| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.5 pm
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): Given this week's parliamentary timetable, I suppose that the debate on this Bill is the relative calm before the storm. If we had been asked to predict that 18 months ago, however, we would have expected it to be part of the storm. That demonstrates how the debate has now moved on to the practical reform and modernisation of the fire service. The Bill has been welcomed across the Chamber, and I welcome it because it sets out a coherent basis for the future of the fire service. We have been arguing for that for some years.
All I want to do at this stage is to pose a number of questions about some elements of the Bill, many of which have already been mentioned. Clauses 1 to 4 relate to the proposed structure of the fire and rescue authorities. My understanding from what the Minister has said is that we shall, as far as possible, abide by the principles of subsidiarity and decentralisation, and that that will match up with the proposals for regional government, which have had broad support from many parties in the House. However, the Bill goes slightly beyond the view expressed by the Minister in regard to intervention when no regional assembly structure exists, and not just in relation to imposing solutions to tackle terrorism. Clause 2(2)(a) states that if
- "it appears to the Secretary of State that for the purposes of this Act, in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness, there should be a single fire and rescue authority for the combined area",
I share the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who expressed reservations about indirectly elected members and appointed members, and about—how can I put this diplomatically?—the quality of the interest that they would display in their engagement. We have experienced that in the past, particularly in relation to joint boards after the abolition of strategic or regional authorities. I cite our own example of the Greater London Authority. Many good members served on the joint boards relating to the services that were devolved to the authority, but there were also many who were there under sufferance, often because—let me put it as diplomatically as this—there was nowhere else for them to be placed. We should reassert the concepts of subsidiarity, devolution and what we now describe as localism, linked to direct elections.
Clauses 1 to 4 also deal with the process of consultation. When there are objections, there is the potential for a public inquiry. I would suggest that, when the Standing Committee meets to consider the Bill, it might be better to include a requirement for such an inquiry, rather than simply the potential for one. In those circumstances, the inquiry might well obtain greater support overall.
Part 2 deals with the new thrust of the service towards prevention rather than just reaction. We all welcome the recognition of the new practices, and the existing best practice that has been followed by many fire authorities around the country. Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the need for enhanced investment in prevention. I shall return to the issue of sprinklers because it has been mentioned so often. My own example is that, when the Yarl's Wood fire took place, the Government acknowledged the importance of installing sprinkler and misting systems in certain institutions. Within 48 hours of the Yarl's Wood fire, the Harmondsworth detention centre in my constituency was required to install sprinkler systems.
I gained from that requirement an understanding of the Government's commitment to and appreciation of the importance and significance of the safety benefits of sprinkler systems. Given that it was acknowledged in that small instance, I agree with Members on both sides of the House about the importance of introducing new building regulations. Improving public investment in sprinkler systems will be critical to the future prevention role of fire services.
It has been pointed out that the additional investment in prevention promised by the Government over the coming three years amounts solely to £5 million per annum—[Interruption.] Does the Minister want to comment on that?
Mr. Raynsford: That figure of £5 million has, I think, been circulated by the Fire Brigades Union, and it is
simply inaccurate. We have a £43 million budget for fire prevention, including the work of the arson control forum. I announced in my speech that £9 million of allocations are due to be made tomorrow on arson control alone. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the actual allocation is much greater than £5 million.
John McDonnell: What would be helpful for all Members, as we progress further in this debate, would be a note from the Minister on the breakdown of that money. How much of it is genuinely additional, where will it be invested, and how effective does he think it will be? That would clarify a number of questions.
With regard to road accidents, clause 7 recognises the work that is undertaken by many of our fire authorities. In my constituency, our fire station is located next to the M4, near to the M25 and the A40. Much of its time will be spent on RTAs—road traffic accidents. In that regard, the Bill provides an opportunity to bring forward measures that are part of the Government's overall programme for addressing road safety generally. Rather than waiting any longer, an opportunity to include such measures in the Bill might be provided in Committee. With further, rapid consultation, perhaps across parties, in the next week or two, amendments could be brought forward to assist in that. I am sure that the firefighters will have proposals at hand with which to advise the Minister.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that an opportunity exists for the Minister, possibly working with the Department for Transport, linking up with the Highways Agency and the transport police, to work on prevention of road traffic accidents? We must not miss that chance.
