| Fire and Rescue Services Bill
|
|
Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 81 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State, in preparing the fire and rescue national framework, to include priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities. The amendment would change the national framework from a strategic document to purely guidance for individual fire and rescue authorities. That runs counter to the advice contained in the well-regarded report of the Bain committee, which set the framework for the reform of the fire service that we are carrying through. I remind the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge of paragraph 3 of the executive summary at the beginning of the report, which states:
Column Number: 234
One could not wish for much clearer guidance. The intention of the national framework is to provide the strategic leadership for the service that Bain called for, and which, sadly, has not been provided for far too long. All parties should consider it a failure that the fire service has not received the strategic leadership that it deserved from Governments of different political persuasions. We are grasping the nettle and acting to provide that strategic leadership, and the national framework is absolutely critical to that. Amendment No. 157 would specify that the Secretary of State would allow fire and rescue authorities discretion in local decision making. Although a strong strategic steer is needed from central Government, we believe that the national framework already provides good scope for local discretion. It is our intention that the national framework will set out the Government's requirements for fire and rescue authorities, but will not prescribe how those requirements are met locally. Key elements of the modernisation agenda set out in the framework have been designed to promote local decision making—for example, the introduction of integrated risk management plans. If hon. Members examine the draft framework, which is being consulted on until early March, they will notice the considerable emphasis in the opening chapter on risk management and prevention, and on the need to
That is far more susceptible to local planning and discretion. The Government have always emphasised that they are committed to local decision making to provide effective services. One of the key reasons for repealing section 19 of the 1947 Act, which we did a year ago under the Local Government Act 2003, was to send a message to local fire authorities that they would have increased discretion to order their affairs in the most effective way. However, there are circumstances in which the Secretary of State's decisions must have priority. For example, decisions regarding national security cannot be subordinated to local discretion. Most people would accept that on issues such as anti-terrorism and resilience work, it is vital to have a wider overriding national perspective. We believe that the national framework will serve both those interests. It will set an overall strategic framework, but will give more than adequate discretion to local fire and rescue authorities to develop their own plans to improve their efficiency and effectiveness, and provide the best possible service to the public. I hope that the hon. Member for Teignbridge will recognise that amendment No. 157 is not necessary. Amendment No. 82 seeks to remove provision for the Secretary of State to decide what is best calculated to promote public safety and the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of fire and rescue authorities. I Column Number: 235 presume that the proposal is one more Opposition amendment designed to strip away powers from the Secretary of State, but it would lead only to confusion. There is inevitably a degree of subjectivity about, for example, what is the best way to promote the efficiency of the service. If we removed the words that refer to what, in the Secretary of State's view, is the best way to proceed, the question of whose view, and what interpretation, should prevail arises.Mr. Hammond: A judge. Mr. Raynsford: There we have it: the Opposition would much prefer the decision ultimately to go to the courts, with protracted expensive litigation, rather than clarity. There could not be a more telling example of the official Opposition's lack of serious thought on the need to modernise the fire and rescue service for which the Bain report, which the Opposition initially welcomed, argued so cogently. Mr. Hammond: The Minister is proposing a massive document that, despite what he says, sets out in minute detail how fire authorities must act in relation to such matters as human resources policy. That document will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but will simply be published by the Secretary of State. If the question is whether I think the Secretary of State's judgment should, at least theoretically, be subject to judicial review, the answer is yes I do, and I make no apology for that. Mr. Raynsford: I understand why the hon. Gentleman should be a bit defensive on that point. He gave the game away with his sedentary aside, when he indicated that he would much rather the decisions were taken in the courts through litigation than resulting from the Secretary of State's clear guidance. That is an obvious indication that the Conservative party does not expect to be in government for a long time. Amendment No. 82 would lead to confusion, and it is not the right way forward. There would undoubtedly be ambiguity and, of course, the possibility of legal challenge, which I am sure is exactly what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would welcome. When he describes the draft framework for consultation—I stress that it is a draft—as ''unduly prescriptive'', I do not think that he is reading the same document as we produced. He talked about the prescriptiveness of the proposals on human resource management. Those proposals are covered in paragraphs, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11, which set out expectations that any well organised authority would naturally welcome. The framework is not prescriptive in detail; it simply highlights the expectations that an authority should meet to ensure that its human resource operation is well managed and that certain functions are discharged at a regional level, because there are benefits from economies of scale in doing so. Any objective reader of the document would say that it was far from prescriptive, but that it did provide a helpful framework to enable fire and rescue authorities to develop their services in the most efficient way, which is the objective. Column Number: 236 I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will withdraw the amendment, but if he does not, I hope that the Committee will reject it. Mr. Hammond: There we have it; the Minister has told us what any objective observer would make of his document. That is precisely the concern that we are expressing. I am afraid that, in the interests of economy, I was furnished only with a photocopy of the document, but, having read and annotated it, I am sure that we cannot be reading different documents. The Minister talked about the paragraphs on human resources, but they tell fire authorities that their human resources function will effectively be discharged at the regional level. That will cause the management capacity of fire authorities, particularly the smaller ones, to wither, so that they will de facto lose their independence and autonomy. They will become part of the larger regional structures that the Minister envisages—a thread that runs right through the document, and evidently through the Government's thinking.
5.30 pmAre judges the right people ultimately to make decisions about how Ministers act? In an ideal world, no. We have a Parliament to scrutinise such things. If this document were to be presented to Parliament for consideration at debate and approval, that would clearly be the most appropriate way to proceed, but that is not what is proposed. It is proposed simply that the document will be published by the Secretary of State. As I understand it, there will not be a requirement for any form of parliamentary approval. It is in that context that I say clearly that the intention of tightening up the obligation on the Secretary of State is to make that an objective test, which at least theoretically could be used in the courts through judicial review. It is very much the second best option, but if we cannot have proper parliamentary scrutiny that is the route we would seek. Nothing that the Minister has said has particularly reassured me but because of the time I shall not seek to divide the Committee now. We will focus the debate on the amendments dealing with parliamentary approval, where we can make the same point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 84, in
Amendment No. 85, in
'secondly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a).'.
Amendment No. 86, in
'thirdly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a) or (b).'.
Amendment No. 94, in Column Number: 237
Amendment No. 95, in
Amendment No. 96, in
'secondly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a)'.
Amendment No. 97, in
'thirdly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a) or (b),'.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 24 February 2004 |
