Clause 17 - Directions as to arrangements under section 16
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
11:00 am

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

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'.

Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

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 Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

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

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

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.

Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Order. I think that the difference may be that ''shall'' means that people have to do something whether they like it or not.

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

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 Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

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.

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

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.

Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

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.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

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

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?

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

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 Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

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—[Interruption.] I think that ''Sheffield'' is the word that the Minister of State is groping for. I was trying to ask the Under-Secretary why, in granting the Government those powers under the clause, which he has just robustly defended—we may have our differences but I understand what he says—he has chosen to limit the power of the Secretary of State to intervene to only part of the scope of clause 16. That was my question, and he has not really addressed that point.

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.

I am not suggesting that I want to give the Secretary of State more power, but I want to understand why the power that he is taking is asymmetrical in relation to the different solutions to the problem that he foresees. If the Under-Secretary wants to intervene, I shall be happy to hear what he says. [Interruption.] However, he does not. When I see Ministers conferring, I always think something might come of it—but clearly that is rather ambitious.

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.

Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 161, in

clause 17, page 8, line 40, after 'securing' insert 'public safety'.

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.

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

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.

Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)

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

there would be greater clarity if the words were included in the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.