Clause 21 - Fire and rescue national framework

Fire and Rescue Services Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 5:00 pm on 24 February 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) 5:00, 24 February 2004

I beg to move amendment No. 81, in

clause 21, page 10, line 7, leave out sub-section (2)(a).

Photo of Edward O'Hara Edward O'Hara Labour, Knowsley South

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 157, in

clause 21, page 10, line 8, after 'functions', insert

'but the Secretary of State shall allow fire and rescue authorities discretion in local decision making.'.

No. 82, in

clause 21, page 10, line 16, leave out from 'manner' to 'best'.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

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).

Photo of Richard Younger-Ross Richard Younger-Ross Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions 5:15, 24 February 2004

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Amendment No 152 is a probing amendment. We want to highlight the fact that we wish local authorities to have greater discretion. I am happy to support the hon. Gentleman's idea that the subsection should be removed entirely. It is essential that if we have a national framework, it should not be too rigid. We have seen in other areas and sectors—in the national curriculum for education, for example—that the system creaks if structures are not flexible enough to take account of local need.

We largely support these clauses, and the amendments to them tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I urge the Minister to examine whether a more flexible system can be created. Later, we will debate a new clause on the management board that will control the framework within a region. It is important that the individual circumstances of an authority be taken into account. The circumstances of authorities such as Devon and those of areas of London are not the same.

I visited the chief fire officer for Durham and Darlington, which, like Devon, is a combined authority. He had worked for Northumberland, which is a county authority, and Newcastle, which is a metropolitan authority, and he explained to me that the needs of those three authorities differed. He is possibly, but not necessarily, unique in having such a broad width of experience. I urge the Minister to reflect on how we might at the next stage create a less rigid system.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

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.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

There we have it: the Opposition would much prefer the decision ultimately to go to the courts, with protracted expensive litigation, rather than clarity. There could not be a more telling example of the official Opposition's lack of serious thought on the need to modernise the fire and rescue service for which the Bain report, which the Opposition initially welcomed, argued so cogently.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

The Minister is proposing a massive document that, despite what he says, sets out in minute detail how fire authorities must act in relation to such matters as human resources policy. That document will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but will simply be published by the Secretary of State. If the question is whether I think the Secretary of State's judgment should, at least theoretically, be subject to judicial review, the answer is yes I do, and I make no apology for that.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

I understand why the hon. Gentleman should be a bit defensive on that point. He gave the game away with his sedentary aside, when he indicated that he would much rather the decisions were taken in the courts through litigation than resulting from the Secretary of State's clear guidance. That is an obvious indication that the Conservative party does not expect to be in government for a long time.

Amendment No. 82 would lead to confusion, and it is not the right way forward. There would undoubtedly be ambiguity and, of course, the possibility of legal challenge, which I am sure is exactly what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge would welcome. When he describes the draft framework for consultation—I stress that it is a draft—as ''unduly prescriptive'', I do not think that he is reading the same document as we produced. He talked about the prescriptiveness of the proposals on human resource management. Those proposals are covered in paragraphs, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11, which set out expectations that any well organised authority would naturally welcome. The framework is not prescriptive in detail; it simply highlights the expectations that an authority should meet to ensure that its human resource operation is well managed and that certain functions are discharged at a regional level, because there are benefits from economies of scale in doing so. Any objective reader of the document would say that it was far from prescriptive, but that it did provide a helpful framework to enable fire and rescue authorities to develop their services in the most efficient way, which is the objective.

I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will withdraw the amendment, but if he does not, I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) 5:30, 24 February 2004

There we have it; the Minister has told us what any objective observer would make of his document. That is precisely the concern that we are expressing. I am afraid that, in the interests of economy, I was furnished only with a photocopy of the document, but, having read and annotated it, I am sure that we cannot be reading different documents. The Minister talked about the paragraphs on human resources, but they tell fire authorities that their human resources function will effectively be discharged at the regional level. That will cause the management capacity of fire authorities, particularly the smaller ones, to wither, so that they will de facto lose their independence and autonomy. They will become part of the larger regional structures that the Minister envisages—a thread that runs right through the document, and evidently through the Government's thinking.

Are judges the right people ultimately to make decisions about how Ministers act? In an ideal world, no. We have a Parliament to scrutinise such things. If this document were to be presented to Parliament for consideration at debate and approval, that would clearly be the most appropriate way to proceed, but that is not what is proposed. It is proposed simply that the document will be published by the Secretary of State. As I understand it, there will not be a requirement for any form of parliamentary approval. It is in that context that I say clearly that the intention of tightening up the obligation on the Secretary of State is to make that an objective test, which at least theoretically could be used in the courts through judicial review. It is very much the second best option, but if we cannot have proper parliamentary scrutiny that is the route we would seek.

