| Fire and Rescue Services Bill
|
|
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 88, in
'confirmed by them as representing'.
Amendment No. 89, in
'recognised as representing any group of'.
Amendment No. 90, in
Amendment No. 91, in
'6(A) The Framework as first prepared or any revisions thereto shall take effect only when both Houses of Parliament have resolved to take note of them.'.
Column Number: 241
5.45 pmMr. Hammond: I emphasise that amendment No. 91 would ensure that the framework was subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is only proper because it is a very significant document, and I am sure that the Minister would not dispute that. The document is 49 pages long, and it is incorporated in a Bill 26 pages in length, so in many ways, it is a more substantial work than the Bill, and it is a much better guide to how things will work in practice. The framework slots into the Bill as an integral part of the structure. You would not thank us, Mr. O'Hara, if we sought to go through the draft national framework chapter by chapter and clause by clause as part of the debate on clause 21. However, it is a document that justifies that degree of scrutiny. It is entirely right that when the Secretary of State has completed his consultation, rather than simply publishing the document and laying it before Parliament, which I understand does not mean that Parliament is required to approve it in any way, it should be brought to Parliament for consideration and approval by both Houses. That is what we would like to see; it is absolutely essential that the document is considered by Parliament in its final form and has at least that much scrutiny. Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 would introduce an objective test for the representatives of employers and employees who are to be consulted. Rather than the Secretary of State judging who he thinks represents each group, why not let the fire service employers, in particular, speak for themselves and decide who they consider properly to represent them? Amendments Nos. 87 and 90 deal with the issue of amendments to the framework, and they fall in behind the proposal for proper parliamentary scrutiny of that document. Clearly, any changes to it would also then need to be scrutinised. Mr. Raynsford: Amendments Nos. 87 and 90 would remove the provision that allows the Secretary of State to decide whether a revision to the fire and rescue national framework is sufficiently significant to warrant consulting fire and rescue authorities, their employees, and other fire and rescue stakeholders. I should explain that the whole purpose of the consultation document is to be a working document. This is the first draft; it will then be published in the definitive form as provided for in clause 21, and it will then be subject to revisions. Those revisions will range from major matters that will obviously require full consultation, to minor ones, perhaps reflecting small typographical changes or other issues, and not warranting the full-scale consultation exercise that would be appropriate for a policy review or update. It would not be an efficient use of the time of all those involved to be consulted on minor revisions such as the content of additional advice or guidance on the policies captured in the national framework. I hope that hon. Members will accept that those amendments are not terribly helpful. In addition, amendments Nos. 88 and 89 seek to remove the provision for the Secretary of State to decide who represents fire and rescue authorities and Column Number: 242 their employees. The Government have every intention of consulting all relevant parties on the national framework and other matters. When we prepared the draft national framework we followed Cabinet Office guidelines for consultation and sought the views of all key fire and rescue stakeholders, including all fire and rescue authorities, trade unions and associations, directly and via the new consultation bodies such as the practitioners forum. The full list of consultees is included in the national framework. Hon. Members are living in a bizarre world if they believe that we have failed to provide opportunities for all those who have a duty to respond and an interest in doing soMr. Hammond: What about Parliament? Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman asks about Parliament. We are considering all the relevant issues at this very moment. I will talk in a moment about the specific terminology and the presentation of the document, which is designed to be readable, accessible and available to fire and rescue authorities, chief fire officers and others with a day-to-day interest. We are not necessarily conversant with the legalistic language that inevitably follows from the parliamentary scrutiny of documents. It is fanciful to suggest that the document can somehow be transformed into a statutory instrument without that having a dramatic impact on its character and intelligibility. I believe that we have got the balance right. The document has been very well received. Mr. Hammond: Not by me, it hasn't. Mr. Raynsford: I am sure that it has not been well received by the hon. Gentleman; once again, he reveals that he is very much on his own. The responses that we have received are supportive, and contain helpful suggestions for various changes. Some commentators believe that we have been insufficiently prescriptive; others believe that we have been too prescriptive. There is a range of opinions, which is right and proper, but given the recommendations of the Bain report and the view that there should be a document of this nature to provide the overall framework within which fire and rescue authorities can operate, I can say that those involved have generally responded positively. They believe that the document has set out the issues in a helpful, credible and accessible way. I would not want to undermine the document by turning it into a statutory instrument. Mr. Hammond: The Minister appears to be suggesting that the only way that Parliament could scrutinise the document is by turning it into a statutory instrument. However, his Department has more experience and familiarity than I am sure Ministers like with the procedure that we use for special grant reports, in which a Standing Committee considers the report and can question Ministers about it, take note of it and approve it at the end of a short debate. That would certainly be one form of scrutiny, if not the highest form. Surely there is some procedure, short of creating a statutory instrument, that would allow Parliament at least to express its concerns about such a document and ultimately, perhaps, to approve it. Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman could not have made my case better, because I have taken several of Column Number: 243 those special reports through Parliament, and I know exactly the sort of language in which they are written. A special report is not the reasonably accessible, easily intelligible document that the national framework is designed to be. The process of parliamentary scrutiny has many virtues, but it does not encourage the production of intelligible and easily accessible documents. I counsel the hon. Gentleman against pursuing the amendment, which could seriously undermine the value of the national framework as an accessible document, which people involved and interested in the fire and rescue services can read and understand without referring to a lawyer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.Mr. Hammond: The weakness in the Minister's argument is that he has failed to address the fact that the framework document is as significant as the Bill, but it will not be scrutinised by Parliament. Such scrutiny may be inconvenient for the Minister; he may have consulted all sorts of outside bodies, but this is a parliamentary democracy, and it is outrageous that a document as significant as this should be incorporated, by reference, in the Bill and introduced without any parliamentary scrutiny. I accept some of the Minister's points about the other amendments, and I will not press amendment No. 87 to a Division, but we must seek to divide the Committee on amendment No. 91, which provides for parliamentary consideration of the document. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: No. 91, in
'6(A) The Framework as first prepared or any revisions thereto shall take effect only when both Houses of Parliament have resolved to take note of them.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.
Division No. 6]
AYES
NOES
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 24 February 2004 |
