§ Lords amendment: No. 1.
6.29 pm§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope)I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Phil HopeBefore I come to the amendments, the House will be aware of yesterday's tragic events, which resulted in the death of two London firefighters, Bill Faust and Adam Meere, who were both from Whitechapel fire station. In paying tribute to them today, the Prime Minister recognised the debt that we owe firefighters and the risks that they run to protect people at home and at work. I echo those sentiments and express my personal sadness at those tragic events. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the families, friends and colleagues of Bill Faust and Adam Meere, to whom I extend my heartfelt sympathy.
§ Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge)(Con)May I associate everyone on this side of the House with the Minister's remarks and the message of sympathy that he sent to the bereaved families and colleagues of Bill Faust and Adam Meere? No one in this House needs reminding of the risks that firefighters take day in, day out in their duty to protect the public, and no one needs reminding of the vital service that our fire and rescue services deliver to the community.
§ Phil HopeI shall deal first with Lords amendment No. 1, which was tabled in response to arguments put forward by Members of both Houses. As originally drafted, clause 2 generated a good deal of concern. It was seen—we remember the debates in Committee—as giving the Secretary of State carte blanche to create regional fire and rescue authorities, whether or not a referendum was being held on the creation of a regional assembly. Because it left the matter of holding an inquiry to the Secretary of State's discretion, some also felt that it allowed the Government to ride roughshod over local objections.
434 We have not, of course, always accepted those interpretations, and we made it clear throughout the Bill's passage that we have no plans to regionalise the fire and rescue service outside those parts of England in which an elected regional assembly is supported in a referendum. Assurances have been given in both Houses that the only circumstances in which we envisage using the original power in clause 2(2)(b) involve urgent public safety—in particular, if authorities fail to co-operate on a key resilience requirement such as the creation of a regional control centre.
In the light of the Opposition's continued attempts to present that power as a licence to regionalise by stealth, however, we decided to make our intentions clear in the Bill. Hon. Members may recall that we responded to an Opposition amendment in Standing Committee by agreeing that an inquiry into a combination scheme will be mandatory apart from in a very limited number of circumstances—for example, if the authorities themselves suggest the scheme or where urgent public safety needs cannot tolerate any delay. In our view, clause 2 now addresses all the legitimate concerns raised by Members in both Houses.
Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 also respond to arguments put forward in both Houses. There has been considerable debate about whether local authorities, as well as fire and rescue authorities, should be included in the list of those consulted on the making, variation or revocation of combination schemes. To allay the concerns expressed, we have stated and restated our aim to allow for the widest possible involvement of all affected stakeholders, including, of course, local authorities. We did not wish, however, to list in the legislation every category of organisation that should be consulted on a scheme, on the basis that such a list could never be exhaustive.
That said, we accept the argument that local authorities are in a unique position and that the Bill should reflect that. Local authorities are the democratically elected bodies representing the people of the areas involved in any proposed combination scheme, and they are also, of course, the bodies from which the existing fire and rescue authorities are themselves constituted. Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 therefore add an explicit requirement for the Secretary of State to consult local authorities on the making, variation or revocation of combination schemes, where all or part of their area forms part of the area which would be, or is, covered by the scheme. I hope that hon. Members recognise that that demonstrates our commitment to an inclusive approach and the Bill's non-partisan nature.
Lords amendment No. 13 is consequential and simply adds a new clause in order to define the term "local authority" for the purposes of the Bill—specifically, the amendments relating to consultation.
§ Mr. HammondI am sorry the Minister feels that he must refer to the Opposition parties' attempt to paint this as some sort of covert regionalisation. Perhaps during the next few minutes we shall discover just how far the Government have backed away from that covert regionalisation—or not, as the case may be.
