Policing and Crime Bill (Fourth sitting)
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 181, in schedule 1, page 122, line 10, at end insert—
“with the cost of obtaining such information to be met by the police and crime commissioner.”.
This amendment would require the police and crime commissioner to pay the costs the fire and rescue authority incurs in providing the police and crime commissioner with the information needed to prepare a proposal to transfer governance to the police and crime commissioner.
Amendment 172, in schedule 1, page 122, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) consult each relevant fire and rescue authority,
(ab) any local authority all or part of whose area forms part of the fire and rescue authority area, and
(ac) the relevant workforces.”.
This amendment will make it a statutory obligation for the local authority Fire and Rescue Authority, and relevant workforces, to be consulted before being taken over by a PCC.
Amendment 170, in schedule 1, page 122, line 25, leave out “make arrangements to seek the views of” and insert “consult comprehensively with”.
This amendment would require a police and crime commissioner to consult local residents about the proposal to transfer governance of the fire and rescue service to the police and crime commissioner.
Amendment 171, in schedule 1, page 122, line 26, leave out “commissioner’s police” and insert “fire and rescue authority”.
This amendment would mean that police and crime commissioners need only seek the views of people living in the affected fire and rescue authority rather than across the whole of the police force area.
Amendment 180, in schedule 1, page 122, line 43, after “proposal”, insert
“from an independent panel of experts chosen by the relevant police and crime commissioner and local authorities,”.
This amendment would guarantee the independence of panels tasked with assessing takeover proposals submitted by a PCC.
Amendment 173, in schedule 1, page 123, line 17, at end insert—
“(4) An order under section 4A, where modified or not by the Secretary of State, may only be made with the consent of the relevant local authority, relevant fire and rescue authority and relevant police and crime commissioner.”.
This amendment makes it a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to get the consent of the PCC, Fire and Rescue Authority, and local authority, before making an order.
Amendment 177, in schedule 1, page 123, line 17, at end insert—
“(4) Before submitting a section 4A proposal to the Secretary of State, a relevant police and crime commissioner must make arrangements to hold a referendum.
(5) The persons entitled to vote in the referendum are those who, on the day of the referendum—
(a) would be entitled to vote as electors at an election for the relevant police and crime commissioner, and
(b) are registered in the register of local government electors at an address that is within a relevant fire authority area.
(6) The referendum is to be held on—
(a) a suitable date corresponding to the regular electoral cycle, or
(b) if there are no elections scheduled within the next 365 days, such other date as the Secretary of State may specify by order.
(7) The police and crime commissioner must inform the Secretary of State of the result of the referendum.
(8) The Secretary of State may only grant an order if—
(a) the proposal was approved by a majority of persons voting in the referendum, and
(b) the turnout for the referendum is greater than 25 per cent of those eligible to vote.
(9) A police and crime commissioner may not hold another referendum within the period of ten years.”.
This amendment would ensure that a PCC can only take over a Fire and Rescue Service with the approval of local people.
Amendment 178, in schedule 1, page 123, line 17, at end insert—
“(4) An order under section 4A, where modified or not by the Secretary of State, may only be made with either: consent of the relevant local authority and relevant fire and rescue authority, or a majority vote by local people through referendum.”.
This amendment would ensure that a PCC can only take over a Fire and Rescue Service with the approval of local people or their local representatives.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I hope we all had a jolly good lunch—well, perhaps not too good a lunch.
Amendment 181 solves two problems: it clears up the ambiguity around who will pay for the costs incurred in putting together proposals, and it helps to mitigate the potential for hostile takeovers by the police and crime commissioner where the fire and rescue authorities do not want to be taken over but are bullied into submission by spiralling costs. If the Minister wants to ensure that PCC takeovers are in the best interests of the fire and rescue service and improving public services, I am sure he will be in full and happy accord with the amendment.
Amendments 170, 171 and 172 deal with the consultation process: amendment 170 states that it must be a full consultation; amendment 171 restricts the scope of the consultation to local residents who are served by the fire and rescue authority; and amendment 172 makes workers and fire and rescue authorities statutory consultees. They would ensure that the consultation process is comprehensive and does not ignore the views of local people, professionals working in the emergency services or the current fire and rescue authority.
The consultation exercise that preceded the Bill was a bit of a sham. It was packed full of leading questions and did not show any real interest in the views of experts and specialists on the substance of the proposals. It was a bit of an insult, if I may say so, to their intelligence. I can see some scepticism on Government Members’ faces, so I will take them through this. Question 1 of the consultation, on the duty to collaborate, was:
“How do you think this new duty would help drive collaboration between the emergency services?”
The question assumes that the duty to collaborate will have that effect. The wording is, “How do you think the duty would help drive collaboration?” rather than, “Do you think a duty is necessary to drive collaboration?”
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady sure that the question was not, “How do you think the duty to collaborate will make a difference?”?
Lyn Brown
I am fairly certain that I read that right.
Question 2 is almost worse. The consultation exercise sets out a process by which a PCC could assume control of a fire and rescue service and then asks consultees what they think of that process. If we were really interested in people’s views, we would ask what they think of giving PCCs those powers in the first place, but this Government are not interested in the views of the people they consulted, so they did not ask that question. Unfortunately, we cannot legislate against inadequately drafted consultation questions; I tried, but the Clerk of the Committee—nice man though he is—ruled it out of scope, which is a great pity.
The Bill’s provisions for public and stakeholder consultation need to be tightened up considerably. As the Bill is worded, the consultation process could be weak and almost non-existent, and it does not require PCCs to discuss their proposals and seek the assent of all relevant stakeholders. The provisions for consultation are contained within paragraph 3 of proposed new schedule A1 to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. Members will note that as it is worded, the Bill only requires the Secretary of State to
“make arrangements to seek the views”
of local people. That could mean something as little as an advert in a local newspaper with a dwindling circulation, a single public meeting or a notice on the Home Office website with an email address for responses. I fear that the clause is totally inadequate. It falls short of the language I would expect from legislation that intends the Home Secretary to engage in a full consultation with the widest community and to give local people the time, space and opportunity to have their views taken seriously. If the Minister would graciously accept amendment 170, we could get closer to having a decent, meaningful and comprehensive consultation process.
Amendment 171 seeks to ensure that all local people are consulted. At the moment, the Home Secretary has to seek the views of people in the police and crime commissioner’s consistency. We think that it is appropriate that she consult those who live in the area covered by the fire and rescue authority that is to be taken over. For example, Thames Valley contains three fire and rescue authorities. If the PCC proposed to take on the responsibility of only one of them, it should be the residents of that authority’s area, not the whole Thames Valley policing area, who are consulted. We need to seek the views of the people who will be affected. Their views should carry the most weight. These reforms are about the future governance of the fire and rescue service, so the people whose fire and rescue service is changing should have a say. What is the Minister’s justification for choosing the entire policing area as the relevant constituency?
Amendment 172 deals with statutory consultees. At the moment, the Bill makes local people and the relevant local authority a statutory consultee. We are of the view that that is inadequate. Any consultation must include the fire and rescue authority that is to be taken over, as its staff are presently charged with guaranteeing fire safety and resilience in the local area. If the Minister stands up and says, “Of course the local fire and rescue authority will be consulted,” I will accept that he imagines that to be the case. However, if he thinks that they will always be consulted, there is no harm in accepting our amendment and adding fire and rescue authorities to the list of statutory consultees. We will, however, safeguard against the unhappy event of a PCC taking over a fire and rescue service without its governors having a say. That would be the most hostile of hostile takeovers.
We are of the opinion that the relevant workforces ought to be statutory consultees. Why would they be left out? If the proposals are in the best interest of the fire and rescue services, the workforces will support them. I do not have to tell the Minister that they are the most dedicated and brave of our public servants, and they deserve a voice. The people working in our emergency services know the challenges that their services face better than anyone. Anyone with the future of the emergency services at heart should want to hear what they have to say. For that reason, I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It is really not much to ask. I am sure he agrees with me on this.
If the Minister’s proposed reforms are to work, he needs local people and staff to buy into any change of governance. Those people have the right to be assured that the changes are positive and in the best interests of the service and public safety. If the PCC is unable to persuade those stakeholders, it would be best if the merger simply did not go ahead. I urge the Minister to accept amendments 170, 171 and 172 to ensure that local people and stakeholders are properly consulted and to avoid the sense that these reforms are being imposed from the centre against the wishes of local people, professionals and our emergency services, and against the interests of the fire service and public safety. A top-down reorganisation without the agreement of local people and the workforce is the last thing that our fire services need.
