| Fire and Rescue Services Bill
|
|
Mr. Hammond: Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 85 and 86 together attempt to alter subsection (4) to create a clear hierarchy of objectives that the Secretary of State must follow in discharging his functions under subsection (1). At the moment, subsection (4) lists three objectives that the Secretary of State must pursue in discharging that duty under subsection (1). Amendment No. 83 will make it explicit in the Bill that public safety is the first consideration and that economy, efficiency and effectiveness are secondary considerations to be promoted, provided and to the extent that it is not at the expense of public safety. It is easy for the Minister to say that of course we all agree and public safety must be the number one consideration, but this is not a dry discussion. There will be occasions where there are conflicts between economy and efficiency on the one hand and optimising public safety on the other. It is important that there is a clear hierarchy of priorities with public safety in the number one position. This group of amendments attempts to address resolving potential conflicts between different objectives and makes it clear in the Bill which is to take priority in the event of a conflict. Amendments Nos. 94, 95, 96 and 97 repeat the same action in relation to clause 22, ensuring that the Secretary of State's intervention is permitted only where it is in the interests of the promotion of public safety or on another ground, but only to the extent that pursuing it is not detrimental to the primary objective of pursuing public safety. Without that provision, there is no protection in the Bill against the Secretary of State deciding that economy should override public safety and making an intervention under clause 22 on the basis of economic arguments rather than public safety arguments. That would be a travesty of the repeated assurances from the Government going back to the issue of the interim Bain report that the modernisation programme is about saving lives, not saving money. The Government need to ensure that that sentiment is enshrined in the Bill and the amendments attempt to do that. Richard Younger-Ross: I support the general principle of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. The only exception is amendment No. 87. That would remove the word ''revisions'', which would be wrong. Am I misinterpreting it? The clause says:
Column Number: 238 I think ''or any revisions'' would be deleted. Is that not the case? Mr. Hammond: I should apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee because that amendment says ''from 'Framework' '' but should specify that it refers to the second ''Framework'' in that line. The hon. Gentleman's interpretation would be correct, if one assumed that the reference was to the first framework, but the reference is to the second one. The amendment was not intended to do what the hon. Gentleman thought. Richard Younger-Ross: On the basis that it runs from the second ''Framework'', I support that amendment as well. Mr. Raynsford: I am a little unsure as to whether we are dealing with amendment No. 83 and the grouping Nos. 84, 85 and 86, with which are grouped Nos. 94, 95, 96 and 97. I think that the discussion that has been going on between the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and the hon. Member for Teignbridge has been to do with amendment No. 87, which is in the next grouping. The Chairman: I think that those in the nineties mirror these amendments to clause 21. Mr. Raynsford: I shall focus on amendment No. 83 and the linked amendments. As I understand it, they seek to specify the order and weight of consideration that the Secretary of State must give to the criteria on which he decides how to discharge his functions under subsections (1) and (3). Likewise, amendment Nos. 94 to 97 seek to specify the order and weight of consideration that he must give to the criteria with which he will decide to exercise intervention powers. 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 the priorities and objectives for the service. We have always said that public safety will be our paramount concern with regard to the fire and rescue service. I assure hon. Members that the national framework will reflect that. Similarly, we have stated that public safety will be our paramount concern in intervention. I give that assurance again. Specifying public safety as a priority in the legislation is, therefore, unnecessary. It is also undesirable, since a vital part of having an effective fire and rescue service includes being able to weigh up the efficiency of a variety of functions, not simply those linked to public safety. That is integral to providing strategic leadership for the service through the national framework. The amendment would be too restrictive and would take too narrow a view of what is in the interests of the public, both in terms of safety and more generally. For example, an authority might allocate a disproportionate amount of public money to cater for risks that are either inconsequential or adequately covered by other arrangements. Taken in isolation, such steps could further public safety, but at a disproportionate cost. They would mean that other, more deserving areas of the authority's functions were Column Number: 239 neglected to the detriment of public safety, or that the local tax payer was asked to foot an excessive bill.Mr. Hammond: We are getting into the micro-management of a fire authority. The duty that the amendment seeks to constrain is the duty of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) to produce a fire and rescue national framework. Mr. Raynsford: That is exactly the point that I am making. The amendment would be unduly restrictive because it would create an arbitrary hierarchy that meant that in certain instances a decision to recommend a particular approach—[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me. The decision could be challenged on the ground that it is, in the hierarchy, subordinate to other issues. For example, it is suggested that paragraph (c) of clause 21(4), the
is subordinate to paragraph (b), which is
and paragraph (a), which is ''public safety''. The issue of resilience comes up in paragraph (c). If it were clear that arrangements in particular authorities were not allowing effective resilience at a national level, the Secretary of State could perfectly reasonably conclude that steps were necessary, yet that could be challenged on the ground that those wider issues were a subordinate consideration to the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of individual fire and rescue authorities. Mr. Hammond: I would have thought that national resilience was covered by the public safety argument. The important thing is that we are not talking about specific cases in relation to clause 21; we are talking about the Secretary of State's priorities and objectives, which are to be set out in the fire and rescue national framework. That is his duty under subsection (1). We are asking the Secretary of State to set his priorities and objectives within a clear hierarchy, with public safety at the top. There may be a different argument, and the argument that the Minister advances is more persuasive in relation to clause 22, which relates to intervention. However, in relation to clause 21, his argument seems wide of the mark. Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that my argument has persuasiveness in relation to the intervention powers, because amendments Nos. 94 to 97 are grouped with the ones that we are considering. However, I argue that it is equally applicable to the national framework, which has to be set for the service to develop all its responsibilities. The risk of the rigid hierarchy is that it would be open to challenge. We have heard about the possible intervention of judicial review in the courts. That would not be a helpful way forward. We want to create a framework that allows fire and rescue authorities to plan on the basis of reasonable certainty, and to do so in a way that ensures not only effective provision in their own area but that the sum total of the provision Column Number: 240 made by fire and rescue authorities throughout the country leads to national resilience. Therefore, the argument applies in both instances.I have already said that the overriding importance of public safety is taken for granted by the Government. There is no question but that that is paramount. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that such an artificial form of hierarchy would not add much, and could be undesirable. I hope that he will agree to withdraw the amendment. Mr. Hammond: In his closing few words, the Minister said that the Government take the view that public safety is the overriding consideration. There is a concern creeping in that what started as a purely safety-driven agenda about reducing risk and deploying resources according to risk, has become more an agenda about economies that need to be made in the service. In some areas, the justifications for Government proposals—I am thinking of control rooms in particular—are made in economic terms rather than in terms of public safety. I am not, of course, against making savings where possible, but we are seeking to reassert that public safety must be the paramount consideration. I have heard what the Minister has said. I am pleased that he acknowledged in his closing remarks that that was the Government's position. In considering the final form of the national framework, we as individuals—not we as Parliament, because under the Government proposals Parliament will not have any opportunity to scrutinise the framework—will want to ensure that what the Minister has just asserted to the Committee is translated into the final document. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 24 February 2004 |