As the Minister said, clause 2(2)(a) of the original Bill allowed the Secretary of State to create a combined fire and rescue authority here that was 435
In the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness".I do not think anyone has ever argued that the Secretary of State should not have that power. The original Bill, however, went on to create a second ground, quite independent of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It would have allowed the Secretary of State to create a combined fire and rescue authority simply on the ground that the area he proposed to be the area of the combined fire and rescue authority was that of a regional development agency—in other words, one of the Government's nine English regions.The Government have made no secret of their proposal, in the event of elected regional assemblies being established in any of the English regions—perhaps I should say "the increasingly unlikely event"—to create a regional fire and rescue service covering an entire region. Be it the north-west region with its 6 million population, stretching from the Scottish border to Crewe, or the rather smaller north-east region with its population of 3 million, the Government in their wisdom have decided that it would be appropriate to have a single fire and rescue authority there.
Many Conservative Members, as well as Liberal Democrat Members—not noted for their hostility to the Government's broader regional agenda—and indeed Labour Members, have expressed serious doubts about the appropriateness of that proposal. We could argue until late into the night about whether regions are appropriate for other purposes, but they were clearly not designed for the purpose of operational effectiveness of fire and rescue services. I am sure that others will cite instances in which regionally organised fire and rescue services might not be the best idea.
I think there was a broad feeling that if the Secretary of State wanted to proceed with combined fire and rescue authorities based on the nine English regions—or the eight outside London—he should justify that by demonstrating, as he would in the case of any combined fire authority whose boundaries were not coterminous with an RDA region, that it was in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the service. He should not be able to get around that test.
When we introduced amendments to that effect in the Commons, the Government rejected them. They were introduced again by my noble Friend Lord Hanningfield, and again were not accepted. A little later the Government presented their own proposal to amend clause 2, broadening the definition of economy, efficiency and effectiveness to include public safety. That was curious, as we had been told in Committee that the term "public safety" was not required because "economy, efficiency and effectiveness" embraced the concept of enhancing public safety. The Government obviously decided that they had been ill-advised in that regard. They also eliminated clause 2(2)(b) altogether. Under the current Bill, the Secretary of State no longer has powers to create a combined fire and rescue authority simply because it is coterminous with an English regional boundary. That does not mean that he could not create such a combined fire authority. He would have to demonstrate merely that it was in the interests of the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the service and in the interests of public safety to do so.
We have no problem with that. If the optimum structure of fire and rescue services to deliver the best service to the community happens to be coterminous 436 with an RDA region—I would be very surprised but if it happens to be thus—so be it. That must be the sole criterion against which these things are measured.
Since I do not imagine that the Government have abandoned their plan to create regional fire and rescue authorities, should elected regional assemblies be created, regardless of whether they are in the interests of the service in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and regardless of whether they are in the interests of greater public safety, we now need to understand how the Government will create such fire and rescue authorities. The Minister did not utter a word about that, presumably because the power to do so, overriding the criteria in this Bill, will be provided in the, shall we say, elusive draft regional assemblies powers Bill.
§ Mr. HammondThe Minister says, "Patience." I do not know how long Labour Members are expecting to stay here as we approach the summer recess, but I am getting decreasingly optimistic about seeing the draft powers Bill before I jump on my aeroplane to go on my summer holidays. I understand that the other place will consider the orders that we considered this afternoon tomorrow. Presumably, that makes the earliest time that the Government will be prepared to publish the draft Bill Friday—
§ Mr. HammondWe have an announcement that the draft powers Bill will be published tomorrow. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell the House, because it is clearly germane to understanding these amendments, whether the draft Bill will contain the power that Ministers will, I think, need if they are to go ahead with combined regional fire authorities in any regions that opt, in the referendums in November, to have elected regional assemblies. Then he could explain why it is appropriate to override the test that a Government amendment has now clearly written into this Bill in clause 2 and to provide for delivery of combined fire authorities in regions that do not have to satisfy the tests of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and public safety.
We had these debates when the Bill was considered in Committee and on Report, and they took place again in the other place. While a casual glance at the revised Bill may suggest that the Government made a major concession, I suspect that we will hear that the powers to which we object to create regional combined authorities without passing the hurdles of economy, efficiency, effectiveness and public safety will still exist but in a different form.
