|
The Chairman: I should point out that we have another five clauses and six groups of amendments to get through before 6 o'clock.
Column Number: 230
Clause 20
Exercise of powers at or under sea
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hammond: I want to ask the Minister one question about the clause. I think of it as the channel tunnel clause. There may be other applications, but the channel tunnel application seems to require an answer. If a fire and rescue authority has the power to act outside its area, that power may be exercised under this clause at sea or under the sea. That is fairly uncontentious. The restrictions contained in the Bill, including the restrictions on charging for recovery at more than cost, will apply to work carried out at sea or under the sea.
The Kent and Medway combined fire authority, as I understand it, provides fire cover for the channel tunnel. There is a permanently manned fire station at the tunnel entrance, which is staffed by Kent fire authority personnel and managed by the Kent fire authority. Although under the present regime the authority is not allowed to charge for firefighting interventions, it charges the operators of the channel tunnel substantial sums for maintaining capacity.
I guess that if we were having a broad philosophical discussion, the distinction between fighting fires and maintaining capacity might be rather academic. Most people will call the fire service to fight a fire in their home or building only very rarely, but they will want to ensure that capacity is maintained 24/7 should they wish to call upon it. The Minister will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to engage him in a philosophical debate about capacity charging, but can he give me the reassurance that nothing in the clause—I will limit it to the clause—will change the arrangements that the Kent and Medway combined fire authority has in relation to its operations in the channel tunnel? What discussions have he or his officials had with the Kent and Medway fire authority and the channel tunnel operators about the clause? How will it impact on that authority and the arrangements that are in place for fire and rescue cover in the channel tunnel?
Mr. Raynsford: The clause will allow the fire and rescue service to continue to be employed to deal with emergencies both at sea and under the sea. That involves more than the channel tunnel. The hon. Gentleman highlights the role of Kent and Medway fire and rescue authority, but this has a wider application.
Mr. Hammond: I should have made it clear that I cannot think of another sub-sea structure that extends beyond the territorial sea of the United Kingdom, for which a UK fire authority might reasonably have responsibility.
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not believe that there are any others, but this could allow a contribution to rescue at sea beyond the territorial waters. That is why it covers operations both at and under the sea. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has a general duty to manage the response of UK authorities to territorial incidents
Column Number: 231
in territorial waters and beyond. The MCA does not maintain its own core of firefighters, but will enter into agreements with other service providers, including fire and rescue services, to provide a response to fires and other emergencies at sea, and to provide fire crews equipped and trained to undertake such work. Under clause 9, the Secretary of State will have the power to impose a duty on a fire and rescue authority in relation to emergencies offshore.
A little glitch has occurred, which is to do with the ability of fire and rescue authorities to charge for such work. That was covered by the provision for the fire and rescue authorities to charge under the Marine Safety Act 2003, which amended section 3 of the Fire Services Act 1947. It has unfortunately come to light that in the repeal of the 1947 Act, that provision will be lost. We will undoubtedly need to introduce an appropriate amendment in future to resolve that issue. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it, because it has provided an opportunity for me to alert Committee members to it.
I have just been advised that technically, under the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, the channel tunnel is part of Kent, so does not extend beyond Britain's territorial waters—an interesting observation. [Interruption.] I am not sure how the French will respond to that, but we do not want to risk getting into such difficult territory far from our area of responsibility.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister confirms that there will be no change to the arrangements. I only hope that he will reply to the sedentary observation of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon that perhaps we could investigate the possibility of extending the channel tunnel to Paris—and one day, if we have the money, down to the Bordeaux vineyards.
The Chairman: I was a little generous in allowing that discussion to continue.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Fire and rescue national framework
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in
clause 21, page 10, line 7, leave out sub-section (2)(a).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 157, in
No. 82, in
clause 21, page 10, line 16, leave out from 'manner' to 'best'.