Nothing that the Minister has said has particularly reassured me but because of the time I shall not seek to divide the Committee now. We will focus the debate on the amendments dealing with parliamentary approval, where we can make the same point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

I beg to move amendment No. 83, in

clause 21, page 10, line 18, after '(a)', insert 'first'.

Photo of Edward O'Hara Edward O'Hara Labour, Knowsley South

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 84, in

clause 21, page 10, line 18, at end insert 'and'.

Amendment No. 85, in

clause 21, page 10, line 19, after '(b)', insert

'secondly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a).'.

Amendment No. 86, in

clause 21, page 10, line 21, after '(c)', insert

'thirdly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a) or (b).'.

Amendment No. 94, in

clause 22, page 11, line 5, after '(a)', insert 'first'.

Amendment No. 95, in

clause 22, page 11, line 5, at end insert 'and'.

Amendment No. 96, in

clause 22, page 11, line 6, after '(b)', insert

'secondly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a)'.

Amendment No. 97, in

clause 22, page 11, line 8, after '(c)', insert

'thirdly and to the extent that it does not prejudice (a) or (b),'.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 85 and 86 together attempt to alter subsection (4) to create a clear hierarchy of objectives that the Secretary of State must follow in discharging his functions under subsection (1). At the moment, subsection (4) lists three objectives that the Secretary of State must pursue in discharging that duty under subsection (1). Amendment No. 83 will make it explicit in the Bill that public safety is the first consideration and that economy, efficiency and effectiveness are secondary considerations to be promoted, provided and to the extent that it is not at the expense of public safety.

It is easy for the Minister to say that of course we all agree and public safety must be the number one consideration, but this is not a dry discussion. There will be occasions where there are conflicts between economy and efficiency on the one hand and optimising public safety on the other. It is important that there is a clear hierarchy of priorities with public safety in the number one position. This group of amendments attempts to address resolving potential conflicts between different objectives and makes it clear in the Bill which is to take priority in the event of a conflict.

Amendments Nos. 94, 95, 96 and 97 repeat the same action in relation to clause 22, ensuring that the Secretary of State's intervention is permitted only where it is in the interests of the promotion of public safety or on another ground, but only to the extent that pursuing it is not detrimental to the primary objective of pursuing public safety. Without that provision, there is no protection in the Bill against the Secretary of State deciding that economy should override public safety and making an intervention under clause 22 on the basis of economic arguments rather than public safety arguments. That would be a travesty of the repeated assurances from the Government going back to the issue of the interim Bain report that the modernisation programme is about saving lives, not saving money.

The Government need to ensure that that sentiment is enshrined in the Bill and the amendments attempt to do that.

Photo of Richard Younger-Ross Richard Younger-Ross Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions

I support the general principle of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. The only exception is amendment No. 87. That would remove the word ''revisions'', which would be wrong. Am I misinterpreting it? The clause says:

''In preparing the Framework, or any revisions to the Framework''.

I think ''or any revisions'' would be deleted. Is that not the case?

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

I should apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee because that amendment says ''from 'Framework' '' but should specify that it refers to the second ''Framework'' in that line. The hon. Gentleman's interpretation would be correct, if one assumed that the reference was to the first framework, but the reference is to the second one. The amendment was not intended to do what the hon. Gentleman thought.

Photo of Richard Younger-Ross Richard Younger-Ross Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions

On the basis that it runs from the second ''Framework'', I support that amendment as well.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

I am a little unsure as to whether we are dealing with amendment No. 83 and the grouping Nos. 84, 85 and 86, with which are grouped Nos. 94, 95, 96 and 97. I think that the discussion that has been going on between the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and the hon. Member for Teignbridge has been to do with amendment No. 87, which is in the next grouping.

Photo of Edward O'Hara Edward O'Hara Labour, Knowsley South

I think that those in the nineties mirror these amendments to clause 21.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

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.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

We are getting into the micro-management of a fire authority. The duty that the amendment seeks to constrain is the duty of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) to produce a fire and rescue national framework.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

That is exactly the point that I am making. The amendment would be unduly restrictive because it would create an arbitrary hierarchy that meant that in certain instances a decision to recommend a particular approach—[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me. The decision could be challenged on the ground that it is, in the hierarchy, subordinate to other issues.