I welcome amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and consequential amendment No. 13. We had debates about the level of consultation that should take place. It is clearly right that the underlying local authorities as well as the relevant fire and rescue authorities should be consulted. Why do we always have to allow the other place to get the credit for introducing eminently sensible small amendments? Why cannot we agree them in Committee in this place, instead of Ministers exercising a 437 predictable stubbornness throughout the process, allowing the other place to get the credit for improving our legislation? I await with interest what the Minister has to say to clarify the position regarding amendment No. 1.
§ Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)I welcome the additional safeguards, which will at least give us an opportunity to debate the appropriate arrangements for any new body to oversee the fire and rescue services for my area in Gloucestershire, as well as further afield in the south-west. We have rehearsed the implications for Gloucestershire of losing its tri-service control if the fire service control were taken to a different place. As the Minister knows, Gloucestershire has a bid in to be the centre for either part of the region or the whole of region. I suspect it would be the former.
Lest anyone think that this is an academic debate, while we are debating a change to the place where the fire service is run, there are also debates taking place within the police and the ambulance service about similar reorganisations. I am seeking further assurances from the Government; if these services are subject to any changes, rather than piecemeal debates, we should have an open and transparent debate and look at the strengths and weaknesses of how the services are organised.
§ Although I am critical of the organisation of counties in some respects, certainly county councils, I see some merit in the emergency services coming together. I am worried that even with the additional safeguards in the Bill, there is a slippery slope down which we are passing. If we lose the fire service from the local area, the police and the ambulance service are bound to follow because of the arguments regarding economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It would be far less effective if the three services were not together.
§ I ask the Minister to give an assurance that if we look at these matters, we do so with the benefit of full consultation. We ought to listen to the people who run the services as well as those who benefit from them. At the moment, they are not convinced about a sub-regional provision, let alone a regional provision. It is right and proper that people should have their opinions listened to.
§ Mr. HammondThe hon. Gentleman may wish to draw attention to the fact that regardless of whether the Government create combined fire authorities in a region, regionalisation is taking place through the regional management boards and the creation of just nine fire control rooms for the whole of England.
§ Mr. DrewI am well aware of that and it may be that that train is well on its way. I want to ensure that if that train reaches its destination, the rest of the trains do not have to follow. There is a great deal of interest in this matter, more so than the Government think. People want to be consulted. I hope that Ministers give assurances that there will be a proper debate, that people will be listened to and that the case—if there is one—to stay as we are or to do something slightly different can be factored in rather than wiped out.
§ Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD)First, I wish to add my words of sympathy and those of my party to those of the Minister and the Conservative Opposition with regard to the two firemen who lost their lives tragically in Bethnal Green. We all know that firemen put their lives at risk every day. The public tend to hear only about disasters such as Chernobyl and 11 September, but other incidents do occur. Indeed, I found this loss particularly poignant and sad because during the war, my father was a firefighter who covered the Bethnal Green area.
I largely agree with the point that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made about giving credit where it is due. It is a shame that it was necessary for the Lords to produce an amendment that says almost exactly what we had already said in Committee. The Minister previously said that the inclusion of a reference to public safety was "unnecessary and potentially unhelpful". He has clearly changed his mind, and I am glad to learn that he has listened to the argument that was advanced.
Of course, amendment No. 1 is not exactly the same as the original amendment. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I pointed out, we are not parliamentary draftsmen; rather, we were simply trying to establish a principle.
§ Mr. HammondThe Government opposed the principle.
§ Richard Younger-RossThey opposed it not just in the detail but substantively.
In Committee, we sought to create safeguards in respect of the establishment of regional fire authorities, and the amendments before us go some way towards doing that. Even so, certain issues remain outstanding and the Government will be judged by their actions, rather than their words. As the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) will know, people in the south-west fear the prospect of a region stretching from his part of the world all the way down to Penzance. There is real concern in the south-west at the prospect of regional management boards and a single control room for the entire area.
The Minister still has the opportunity to say that it would make sense to have two regional control rooms in the south-west. That would be a step forward, and it would make more sense than having just one regional control room located in Bristol or Exeter. The hon. Member for Stroud made a very good case for having a tri-service control room, but he knows that he is fighting a hard, if not losing battle in that regard. The people of Cornwall would be extremely upset to discover that their control centre was in Gloucestershire.
