§ Lords amendment: No. 5.
441§ Phil HopeLords amendment No. 5 acknowledges and addresses the concerns that were raised in the House and in the other place about the level of parliamentary scrutiny attached to the national framework—an item that we were discussing just a moment ago. Concerns were raised that Parliament would not get an opportunity to examine the framework before it came into effect. The amendment meets those concerns by requiring the Secretary of State to make an order, subject to negative resolution, to bring the national framework into effect. An order would also have to be made before the Secretary of State can introduce any "significant" changes to the framework. By "significant", we mean that the revision represents a change in policy or a new requirement for fire and rescue authorities. The amendment will provide Parliament with an opportunity for greater scrutiny and I hope that it will reassure those who were concerned that there had been insufficient opportunity to examine the national framework.
Turning briefly to Lords amendment No. 14, it is straightforwardly consequential on Lords amendment No. 5. It removes clause 60(2), which at present disapplies the reference to "Parliament" in clause 21(6) to the exercise of the Bill's powers by the National Assembly for Wales for the simple reason that it is the UK Parliament, not the Welsh one. Lords amendment No. 14, if agreed to, will mean that clause 21(6) no longer includes such a reference—hence clause 60(2) is unnecessary.
Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9 commit the Government to reporting to Parliament on the extent to which fire and rescue authorities are acting in accordance with the national framework at least once in every two years. The Bill as originally drafted stated that the Secretary of State would report on the national framework from "time to time", which had been interpreted as a somewhat vague commitment, and while we always intended to make regular reports to Parliament, we believe that the amendments present a clearer timetable for that process.
Finally, Lords amendment No. 6 builds into the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on and publish an intervention protocol under which the powers to intervene in clause 22 would be exercised. We have always said that we are happy to follow the provisions of the local government intervention protocol in exercising those powers. We therefore propose to consult fire and rescue service stakeholders on the application of the local government intervention protocol to the powers contained in clause 22. That will give fire and rescue authorities and other stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the procedures that we will follow, should intervention under clause 22 prove necessary.
Since the local government intervention protocol is specifically designed to address the needs of poorly performing authorities, we believe that it will be appropriate to apply it to the powers contained in clause 22. However, the amendment gives us the opportunity to review the protocol if, following consultation, it becomes clear that there are additional factors that need to be taken into account. Following all necessary consultation, we will publish the protocol that has been agreed. I hope that this provision, in addition to our previous amendment to clause 21, which makes the 442 national framework subject to parliamentary approval, serves to address the concerns that the Opposition have expressed about the way in which the powers in clause 22 may be used in practice.
§ Mr. HammondI wish that it had been this easy in Standing Committee. I wish that the Minister had agreed at that time that the Opposition's comments and concerns were justified, and that he had said that he would take them on board immediately and incorporate them in the Bill. We could have saved ourselves a lot of time and trouble.
§ Mr. HammondThe Minister says that we could not have done that, but we will examine that in a moment.
As the Minister said, Lords amendment No. 5 provides for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the national framework. As I shall explain, we think that that is very important. In Committee, we moved similar amendments, although they were less strong than these. Lords amendment No. 91, rejected in Standing Committee, would have required the Houses of Parliament merely to note the national framework.
We agree that the Government's solution is better, and it is more than I dared to ask for in Committee. It is excellent that the Government now require a statutory instrument to be used in this matter. However, it is a pity that the Government rejected our amendment, which required that Parliament should have to do something positive—that is, take note of the document—before the framework came into effect. At the time, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said:
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"—that is, me—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."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 243.]Yet that is the same national framework that the Minister is now laying before us with a provision that will render it subject to parliamentary scrutiny by means of a statutory instrument. Apparently, he no longer thinks that it will be impossible for people to understand it without the aid of a lawyer. That is an interesting turn of events.
§ David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op)The hon. Gentleman is too kind to the Minister.
§ Mr. HammondPerhaps I am too kind, and I am sure that other hon. Members will contribute to the debate in a moment.
We are delighted that we have got what we wanted—the proper parliamentary scrutiny of the framework. Coincidentally, the final draft version of the framework has just been published. I confess that I have not had a chance to read it in minute detail but, as the Ministers will know, this has been a busy week for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It would be helpful if the 443 Minister were to tell the House whether there are any substantive changes from the draft that hon. Members absorbed all those months ago.
Anyone glancing at the document will see how substantive it is. It is longer than the Bill. The Bill effectively incorporates the framework, by reference, so that the framework is to a large extent the meat in the Bill's sandwich. It deals with vital matters such as targets. The Minister does not like me talking about targets, but they are one reason why we were so concerned to secure proper parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the national framework.
Last year, Ministers changed the targets for accidental fire deaths in the home, and for deliberate fires. They extended the deadline for achieving a certain percentage reduction in accidental deaths in the home from 2004 to 2010—a massive relaxation of the target. They also reduced substantially the target for the number of deliberately caused fires, saying that the collapse in the scrap metal market made it difficult to achieve.
§ Mr. HammondThe Minister says that that is correct, but the changes were sneaked out without fanfare. The fact that they had been made emerged only in debate.
Quite properly, the targets are at the heart of the framework document. They are the objectives that everything else in that document drives towards. If Ministers want to change such substantive matters of policy, that deserves some scrutiny. Changes should not just be sneaked in. The targets presented in the framework document will, I assume, be capable of being scrutinised when we get the statutory instrument in due course, presumably in the autumn or spill-over sittings.
