| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): The hon. Gentleman is too kind to the Minister.
Mr. Hammond: Perhaps I am too kind, and I am sure that other hon. Members will contribute to the debate in a moment.
We are delighted that we have got what we wanted—the proper parliamentary scrutiny of the framework. Coincidentally, the final draft version of the framework has just been published. I confess that I have not had a chance to read it in minute detail but, as the Ministers will know, this has been a busy week for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It would be helpful if the
21 Jul 2004 : Column 443
Minister were to tell the House whether there are any substantive changes from the draft that hon. Members absorbed all those months ago.
Anyone glancing at the document will see how substantive it is. It is longer than the Bill. The Bill effectively incorporates the framework, by reference, so that the framework is to a large extent the meat in the Bill's sandwich. It deals with vital matters such as targets. The Minister does not like me talking about targets, but they are one reason why we were so concerned to secure proper parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the national framework.
Last year, Ministers changed the targets for accidental fire deaths in the home, and for deliberate fires. They extended the deadline for achieving a certain percentage reduction in accidental deaths in the home from 2004 to 2010—a massive relaxation of the target. They also reduced substantially the target for the number of deliberately caused fires, saying that the collapse in the scrap metal market made it difficult to achieve.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister says that that is correct, but the changes were sneaked out without fanfare. The fact that they had been made emerged only in debate.
Quite properly, the targets are at the heart of the framework document. They are the objectives that everything else in that document drives towards. If Ministers want to change such substantive matters of policy, that deserves some scrutiny. Changes should not just be sneaked in. The targets presented in the framework document will, I assume, be capable of being scrutinised when we get the statutory instrument in due course, presumably in the autumn or spill-over sittings.
When the Minister winds up, perhaps he can tell us something about the situation on targets for a reduction in deliberate fires. Ministers have made great play of the problems in the scrap metal market as a driver of their need to relax those targets, but I read articles in the Sunday newspapers this week telling us that the scrap metal industry would effectively shut down on Monday and no longer accept redundant vehicles for processing. That was because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in implementing EU directives on landfill and the classification of waste as hazardous, had failed to clarify the status of what is known, inelegantly, as shredder residue from the scrapped car processing industry. My immediate thought when I read that article was of the Minister and his problem with the 35,000 redundant vehicles that the scrap processing industry would no longer accept. What is happening, and what will it do to the targets set out in the national framework for a reduction in deliberately set fires? Are we not on the brink of a massive explosion in the number of abandoned vehicles on our streets? Local authorities will have to deal with them, and many will be the subject of arson attacks.
Integrated risk management programmes and regional management boards are vital components of the Government's programme, as set out in the national framework, but they do not appear in the Bill. The national framework, in many ways, is the substantive document and the Bill is the enabling mechanism.
21 Jul 2004 : Column 444
Lords amendment No. 6 deals with the intervention protocol. We tabled an amendment and debated the issue in Committee that made the same proposal. The Minister gave us an assurance that the local government intervention code would be used, and I understand that that is still the starting point for Ministers. However, Ministers have recognised that, in the special circumstances of the fire and rescue services, especially a failing fire and rescue service, it might be a good idea to have a consultation with the various stakeholders to see whether any mission-specific provisions need to be included in the intervention code to make it fit for the purpose of dealing with a failing fire and rescue service. That is eminently sensible, but it could have been done in the Commons, saving the Lords a lot of time. In fact, it could have saved the Commons a lot of time arguing over the same issues, in Committee and on Report.
Similarly, we are delighted that the Government have accepted, in Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9, a requirement to report not less than once in every two years to Parliament. Those were almost precisely the words of the amendment we tabled in Committee, which stated,
"leave out 'from time to time' and insert 'at least once in every two years'".
The Minister will, no doubt, have a convoluted argument, devised by highly paid civil servants, as to why those words would not do the job as well as Lords amendment No. 9, but we cannot help feeling that it would be nice, once in a while, if such amendments could be accepted in the Commons.
Perhaps when amending clause 24 the Government should have considered including a provision for a report on their performance against the national framework. There will be reports on the performance of fire and rescue authorities and on the Government's interventions where they fail. I have already mentioned that the Government slacked off in achieving their objectives under the national framework relating to targets on dealing with deliberately set fires and accidental fire deaths in the home, so it would be interesting for an annual report to be made to Parliament, in which the Government carry out a self-assessment on how they are achieving those objectives.
There are three improvements to the Bill in this group and we welcome them. It is a shame about the way they were made.
7.15 pm
Richard Younger-Ross: Earlier, the Minister complained that we had not given him credit for the fact that the Government were listening. We are grateful to the Government for listening but, although we support the amendments, we are concerned that the tone of the debate has become slightly Shakespearean. I am referring not to the Minister's oratorical style—or suggesting that he is speaking in rhyme—but to the fact that Shakespeare rewrote a lot of history. I suspect that some of what Ministers are telling us today is a rewriting of what actually happened in Committee.
Mr. Hammond:
While the hon. Gentleman was listening to the Minister lauding this listening Government, did he notice that they seem to be better at
21 Jul 2004 : Column 445
listening in the House where they do not have a majority than in the one where they normally can command a majority?
Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point—that may have something to do with it.
The Government told us that the amendments could not be tabled earlier due to technicalities and that it was not a matter of principle. However, when we were discussing amendments to clause 22 in Committee, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said:
"In our view, the amendments are unnecessary and remove the flexibility for the Secretary of State to respond effectively to a range of circumstances when deciding, for example, on priorities and objectives for the service."
"I would not want to undermine the document by turning it into a statutory instrument."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 238–242.]
I am pleased that the Government have listened and we give them credit for that. Our debate in Committee would have been shorter and more conciliatory if they had listened to us then, but I am pleased that they have listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) who tabled the amendments in Committee. I congratulate him on tabling them and the Government on eventually listening.
Phil Hope: I shall try not to speak in iambic pentameters—[Interruption.] I know about iambic pentameters—I went to a comprehensive school.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) described the amendments as excellent. I am glad that he is so pleased. I want to make it clear that the amendment means that there will be an order by negative resolution to bring the national framework into effect. We are not turning the framework itself into a statutory instrument, but an order will have to be passed by the House.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |