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