Amendment 180 would ensure that the panel that the Home Secretary uses to guide her through a business case is genuinely independent. The amendment would ensure that the review of the business case for a PCC takeover is independent of the Secretary of State. It states that the panel must not be Government appointees. It would instead empower PCCs and local authorities to select the panel. It has been tabled with the support of the Local Government Association.
As worded, the Bill states that where the PCC has put together a proposal to take on the governance of the fire and rescue service, it has to consult with the upper-tier authorities in its area before submitting it. Where one or more of the upper-tier councils does not support the proposals, the Secretary of State has to seek an independent assessment of the PCC’s proposals.
Paragraph 339 of the explanatory notes states:
“Such an independent assessment may be secured from HMIC, the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser or any other such independent person as the Secretary of State deems appropriate”.
The chief fire and rescue adviser, although a very decent bloke, is directly employed by the Home Office. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary also receives its funding from the Home Office. There is therefore a question over how independent an assessment can be if it is carried out by Home Office employees on non-departmental public bodies funded by the Home Office.
Amendment 180 would mean that independent assessment is carried out by a panel of independent experts appointed at a local level rather than by central Government. The experts on the panel could include representatives from organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the Fire Service College, business schools and academic institutions, such as the London Business School or Cranfield University, the National Police Chiefs Council or companies with experience of advising and supporting the fire and rescue service and the police, such as Grant Thornton. There is a real danger that this is a recipe for a top-down reorganisation. It should not be left to the Secretary of State to appoint people to make the independent assessment. To avoid this danger, the Minister should accept Amendment 180.
Finally, Amendments 173, 177 and 178 deal with what consent requirements ought to be in place before a PCC can take over a fire and rescue service. We believe that this should not happen without the clear, unequivocal approval of local people, which is best measured by a vote or through the clear decision making of their locally elected representatives. Our amendments have been tabled to have that effect.
Amendment 173 would require the Home Secretary to gain the consent of the relevant fire and rescue authority and the relevant local authority before approving a takeover. As the Bill is currently drafted, a PCC can take over a fire and rescue service without the consent of the fire and rescue authority. We believe this is a recipe for hostile takeovers and should be avoided. Amendment 173 seeks to avoid conflict between arms of our emergency services, which could be both damaging and distracting for essential emergency services. It seeks to improve and make the process transparent by ensuring that the consent of a fire and rescue authority is a mandatory requirement of any PCC takeover.
Fire and rescue authorities are trusted experts on the fire service. Firefighters, fire officers and the public know that those who have served on the authorities have had the best interests of the fire service at heart. The councillors who serve on them have years of experience and a genuine deep knowledge and judgment gained by overseeing the strategic development of fire services in their local area. They know the integrated risk management programme intimately, and each lane and byway; the response time to all communities; and the extra value that firefighters bring to their communities through the additional work undertaken to care for the vulnerable or as a crime diversion. Surely there can be no doubt that they have done a good job and that their work has continued to provide safe communities, despite the swingeing cuts to service imposed over the past years.
The fire service has absorbed difficult financial reductions over the past years. Some 7,000 firefighters have been lost to the service over the previous Parliament as a result of a cumulative cash cut of £236 million. However, fire and rescue authorities have managed those reductions, hard as it has been, and have sought new ways to keep response times to a minimum and to focus, as much as humanly possible, on their governance work, playing an increased role in natural disaster relief and managing to remain one of the most trusted public services.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
This morning, the hon. Lady mentioned Sir Ken Knight, who has referred to the patchiness of collaboration. Does she not recognise that the whole point of the Bill is to remove the patchiness and get people to work together?
Lyn Brown
I say gently to the hon. Lady that to get people to work together, we need to respect them, and each bit of the process needs to be treated equally. I also say gently to her that Sir Ken’s report was written three years ago and since then, the landscape has changed significantly.
Amanda Milling
In Staffordshire, we waited six months for the fire authority to engage in discussions. Those were six months during which collaborative work could have taken place. Does the hon. Lady recognise that the Bill will speed up the process and lead to more effective collaboration?
Lyn Brown
The hon. Lady obviously knows her own area better than I would ever presume to, but six months does not seem to be a horrendously long time to organise joint working if there are fundamental differences and it requires resources. I say to her again: one of the problems with the Government’s approach is that an hon. Member or one of the PCC’s staff can say, “I’ve been waiting six months for some collaboration to happen. It hasn’t happened, so I’m going to make sure the PCC takes over.” Decisions will be made in haste, with the sword of Damocles hanging over people’s necks.
Earlier in Committee, I mentioned just a few of the many collaborative projects that are happening among our emergency services. Each successful project depends on the emergency services trusting each other as equal partners in a common cause. If PCCs are encouraged to work against, rather than with, their local fire and rescue authority, there is a genuine danger that such projects will fall by the wayside. A Government who are interested in partnership should be going out of their way to reinforce partnerships. In my world at least, the partnerships I am involved in are based on equality, respect and trust.
In the world of public services, the equal importance of all our public services and the equal status of those tasked with running them should be upheld. That is what we should be doing, rather than creating hierarchies that rouse only distrust. It could be highly counter-productive to create uneven partnerships, with people looking over their shoulders and questioning their partners’ motivations.
Amanda Milling
Nobody would dispute that there are good examples of collaboration, but, as I say, it is patchy. Surely the Bill is about ensuring that there is good collaboration throughout the country. I am sure the hon. Lady will agree with me on that.
Jake Berry
In the first evidence session, many of the witnesses described collaboration as patchy. I asked whether the Bill would increase or reduce the amount of collaboration, and the witness said that it would increase it. Why does the hon. Lady disagree with the expert witness?
Lyn Brown
In my experience, collaboration often does not work when it is between forces of the same nature. There are often hard and fast boundaries between fire service areas and between police authority areas. I have, though, seen inter-service collaboration work really well. When the Committee asked the witnesses those questions, we did not specify the nature of the collaboration that the individual then described as patchy. There is some patchiness in collaboration between police forces and between fire authorities, but the best collaboration I have seen has been between the emergency services.
My anxiety about the decision in the Bill to give PCCs the right to take over fire and rescue services is that we will create unequal partners. In a world of unequal partners, decisions might get made for the wrong reasons. That is what I am trying to prevent. If the partners in an area that are talking about whether they can merge back offices, share a physical space or have the same telephone infrastructure are in a position of equality and agreement, it is of much greater benefit to the local area than if they are not.
Jake Berry
The hon. Lady is giving an excellent speech, but perhaps I may press her once more. The Opposition have said that the real difference is that, because of the nature of the services they provide, fire services are much smaller than police forces. Is she not therefore making the point that there could never be any collaboration between the fire service and the police force because the fire service, in and of itself, is smaller? If so, I profoundly disagree, because I think there is a real opportunity to collaborate, despite the disparity in sizes.
Lyn Brown
No. The disparity that I am talking about is not one of sizes, budgets or the nature of the services; it is a disparity in power. If one service has the right to take over another service, there is a disparity within the power relationship. The size does not matter. If we were saying that fire authorities had the right to take over police authorities, there would be a disparity in power, not in budgets or legal powers.
Our amendments are not only about involving local fire and rescue authorities; we think it is vital that any changes to the way in which our essential emergency services are governed have the support of the public. Amendment 173 would require such support to be gained through the approval of local representatives on the local authority. Amendment 177 would require that, should that approval not be obtained, consent must be gained through a referendum of local people.
I know that the Government have a strange relationship with referendums. At one moment, they seem to support referendums and think we should become a Switzerland of the north, deciding issues by plebiscite—with, for example, referendums on council tax rises—and not trusting the usual way of the ballot box, apparently on the grounds of localism. However, the Government seemed to fall out of love with the Swiss way in 2012 when they asked our 11 largest cities by referendum whether they wanted directly elected mayors, and all but one said no. The Chancellor, in his little way, decided to ignore that clear lack of mandate and is absolutely insistent about getting the mayors he wants in our major cities, in exchange for the delegation of powers. The Government seem to like referendums, as long as they get the results they want.
I raise the issue of referendums because the Government seek to argue that the reforms in the Bill are locally led. In the past, when they have worn a localist hat—not that it fitted them very well—the Government have indicated that it is for local people to make decisions on major local governance issues via referendums, and that major governance decisions should not be made by a Whitehall figure such as the Home Secretary. The decision on mayors and on fire and rescue governance is fundamentally about the transfer of power from the collective representation of local authorities to a single individual. Indeed, many of the Minister’s colleagues have said that they favour the reforms partly because they put power in the hands of a single person.