I am not going to rehearse the various debates that we had in Committee. The Minister made it clear then that computers and other new technology will ensure that everything works fine. Since then, I have spoken to various people in the service and they are not convinced; they would like a little more flexibility.
Legitimate concerns about regionalisation remain. Hard-won concessions on inquiries were secured in Committee, and other more minor concessions have been made. The reputation of this House would be higher if, instead of fighting over adding the odd word or phrase such as "public safety", we took a more 439 consensual approach to these matters. Had we done so in Committee, the Bill, instead of being good—substantially, it is good—would have been very good.
§ Phil HopeI thank Members for their contributions. It is slightly odd to be criticised for being a listening Government—a Government who understand the points that are being made, be it on Second Reading, in Committee, on Third Reading, on Report or in the other place. It seems a shame that we could not get some recognition for the fact that we listened to the concerns of Members from all parts of the House.
I should make it clear that as a result of the amendments, we could have combinations of fire and rescue authorities below, at and above the regional level. That flexibility remains, and the safeguards are in the Bill.
The draft regional assemblies Bill, which will be published very shortly, will explain how, if there is an elected regional assembly, responsibility for fire and rescue services will be at the regional level. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) will have to wait—I hope he does not miss his flight tomorrow—but it will not be for long, and when he has seen the draft Bill we can have the discussions about that.
We responded to the concerns expressed in Committee, and now we have an alternative approach.
§ Mr. HammondWithout giving away too much about the still under wraps Bill, can the Minister tell us whether it contains any test for the creation of a regional fire and rescue authority similar to the one in this Bill? Is there a requirement that it be demonstrably in the interests of safety or indeed efficiency, economy and effectiveness?
§ Phil HopeI understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to have early sight of certain parts of a Bill yet to be published, but I regret that I cannot satisfy him on this occasion. I am sure that when he sees the Bill tomorrow he will be as pleased as we are about the powers that regional assemblies will have to provide a better focus for the regions of the north.
I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about regional control centres. The national framework, which he has no doubt seen, clearly states the rationale for introducing a network of regional control rooms, because of the need to support resilience requirements and achieve major efficiencies that consultants have pointed out. I cannot say any more to him about the actual process, as we are right in the middle of it, with bids being received for control centres in various regions and being properly and fully evaluated. The decision on regional control rooms followed wide consultation, and a detailed appraisal is now being made of the bids.
§ Mr. HammondThe Minister mentioned the national framework and what it says about regional control rooms. Can he confirm that, following other amendments that the Government tabled in the Lords, it is a draft national framework and it will not have effect until both Houses agree to the order that implements it?
§ Phil HopeThe framework currently before us is already in operation, although it is true that we have made a further concession, and I will say more about that when we get to the relevant amendments. An order will need to be made through the negative resolution procedure for the draft national framework in the future. The current framework is being used by fire and rescue authorities as guidance. We are introducing a contract between central Government and fire and rescue authorities, which will have the strength of being approved through negative resolution as part of this legislation.
§ Mr. HammondI am confused, and I seek the Minister's guidance. Lords amendment No. 5 introduces a provision whereby the framework will
have effect only when brought into effect by the Secretary of State by order.If—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. We must not get into the next group of amendments. Let us dispose of the first group first.
§ Phil HopeOn that point of clarification, to come into effect in law, the national framework will require a statutory instrument, but in effect it is being put into operation now in relationships between Government and fire and rescue authorities. It is working, but it is in draft form and becomes legal when the order is made. I am sorry if I have strayed into other territory, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I did not want the hon. Gentleman to be misled.
§ 7 pm
§ On the question raised by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) we were not opposed to use of the term "public safety" in principle when we were in Committee. Indeed, I have read the Committee Hansard and it was made quite clear in those proceedings that the Government intended to keep clause 2(2)(b) in the interests of public safety. The fact is that we have listened and responded positively and we are now including a reference to public safety, as the hon. Gentleman requested. We could not accept the amendment that he proposed in Committee because it was technically flawed. I do not want to rehearse the arguments about why it was flawed, but that is why we did not accept it.
§ With those points of clarification, I urge the House to accept the amendment.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4 agreed to.