|
Column Number: 75
Standing Committee G
Thursday 12 February 2004
(Morning)
[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]
9.25 am
The Chairman: I should tell the Committee that I had a very agreeable dinner last night, and the good mood that resulted remains with me this morning. I hope that that will translate itself to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
My co-Chairman, Mr. O'Hara, will be in the Chair this afternoon.
Clause 3
Creation of combined fire and rescue authorities: supplementary
Question proposed [10 February], That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question again proposed.
The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I only regret that I was not present at your agreeable dinner last night, Sir Nicholas, but I hope that the equally agreeable evening that I shared with my family will ensure that the mood that you described is replicated on this side of the Committee.
I hope that we can conclude our discussion on clause 3 and move on to the many other important measures in the Bill. In our second sitting on Tuesday, I explained that clause 3 largely follows the existing Fire Services Act 1947 in setting out the financial and administrative matters that an order combining fire and rescue authorities must or may cover, including the appointment of new members to a new authority. Subsection (3)(a) also allows the Secretary of State, where appropriate, to appoint a minority of authority members to provide wider experience, including the managerial expertise that may be required if combination is required to tackle the failure of existing authorities.
We had an extensive and energetic discussion of the latter point, and I am aware that not all hon. Members agreed with me. In particular, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was worried that the Secretary of State appointees might be party to policy on operational decisions that effectively tied the hands of those representing local communities, forcing them to raise the level of council tax. I assure the Committee that it is to give the final say to local authority appointees that subsection (5) requires that precepting decisions be approved by a majority of those not appointed by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con): Does the Minister not foresee a problem if one electoral college determines a local authority's spending and commitments while another determines the revenues? Will that not give rise to difficult
Column Number: 76
tensions? In practice, will not the electorate setting the tax be obliged, because of the strictures of the Government among other things, to set a tax that balances their budget and is prudent given the commitments that the broader authority has made?
Mr. Raynsford: No. There is a precedent for local government bodies engaging wider stakeholders in their deliberations but ensuring that matters of finance are determined only by elected local councillors. The proposed framework will enable the Secretary of State, not as a matter of course but only if necessary, to appoint people with particular expertise to augment that available through elected councillors. To ensure that any decision affecting a precept is taken only by those who are democratically accountable through the local authorities, the provision in subsection (5) prevents those appointees from having a say in such matters. That is entirely proper.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister, in seeking to reassure me, said that there is a precedent for wider stakeholder consultation that ensures that those people are not involved in matters concerning finance. Will he therefore confirm that Secretary of State appointees will not be able to take part in decisions that incur cost to the authority?
Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman will know only too clearly, any authority decision might have cost implications at some stage. How that is to be met and how the precept is determined should be decided solely by elected councillors, and our provision ensures that. Most people thinking in a fair-minded way would see that as a sensible way forward.
Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Thinking in a fair-minded way, I must say that some precedents are not promising. The Minister will be aware that there have been independent members on police authorities. On the police authority on which I served, the independent members organised themselves into a caucus and held the balance of power, which was evenly distributed between political parties.
Mr. Raynsford: I do not wish to be diverted into discussing the goings-on in particular police authorities. They are entirely outside my remit, and I am sure that I would be brought rapidly to order by you, Sir Nicholas, if I strayed in that direction. This is a sensible and practical provision to enable outside experts to play a role and to augment the expertise of elected councillors on a new combined fire authority. However, it includes the safeguard that the precepting decision of that authority can be reached only by elected members. That is a fair, sensible and practical way to proceed, and I hope that the Committee agrees.
I am sure that we can trust the good sense of those involved if outside experts are brought in, but it may never happen because the powers will be used only in the limited circumstances described earlier this week. However, if such a situation arises, I am sure that those involved will act in a common-sense way to ensure the best interests of all parties. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
Column Number: 77
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 5.
Division No. 4]
AYES
Drew, Mr. David
Gilroy, Linda
Hope, Phil
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Knight, Jim
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Raynsford, Mr. Nick
NOES
Flook, Mr. Adrian
Hammond, Mr. Philip
Pugh, Dr. John
Swire, Mr. Hugo
Younger-Ross, Richard
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Combined authorities under the
Fire Services Act 1947
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
clause 4, page 4, line 14, after 'must', insert—
'(a) obtain the agreement of the fire and rescue authority constituted under the scheme or (in the case of an order to revoke the scheme) the agreement of all the authorities which would, apart from the scheme, be fire and rescue authorities under section 1 for any part of the area covered by the authority constituted under the scheme; and
(b)'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 8, in
Amendment No. 22, in
clause 4, page 4, line 21, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
Amendment No. 23, in
Mr. Hammond: Clause 4, which has already been referred to during our discussions on clause 2, carries into the new legislative structure the CFAs that have already been created under the 1947 Act. Many were created relatively recently as a result of the creation of unitary authorities, and of the need for new fire authorities to embrace the former counties and those new unitary authorities. The clause will allow the status quo to exist, which is an odd but necessary situation.
During our proceedings on Tuesday, the Minister undertook to try to obtain figures for how many existing CFAs were created at the instigation of the relevant local authorities, and whether any had been imposed by the Secretary of State against the authorities' wishes. I suspect that the overwhelming majority were created as a result of local government reorganisation, and that it was envisaged from the outset of the process that the fire authority would be reconfigured. I also suspect that there have been no examples of the Secretary of State creating a CFA as a stand-alone action, which is one of the reasons for our
Column Number: 78
concern about the way those powers appear to be underlined in the Bill.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to limit the Secretary of State's power to amend or revoke an existing scheme. The aim of the clause is to carry forward the existing CFAs into the new framework. The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could vary the scheme only with the agreement of the authority or revoke it only with the agreement of what I refer to as the underlying authorities—the clause 1 authorities—which would be the fire and rescue authorities if the combined authority were to be wound up. That is an important defence of the localist principle. These bodies are rooted in their communities. Although they are CFAs and are not directly accountable to the electorate of an area, they are indirectly accountable through the constituent local authorities that make up the body.
Amendment No. 22 provides that where the Secretary of State intends to make an order to vary or wind up a scheme, there shall be an inquiry. Amendment No. 23 provides that the order shall proceed only if the inquiry concludes that the change that is being proposed, or the revocation, is in the interests of greater efficiency, effectiveness and economy. Notwithstanding our earlier semantic debate, I understand that to be an all-embracing phrase encompassing everything that a fire and rescue authority should appropriately be pursuing. The Minister of State seems to want to have his cake and eat it on this one: having said that public safety is outside the definition, he now says that public safety is embraced by the concept of effectiveness.
These are important amendments. They would allow the existing CFAs to be carried forward, and they would allow any sensible variations to the scheme where everyone agreed that they were necessary. But they would also introduce the safeguard of an inquiry, with an objective test for that inquiry, if changes were to be made or a scheme was to be revoked. I hope that the Under-Secretary will see the constructive intention behind the amendments, and that he can tell us how the Government foresee the powers in the clause being used.
Amendment No. 8 in the name of Liberal Democrat Members requires yet more consultation. We do not disagree with the sentiment, but our experience is that consultation written formally into a Bill is unlikely to be any more effective than the informal consultation that Ministers will be required to carry out anyway. Although the clause is generally innocuous, the unfettered power of the Secretary of State to vary or revoke a scheme is a centralising power. I do not say that it is a new power, but in the spirit of wanting to decentralise power to the fire authorities we suggest that it needs to be curbed. That is the intention of the amendments.
|