Amanda Milling
The hon. Lady has talked about a takeover a number of times. We are talking about a single individual who has direct electoral accountability to the public. If we had fire commissioners and were talking about the police coming under their remit, would she be pushing back on such a reform?
Lyn Brown
It has been known. I would object to such a reform, for all the same reasons.
The proposals are effectively about creating mini mayors. If this Government limp on after the European referendum, my guess is that we shall see other powers—probation, schools and who knows what else?—passed over to the PCCs. The Minister knows in his heart—I know he has a heart, although I am giving him a hard time today, for which I am sorry—that the reforms are about bolstering PCCs to the point where they become mini mayors. I do not think that he will say so, because he knows that there is no democratic mandate for it. There isn’t one—not at all.
Lyn Brown
Sorry. I will read from the manifesto and the Committee can tell me whether it states clearly that there is a plan to put fire and rescue services under PCC control:
“We will enable fire and police services to work more closely together and develop the role of our elected and accountable Police and Crime Commissioners.”
Honestly, that really does not say—
Jake Berry
On the hon. Lady’s emphasis, as I mentioned in connection with the questions in the consultation, there is clearly no comma or pause in that sentence—it has an “and” in it. The statements are clearly linked, so there is a clear statement in our manifesto that this is our intention. I am proud to be part of a majority Government delivering a Conservative manifesto.
Lyn Brown
For the time being. I did not see that when I read the Conservative manifesto last year. When I was walking around the country talking to firefighters and trying to persuade them to vote Labour, if I had realised what the Government intended to do from reading that sentence, I am sure I would have persuaded an awful lot more of them to vote red, rather than blue.
For the benefit of openness and transparency, and so that we may underpin governance with democracy, I urge the Government to accept amendment 178. What kind of localism agenda do the Government have if they are willing to force through a takeover when they have the support of neither local representatives nor the relevant electorate? This proposal was not clearly stated in the Government party’s manifesto. If the Minister rejects the amendment, his and the Home Secretary’s centralist and non-democratic agenda will be clear for all to see.
I hope that the Committee can see that the Bill is a recipe for the hostile takeover of fire and rescue authorities. Experience has shown that reorganisation without local consent and approval can lead to chaos, low morale, disorganisation and dysfunction—we only have to look at what happened in the health service. As the health service has also shown, reorganisation can waste an awful lot of money. The Minister does not want to be responsible for a top-down reorganisation as dysfunctional and anarchic as Lansley’s reforms of the NHS. He should take the opportunity to accept amendment 173. Our fire and rescue authorities need a say.
If the Minister truly believes in localism, he should also accept either amendment 177 or amendment 178. The Government have persistently argued that these reforms are part of a localism agenda, but they empower the Home Secretary to overrule the wishes of local people and their representatives. That simply cannot be right and it is not localism.
The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
From a sedentary position I accused the shadow Minister of reading a speech written by the Fire Brigades Union. It clearly was not written by the FBU because there were some really big words in there. However, some of the language in there was quite similar to what I have heard from the FBU. That was not personal and we beg to differ.
Mike Penning
I apologise to the Committee but I intend to speak at length on this part of the Bill, because the previous debate on clause 6 stand part was to introduce schedule 1. I had always intended to do that because I knew the shadow Minister had extensive comments.
I will not get into top-down discussions about what happened in other Departments. I remind the shadow Minister of what happened with fire control centres being regionalised. That was probably the biggest disaster and waste of money that the fire service has seen in our lifetimes. I am still dealing with the leases and trying to get rid of them. The fire Minister at the time, a good friend of mine, was highly embarrassed about that. He was moved on to other things, wrongly in my view because he was a damn good fire Minister who stood up for what he did.
At the end of the day, the decisions on whether PCCs should take control of fire authorities will be part of a negotiation package. Let me explain what the Bill says. A PCC would need to make a local case and canvass the views of local people, including the fire authorities. If, and only if, an agreement cannot be made, then he can ask the Home Secretary to have a look at it, who then would have an independent view. Anyone who knows Tom Winsor—the shadow Minister does—will know that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is mightily independent of the Home Office. It would be interesting for him to read that he is just a civil servant or Home Office apparatchik. He is very independent, so it does not need to be that way.
We are trying to look at this. Where collaboration has worked and where services want to come together, that is fine; and where collaboration has taken place and they do not want to come together, and nor does the PCC in that area, that is fine. Perhaps the fire authorities might want to look carefully at what is happening with the mayoral system. The shadow Minister freely admits that it has not worked in London. There will be a duly elected mayor who will be running the fire and police administratively, not operationally.
I listened carefully to what the shadow Minister had to say about councillors who have sat on committees for years. They are not elected to that role.
James Cleverly
Does the Minister recognise that if someone lives in a ward where the councillor does not sit on the local fire authority, there is nothing the elector can do to reward or punish the decisions of that fire authority? If that fire authority came under the remit of the local police and crime commissioner, every single voter in that area would have an opportunity to reward or punish at the ballot box? Does that not go to the heart of what local democratic accountability means?
Mike Penning
It does and it allows people who do not live in London or one of the larger metropolitan areas with a mayor to have that elected person responsible. It might be difficult for councillors who have been sitting on committees for years to turn around and impartially say, “Hey, we have been doing it this way for years. There may be a better way to do this.” I fully understand why some of the councillors who have spoken to me do not want change. That is the same argument we had when police authorities were removed and the PCCs came in. The PCCs are an unmitigated success—they must be, because Her Majesty’s Opposition are supporting them. Therefore, given that the Government had a manifesto commitment to push forward with giving them this role—it is there in black and white—why would we not do so?
To mitigate the concern raised several times by the shadow Minister that money that comes from the fire precept could be offset and used for police, those are two separate funding streams that cannot—
Mike Penning
No, not currently, because under the legislation they cannot be used across. Of course, common sense could be used. For instance, if a new police station is being built, we could bring joint funding together for that, but the accounting officer would have to agree to that.
Why do we need to do that? In my visits around the country I have been shown brand spanking new police stations—lovely! When we asked whether there was a consultation with fire to see whether they could be in there, we were told, “Well, we did think about it, but actually we needed it quite quickly and we needed it here.” The real difficulty is that we cannot put a fire station into a police station—those big, red engines do not fit in so well—but we can do it the other way around. We have seen that, and it has operated well. The rationale behind what we are trying to do is that when common sense cannot be agreed on, there must be a mechanism. The cost of a referendum would be astronomical and disproportionate. I did not hear of referendums when the fire control centres were regionalised either, but that was an unmitigated disaster.
I will touch on a couple of other points. The PCCs categorically have to make sure that they consult, because otherwise they will put their business case to the Home Secretary and when the independent review is provided their case will be rejected. The Bill confers a duty on PCCs to
“consult each relevant authority about the proposal”.
That ensures that consultation requirements capture all local authorities that operate fire and rescue committees or nominate members to a combined or metropolitan authority. That is in the Bill—it is physically there.
The other thing that I thought was somewhat concerning in one of the amendments was the concept that we would have to combine a referendum with when a local election takes place. In my part of the world in Hertfordshire, if that was talked about just after county elections it would be four years before we would have the next all-up county elections, and I do not think that would be acceptable.
The Bill’s concept is to try to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent more efficiently and to keep separate emergency services. The hon. Member for North Durham touched on where ambulance services were and, interestingly enough, plans are already coming forward to some PCCs for triage ambulances to be brought in by local health service commissioners. That will evolve, but we are trying to have two blue lights working closely and the ambulance service working in two-tier collaboration. With all due respect to the shadow Minister, I think all the amendments are a delaying tactic for people who do not want that. If we are really honest about it, that is what they are about.
I respect that the Labour party does not want PCCs to run fire authorities, but I humbly disagree. I want duly elected people accountable to the public running the fire and rescue service where agreements can be made, based on existing fire authorities. That is crucial. There are other areas where there will be difficulties, but why should it be different for someone who lives in a metropolitan area from someone who lives in Hertfordshire? That is fundamentally wrong, so I ask the Committee to reject the amendments, which in my opinion are a delaying tactic.
The Chair
When the hon. Lady responds, will she give some indication of which amendments—if any—she wishes to proceed with?