For example, it is suggested that paragraph (c) of clause 21(4), the

''economy, efficiency and effectiveness in connection with the matters in relation to which fire and rescue authorities have functions'',

is subordinate to paragraph (b), which is

''the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of fire rescue authorities'',

and paragraph (a), which is ''public safety''. The issue of resilience comes up in paragraph (c). If it were clear that arrangements in particular authorities were not allowing effective resilience at a national level, the Secretary of State could perfectly reasonably conclude that steps were necessary, yet that could be challenged on the ground that those wider issues were a subordinate consideration to the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of individual fire and rescue authorities.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

I would have thought that national resilience was covered by the public safety argument. The important thing is that we are not talking about specific cases in relation to clause 21; we are talking about the Secretary of State's priorities and objectives, which are to be set out in the fire and rescue national framework. That is his duty under subsection (1).

We are asking the Secretary of State to set his priorities and objectives within a clear hierarchy, with public safety at the top. There may be a different argument, and the argument that the Minister advances is more persuasive in relation to clause 22, which relates to intervention. However, in relation to clause 21, his argument seems wide of the mark.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that my argument has persuasiveness in relation to the intervention powers, because amendments Nos. 94 to 97 are grouped with the ones that we are considering. However, I argue that it is equally applicable to the national framework, which has to be set for the service to develop all its responsibilities.

The risk of the rigid hierarchy is that it would be open to challenge. We have heard about the possible intervention of judicial review in the courts. That would not be a helpful way forward. We want to create a framework that allows fire and rescue authorities to plan on the basis of reasonable certainty, and to do so in a way that ensures not only effective provision in their own area but that the sum total of the provision

made by fire and rescue authorities throughout the country leads to national resilience. Therefore, the argument applies in both instances.

I have already said that the overriding importance of public safety is taken for granted by the Government. There is no question but that that is paramount. I hope that, with those assurances, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that such an artificial form of hierarchy would not add much, and could be undesirable. I hope that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

In his closing few words, the Minister said that the Government take the view that public safety is the overriding consideration. There is a concern creeping in that what started as a purely safety-driven agenda about reducing risk and deploying resources according to risk, has become more an agenda about economies that need to be made in the service. In some areas, the justifications for Government proposals—I am thinking of control rooms in particular—are made in economic terms rather than in terms of public safety. I am not, of course, against making savings where possible, but we are seeking to reassert that public safety must be the paramount consideration.

I have heard what the Minister has said. I am pleased that he acknowledged in his closing remarks that that was the Government's position. In considering the final form of the national framework, we as individuals—not we as Parliament, because under the Government proposals Parliament will not have any opportunity to scrutinise the framework—will want to ensure that what the Minister has just asserted to the Committee is translated into the final document. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

I beg to move amendment No. 87, in

clause 21, page 10, line 23, leave out from 'Framework' to 'the' in line 24.

Photo of Edward O'Hara Edward O'Hara Labour, Knowsley South

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 88, in

clause 21, page 10, line 25, leave out from 'persons' to 'them' in line 26 and insert

'confirmed by them as representing'.

Amendment No. 89, in

clause 21, page 10, line 27, leave out from 'persons' to 'employees' and insert

'recognised as representing any group of'.

Amendment No. 90, in

clause 21, page 10, line 32, leave out from 'Framework' to end of line.

Amendment No. 91, in

clause 21, page 10, line 32, at end insert

'6(A) The Framework as first prepared or any revisions thereto shall take effect only when both Houses of Parliament have resolved to take note of them.'.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government) 5:45, 24 February 2004

I emphasise that amendment No. 91 would ensure that the framework was subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. That is only proper because it is a very significant document, and I am sure that the Minister would not dispute that. The document is 49 pages long, and it is incorporated in a Bill 26 pages in length, so in many ways, it is a more substantial work than the Bill, and it is a much better guide to how things will work in practice. The framework slots into the Bill as an integral part of the structure.

You would not thank us, Mr. O'Hara, if we sought to go through the draft national framework chapter by chapter and clause by clause as part of the debate on clause 21. However, it is a document that justifies that degree of scrutiny. It is entirely right that when the Secretary of State has completed his consultation, rather than simply publishing the document and laying it before Parliament, which I understand does not mean that Parliament is required to approve it in any way, it should be brought to Parliament for consideration and approval by both Houses. That is what we would like to see; it is absolutely essential that the document is considered by Parliament in its final form and has at least that much scrutiny.

Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 would introduce an objective test for the representatives of employers and employees who are to be consulted. Rather than the Secretary of State judging who he thinks represents each group, why not let the fire service employers, in particular, speak for themselves and decide who they consider properly to represent them?

