|
Mr. Raynsford: We will see that later.
Mr. Hammond: The Minister says that we will see that later. I am not sure whether he means later in our discussions on the Bill, or later when there is a Conservative Government and he can see how my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) discharges the extensive powers that the Minister is generously seeking to make available to him.
I am slightly concerned about what the Under-Secretary said about the definition of the term ''firefighter''. He said that there was no definition. I rather suspected as much—and I rather suspected that that has never been a problem. However, we now have something rather different, because clause 15 specifically limits the class of person with whom an arrangement can be made to a person who employs firefighters. That puts the need for a definition of a firefighter on a different level. The hon. Gentleman might want to reflect upon that, because otherwise it seems to me that somebody who fights fires becomes by definition a firefighter, and the thing becomes completely circular.
If clause 16 is to stand as drafted, I cannot see why there should not be a definition in the Bill that refers to appropriate skills, training and experience, or something of that nature. Otherwise the restriction in clause 15 is meaningless—but as this is a stand part debate, I have said everything that I need to say.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Directions as to arrangements under section 16
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in
clause 17, page 8, line 29, leave out from '(1)' to 'one' in line 30 and insert
'only if requested to do so by'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 44, in
clause 17, page 8, line 34, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
Amendment No. 158, in
clause 17, page 8, line 34, leave out 'may' and insert 'will'.
Mr. Hammond: Clause 17 deals with the Secretary of State's power to direct the discharge of functions by one authority on behalf of another, or one body on behalf of another. We are concerned not about the underlying ability to enter into those arrangements, as I have made clear, but about the Secretary of State's power to direct such arrangements, because we believe that the responsibility and accountability for the
Column Number: 176
discharge of its functions must lie with the individual authority. We strongly support the making of arrangements between authorities, and between authorities and third parties, for the efficient, effective and economical discharge of their duties. Our position is that the arrangements must be on a voluntary basis.
The power of the Secretary of State to order that a fire authority's functions be discharged by others is inconsistent with the maintenance of a genuine locally managed and accountable service. Let us consider what would happen if the fire and rescue authority in county X were ordered by the Secretary of State to contract out a chunk of its core functions to a third party, which could be another fire and rescue authority, a commercial contractor or a provider of certain services. The fire and rescue authority would rightly argue that it had not determined the arrangement and could not therefore be answerable for the efficiency, effectiveness and economy with which those services were discharged on behalf of the local council tax payers. That seems entirely wrong and inappropriate in the usual routine circumstances.
As usual under the Bill, it is necessary to enter a caveat. If the Under-Secretary were focusing specifically on extreme arrangements to deal with high-level terrorist threats and so on, we would understand, because we have always acknowledged that different arrangements will need to be in place in such circumstances. We are willing to enter into such a debate, but our problem is that the need for resilience against that new and literally terrifying threat is constantly prayed in aid of all sorts of intervention powers for the Secretary of State, but that those powers are not limited to those circumstances. They can just as easily be deployed in relation to the discharge of fire safety functions, road traffic accident work, flooding, inshore rescue and any of the other matters for which fire and rescue authorities will have responsibility.
The only constraint on the Secretary of State is the requirement to proceed with the direction only when he believes it is expedient to do so to secure
''greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness.''
As drafted, subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State to give a direction
''on his own initiative or at the request of one of the authorities.''
Amendment No. 43 would limit the Secretary of State's power to make an arrangement for discharge of function to a situation in which he had been requested to do so by one of the parties involved. In other words, it would eliminate the power of the Secretary of State to act on his own initiative.
Amendment No. 44 would change the meaning of subsection (3)(b) to require an inquiry to be held before a direction is made, whereas the Bill is purely permissive and allows the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry if he wishes. It would substitute ''shall'' for ''may'' in the provision.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) had not noticed amendment No. 44 when he tabled the Liberal Democrat amendment, No. 158. That amendment would insert ''will'' in place of ''may'' rather than the word ''shall''. Unless that is a
Column Number: 177
deliberate ploy to avoid adding his name to my amendment, I suggest that ''will'' does not have much to recommend it over ''shall''. Indeed, ''shall'' might be a more conventional form of drafting. I hope that we are in agreement about the principle of requiring an inquiry to be held before the Secretary of State uses such a significant power to override local responsibility for the discharge of functions by imposing such an arrangement.
Richard Younger-Ross: I concur with the hon. Gentleman's comments. I shall go no further than that, except to say that the Under-Secretary conceded that there was an argument when we debated the difference between ''may'' and ''shall'' earlier. One hopes that he will make the same concession now.
The Chairman: Order. I think that the difference may be that ''shall'' means that people have to do something whether they like it or not.
Phil Hope: Amendment No. 43 would remove the Secretary of State's power to direct two authorities to enter into an arrangement for the discharge of any of their functions without a request from one of the authorities. Amendments Nos. 44 and 158 would oblige the Secretary of State to cause an inquiry to be held before giving any direction to fire and rescue authorities to enter into an arrangement.
Clause 17 re-enacts provisions in section 12 of the 1947 Act that grant the Secretary of State a dual role in respect of delegation of the discharge of functions. As we said earlier, that role is in part to act as an umpire when asked to determine a disagreement between two fire and rescue authorities, but also to initiate action that he believes to be necessary. I stress that any direction under clause 17 must be with a view to securing greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
The existing power under the 1947 Act for the Secretary of State to act on his own initiative is an important safeguard. I emphasise that exercise of the power to act on his initiative would be evidence based, and used only as a last resort, but it is an important measure. Frankly, it would be ridiculous if the Secretary of State could not intervene in such circumstances unless invited to do so by one of the parties, as would be the case under amendment No. 43. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.
The fall-back position as a last resort is important. We visited that territory earlier when we debated clause 14, and I emphasise the point again.
Mr. Hammond: Can the Under-Secretary explain why, when neither authority wants to go ahead with the arrangement in question, the power is needed separately under clause 16? My understanding is that the Secretary of State already has powers to direct that an authority will discharge its functions beyond its own area. Therefore, he could achieve the same objective without the power in clause 16.
Column Number: 178
Phil Hope: The power in clause 17 applies to clause 16. It is important that the Secretary of State has the ability to intervene if all else has failed and economy, efficiency or effectiveness is not being achieved through clause 16. The Secretary of State must have the ability to intervene as a last resort in such cases.
Before issuing a direction of that kind, which I emphasise would be a last resort, the Secretary of State must give the fire and rescue authorities affected the opportunity to make representations to him, and he may hold an inquiry. However, amendments Nos. 44 and 158 would go beyond that, as they would oblige the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry before issuing a direction. The real difficulty with that is that holding such an inquiry, which could take months if not years, would lead to long and unacceptable delays in securing an acceptable service for the community. That would not be fulfilling our duties as a Government, and it would not be of service to the community.
Richard Younger-Ross: When Ministers were making the point earlier about the delay of an inquiry in the context of another clause, I could follow the argument. However, this clause relates to arrangements for others to discharge functions. I cannot quite grasp why the Under-Secretary is so keen that there should be powers to direct an authority partially to privatise in order to go down another route. The Secretary of State already has powers to force an authority to undertake functions, and he has powers to deal with it if it fails to discharge those functions. I cannot see why he should also need a great deal of power to force them to use other bodies to undertake functions that he can force them to undertake anyway.
| 