Lyn Brown
We would like to press amendment 178 to a vote. We do not believe that it was very clearly in the Government’s manifesto that they wanted to place fire services under PCCs. When the Minister spoke today, he reiterated what worries me. He said things like, “If the fire service does not agree, it can go to the Home Secretary”. No, it should go to the people. The people should decide whether they want their PCC to be in charge of the fire and rescue authority. It was not in the manifesto—if it had been, I would feel much better about this. I read out the manifesto, and it takes a cryptologist to understand what it means. I will not take up any more time, other than to say that I would like to press Amendment 178 to a vote. This side of the Committee believes in localism and democracy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lyn Brown
I beg to move amendment 179, in schedule 1, page 113, line 16, at end insert—
“(7) Where an order under this section is made, the Secretary of State must make provisions for the establishment of a local fire and emergency committee within three months of the order.
(8) A local fire and emergency committee shall be comprised of a balance of members from the local authorities of the relevant policing area and independent experts.
(9) The local fire and emergency committee must—
(a) keep under review the exercise of functions of the police and crime commissioner,
(b) submit proposals to the police and crime commissioner,
(c) review any draft documentation produced by the police and crime commissioner.
(10) The local fire and emergency committee may require a police and crime commissioner, and chief fire officer, to attend local fire and emergency committee proceedings and to produce to the committee documents under the police and crime commissioner’s control or possession.
(11) The local fire and emergency committee may veto the appointment of a chief fire officer.”.
This amendment would place PCCs who assume control of a FRS within a framework of scrutiny which is similar to that proposed for the London Mayor.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 13—Inspectors of Fire and Rescue Authorities—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint—
(a) a chief Inspector of Fire and Rescue Authorities; and
(b) such number of inspectors of fire and rescue authorities as the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) The Secretary of State shall determine and pay to the persons appointed under this section such remuneration.
(3) The Secretary of State must instruct the Chief Inspector of the Fire and Rescue Authorities to—
(a) inquire into a matter mentioned in subsection (4); and
(b) to submit to them a written report on that matter by a date specified by them.
(4) The matters under subsection (3)(a) are—
(a) the state and efficiency of relevant authorities generally;
(b) the manner in which—
(i) a relevant authority is carrying out any of its functions under this Act; or
(ii) relevant authorities are carrying out such functions generally;
(c) technical matters relating to a function of a relevant authority under this Act.
(5) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of each report submitted under subsection (3)(b) before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Home Secretary to establish a national inspectorate for the fire and rescue service.
New clause 14—Amendment of the Fire and Rescue Act—
“Amend section 21 of the Fire and Rescue Act 2004 (Fire and Rescue National Framework), after subsection 2(a) insert—
“(b) must set out national standards for the discharge of fire and rescue authorities’ functions including, but not limited to—
(i) response times;
(ii) preparedness for major incidences;
(iii) quantity and quality of preventive work
(iv) firefighter fitness
(v) equipment and PPE, and
(vi) training””
This new clause would establish national standards for fire and rescue services.
Lyn Brown
I know, I have worked that out, but I was still sitting here thinking, “Why aren’t we voting?”
Amendment 179 would require the Home Secretary to set up proper scrutiny arrangements for those fire and rescue services taken over by PCCs. New clause 13 would require the Home Secretary to establish a national inspection regime for the fire and rescue service. Currently, the Bill provides for the police and crime commissioners to become fire and rescue authorities. We do not think the Government have made the case for this fundamental reform but, if it is to happen, there needs to be an overhaul of the scrutiny regime that they will face. There must be rigorous scrutiny of their performance to ensure proper accountability and effective public services. Amendment 179 would provide for that.
At present, a fire and rescue authority is made up of elected council members providing a diversity of opinion and internal parliamentary-style scrutiny. The make-up of the panel is politically balanced in relation to the relevant local council. Fire and rescue associations are made up of the councillors genuinely interested in improving the fire and rescue service and improving services for their community.
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady made a mistake in the list of functions when she said that the members of the fire authority were there to provide scrutiny. They are not scrutineers; they are the executive. They perform the executive function, not the scrutiny function. As I mentioned in my speech in the Chamber, this goes to the heart of a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of fire authorities. They are not scrutineers of the executive; they are the executive. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Lyn Brown
We have a diversity of authorities in the country. When a fire and rescue authority is part of a council, the council provides the scrutiny of the fire and rescue function. There is an in-built scrutiny of the fire and rescue services by the local authorities. The Bill requires a PCC to provide police and crime panels with relevant information regarding their role as the fire and rescue authority. Police and crime panels are currently comprised of members understandably concerned primarily with matters of policing, so the new role will present a considerable extension of the role of the police and crime panel.
The Home Office currently provides funding to cover the cost of operating police and crime panels under the new burdens principle. However, the Home Office is yet to confirm to panels whether the funding will be available from 2016-17. In addition, the Home Office funding currently amounts to only £53,000 per panel annually. The Home Office calculated the amount to be paid to panels on the basis that they would need to hold only four meetings a year to provide the PCC with the light-touch scrutiny that it was thought was needed. Panels have struggled to ensure that they provide appropriate scrutiny of the PCC and fulfil their statutory duty in just four meetings a year, and they will struggle even more if they are expected to scrutinise the PCC’s role as a fire and rescue authority as well.
How, then, do the Government expect police and crime panels to deal with that extra burden of responsibility? Will independent experts, with knowledge of fire and rescue services, be co-opted on to panels? Will the co-opted policing experts be expected to scrutinise the PCC’s job as the fire and rescue authority? If so, what training is in place to ensure that they develop the required expertise? I am concerned that this model of governance will not provide the level of scrutiny required. We will therefore have police and crime panels, which are already creaking under financial constraints, further lumbered with the requirement to scrutinise police and crime commissioners in their role as fire and rescue authorities—a subject outside their expertise. Is it any wonder that the fire and rescue service is concerned about becoming a Cinderella service?
In our amendments we are proposing to create a separate fire and emergency committee, to be set up with powers to properly scrutinise police and crime commissioners over their role as fire and rescue authorities. Given what the Government are proposing in London, it is clear that they should support my amendment, because it is all consistent. In the provisions for London, the Bill sets out a fire and emergency committee to scrutinise the fire commissioner, who is appointed by the Mayor. Why should the rest of the country expect less scrutiny? Our amendment would create analogous committees wherever a PCC takes over a fire and rescue service. That will ensure that the governors of all fire and rescue services get the necessary level of scrutiny. What is good enough for London is good enough for the rest of the country.
What would that look like, and what powers would they hold? We propose that when the Secretary of State makes an order for a PCC to take over the fire and rescue authority, she must make provisions to establish a local fire and emergency committee within three months of the order. The committee would be comprised of a balance of members from the local authorities in the relevant policing area. It will also be able to co-opt independent fire experts on to the committee. They would be responsible for keeping under review the exercise of functions of the PCC, submitting proposals to the PCC and reviewing any draft documentation produced by the PCC. In short, they would provide scrutiny of, and advice to, PCCs in relation to the performance of their fire responsibilities, and they would be a proper scrutiny body rooted in local democracy.
This amendment would also enable a local fire and emergency committee to require a PCC and chief fire officer to attend local fire and emergency committee proceedings and to produce to the committee documents under the PCC’s control or possession. They would have powers as well as responsibilities. The Government will note that the proposals for the role of the fire and emergency committee is concurrent with its role in London. If the Government support it in the capital, they really should support this amendment.
The amendment would create a separate fire and emergency committee to rigorously scrutinise the PCC on its fire responsibilities. It would remove budgetary pressures from the police and crime panels and ensure that experts in the field of fire are given a scrutiny role. Furthermore, it would bring scrutiny of PCCs outside London in line with that in the capital. If the Minister believes that a fire and emergency committee is required in London, I urge him to support this amendment.
New clause 13 would require the Home Secretary to establish a national inspection regime for the fire and rescue service. I tabled it to put on the record my concern about the absence in the Bill of any form of independent inspection of the quality of fire and rescue services. Police forces are subject to review by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which has a remit to ask the questions that citizens would ask, publish the answers in an accessible form and interpret the evidence. That allows the public to compare performance, and enables the public and their elected representatives to push for improvements.
Some people will no doubt resent or even resist the remit of HMIC. I can hear them now saying, “Who inspects the inspectors? Who are they to lord it over us on the frontline who know what’s what?”. In the same way, some people in the education sector resent the existence of Ofsted—not something I want to examine in detail here, I am sure the Committee will be pleased to know. My point is that some form of independent inspection is part of the process through which the public, as well as decision makers, can be assured about the quality of the public services on which they rely. It is also a route that identifies questions that need to be asked, issues that need to be flagged, concerns that need to be aired and challenges that need to be posed.
