Clause 21 - Fire and rescue national framework
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
5:30 pm
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
I shall focus on amendment No. 83 and the linked amendments. As I understand it, they seek to specify the order and weight of consideration that the Secretary of State must give to the criteria on which he decides how to discharge his functions under subsections (1) and (3). Likewise, amendment Nos. 94 to 97 seek to specify the order and weight of consideration that he must give to the criteria with which he will decide to exercise intervention powers.
In our view, the amendments are unnecessary and remove the flexibility for the Secretary of State to respond effectively to a range of circumstances when deciding, for example, on the priorities and objectives for the service. We have always said that public safety will be our paramount concern with regard to the fire and rescue service. I assure hon. Members that the national framework will reflect that. Similarly, we have stated that public safety will be our paramount concern in intervention. I give that assurance again.
Specifying public safety as a priority in the legislation is, therefore, unnecessary. It is also undesirable, since a vital part of having an effective fire and rescue service includes being able to weigh up the efficiency of a variety of functions, not simply those linked to public safety. That is integral to providing strategic leadership for the service through the national framework.
The amendment would be too restrictive and would take too narrow a view of what is in the interests of the public, both in terms of safety and more generally. For example, an authority might allocate a disproportionate amount of public money to cater for risks that are either inconsequential or adequately covered by other arrangements. Taken in isolation, such steps could further public safety, but at a disproportionate cost. They would mean that other, more deserving areas of the authority's functions were
neglected to the detriment of public safety, or that the local tax payer was asked to foot an excessive bill.