Clause 1 - Fire and rescue authorities
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
9:45 am
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
I have to say that I cannot recall the last time I was involved in a Standing Committee on a Bill to which I could not think of an amendment to clause 1. However, I should not like the Minister to read anything into the fact that the Opposition have tabled no amendments to the clause: it is, as he says, straightforward. It provokes some questions, and I have already asked the Minister the most obvious one.
The Bill's main provision, given that the 1947 Act is repealed, is that it re-establishes what I like to think of as the basic building blocks—the core responsible authorities. We can construct larger operational units from that structure. Some larger units already exist, as the Minister explained, in the form of combined fire authorities, many of which exist only because of the creation of unitary local authorities. For example, the Kent fire authority is a CFA because it covers the county of Kent and the unitary Medway towns—the same geographical area previously covered by the Kent county fire authority. Many CFAs are not the result of a conscious decision to amalgamate brigades to create larger geographical units, but I suspect that, in future, there will be an element of amalgamating brigades for the purpose of creating critical mass. We will debate those issues, but I say at the outset that we will not necessarily or automatically oppose that. Each case must be examined on its merits.
It is important that we start from the lowest level—the fire authorities representing the non-metropolitan county councils, unitary districts and metropolitan areas, as specified in the clause—and that the accountability remains with those units. We agree with the Minister on the structure set out in the clause, but we may differ from him on how the pyramid is built on those basic building blocks.
Were it not for clauses 2 and 4, the authorities set out in clause 1 would be the accountable authorities required to discharge the duties of fire and rescue authorities as set out in the Bill. The authorities specified in the clause are based on recognised and democratically viable areas. Unfortunately, clause 4 severely limits the practical and immediate effect of clause 1. However, I welcome the Minister's response to my question, in which he said that clause 1 provides the legal basis for a reversion, if that is necessary for a future reconfiguration of those democratically accountable units set out in the clause.
One of the principal arguments that we will adopt throughout the consideration of the Bill is that those authorities should be the basic units responsible for delivering the service. That is not to say that they must operate fire brigades or employ large numbers of personnel, but there should be accountability for the operation of the service at a level that represents a viable, democratically accountable unit. It will then be possible to move from that level to an operationally viable level by grouping those authorities together for operational purposes.
I fear, however, that the Government propose to go a different way. They propose to create larger authorities and, as we shall see later in the Bill, in
some cases those would be based on the Government office regions—very large authority areas indeed. We believe that that approach will undermine the democratic accountability of our fire and rescue service. The fact that the underlying authorities are set out in the clause is helpful, and it will create a stark juxtaposition to the structure that could result from the Government's agenda as presented in the Bill—only nine fire and rescue authorities to cover the whole of England.
The clause is important; it is not controversial in itself, but as we build on it our differences with the Government will become plain. However, I support its inclusion in the Bill.