The last Labour Government brought to an end the former fire and rescue inspection regime. We replaced it with a role for the Audit Commission in providing a view on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of fire services. Of course, the coalition Government, in their bonfire of the quangos, abolished the Audit Commission. It is an excellent development that, following the abolition of the Audit Commission and the national performance framework, the Local Government Association developed the operational assessment and fire peer programme as the focus of sector-led improvement, providing a boost to local accountability.
It is great news that, since its launch in 2012, all 46 fire and rescue services have undertaken the review. I am sure the Minister has heard, as I have, from front-line fire chiefs and operators that the peer review has helped them to develop their services and challenged them on areas where they could make their performance better. It has helped to plug the gap that was left behind, although some of us might think it is a bit too soft, because the peer review stuff does not have any teeth if people do not choose to improve the services that they are providing.
I am and always have been a great believer in local accountability. As a councillor for 18 years before being elected to this House, I experienced at first hand the discipline and accountability of an election, and the role of the ballot box in enabling our communities to have a say in the quality and effectiveness of the services that are delivered to them. It is a very powerful tool. However, excellent as the peer review programme and the accountability of the ballot box are, when it comes to a function as vital to public safety and community well-being as the fire and rescue service, I do not think they are good enough.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I am thinking back to the point about accountability and scrutiny in the fire service. As a councillor for nearly six years—I did not do quite as many years as the hon. Lady—it was the one area that I felt I had very little connection with, despite being an elected member. As a Member of Parliament, I have connected with the fire service in Hampshire and seen great work where it has looked at its peers and worked very well with the police. As a local councillor, I felt that the fire service was the one area that the electorate were excluded from in respect of how it worked with the community through elected bodies. I understand where you are coming from on this, but I like the idea of the PCC having a direct link with the community.
The Chair
May I gently remind the hon. Lady that she does not understand where I am coming from? I am completely neutral in this.
Lyn Brown
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I think that I have moved on from where she is coming from, but I would be happy to have a conversation with her in the Tea Room about it. I left local government in 2005, when I came to this place. Before that, I sat for 15 years on the executive of my council, so I have experienced the scrutiny of my peers and I can tell you that in a place that was 60-nil, it was sometimes a little uncomfortable.
Lyn Brown
Did I do it again? I am sorry. It has been a long day and it is getting longer. I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but we do need to see the scrutiny of public services by people who are not immediately involved in delivering those services. We have to find a way to ensure that there is challenge and inspection.
At the moment, if a PCC takes over the fire and rescue service, three quarters of the services covered by that PCC will have an inspectorate judging what is done. Less than a quarter—the fire and rescue service—will have no inspection at all. That is not healthy for the public service that is not being scrutinised or inspected, nor is it healthy for the whole. I do not think that, in those circumstances, the fire and rescue service—the bit not being inspected—would receive equal consideration and concern to the parts being inspected. Does that make sense?
Jake Berry
The argument the hon. Lady is making for new clause 13 might receive further support if we understood how much the new fire inspectorate would cost. Is she able to update the Committee on the saving that was made when the previous fire inspectorate was abolished and the Audit Commission went in? Finally, can she say whether the reintroduction of the fire inspectorate would have the support of the fire unions?
Lyn Brown
I do not speak on behalf of the fire unions and I genuinely do not know their view on this. The scrutiny and audit function of the PCC costs £58,000 a year, which is funded by the Home Office. I do not have any figures on the abolition of the Audit Commission, nor on how much it cost for it to do anything.
I should tell the hon. Gentleman that, as a member of Her Majesty’s Opposition, one gets the Bill and then has the opportunity to read it and write one’s notes in the evenings and at weekends. I do not necessarily have the resources that are available to the Minister, although I must say that this Minister was very generous in allowing one or two of his resources to visit me for a whole hour to discuss the Bill. That is the aid that we get, so I am sorry that I do not have the figures at my fingertips. I am sure that the Minister will write to the hon. Gentleman with that information.
Mike Penning
Actually, I will be very generous and write to the whole Committee. I say subtly to the shadow Minister that she may find, when I get a chance to speak, that I have a degree of sympathy with what she is saying, although I will probably not be able to accept the new clause.
Lyn Brown
That is the best news I have had all day, but I will still go on.
If I were the Minister, there are three features of fire and rescue services and flood services on which I would want to be assured, so that I slept well at night. In homage to the three E’s of the post-1997 Labour Government of economy, efficiency and effectiveness—how could we forget?—I will name them the three R’s. As a Minister, I would want to know the following. Is each fire and rescue service robust—does it have the capacity to carry out the functions expected of it? As for resilience, can it continue to function under conditions of emergency and strain? On resources, does it have an adequate and sustainable budget to provide the resources it needs to undertake its functions? Those are the matters that I would expect the chief inspector of fire and rescue to support. In speaking to new clause 13, I am inviting the Minister to share with us how he envisages being assured that the fire and rescue services in England and Wales are robust, resilient and resourced.
New clause 14 would make the scrutiny and inspection regime I am calling for more rigorous by introducing a set of national standards into the fire service. The standard of protection and care that somebody receives from the fire and rescue service should not depend on where they live. Fire and rescue services have the freedom to develop their own standards of emergency cover, and that means that there is no national coherence in service standards. Across the country, despite the hard work of our dedicated and professional fire service, response times are increasing and fewer hours are being spent on preventive work as a result of the budget cuts imposed by the Government.
Being an ex-firefighter himself, I know that the Minister is aware that when dealing with a risk to life, every minute counts. Studies on response times have shown that if a person survives near to a fire for nine minutes, by one minute later the fire can increase in size by such an extent that they will die. More worryingly, if that is possible, nine minutes after ignition, a fire might still be small enough for the first crew in attendance to put it out with a hose reel, whereas one minute later, the fire could have grown by so much that it cannot be extinguished until another crew arrives and more complex firefighting systems are set up. The difference between arriving after nine and 10 minutes is not just a minute worse—response times do matter. I know that the Minister agrees with me on that, so I will not embarrass him by asking him to agree. He has been a professional, and he understands the issue.
A Government who were interested in leadership and the improvement of public services would introduce minimum standards across the country to tackle that issue. Those would provide a warning sign when reductions in spending and service provision created an unacceptable level of risk. It might also encourage an improvement in the slipping response times if standards were set starting from the principle of providing genuine and progressive improvement in the service that is provided to the public. Sadly, given the budget reductions before us, things will get worse.
The National Audit Office produced a report in November last year on the sustainability of fire services. It found that the Government did not know whether service reductions were leading to increased risk, and that they will only become aware of imprudent service reductions after the fact. That, the National Audit Office argued, was in large part because the Government do not model risk and have not sufficiently scrutinised the processes.
New clause 14 would provide national standards below which no fire and rescue service should drop. We would like to see national standards for response times; preparedness for major incidents; the quantity and quality of preventive work; firefighter fitness; equipment, including personal protective equipment; and training. Such a move would deal with many of the alarming findings in the National Audit Office report.
James Cleverly
This is an opportunity for the hon. Lady to take a breather. Does she not recognise that there is something of a contradiction between the points she was making on some of the earlier clauses about decentralisation, localisation, local accountability and local budget holding, and the position she is taking with this new clause, where she wants a whole raft of nationally set guidelines? There were national guidelines for the fire and rescue service—I concede that I might be wrong on this—under a Government formed by her party. How does she reconcile the localism she put forward in earlier amendments with the centralisation in her proposed national policy framework?
Lyn Brown
I admit that the hon. Gentleman has a point, but service reductions are going so far that in some parts of the country fire chiefs are telling me that their services are no longer sustainable. Some fire chiefs tell me that it is taking them 20 minutes to get to a shout and that if a person lives in the middle of the country, it takes at least 20 minutes for a fire appliance to get to them if there is a fire.
I am arguing for transparency. If I lived in a home where I knew a fire appliance was not going to be able to get to me for 20 minutes to half an hour, I would first want to have a conversation with my elected representatives who sit on the fire authority or the PCC, whoever it is who is responsible and talk to them about that 25 minutes to half an hour. I would be painfully aware that x fire station that was closer to me had been closed down a few years ago because of budget reductions. I would also be in a position where I could, as a home owner, make sure that I had all the necessaries in my home. For instance, I might want to invest in a sprinkler system. I would want to make sure that I had alarms. I think transparency is essential.
We are trying to open up a discussion about response times and standards because I do not think that that discussion is happening in the country in an open way, and it is about time it did. This is a probing amendment and I will not press it to a vote. We need to have a conversation collectively about what standards we expect from our fire services.
Jake Berry
Will the shadow Minister concede that if she succeeds in amendment 179 about a local inspection framework or gets the best news she has been waiting for all day from the Minister if he moves slightly and accepts that this amendment, although a probing one, is unnecessary because the standards could be set locally by local inspection committee?