Mr. Hammond: As we need to make rapid progress to consider the next four clauses before the knife falls at 6 o'clock, I shall move directly on to clause 21, which gives statutory force to the fire and rescue national framework, which the Secretary of State has already published in draft. That appears to be the key document that will effectively define how fire and rescue authorities discharge their functions, and
Column Number: 232
which, by virtue of provisions later in the Bill that require compliance, allows the Secretary of State to dictate a blueprint for the operation of fire and rescue services. That further erodes the principle of local service accountability.
In fact, the framework tells us much more about the Government's intention than reading the Bill will ever do. We object to a document of such overriding significance, which will probably be the single most important influence on how fire and rescue authorities carry out their functions, being incorporated by reference into primary legislation, so that it is not subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment No. 81 would remove the obligation for the framework to set out priorities and objectives for authorities and the discharge of their functions. The proper role of Parliament is to set out the functions of fire and rescue authorities in primary legislation, and the Bill does just that. The Secretary of State already has substantial powers, particularly under clauses 9, 14 and 17, to direct how those functions will be discharged. The further provisions in the framework allow an unscrutinised document to have the force of primary legislation. Under subsection (2)(b), the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance to authorities
''in connection with the discharge of any of their functions''.
That should be a sufficient level of intervention. The discharge of their proper functions must be a matter for local fire and rescue authorities, rather than something to be defined in detail by the Secretary of State.
5.15 pm
Amendment No. 82 would simply make more objective the obligation on the Secretary of State under subsection (4) to discharge his functions under subsection (1). It would require that the functions be discharged in the manner best calculated to promote public safety, the ''economy, efficiency and effectiveness'' of fire and rescue authorities and of matters in connection with which they have functions, rather than requiring that the functions be discharged
''in the manner and to the extent that appears to him to''
do all those things.
It is not unreasonable to seek to introduce a semi-objective test of how the functions of preparing and publishing the national framework are discharged. At the moment, the Secretary of State could reasonably argue that the wording is so loose that there is no objective hurdle for him to meet. We can see no reason not to introduce an objective test that would make the Secretary of State's draft of the fire and rescue national framework subject to potential challenge if it did not focus on public safety and economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It can only be helpful to have the Secretary of State kept on a short leash and, at least theoretically, subject to the possibility of challenge to his decisions.
The Liberal Democrat amendment, No. 157, approaches the problems that we address in a different way by trying to add words to subsection (2)(a) requiring the Secretary of State to allow fire and
Column Number: 233
rescue authorities local discretion in decision making. I entirely support the sentiment behind that amendment, but there is no explanation of how the conflict that would then be created between the inserted words and the remainder of the subsection would be resolved. The subsection would state that the framework must set out priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities but must allow them local discretion; those two requirements are likely to collide. Therefore, I urge the hon. Member for Teignbridge to consider whether it might not be better to remove the requirement for the framework to contain the priorities and objectives in subsection (2)(a).
Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Amendment No 152 is a probing amendment. We want to highlight the fact that we wish local authorities to have greater discretion. I am happy to support the hon. Gentleman's idea that the subsection should be removed entirely. It is essential that if we have a national framework, it should not be too rigid. We have seen in other areas and sectors—in the national curriculum for education, for example—that the system creaks if structures are not flexible enough to take account of local need.
We largely support these clauses, and the amendments to them tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I urge the Minister to examine whether a more flexible system can be created. Later, we will debate a new clause on the management board that will control the framework within a region. It is important that the individual circumstances of an authority be taken into account. The circumstances of authorities such as Devon and those of areas of London are not the same.
I visited the chief fire officer for Durham and Darlington, which, like Devon, is a combined authority. He had worked for Northumberland, which is a county authority, and Newcastle, which is a metropolitan authority, and he explained to me that the needs of those three authorities differed. He is possibly, but not necessarily, unique in having such a broad width of experience. I urge the Minister to reflect on how we might at the next stage create a less rigid system.
| 
