Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Fire and Rescue Authority: discharge of functions—

'(1) It shall be the duty of a fire and rescue authority to make provision for the discharge of the functions conferred on it by sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 with economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

(2) A fire and rescue authority shall formally review the arrangements it has made under the provisions of sections 13, 15 and 16 at least once every two years and shall satisfy itself that the arrangements it has in place under these sections and the provision it has made for discharging its functions under sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 discharge with its duty under subsection (1).

(3) The Secretary of State may provide such support and assistance as he considers necessary to fire and rescue authorities in discharging their obligations under this section and to assist them in using their powers under sections 13, 15 and 16 to ensure that their functions are discharged with the greatest possible economy, efficiency and effectiveness.'.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Clauses 13, 15 and 16 of the Bill provide a sensible framework for what I shall call ''outsourcing'', and for mutual reinforcement and the procuring of specialist assistance. It must make sense to have a framework that allows not only co-operation between authorities, but the provision by one authority—of its own initiative—of a service to other authorities. Under provisions elsewhere in the Bill, the Secretary of State can require an authority to deliver a service in the area of another authority.

It must make sense to allow fire and rescue authorities to procure services and assistance from third parties—whether they be bodies such as the Ministry of Defence, or commercial third parties—which either operate fire or rescue services incidental to their own operations, or have specialist equipment or manpower available that might be appropriate. Fire

and rescue services will called to deal with certain types of event so rarely that it is almost inevitable that greater expertise and more suitable equipment will be available elsewhere: for example, someone who routinely handles chemicals as part of their commercial business is likely to have readily available the appropriate equipment to deal with a chemical incident. All of that is entirely sensible. It will be interesting later on to see just how far Ministers envisage that going.

Last year, at the Local Government Association fire conference, which the Minister of State attended, I was approached by a gentleman from Denmark, a representative of the private sector company that runs the Danish fire service. The Minister may also have had such an approach—if he did not keep the gentleman's card, I can lend it to him. It would be interesting to discover whether Ministers have considered the possibility of the functions of fire and rescue authorities being contracted out wholesale to properly qualified third-party contractors. I do not know whether the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has looked at that. It would also be interesting to learn how the system in Denmark works and how effective and economical it is. I know that the Minister is very interested in efficiency and economy, so he will want to explore as deeply as possible all the available options.

New clause 1 creates a framework for requiring fire and rescue authorities to discharge the functions that are conferred on them by clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 with ''economy, efficiency and effectiveness''—we have heard those words several times. That requirement is specifically stated, and is then used as a building block to require authorities formally and periodically to review the arrangements that they have made under clause 13 for mutual reinforcement schemes, under clause 15 for the procurement of assistance, and under clause 16 for the discharge of functions by others.

Testing will take place all the time to ensure that the arrangements that they have put in place under those clauses comply with their duty to discharge their core functions with ''economy, efficiency and effectiveness.'' That is something like a best value test. The following questions will be asked: ''Is there somebody out there who could deliver any of the functions that we are gearing up to deliver more efficiently or at lower cost, and if there is nobody out there who can do that today, will there be tomorrow?'' There will be constant testing and re-testing of the decisions that an authority has taken.

New clause 1 goes further. Subsection (3) empowers the Secretary of State to

''provide such support and assistance as he considers necessary to fire and rescue authorities in discharging their obligations under this section and to assist them in using their powers under sections 13, 15 and 16''.

I am seeking a commitment from the ODPM to support best practice. Without naming names, we all know that fire authorities differ in their attitude to innovation and modernisation. Some fire authorities will embrace with enthusiasm the possibility of contracting out certain services or entering into collaborative arrangements, but others will take a

more blinkered view, and it has to be said that, on past form, some will take a dogmatic political stance on how a public authority should discharge its functions.

I do not favour the Secretary of State wading in with steel toe-capped boots to enforce such arrangements on authorities, because the core motivator for locally accountable, democratically answerable authorities should be the interests of their electors. Their search for best value should be driven by a sense of answerability to the payers of their council tax rather than by somebody in Whitehall telling them that there are cheaper ways to do things. None the less, it would be helpful if the ODPM were actively to engage in disseminating best practice—in promoting awareness of what is going on in other authorities and of opportunities to contract out certain peripheral or support functions in a way that would allow fire authorities to increase their efficiency, effectiveness and economy. This is our preferred route to defend the independence and accountability of locally-based fire and rescue authorities and at the same time to encourage collaboration, outsourcing and mutual co-operation so that they deliver services with maximum economy, efficiency and effectiveness—and all with the Government's active support and encouragement. I recognise that subsection (3) as tabled merely provides a power to the Secretary of State and does not oblige him to provide that supportive environment, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us how the ODPM intends to engage actively in this process.

Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

I want to give the hon. Gentleman every opportunity to be absolutely honest with us. I have listened to him with great interest, but there seems to be repetition of words. We are obsessed with outsourcing and with procurement for commercial third parties. Earlier there was an invitation from a private Danish company to tout for business. I do not know what the situation is in Runnymede and Weybridge, but the poor people of Cheshire should be worried that their fire service could be reduced to a mere contract operation. Is the hon. Gentleman telling us the full truth about his intentions, or are we getting a glimpse of new Tory, new privatisation?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing a classic demonstration of the kind of thinking that might be going on in the darkest recesses of some of our less forward-thinking fire authorities. The purpose of probing the Under-Secretary on these issues is precisely to discover how far the Government's thinking has gone down this route. Are there any lines in the sand? Are there any areas that they would regard as not appropriate for outsourcing—to use the term again? It could be outsourcing to another fire and rescue authority, and not necessarily to a commercial third party. We spent some time in the last debate trying to establish that an outsourcing arrangement could be made between fire authorities on what would effectively be a commercial basis, with one authority providing services for another.

I make no apology for saying that this is the model that I commend. The unit of democratic accountability needs to be small enough to be meaningful, but we must recognise that for many services, the operational unit will need to be larger. I see no contradiction between having a democratically accountable authority responsible for the discharge of a function and the recognition that that function can be economically discharged only on a larger scale, so the authority should seek to deliver it by contracting it to another provider or by collaborating with adjacent authorities. That is a flexible approach.

There is little risk in allowing fire authorities almost unlimited scope in discharging their functions, provided that they are held to account for their proper discharge and the authorities are based on units that allow proper democratic accountability and transparency. That is why we favour the smaller structure of local fire authorities rather than the mega-regional authorities that the Under-Secretary appears to favour. I hope that he will engage constructively in the issues raised by the new clause.

You said, Mr. O'Hara, that this debate was to incorporate the stand part debate. The term ''firefighter'' is used in clauses 15 and 16, but so far as I can see, it is not defined in the Bill. As a restriction is placed on the type of person who can be engaged in the arrangement under clause 15, will the Under-Secretary point to where we can find the definition of a firefighter? Clearly, if that is simply a person who goes out and fights fires, the definition is tautologous. Any person employed by someone contracted through an arrangement under clause 15 would be by definition a firefighter, so there must be some qualification of the term if the clause is to have any real meaning. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary could explain where I might find that definition.

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

Just to be clear, are we are taking clause stand part with the debate, not new clause 1?

Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Yes—the question is that clause 16 stand part, and it is convenient that we consider new clause 1 with that, so I will be putting clause stand part at the end of the debate.

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

Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was usefully questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green. On the one hand the hon. Gentleman supports clause 16, but on the other he suggests that his limits go a lot further than he would otherwise wish the wider fire and rescue community to know.

I will start with new clause 1 and move on to clause stand part if that is acceptable to the Committee. I was being excoriated earlier for seeking reserve powers if fire and rescue authorities did not voluntarily co-operate with each other in a reinforcement scheme. However, the hon. Gentleman introduced new clause 1 by describing some authorities as blinkered and in need of measures to deal with them, which is entirely

the reverse of the argument he put when I was defending the need for reserve powers where voluntary arrangements could not be created.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I was choosing my words carefully. I could have used the term ''Labour-controlled'' about one authority that particularly springs to mind, but I chose to use ''blinkered'' instead.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, although it does not take us any further forward.

New clause 1 would create a duty for the fire and rescue authorities to ensure that provisions to carry out their core duties were arranged economically, efficiently and effectively. Any reinforcement scheme, arrangement for support from an employer of firefighters, or arrangement to delegate a fire and rescue authority's functions would have to be reviewed at least once every two years to ensure that it still facilitated the authority's duty under subsection (1) to discharge core functions efficiently, effectively and economically.

The new clause would empower the Secretary of State to offer assistance and support to fire and rescue authorities in their endeavour to undertake the duties under the provision. It is unnecessary because all fire and rescue authorities are best value authorities and as such have a duty under section 3(1) of the Local Government Act 1999 to make arrangements for continuous improvement in economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

Subsection (3) would empower the Secretary of State to provide such support and assistance as he considered necessary to fire and rescue authorities in discharging those duties. However, new powers are unnecessary because the 1999 Act empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance, set standards, make directions and provide for the performance of functions by an authority. Those provisions are further supported by the new national framework powers provided for in the Bill.

In addition, proposed subsection (2) is wholly ineffective because it does not state what a fire and rescue authority should do if its arrangements under clauses 13, 15 and 16 were found not to comply with its duty to carry out its core functions effectively, efficiently and economically. For example, under clause 16 the fire and rescue authorities may be bound by a contract lasting longer than the two years. New clause 1 gives no direction about what should be done with such an arrangement should it fail to meet requirements under proposed subsection (2).