Lyn Brown
I accept that, which is why this is a probing amendment. We are trying to say to the Committee that there are consequences if a PCC takes over a fire and rescue service. Three quarters of the service that the PCC will be responsible for is inspected fiercely; one quarter is not. We are very worried that our fire services are going to become Cinderella services. We are raising mechanisms by which we can have some kind of faith that the fire service will be able to deliver the service that people expect it to deliver. Many people in our constituencies and communities would be highly concerned to hear that there was a 20 minute lull before a fire engine or appliance turned up at their doorstep to put out a fire if they had called for it. We need to be much more transparent about this.
James Cleverly
I appreciate that this is a probing amendment designed to stimulate discussion on a particular topic. I congratulate the hon. Lady on doing that very thing. If the Opposition’s amendments are not successful in delaying more direct involvement for PCCs in the governance of fire, the hon. Lady and her colleagues could push for an explicit set of performance indicators for PCCs at election time so that they are held to account for the performance of their fire service. That might go a long way towards providing the assurances that she wants—I am trying to be helpful.
While I do not want to sound like a broken record, it reminds me that if I do not have a local councillor who actually sits on the fire authority—as I do in Essex—having that information under the current regime gives me no power whatever. I may be disgruntled about performance or pleased with it, but there is nothing I can do about it at the ballot box. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Lyn Brown
I have forgotten what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning. He suggested that there should be performance indicators. If we had a set of national standards, they would in effect be a performance indicator for a PCC to work towards. I do not accept the issue around accountability: the idea that the person responsible for the fire service has to be a ward councillor in that area. We vote for individuals to serve on the council. The council is then elected. It is of a certain political colour or hue. That political colour or hue presumably determines whether x or y resources are put into a service. If I was unhappy with the performance of my fire service, I would vote for a different political representative, of a different colour or hue, who was elected to my council.
Lyn Brown
In his dreams. Currently, each fire and rescue authority carries out its own integrated risk management plan. Using the level of risks and the resource available to the service, they set their own standards. Those standards can vary both in outcome and in how they are measured. For example, in 2013-14 Merseyside fire and rescue service had a three-tier target for response standards. The standard for incidents that were considered high risk was set at 5 minutes, 59 seconds; medium risk at 6 minutes, 59 seconds; and low risk, 7 minutes, 59 seconds. In the same year, Cheshire fire and rescue service replaced its variable response standards with a blanket 10-minute response standard for all incidents where someone’s life might be at risk. That is particularly shocking in light of the information regarding response times I referred to earlier. It really is time for us to begin to think about what a standard response time should look like across the country. I know that the term “postcode lottery” has become a cliché when we talk about public services, but those figures show that the standard of service people are receiving really does depend on where they live. We do not accept that inequality in service in our schools or in our hospitals, and we should not accept it in our fire service.
There is another concern. While I believe that most people understand that the fire and rescue service is delivered by their local authority, people still have some concept of fire and rescue as a national service that should be delivered in a uniform fashion. Therefore, even where people understand that it is provided locally, failure to deliver a reasonable standard in one area will directly affect people’s trust in their own fire and rescue service.
In conclusion, the system as it stands is unfair and quite possibly unsafe. National standards have worked in our schools and hospitals, but the Government have not introduced national standards in the fire service. This is not just about creating national standards for national standards’ sake, but trying to use them to improve the service. They can be used as a tool to arrest slipping response times and ensure that everybody receives an acceptable level of service from their fire and rescue service. If the Minister truly wants to show leadership—and I know that he does—and if the Government are interested in improving public services, I urge him to support our new clause 14, along with new clause 13 and amendment 179. Inspection, scrutiny and standards are all central to public service delivery.
Mike Penning
I will deal with the bit I cannot agree with. We probably could have saved the Committee 25 minutes, because I agree with most of the latter part of the hon. Lady’s comments, and we can do something about them. It was not the latter part of her speech that convinced me, but the first line, because it is common sense.
On amendment 179, when a PCC takes responsibility for the fire and rescue service, the remit of the associated police and crime panel will be extended to include scrutiny of the PCC’s fire and rescue function. Under the balanced appointment objective, which was set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the panel has to have the skills to make sure that it can act, as the hon. Lady requested. Not one of them has come to me and indicated that they are so rushed that they could not do this. Bringing other skills to that panel would be really good.
On inspection, the present peer review is something that the Home Secretary and I, and all the chiefs I have spoken to, believe is not acceptable, and we are going to review it. I will not set up a brand spanking new one because it was abolished for a reason, as it was very expensive. However, we will have a non-peer review. If someone is reviewing their mates down the road, the assumption, although I know they are all professionals, is that they will look at what they want to look at, not at what they do not. We will look at that, although I am not certain I will have a provision ready for Report. We will work together on that, because it is particularly important. It is also important that we get together all the professionals in the fire service, including the unions, to ensure that we can do that.
I am sympathetic, too, to the point on national standards. This is where I will be gentle. We were not in government 13 years ago when national standards were abolished and it was decided to make decisions locally, as the hon. Lady remarked. However, we need to have something not dissimilar to the College of Policing, so that we can bring professionals together to have a better understanding of response.
This is a really complicated area. I am conscious that the workforce in the fire service has moved an awfully long way in the past couple of years. However, to get this right we may need to do more. In the north-west, referred to by the hon. Lady, there are only 24 retained firefighters in the whole of Merseyside. In my part of the world, we have an awful lot. As for the hon. Lady’s constituency, there are none in London. It is ludicrous in the 21st century that stations are closing when we could have day manning—eight hours—and night retained.
I have said before that I was an Essex fireman. This is very important—not that I was a fireman, because I was not a very good one—because I was a qualified fireman who went to work and did my job. However, when something happened on the hon. Lady’s patch and they needed mutual aid from Essex, believe it or not, we had to come from Southend, Leigh or Basildon to go to London ground, because London would not allow retained firefighters to come to London ground, even though they needed the help. I know the reason why but I will not bring it up in Committee because it would not help. They had to come and back-fill for us, so we as whole-timers came into London. In the 21st century, when so many of those retained firefighters are whole-time, certainly in my part of the world, that is the sort of thing we are looking at.
In the north-west, Lancashire has moved to an 8/8 system. The whole-time firefighters do the busy times—they are all there at the same time—then they move to a whole-time retained situation at night. That is why one size is not going to fit all for the whole country; it cannot. The hon. Member for North Durham, who is not in his seat at the moment, might be interested to know that there are police community support officers in that part of the world who are retained firefighters. I cannot think of anything more community spirited in this wonderful country where volunteering is widespread. I know we will talk about volunteering again later. What more could we want?
One size is not going to fit all, which is why 13 years ago, the Labour party abolished response times. It is for locals to make up their own mind. However, I take on board the fact that we need to look carefully, as we have done with the police and the College of Policing, at a better way to ensure that we have a common standard that includes recruit training. Admittedly, many fire services around the country have not recruited for many years, but they will do so eventually, because that is the nature of the job as people retire. We should also include training through the system and the ranks, as we get skills coming forward.
I fully understand that point, and I will do as much as I can to work together with the relevant bodies on that. I think the hon. Lady might agree, as she indicated this was a probing amendment, and withdraw it.
Lyn Brown
The Minister has just made my day. What can I say? I am a very happy shadow Minister standing here. It is lovely to be so loved. I also want to pay respect to the retained firefighters, but, if the Minister does not mind, I am not going to be drawn into a debate about crewing, although I recognise what he says about boundaries. For me, that is where the Bill does not do it. We need to make sure our borders are softer than they actually are in order to keep our communities safe. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 183, in schedule 1, page 113, line 38, at end insert “, whereby any budget transferred must be maintained at that same level for a maximum period of five years.”
Amendment 184, in schedule 1, page 113, line 41, after “rights”, insert “, budgets”.
This amendment would protect agreed FRS budgets.
Lyn Brown
These amendments would protect fire service budgets for five years after a PCC takes over management of a fire and rescue authority. We are concerned that PCCs who have taken on responsibility for the fire and rescue service will have done so possibly to use fire budgets to bolster the spending power they have in the police service. They will not do this because they are bad people or because they do not care about the fire service; they will do it because the police service has been experiencing severe cuts in recent years, and the police and crime commissioner’s role and top priority is what it says on the tin: police and crime commissioner, not fire commissioner.
