undertake as part of its core functions. I entirely agree that that is right and proper in so far as it goes. The last Government recognised that fire safety should be a core function, and therefore placed a duty on fire authorities to undertake fire safety. No fire authority should be allowed to charge for that core function, as the noble Baroness rightly agrees. Where I think there is a grey area—and some clarification on this would be helpful, as this is another unintended consequence—is that many fire authorities have extended this work to the related, but slightly wider, community safety remit.
I have some particular examples of this work, which I am sure the noble Baroness would never want to see lost to the community. For example, my authority in Essex runs a number of courses for young people, such as one called “Firebreak” and another called “Young Firefighters”, and there are similar schemes in other authorities. They do promote fire safety—there are clearly benefits for fire safety—but there are much wider benefits to the individuals taking part and to the community. In Basildon, Essex fire service uses these projects, working with local authorities, councils and other bodies, as part of a team tackling crime and disorder. The fire service is part of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, and it is very proud of this work. I looked at its website earlier today for examples. It seems to me—the noble Baroness can assure me on this—that from the wording that is taken from the 2006 Act this does not exactly fall under fire safety.
For example, there is a page on the Essex County Fire and Rescue Service website about Darren, 18, of Ashingdon Road in Hawkwell. He has just joined the crew of his local fire station as the newest recruit, and he said:
“It was Firebreak which really showed me what I wanted to do with life and how I could do it. I had got into the wrong crowd and was getting in trouble with the police and then bringing that trouble with me into school and getting into worse trouble”.
His head teacher referred Darren to the “Firebreak” course—it is a long quote but I will read it—and, as Darren says,
“When I got back to school I ditched my mates and really buckled down. Almost straight away I saw my grades improving and my predicted exam results shot up. Firebreak made me realise that there is more to life than getting in trouble and mucking about and gave me something to work towards”.
That is not technically fire safety, but the benefits to the community are enormous. Another person mentioned is Craig, who is 20 and attended this course in 2005. He says:
“I was taking drugs, drinking and stealing cars. Basically I was completely off the rails. Firebreak has changed my life, I no longer drink or take drugs and am now working to become a firefighter myself”.
The Cheshire fire service signs up to missdorothy.com. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware of missdorothy.com. When I was Fire Minister I went to see some of the work that it is doing, which is about community safety for younger children. Given the trust placed in firefighters, and their very respected position in the community, they were engaging very young children in community safety. Part of that was about fire safety and being safe, but also about being safe in their broader lives. The Cheshire fire service is also one of the employers involved with the Prince’s Trust programme. I certainly think that nobody in your Lordships’ House would want to lose the fire service’s involvement with the Prince’s Trust. There is a 12-week personal development course, and the fire service is one of the employers doing that.
Devon and Somerset is another authority that has a personal development scheme, also called “Firebreak”, for key stage 4 pupils from 14 to 16. Its website says that it provides a
“themed educational diet designed to complement and enhance the school curriculum. It aims to raise achievement, improve self motivation, increase educational engagement”,
and aims to develop,
“practical skills, life skills, communication skills, team work”.
Looking around the country, I see that Suffolk authority is another one to engage actively with children and young people. One of its objectives is to prevent and reduce fire crime and fire, but it also wants to engage young people, and has professional staff working with the authority, to identify good practice in working with children and young people. East Sussex has a “LIFE” project and Chester has a “Respect” project.
All of those have proven successes in deterring young people not only from a life of crime but from social disorder as well. My fear is, if it was the Government’s intention, which I suggest it probably was not, that these should be charged for—and I think that, under the Government’s amendments, they would be able to be charged for—then those very young people who can benefit most from these courses would not be able to do so.
Another issue is that, if these courses were chargeable, who would pay? In many cases it would be another public authority. What we would be doing is introducing a bureaucracy to move money around the system. So it would be helpful if the Minister, perhaps not today, could reflect on the advice she was initially given that this would not be covered by fire safety. Perhaps there may be some kind of guidance that could be issued. I think that this is the kind of work that so many people in the community benefit from.
In my own authority, at Basildon fire station, Martin Trevillion leads the community safety programme, and it is an exceptional programme. Having spoken to so many young people that have benefitted from it, I would be reluctant for us to lose that programme simply through inadvertent drafting of legislation.
Finally, I want to raise one other issue, which is that of carbon monoxide safety and awareness. I am also not clear that Section 6(2)(b) of the 2004 Act, which talks about advice on how to prevent fires and on means of escape from buildings, would cover carbon monoxide safety. This is a particular issue: there have been a number of deaths and serious injuries due to carbon monoxide, and it is something that fire authorities are able to take on and work with, and I know that some of them already do so. I would not think that the noble Baroness intended that that should be charged for as well.
When at Second Reading I first raised the issue of charging for community safety, it was clear that the Government had not thought about the implications, quite inadvertently, and this had slipped through. The Minister was able to respond to those concerns very positively. I hope she understands that my raising these tonight is in exactly the same tone, as this is a service provided by the fire authorities, working with their community, which we really would be very loath to lose, if they had to charge for it. I ask the Minister—I think she has had time to reflect, or to receive enlightenment on this issue quite soon—even if she cannot give me a full answer today, to reflect on that so some guidance can be issued, because this resource that is provided by our fire and rescue services is very valuable for the community.