Although I agree with the spirit of the new clause, according to which fire and rescue authorities should discharge their duties with regard to the three Es—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—I cannot support one that will serve only to repeat legislation that is already in place.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The Under-Secretary has explained why proposed subsection (3) is not needed, but will he explain what the ODPM intends to do about promoting the powers that fire authorities would have

under clauses 15 and 16? Without wanting to go too far down the route suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, I am trying to understand, for the benefit of the Committee, how far the Government wish to pursue an agenda that actively seeks to go beyond the authority's own internal employee resources in delivering services.

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

This is the clause stand part point; it is about clause 16. It re-enacts and extends powers under section 12 of the 1947 Act to allow a fire and rescue authority to delegate to others, including other fire and rescue authorities, the discharge of part or all of the function conferred on it under clauses 6 to 9, and clause 11. An example of such an arrangement would be where a fire and rescue authority might decide a contract with the local education authorities to promote fire safety education within its school.

In Cornwall recently, I met firefighters who were conducting an excellent scheme of fire education with young people, in collaboration with the local education authority. There are similar arrangements throughout the country, where fire authorities are working with education authorities to ensure that there is good fire safety education.

Another example would be a fire rescue authority that has specialist expertise in, let us say, rope rescue, which it provides under contract to a neighbouring authority. However, in recognition of the particular expertise involved in firefighting, under clause 16, a fire and rescue authority may delegate the discharge of its function to extinguish fires only to persons who employ fire-fighters. The existing powers to delegate are, by necessity, limited by the narrow scope of the 1947 Act, which sees fighting fires as the only duty. Clause 16 extends those provisions to take account of the wider role of the fire and rescue service and the contribution that others can provide towards our objective of a more modern and effective service.

The Bill is not about the wholesale privatisation of the fire and rescue service—although that is possibly the way that some Members of this Committee may be going. The Bill gives fire and rescue authorities flexibility to work in partnership with others to discharge their functions. That could include arrangements with private companies. We see no reason why a fire and rescue authority should be prevented from delegating its fire safety function, as I have just described, to another provider. Ultimately, the authority is accountable for the services that it provides. The flexibility to work with others is a key component in efficient and effective service delivery. It is widespread and successful elsewhere in local government. There is no reason why these opportunities should not be available to fire and rescue authorities, subject—as I have said already—to the limitations concerning extinguishing fires, where specialist training and expertise are crucial.

Lastly, there is no definition of the term ''firefighter'' in the Bill. However, this term is widely used and widely understood throughout the fire and rescue services. It is not defined in the 1947 Act either. I hope that after those words of reassurance about the

purpose of clause 16 and the lack of any need for new clause 1, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Order. The question of the inclusion, or otherwise, of new clauses in the Bill comes later in our proceedings. The question that we shall consider is whether clause 16 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I have to say that I am pleased with the Under-Secretary's reply. It was a very good answer. To some extent, this is how we should conduct our business: we table a new clause that seeks to understand what the Government are doing, and the Government answer that the new clause is not required for the following reasons, and explain how those things will be done. Then it is all on the record and everybody is clear about what is intended.

I am delighted that the obligation for a fire authority to review arrangements that it has made, or, perhaps more importantly, to review the fact that it has not made arrangements under these clauses, will be a continuous duty that it will have to perform. That is very helpful.

The Under-Secretary said that the drafting of subsection (2) of the new clause was defective because it did not suggest what a fire and rescue authority should do if it found that the arrangements that it had entered into were no longer appropriate. I do not have the statutes to hand, Mr O'Hara, but I know that I could take a leaf out of the hon. Gentleman's book and quote some paragraph of a local government Act that would make it clear that once an authority has formally determined that it is doing something in a way that is not efficient, effective and economic, it had better do something about it. At the very least it will have publicly recognised a weakness in its arrangements, which will be clear to its electors and council tax payers. That, of course, is what accountability is all about.

The Under-Secretary said that new clause 1(3) was not needed because the ODPM had the powers anyway. I was seeking to test the extent of the Government's enthusiasm for the use of the provisions. We have had a little charade, which we are becoming pretty used to, whereby the Government introduce legislation that makes it possible to make a perfectly sensible arrangement between a public authority responsible for discharging a function and a private commercial body that will undertake that discharge in an economical way that makes sense for that authority, but then they say that the Opposition would like to privatise everything, while implying that the Government's view of the potential for such an arrangement is that somebody from the private sector may be able to come in and sharpen the pencils if that is necessary and it is something that it can do better.

We have seen that although the rhetoric of Ministers at this stage is to talk down the scope for engaging in non-conventional arrangements, there is probably little difference between the political parties in their enthusiasm for securing the best possible deal for the taxpayer by ensuring that publicly accountable

authorities, while remaining entirely accountable for the discharge of their functions, can organise the provision of services in the way that delivers the best value for their ratepayers.

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

We will see that later.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

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.