The police force is facing funding challenges. Budgets for next year have not been protected in real terms. They are being cut again for the sixth year in a row, at a time when crime is rising and the country is facing increasing risk. Some 18,000 police staff were cut during the previous Parliament, 12,000 of them front-line and operational staff. Such cuts are disproportionately affecting our metropolitan areas. For example, West Midlands police has been hit twice as hard as Surrey police. With six years of cuts behind them and another four years of cutbacks planned, the police are facing a whole decade of cuts to funding. It is no wonder that PCCs might be eyeing up the chance to take over the fire budgets to prop up their own dwindling resources, but this cannot be allowed to happen.
The fire and rescue service reduced spending by 12% during the previous Parliament—a cumulative cash cut of £236 million—and there will be more to come. We know from the local government funding settlement that fire and rescue services are expected to cut spending by a further £135 million by the end of the Parliament. A stretched service is going to get squeezed even tighter.
As I have said, the fire service is already experiencing significant budgetary pressures, and this is damaging services. Since 2009-10, there has been a huge cut in the number of whole-time firefighters. Durham fire and rescue service has cut its whole-time firefighters by 73, while Surrey has been cut by 91 and Cleveland by 120. Surrey fire and rescue service has also seen its number of fire appliances cut by a quarter, from 40 to 30. Hertfordshire lost a quarter of its fire stations in the same period. I wonder what the people of Hemel Hempstead think of that.
The Chancellor’s budget cuts are having a real impact on our fire and rescue services. Despite the hard work and professionalism of our firefighters up and down the country, we have seen response times increasing. I know that the West Midlands fire service, despite its excellent work, has seen almost a minute added to its response times in all incident types since 2010. A minute might not sound a lot, but I know that if I am trapped in a car, crushed by the steering wheel, or in a house on fire, every minute will feel like a lifetime. The Minister, as a former firefighter, knows that a minute can make the difference between life and death. Every second counts. I know that not all changes to response times can be attributed to funding for the fire service—our roads are a heck of a lot busier—but when a local fire station closes, response times are likely to increase.
Mike Penning
Fire services, like the rest of local government, asked for a four-year settlement and were given one. They know exactly where their budgets are. The Government amendment to schedule 1, to which we will come later, ensures that there will remain clear, transparent accounting arrangements for fire funding, and that effective scrutiny and accountability arrangements are in place. I reiterate that a PCC will not be able to use a fire budget for policing or vice versa. It says specifically on the face of the Bill that that cannot be done. Nothing in the Bill indicates anything to do with privatisation. I never heard of the fire service being privatised in the whole time that I served in it. I know that a bit of scaremongering is going on, but the Bill is absolutely rigid on that.
It is for Parliament to decide the funding arrangements, but the funding is set in statute, and everybody knows exactly where they are. There will be separate paths. Of course accountability is necessary, for instance on procurement, as we discussed earlier. I intend to publish a procurement table soon, like the one I published for the police, so that everybody in the country will know the main items purchased by the fire authorities, how much they paid for them and any discrepancies, so we can bring things together. I have used white shirts as an obvious example. At the moment, I can guarantee that most white shirts are being bought by the police and not by the fire service. There is no collaboration in the purchasing requirements. Surely that is logical, but the accounting for that will not come out of one budget; naturally enough, it will be done across the piece.
I think that generally, the shadow Minister feels that money could be taken from one pot and put in the other, but it does not say that on the face of the Bill, and I give guarantees on the Bill. She looks at me very nicely, as if she might not believe me. The Bill is quite specific that there will be two separate funding streams, to be accounted for with the accountability and scrutiny required. Only when collaboration occurs do we want to consider joint purchasing, and then it will be separated out. I honestly do not see the need for the amendment. If people keep talking about privatisation of the fire service, somebody somewhere might believe it, although not anyone on the Government Benches.
Lyn Brown
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. It has gone further than what is written on the face of the Bill. I ask him to take our amendment away and think about it, and consider whether he can make what is on the face of the Bill just a little more convincing. At the moment, we are not convinced, and there are people out there who are not either. We would be grateful if he considered doing so, but we will not push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 1, in schedule 1, page 114, line 34, at end insert—
‘(3A) A fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A must appoint a person to be responsible for the proper administration of the authority’s financial affairs (a “chief finance officer”).
(3B) A fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A must appoint a person to act as chief finance officer of the authority if and so long as—
(a) that post is vacant, or
(b) the holder of that post is, in the authority’s opinion, unable to carry out the duties of that post.
(3C) Section 113 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (qualifications of responsible officer) applies to a person appointed under subsection (3A) or (3B) as it applies to the persons having responsibility for the administration of financial affairs mentioned in that section.”—(Mike Penning.)
This amendment and amendment 2 require a fire and rescue authority created by an order under new section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to appoint a chief finance officer who is responsible for the proper administration of the authority’s financial affairs.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 24 and 26.
Mike Penning
I am pleased to say, based on my scribbled notes from earlier discussions, that these are consequential amendments.
Lyn Brown
I would like to speak about amendment 8, which is part of this group. If the Minister wanted to call for a comfort break and a cup of tea, I would not object.
The amendment states that a chief constable, when playing the role of a fire and rescue authority, must secure “good value for money” from the fire and rescue service and from persons exercising functions delegated by the chief constable. I genuinely do not understand why the Government have tabled the amendment. I honestly do not get it. Would a chief constable performing the role of a fire and rescue authority in this scenario not already be covered by the obligation for local authorities to seek best value? If so, what is different and additional about the amendment? It appears to have an exclusively monetary focus on value, but does the Minister really think that fire and rescue authorities are not already trying to deliver the best service they can with the budgets they are set? If he does, why is he not confident that chief constables will also be honest and diligent administrators under his single employer model?
I must say that the task of deciphering the Government’s intentions is sometimes made more difficult by the process whereby they carry out legislation. The amendment was one among 56 pages of amendments that were dumped on my desk just a few days before this sitting. That meant that my whole weekend—Friday night, Saturday and Sunday—was taken up by working on the Bill. If the Bill had been in better order before it came before the Committee, the Minister would not have had to table so many amendments just before the sitting.
These are amendments, rather than original clauses, so they do not come with explanatory notes. I have not had the time to scrutinise or study them properly. I wonder whether this is the right way to go about parliamentary process. I have stood up to speak on this amendment so I can draw to the Committee’s attention the concerns that have been brought to me. The amendment might be used as a justification for the outsourcing of front-line services. One could imagine a situation where a chief constable outsources services to a private contractor and argues that his hands were tied as the contractor could deliver the service at a lower cost than the direct provision by the fire and rescue service.
We will get to privatisation later, but I am sure that the Minister would like to take the opportunity to put those fears to bed by offering a comprehensive reason as to why the Government felt the need to table amendment 8.
Mike Penning
I cannot believe that we are talking about privatisation again, especially on this group of amendments, but let me reiterate what I said earlier. There is absolutely no pressure, innuendo or anything else in the Bill on privatisation. The shadow Minister mentioned best value and asked why we are doing this. When I became the Fire Minister, I took a look at type-approved procurement. Our police service desperately needs body armour, and there was nearly £300 difference between one force and another. Where is the best value there? On batons, there was a difference of nearly £80. I would love to say that every single force will do exactly what we would expect them to do and get best value for the taxpayer, but with the Bill we are ensuring that that is exactly what they do and that is what it says on the tin. It has nothing to do with private provision. I hope that I have helped the hon. Lady out once and for all, but perhaps not.
Lyn Brown
I will press the Minister further on privatisation a little later, but I genuinely do not understand: first, why amendment 8 was not in the Bill in the first place; secondly, why it does not come with an explanatory note; and, thirdly, why the chief constable is not already covered by the obligation on local authorities to seek best value. I genuinely do not get it, and I would be grateful if the Minister let me know why the amendment is here in this form. It is being added late to the Bill with no explanatory note and, because there is no explanatory note, it is open-ended.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 189, in schedule 1, page 115, line 37, at end insert—
‘(13) A police and crime commissioner who becomes a fire and rescue authority is not permitted to privatise any part of the fire and rescue service.
(14) For the purposes of this Bill, privatisation is defined as—
(a) the transfer of ownership of the fire and rescue service to a private sector entity, or
(b) outsourcing of the authority’s frontline functions under this Act to a private sector company.”
This amendment, along with amendment 188, would prevent a PCC from privatising the part of the fire and rescue service which they assume control of.
Lyn Brown
I am disappointed that the Minister could not answer the basic questions arising from the previous group of amendments, and I would be grateful if he wrote to me and the rest of the Committee on that. I genuinely do not understand why amendment 8 was not included in the Bill as introduced, why it had to be an amendment and why, being an amendment, it is not covered by an explanatory note, which would have made it easier for us all to understand.
