| Fire and Rescue Services Bill
|
|
Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that these are powers to enforce privatisation. If the Secretary of State believes that decisions made by a fire and rescue authority in discharging its functions through others are inefficient, uneconomic and ineffective, and would therefore put services to the community at risk, he needs the ability to take powers, if required, as a last resort. To have an inquiry that might hold that process up when it was needed because of the urgency of the situation would also present a difficulty. The Secretary of State may choose to hold an inquiry if circumstances permit, but would need to have as a measure of last resort the ability to intervene swiftly, and in a way that would not be delayed, to ensure that the service to the community was upheld. I understand the fears that both hon. Members have expressed, but the provision is a re-enactment of the existing power in the 1947 Act to ensure that local authorities discharge their functions in a manner that is economic, effective and efficient, which ensures that the community will be served properly.
11.15 amMr. Hammond: Will the Under-Secretary explain the asymmetry between clauses 16 and 17? He presented clause 17 as a power to direct fire authorities to enter arrangements that they have the ability to Column Number: 179 enter under clause 16, but it is not. Under clause 16 a fire and rescue authority may enter into arrangements with another fire and rescue authority, or any other person. The power of direction, however, is limited to an arrangement between two fire authorities. That is slightly odd, and seems to prejudge the efficient, effective and economical discharge of any particular function. Why have the Government created that asymmetry?Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand that the clause provides a final safeguard for the community and the public, to ensure that they receive services that are economic, efficient and effective. I cannot understand the reluctance of hon. Members from both Opposition parties to ensure that the Secretary of State can introduce that. The measures will ensure that two fire authorities can work together in a way that meets the needs of local people. I am at a loss to understand why, in the exceptional situation when that fails to occur, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would want to allow an unacceptable situation to carry on. We have an obligation—and if he ever were in Government, the hon. Gentleman would have the same obligation—to ensure that the community is properly served by those fire authorities. I am sure that if he were sitting on the Government side of the Room—which I dare say he will not be for many years—he would want that safeguard. I hope that after that assurance, he will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Hammond: That is what we call slipping into the error of 1992, and I would caution the Under-Secretary against it. I hear what he said, but I think he has misunderstood—[
I am at a loss to understand why the Government have chosen to limit that provision, and are making a judgment in advance that it would be appropriate to require one authority to have its functions discharged by another authority, but it would never be appropriate to have any of those functions discharged by a third party, such as the Ministry of Defence. I can envisage, for example, a remote area where there happens to be an RAF base with substantial firefighting capability, but it is a long way away from the nearest convenient fire service appliance, or there might be an opportunity to remove a local fire service appliance if the RAF capability could be deployed. However, the Secretary of State could not impose such an arrangement.
Column Number: 180
I have spelled out my concern, and I do not believe that we have had an answer. However, looking around me and looking at the clock, I feel that it would perhaps not be in the Committee's interests to press the amendment to a vote. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Richard Younger-Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 161, in
This is a repeat of an earlier debate, so I can be fairly brief. The amendment would add ''public safety'' to the Secretary of State's considerations when he is giving a direction under the clause. When we tried to insert the words in an earlier clause, it was argued that it was not appropriate because they were covered by the word ''effectiveness''. In that debate I referred to clause 22(3)(a), which contains the words ''public safety''. That clause relates to an intervention by the Secretary of State within the fire and rescue national framework. The directions being given in the clause are in some ways similar to the order that would be given under clause 22, so the words ''public safety'' should be inserted for greater clarity.
Phil Hope: The amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's power under the clause to making directions that secure public safety, greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The clause allows the Secretary of State to direct two fire and rescue authorities to make, vary or cancel an arrangement made under clause 16. Subsection (4) restricts the directions that the Secretary of State can make to those that he considers will secure greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The addition of the words ''public safety'' is unnecessary. We have travelled this path before.
Protecting the public is at the core of what fire and rescue services do. It is difficult to imagine an effective fire and rescue authority that did not have regard to public safety. Equally, in making a direction under the clause, the Secretary of
State would find it difficult to direct a fire and rescue authority to do something that improved its effectiveness but had a negative impact on public safety. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Richard Younger-Ross: In that case I am totally perplexed about why the words ''public safety'' appear in clause 22. Considering the time, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but I should have thought
Column Number: 181
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Richard Younger-Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 71, in
Column Number: 182
'If a fire and rescue authority decide to charge for taking an action of particular description—'.
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Column Number: 183
Chairman
Bailey, Mr.
Ellman, Mrs.
Flook, Mr.
Follett, Barbara
Gilroy, Linda
Hammond, Mr.
Hope, Phil
Humble, Mrs.
McCabe, Mr.
Murphy, Mr.
Pugh, Dr.
Raynsford, Mr.
Swire, Mr.
Younger-Ross, Mr.
|
| |
| Prepared 24 February 2004 | |