Amendments Nos. 87 and 90 deal with the issue of amendments to the framework, and they fall in behind the proposal for proper parliamentary scrutiny of that document. Clearly, any changes to it would also then need to be scrutinised.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

Amendments Nos. 87 and 90 would remove the provision that allows the Secretary of State to decide whether a revision to the fire and rescue national framework is sufficiently significant to warrant consulting fire and rescue authorities, their employees, and other fire and rescue stakeholders. I should explain that the whole purpose of the consultation document is to be a working document. This is the first draft; it will then be published in the definitive form as provided for in clause 21, and it will then be subject to revisions.

Those revisions will range from major matters that will obviously require full consultation, to minor ones, perhaps reflecting small typographical changes or other issues, and not warranting the full-scale consultation exercise that would be appropriate for a policy review or update. It would not be an efficient use of the time of all those involved to be consulted on minor revisions such as the content of additional advice or guidance on the policies captured in the national framework. I hope that hon. Members will accept that those amendments are not terribly helpful.

In addition, amendments Nos. 88 and 89 seek to remove the provision for the Secretary of State to decide who represents fire and rescue authorities and

their employees. The Government have every intention of consulting all relevant parties on the national framework and other matters. When we prepared the draft national framework we followed Cabinet Office guidelines for consultation and sought the views of all key fire and rescue stakeholders, including all fire and rescue authorities, trade unions and associations, directly and via the new consultation bodies such as the practitioners forum. The full list of consultees is included in the national framework. Hon. Members are living in a bizarre world if they believe that we have failed to provide opportunities for all those who have a duty to respond and an interest in doing so

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

The hon. Gentleman asks about Parliament. We are considering all the relevant issues at this very moment. I will talk in a moment about the specific terminology and the presentation of the document, which is designed to be readable, accessible and available to fire and rescue authorities, chief fire officers and others with a day-to-day interest. We are not necessarily conversant with the legalistic language that inevitably follows from the parliamentary scrutiny of documents. It is fanciful to suggest that the document can somehow be transformed into a statutory instrument without that having a dramatic impact on its character and intelligibility. I believe that we have got the balance right. The document has been very well received.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

I am sure that it has not been well received by the hon. Gentleman; once again, he reveals that he is very much on his own. The responses that we have received are supportive, and contain helpful suggestions for various changes. Some commentators believe that we have been insufficiently prescriptive; others believe that we have been too prescriptive. There is a range of opinions, which is right and proper, but given the recommendations of the Bain report and the view that there should be a document of this nature to provide the overall framework within which fire and rescue authorities can operate, I can say that those involved have generally responded positively. They believe that the document has set out the issues in a helpful, credible and accessible way. I would not want to undermine the document by turning it into a statutory instrument.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

The Minister appears to be suggesting that the only way that Parliament could scrutinise the document is by turning it into a statutory instrument. However, his Department has more experience and familiarity than I am sure Ministers like with the procedure that we use for special grant reports, in which a Standing Committee considers the report and can question Ministers about it, take note of it and approve it at the end of a short debate. That would certainly be one form of scrutiny, if not the highest form. Surely there is some procedure, short of creating a statutory instrument, that would allow Parliament at least to express its concerns about such a document and ultimately, perhaps, to approve it.

Photo of Nick Raynsford Nick Raynsford Minister of State (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) (Local and Regional Government)

The hon. Gentleman could not have made my case better, because I have taken several of

those special reports through Parliament, and I know exactly the sort of language in which they are written. A special report is not the reasonably accessible, easily intelligible document that the national framework is designed to be. The process of parliamentary scrutiny has many virtues, but it does not encourage the production of intelligible and easily accessible documents. I counsel the hon. Gentleman against pursuing the amendment, which could seriously undermine the value of the national framework as an accessible document, which people involved and interested in the fire and rescue services can read and understand without referring to a lawyer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Photo of Philip Hammond Philip Hammond Shadow Minister (Communities and Local Government)

The weakness in the Minister's argument is that he has failed to address the fact that the framework document is as significant as the Bill, but it will not be scrutinised by Parliament. Such scrutiny may be inconvenient for the Minister; he may have consulted all sorts of outside bodies, but this is a parliamentary democracy, and it is outrageous that a document as significant as this should be incorporated, by reference, in the Bill and introduced without any parliamentary scrutiny. I accept some of the Minister's points about the other amendments, and I will not press amendment No. 87 to a Division, but we must seek to divide the Committee on amendment No. 91, which provides for parliamentary consideration of the document. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 91, in

clause 21, page 10, line 32, at end insert

'6(A) The Framework as first prepared or any revisions thereto shall take effect only when both Houses of Parliament have resolved to take note of them.'.—[Mr. Hammond.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.

Division number 6 Adults Abused in Childhood — Clause 21 - Fire and rescue national framework

Aye: 4 MPs

No: 8 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.