When the Minister winds up, perhaps he can tell us something about the situation on targets for a reduction in deliberate fires. Ministers have made great play of the problems in the scrap metal market as a driver of their need to relax those targets, but I read articles in the Sunday newspapers this week telling us that the scrap metal industry would effectively shut down on Monday and no longer accept redundant vehicles for processing. That was because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in implementing EU directives on landfill and the classification of waste as hazardous, had failed to clarify the status of what is known, inelegantly, as shredder residue from the scrapped car processing industry. My immediate thought when I read that article was of the Minister and his problem with the 35,000 redundant vehicles that the scrap processing industry would no longer accept. What is happening, and what will it do to the targets set out in the national framework for a reduction in deliberately set fires? Are we not on the brink of a massive explosion in the number of abandoned vehicles on our streets? Local authorities will have to deal with them, and many will be the subject of arson attacks.
Integrated risk management programmes and regional management boards are vital components of the Government's programme, as set out in the national framework, but they do not appear in the Bill. The national framework, in many ways, is the substantive document and the Bill is the enabling mechanism.
444 Lords amendment No. 6 deals with the intervention protocol. We tabled an amendment and debated the issue in Committee that made the same proposal. The Minister gave us an assurance that the local government intervention code would be used, and I understand that that is still the starting point for Ministers. However, Ministers have recognised that, in the special circumstances of the fire and rescue services, especially a failing fire and rescue service, it might be a good idea to have a consultation with the various stakeholders to see whether any mission-specific provisions need to be included in the intervention code to make it fit for the purpose of dealing with a failing fire and rescue service. That is eminently sensible, but it could have been done in the Commons, saving the Lords a lot of time. In fact, it could have saved the Commons a lot of time arguing over the same issues, in Committee and on Report.
Similarly, we are delighted that the Government have accepted, in Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 9, a requirement to report not less than once in every two years to Parliament. Those were almost precisely the words of the amendment we tabled in Committee, which stated,
leave out 'from time to time' and insert 'at least once in every two years'".The Minister will, no doubt, have a convoluted argument, devised by highly paid civil servants, as to why those words would not do the job as well as Lords amendment No. 9, but we cannot help feeling that it would be nice, once in a while, if such amendments could be accepted in the Commons.Perhaps when amending clause 24 the Government should have considered including a provision for a report on their performance against the national framework. There will be reports on the performance of fire and rescue authorities and on the Government's interventions where they fail. I have already mentioned that the Government slacked off in achieving their objectives under the national framework relating to targets on dealing with deliberately set fires and accidental fire deaths in the home, so it would be interesting for an annual report to be made to Parliament, in which the Government carry out a self-assessment on how they are achieving those objectives.
There are three improvements to the Bill in this group and we welcome them. It is a shame about the way they were made.
§ Richard Younger-RossEarlier, the Minister complained that we had not given him credit for the fact that the Government were listening. We are grateful to the Government for listening but, although we support the amendments, we are concerned that the tone of the debate has become slightly Shakespearean. I am referring not to the Minister's oratorical style—or suggesting that he is speaking in rhyme—but to the fact that Shakespeare rewrote a lot of history. I suspect that some of what Ministers are telling us today is a rewriting of what actually happened in Committee.
§ Mr. HammondWhile the hon. Gentleman was listening to the Minister lauding this listening Government, did he notice that they seem to be better at 445 listening in the House where they do not have a majority than in the one where they normally can command a majority?
§ Richard Younger-RossThe hon. Gentleman makes a valid point—that may have something to do with it.
The Government told us that the amendments could not be tabled earlier due to technicalities and that it was not a matter of principle. However, when we were discussing amendments to clause 22 in Committee, the Minister for Local and Regional Government said:
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 priorities and objectives for the service.Later, he said:I would not want to undermine the document by turning it into a statutory instrument."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 24 February 2004; c. 238–242.]I am pleased that the Government have listened and we give them credit for that. Our debate in Committee would have been shorter and more conciliatory if they had listened to us then, but I am pleased that they have listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) who tabled the amendments in Committee. I congratulate him on tabling them and the Government on eventually listening.
§ Phil HopeI shall try not to speak in iambic pentameters—[Interruption.] I know about iambic pentameters—I went to a comprehensive school.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) described the amendments as excellent. I am glad that he is so pleased. I want to make it clear that the amendment means that there will be an order by negative resolution to bring the national framework into effect. We are not turning the framework itself into a statutory instrument, but an order will have to be passed by the House.
§ Mr. HammondCan the Minister explain to those of us who are not well versed in the subtleties of such things the difference between the order being effectively in effect, with everybody having to abide by it, and legally in effect? What would be the situation if the House chose not to approve the order to bring the national framework into effect, when regional centres and control rooms have been reorganised on the back of it?
§ Phil HopeThere will be a lot of disappointed people in the fire and rescue services—as my right hon. Friend the Minister has just told me. The debate on targets that the hon. Gentleman would like us to engage in, but on which I shall not be drawn, is one that he may choose to initiate when we debate the order to bring the national framework into effect. It is a matter for him and other hon. Members to take that option if they so wish.
There are no substantive changes to the original draft. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge wants to see the detailed responses to the consultation 446 on the original draft, he is more than welcome to look them up on the ODPM website, which is excellent, and I recommend other hon. Members to use it.
On the local government intervention protocol, it is true that we have taken on board hon. Members' views. The hon. Gentleman does not like the fact that we did not accept the amendment that he tabled in Committee. Let us say that we have taken the spirit of the intent of that amendment—flawed though it was—and drafted a better amendment. It is the privilege of Government to be able to do that.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) supports what we are doing, and I am glad that we have achieved consensus across all parties on accepting the amendment.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 9 agreed to.