John McDonnell: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to make that statement. Clearly, that would provide a new direction in which the fire service could be actively engaged. Those who have the onerous responsibility of prising people out of cars and dealing with the deaths associated with road traffic accidents have many suggestions about how progress can be made on the road safety agenda that the Government have started to implement.
In addition, I am not averse to examining how some costs of road traffic accidents could be borne by measures that impact on motor insurance. The health service imposes charges on those involved in road traffic accidents, which contribute to the direct cost of such accidents. A financial incentive that not only reduced accidents but perhaps increased income, which could be spent on the prevention of road accidents, would be worth examining.
Under clauses 9 to 12 the Secretary of State takes powers to respond to particular emergencies: again, the example of terrorist attack is given, which is completely understandable. Are there problems, however, with the existing collaborative arrangements and the joint planning that is already undertaken? If so, can those be drawn out so that we can have a wider debate on the matter to understand the rationale for this change? My understanding at present is that the collaborative arrangements that have been established—untested, gladly—have largely proved satisfactory.
Clauses 16 and 17 relate to the discharge of functions by others and the ability to enter into contractual arrangements with others to provide specific services. I am grateful that the Minister has clarified for the record that that does not relate to privatisation. There is no intent to remove services from the public sector—firefighter functions can only be delegated to another fire and rescue authority within the terms of this legislation. There may be questions, however, when absolute clarity is needed on the range of functions that we so define, to ensure that they cannot be contracted out and cannot in any way be construed as services with the potential to be privatised.
Clause 17 gives the Secretary of State powers of intervention to require contracts to be entered into for certain services. Why does the Bill include that requirement? If the Secretary of State is to take such powers, there must—if we are abiding by the principles of subsidiarity under this Bill—be a firm justification. Clause 19 contains the reassurance that the Government are not widening the existing powers for charging, but, as I said, a wider debate than that is necessary, particularly in relation to road safety. The Local Government Association, however, has pointed out in its briefings that there seems to be some conflict with the Local Government Act 2003, which gives local authorities more flexibility. That issue needs to be addressed, because there is some overall confusion.
Clause 21 is the key reference to the fire and rescue service framework and its introduction. Many people across the fire service welcome the opportunity that that provides to debate that framework because such debate is encouraging and democratic. However, concerns have been expressed—some were addressed in the Select Committee report—about the rush to implement new procedures without their being piloted. The Select Committee advised that there should at least be some public education to raise the level of debate and to overcome any misgivings about, for example, the effect of a potential reduction in the speed and numbers of firefighters sent in response to 999 calls; possible cuts in vital rescue and fire control equipment; plans to reduce responses to automatic fire alarms; and cutting down on responses to automatic fire alarms, not just in office blocks but in flats where people live.
The key question for all Members is how we monitor the implementation of the framework by individual fire authorities. Clearly, elements of the Bill give power to the Secretary of State to intervene if a fire service authority is failing, but more information on what criteria will trigger the Secretary of State's intervention in a failing authority would be useful. More importantly, the Secretary of State has a duty under the Bill to report back to Parliament on the framework. It would be helpful to have further information on how that report will be undertaken. Will it be a published report that will be debated on the Floor of the House, whereby actions can be determined by Parliament to overcome any weaknesses or problems that are identified during the implementation of the framework?
Again, clause 28 deals with the organisation of facilities and the Secretary of State's powers to provide services directly, and it relates to what is described as
civil resilience. I should like clarity on how the Secretary of State will use that power. When will it be used? What is the definition of the grounds on which it will be used? Is it linked in some way to the Civil Contingencies Bill and, if so, how? What are the different gradations of anxiety or concern that will trigger the Secretary of State's implementation of that power?With regard to clauses 31 and 32, on the new negotiating bodies, the Minister told us—he can intervene if I have got this wrong—that consultations are now taking place on establishing the new negotiating structure. Fine. Under the Bill, we propose that a new structure will be established. However, the Secretary of State will retain the opportunity—the power—to set out guidance and advise the negotiators, but I am not sure on what: the parameters of the discussion, or the desired outcome?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |