Clause 21 - Fire and rescue national framework
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
5:15 pm
Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
Amendment No. 81 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State, in preparing the fire and rescue national framework, to include priorities and objectives for fire and rescue authorities. The amendment would change the national framework from a strategic document to purely guidance for individual fire and rescue authorities. That runs counter to the advice contained in the well-regarded report of the Bain committee, which set the framework for the reform of the fire service that we are carrying through. I remind the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge of paragraph 3 of the executive summary at the beginning of the report, which states:
''We therefore conclude that a fresh approach is required. This must start with a lead from the Government. There needs to be a new policy-making body, led by Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. This needs to set a framework, making clear what the Government requires from the Fire Service; the ways in which the Service should be modernised; and, critically, the way in
which the Service has to reposition itself so that it concentrates its efforts on reducing and managing the risk of fire rather than responding to incidents.''
One could not wish for much clearer guidance.
The intention of the national framework is to provide the strategic leadership for the service that Bain called for, and which, sadly, has not been provided for far too long. All parties should consider it a failure that the fire service has not received the strategic leadership that it deserved from Governments of different political persuasions. We are grasping the nettle and acting to provide that strategic leadership, and the national framework is absolutely critical to that.
Amendment No. 157 would specify that the Secretary of State would allow fire and rescue authorities discretion in local decision making. Although a strong strategic steer is needed from central Government, we believe that the national framework already provides good scope for local discretion. It is our intention that the national framework will set out the Government's requirements for fire and rescue authorities, but will not prescribe how those requirements are met locally. Key elements of the modernisation agenda set out in the framework have been designed to promote local decision making—for example, the introduction of integrated risk management plans. If hon. Members examine the draft framework, which is being consulted on until early March, they will notice the considerable emphasis in the opening chapter on risk management and prevention, and on the need to
''draw up local plans, taking account of local circumstances and local needs, in place of the far more restrictive national standards that were imposed under the old 1947 Act regime which this replaces''.
That is far more susceptible to local planning and discretion.
The Government have always emphasised that they are committed to local decision making to provide effective services. One of the key reasons for repealing section 19 of the 1947 Act, which we did a year ago under the Local Government Act 2003, was to send a message to local fire authorities that they would have increased discretion to order their affairs in the most effective way. However, there are circumstances in which the Secretary of State's decisions must have priority. For example, decisions regarding national security cannot be subordinated to local discretion. Most people would accept that on issues such as anti-terrorism and resilience work, it is vital to have a wider overriding national perspective. We believe that the national framework will serve both those interests. It will set an overall strategic framework, but will give more than adequate discretion to local fire and rescue authorities to develop their own plans to improve their efficiency and effectiveness, and provide the best possible service to the public. I hope that the hon. Member for Teignbridge will recognise that amendment No. 157 is not necessary.
Amendment No. 82 seeks to remove provision for the Secretary of State to decide what is best calculated to promote public safety and the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of fire and rescue authorities. I
presume that the proposal is one more Opposition amendment designed to strip away powers from the Secretary of State, but it would lead only to confusion. There is inevitably a degree of subjectivity about, for example, what is the best way to promote the efficiency of the service. If we removed the words that refer to what, in the Secretary of State's view, is the best way to proceed, the question of whose view, and what interpretation, should prevail arises.