Localism Bill
Debate between Baroness Hanham and Baroness Smith of Basildon
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not think that I can reassure the noble Baroness about everything at this stage, as she asked a lot of detailed questions of which I had no notice. I will ensure that she receives a full reply to the many questions that she has raised. However, that does not mean that I am not going to answer the other points.
Amendment 29 aims to remove the similar provision in Clause 9; that is, in new Section 5A(1). The aim is to provide the appropriate national authority with powers to prevent stand-alone fire and rescue authorities from exercising the general power to do anything specified, or of a specified description or to set conditions around the use of the power. The noble Baroness referred to restrictions on innovative finance, which I mentioned earlier.
The argument for keeping the provision is also strong for fire and rescue authorities. For example, the power could be used to protect firefighter/public safety or the Exchequer from novel or risky financial transactions. This takes us back to the previous discussion on new Section 5A(1). We are most concerned about any financial arrangements or financial transactions which may or may not be justified and over which nobody has any control, although I admit that that is not covered in the Bill. These provisions provide a necessary safeguard, given the breadth of the new power, to ensure that risks are managed and can be managed.
For a new order made under new Sections 5C(3) and 5C(4), the appropriate national authority must consult and adopt the affirmative procedure. This should ensure that the order is subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny.
The effect of Amendment 30 would be to remove entirely the charging provisions set out in Clause 10 in new Sections 18A, 18B and 18C. That would mean that the fire and rescue service would not be able to charge for any functions under the Bill. Charging is optional—it is a “may” in the Bill—and subject to a local consultation. It is capped at up to full actual cost; that is, not for profit. This enables the fire and rescue service to cover its costs for providing services, but it particularly excludes individual and domestic premises.
Fire and rescue authorities are funded to maintain an efficient service. There is no explicit funding for ancillary activities that have increasingly fallen to brigades by default. The noble Baroness made some suggestions about cats up trees and cows in ditches. I have here the words “animal rescue”, which probably amounts to the same thing, and reference to the provision or removal of water in non-emergency situations. Flooding would therefore be covered. There would be other provisions along those lines. Indeed, there is increasing demand for the provision of such services, and that is why the existing charging provisions have been updated in the Bill and why the authorities may make charges.
The noble Baroness will know—she made this point—that charging for some functions has been possible since the Fire Services Act 1947. This power was replicated by Section19 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. Clause 10(3) of the Bill, which is not removed by this amendment, repeals the Section 19 charging powers in the 2004 Act. Removing the inserted provisions in Clause 10 while repealing Section 19 would mean that fire and rescue authorities would be unable to make any charge for these services.
The noble Baroness also inquired about whether any assessment of insurance had been made. Perhaps I may include an answer on that in my written reply, because of the detail involved.
I turn finally to Amendment 31 about education and reducing deaths. I immediately accept what the noble Baroness said about there having been a welcome reduction in death over the past few years. We believe that fire safety education is a cost-effective means of reducing fire deaths and injuries. Community safety campaigns such as Fire Kills have achieved significant success. Under Section 19 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, fire and rescue authorities can already charge for giving advice to persons in relation to premises where a trade, business or other undertaking is carried out.
However, it was never the Government’s intention to enable charging for community fire safety or prevention activities, and I will reflect on the best way to achieve our aim. However, I owe the noble Baroness an apology because in my recent letter I said that the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 covers the promotion of fire safety as a core function. However, the Bill does not repeal this function and, therefore, fire and rescue authorities will not be able to charge for this service. I apologise for the error in my letter. Our intention was that it should not be possible to charge for core functions such as community fire safety prevention. Perhaps I may make that absolutely clear. Fire fighting and emergency medical assistance are highlighted in Clause 10, proposed new Sections 18A and 18B. We have received advice that as community fire safety and prevention is not excluded from the general charging provision, charging is possible. We will seek further and urgent advice. We need to come back to this issue at Report. Given the advice we have received, particularly on this aspect of charging and cost-effective advice to persons and fire safety education, my complete understanding is that we do not want to charge for them, but in order to make that absolutely clear, we will come back to this issue. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the Minister for her thoughtful response, which is, I think, confirmation that core functions, as outlined in the 2004 Act, including community safety and fire prevention, would not be charged for. That is extremely helpful. My Amendment 30 was only a probing amendment. It sought clarification on the change from previous statements on what can and cannot be charged for under this legislation. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her offer to come back and answer my questions in more detail.
What I am trying to get at in Amendment 29—a point she has partially answered, but not entirely—is why the procedures are different in proposed new Section 5C(1) and (2) from those in subsections (3) and (4), under which the Secretary of State can stop a fire and rescue authority doing something or can contain it. I do not understand why the process is different and applies only to fire services, not local authorities. If the noble Baroness can address that issue in her reply, it would be very helpful. I am grateful for the consideration that the noble Baroness has given to my concerns, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.