Clause 21 - Fire and rescue national framework
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
5:00 pm
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
As we need to make rapid progress to consider the next four clauses before the knife falls at 6 o'clock, I shall move directly on to clause 21, which gives statutory force to the fire and rescue national framework, which the Secretary of State has already published in draft. That appears to be the key document that will effectively define how fire and rescue authorities discharge their functions, and
which, by virtue of provisions later in the Bill that require compliance, allows the Secretary of State to dictate a blueprint for the operation of fire and rescue services. That further erodes the principle of local service accountability.
In fact, the framework tells us much more about the Government's intention than reading the Bill will ever do. We object to a document of such overriding significance, which will probably be the single most important influence on how fire and rescue authorities carry out their functions, being incorporated by reference into primary legislation, so that it is not subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment No. 81 would remove the obligation for the framework to set out priorities and objectives for authorities and the discharge of their functions. The proper role of Parliament is to set out the functions of fire and rescue authorities in primary legislation, and the Bill does just that. The Secretary of State already has substantial powers, particularly under clauses 9, 14 and 17, to direct how those functions will be discharged. The further provisions in the framework allow an unscrutinised document to have the force of primary legislation. Under subsection (2)(b), the Secretary of State will be able to issue guidance to authorities
''in connection with the discharge of any of their functions''.
That should be a sufficient level of intervention. The discharge of their proper functions must be a matter for local fire and rescue authorities, rather than something to be defined in detail by the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 82 would simply make more objective the obligation on the Secretary of State under subsection (4) to discharge his functions under subsection (1). It would require that the functions be discharged in the manner best calculated to promote public safety, the ''economy, efficiency and effectiveness'' of fire and rescue authorities and of matters in connection with which they have functions, rather than requiring that the functions be discharged
''in the manner and to the extent that appears to him to''
do all those things.
It is not unreasonable to seek to introduce a semi-objective test of how the functions of preparing and publishing the national framework are discharged. At the moment, the Secretary of State could reasonably argue that the wording is so loose that there is no objective hurdle for him to meet. We can see no reason not to introduce an objective test that would make the Secretary of State's draft of the fire and rescue national framework subject to potential challenge if it did not focus on public safety and economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It can only be helpful to have the Secretary of State kept on a short leash and, at least theoretically, subject to the possibility of challenge to his decisions.
The Liberal Democrat amendment, No. 157, approaches the problems that we address in a different way by trying to add words to subsection (2)(a) requiring the Secretary of State to allow fire and
rescue authorities local discretion in decision making. I entirely support the sentiment behind that amendment, but there is no explanation of how the conflict that would then be created between the inserted words and the remainder of the subsection would be resolved. The subsection would state that the framework must set out priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities but must allow them local discretion; those two requirements are likely to collide. Therefore, I urge the hon. Member for Teignbridge to consider whether it might not be better to remove the requirement for the framework to contain the priorities and objectives in subsection (2)(a).