Amendments 188 and 189 seek cast-iron guarantees from the Government that the reforms are not a back door for privatisation of the fire and rescue service. The Minister may claim that I am being alarmist in raising the threat of privatisation, but there is some evidence that the danger is real. In 2012, Cleveland fire and rescue service received funding from the Government’s mutual support programme to look into becoming a social enterprise. We argued at the time that that was a backdoor to privatisation, and we were right. At the moment, there are core tasks of firefighting that, by law, can be carried out only by an employee of a fire and rescue authority. The then fire Minister, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), wrote to the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform stating that he wanted to change the law to
“enable fire and rescue authorities in England to contract out their full range of services to a suitable provider”.
Ostensibly, the measure was proposed to allow Cleveland fire and rescue service to become a social enterprise but, as we said at the time, the change in the law would have meant that there was nothing to stop fire and rescue authorities contracting out to other suitable providers. Profit-making firms would inevitably have followed, especially when we consider competition laws and the duties on authorities, such as that provided for by Government amendment 8, requiring them to seek best value for money. In fact, it makes me wonder why amendment 8 came so late.
The current Minister of State for Trade and Investment, Lord Maude, who was then Paymaster General, was unequivocal about the Government’s support. He also expressed hope that more fire and rescue services, and indeed more public services in other areas, would follow suit:
“If a fire brigade can spin itself out as a mutual business, it shows there are few no-go areas of public service where this innovative approach to delivery cannot reach.”
Few no-go areas of public service. A rare moment of clarity from a Minister.
In the face of opposition, the Government eventually got cold feet about turning Cleveland fire and rescue service into a social enterprise, but I have not forgotten their support and their attempts to change laws that prevent privatisation, nor have those working in the fire service. What reason do we have for thinking that the Government have since changed their intentions? Before the election, I spoke to independent consultants and experts about the future viability of the fire and rescue service. They told me that, under the Government’s spending plans, the fire service could only go on by adopting one of three reforms. They could entirely abandon the model of full-time professional firefighters, they could be consolidated into one centrally managed national service, or they could privatise the services to allow them to make a profit from those who can afford to pay for extra fire provision. Since the election, we have seen that the Government wish the fire service to reduce spending by a further £135 million by the end of the Parliament, so I ask the Minister, “Which is it?” I know it is not a national service, or a part-time fire service, even in our urban areas. So is it privatisation?
James Cleverly
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s giving way yet again; she is being generous with her time. Will she recognise that the contract that took the London fire brigade’s fleet and its maintenance into private ownership was signed under a Labour-run Administration in a Labour-run fire authority, using exactly the model that she claims would prevent such problems occurring? If she is willing to concede those points, will she also concede that proposing the structures she does as a defence against badly drafted contracts is no defence at all?
Lyn Brown
No, no, I do not need that, but I happily accept that the contracts I have spoken of came under a Labour Administration.
We all benefit from full and proper mitigation of the dangers posed by fire, flooding and other natural disasters. If a factory is ablaze, it is not just the factory owner and the workers who benefit from a swift response, but all the people in surrounding buildings who do not see the fire spread. It follows that we put all that at risk when provision of fire services moves away from the desire to increase resilience and mitigate risk.
If resources are diverted away from unprofitable and risky objectives into covering profitable but comparatively less risky objectives, we all suffer and are slightly less safe. Make no mistake: if and when a fire service is allowed to be run for profit, that is what may well happen. Businesses with big pockets but relatively low fire risks will divert resources away from where they are really needed. We cannot allow that to happen. The principle that protection from the risk of fire is a public good and a universal public interest is what makes privatising the fire and rescue service a fundamentally bad idea.
When the Government abandoned their plans for back-door privatisation in Cleveland, the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government offered what was, to be fair, an unequivocal commitment to prevent privatisation of fire and rescue services in future. This is what he said:
“Let me be absolutely clear. We will make no move, directly or indirectly, that involves the privatisation of the fire service. It is not our intention, nor will we allow, private firms to run the fire service.”
I invite the Minister to make a similar unequivocal statement today. In fairness, I have asked him to do so before, but I feel that he has ducked the question. If he does it again today, I put it to him that people have every right to be worried that the reforms are intended to be a pathway to back-door privatisation, especially if he rejects our amendments ruling out front-line privatisation.
If the reforms are intended as a back door to the privatisation of the fire and rescue service, that is a disaster. Privatisation is not in the interests of public safety, it is not popular and when it has been tried, it has failed. No wonder the Government would not contemplate privatising the service in the open. I hope that they do not try to get there covertly. I am looking for an absolutely clear statement that this Government will not allow privatisation.
Mike Penning
Let me make it clear that there are no plans to change the legislation to enable privatisation of the fire service—end of story. I completely agree with what the Secretary of State said. Hopefully, the scaremongering can now cease. However, I say to the shadow Minister that there are measures restricting what work can be done by our fire services that is presently being done by the private sector. I am looking very carefully at them, because I am not happy with them.
Going back all those years to when I was a young fireman, one thing that I used to do was fire prevention officer work. We would go out and do inspections of care homes and old people’s homes. We had a relationship. Let me give the Committee an example of what happened in my own constituency. I got a phone call from the warden of a residential home saying that some of the residents were in tears and very upset because the fire brigade had been there to do an inspection and had told them they had to remove their mats, all the pictures from the corridor and their plastic flowers from the windowsills. Why would the fire service do that? I shot over there and said, “I have no idea why the fire service would dream of doing such a thing,” because personally, as an ex-fireman, I could not see the risk. “Let me ask the chief constable.” The chief constable wrote back to me and said, “It’s a private company doing it for the local authorities. We can’t bid for that work, because we are not allowed to show that we make a profit from it.” That is not privatisation of the fire service; it is doing work at cost so that the private sector does not scare people in my constituency. That is one reason why I am considering the measures carefully.
To give another example, I went into the workshops in Hampshire; they have some fantastic workshops. They are not allowed to bid for work from local government agencies, because they are not allowed to make a profit. I do not think that the shadow Minister does not want those facilities to be used in the right sort of way, but I categorically reject the need for this change, because there are no plans to change the legislation, which is not in this legislation. For instance, a firefighter has a right of entry. That right is reserved to firefighters. That cannot be done. The police have rights and the fire service has rights. That is in statute.
I say, very respectfully, that we should just nip this in the bud here and now. I cannot be any more adamant. Actually, perhaps I could go a little bit further: I would not be the fire Minister should we privatise the fire service. I would not do that job. And there is no plan.
Lyn Brown
I do not care whether there is a need for it or not. I do not understand why the Minister will not accept it. I will push it to a vote, but I would be really grateful if he came back with a form of words that were his own and that he felt made this position absolutely clear in the Bill.
Mike Penning
I could not have been any more explicit. I do not think any Minister ever has been more explicit about the lack of a need for an amendment, because the legislation is not even here to allow that to happen. So why would I accept an amendment that is on a false premise? That is why not. I suggest the hon. Lady pushes the amendment to a vote—let the Committee decide.
Lyn Brown
The Minister understands where this is coming from, because he understands what fissures were rocketed through the fire service community when the whole Cleveland debate was happening, and when his own Ministers were talking so expansively about how this would be a jolly good thing.
The Chair
For the sake of getting the procedure right, I understand that the hon. Lady wants to have a Division on amendment 189, in which case she will now have to withdraw amendment 188.
Lyn Brown
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 2, in schedule 1, page 114, line 37, after “such” insert “other”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 115, line 37, at end insert—
“4DA Requirement for authority created by section 4A order to have fire fund
(1) Each fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A must keep a fund to be known as the fire fund.
(2) All of the receipts of a fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A must be paid into the relevant fire fund.
(3) All of the expenditure of a fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A must be paid out of the relevant fire fund.
(4) A fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A must keep accounts of payments made into or out of the relevant fire fund.
(5) Subsections (2) and (3) are subject to the provisions of—
(a) the scheme established under section 26 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (Firemen’s Pension Scheme) (as continued in force by order under section 36),
(b) a scheme under section 34 (pensions etc), or
(c) scheme regulations within the meaning of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013.
(6) In this section “relevant fire fund”, in relation to a fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A, means the fire fund which that authority keeps.”—(Mike Penning.)
This amendment requires a fire and rescue authority created by an order under new section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to keep a fire fund and to pay receipts into and expenditure out of that fund.
Amendment proposed: 189, in schedule 1, page 115, line 37, at end insert—
“(13) A police and crime commissioner who becomes a fire and rescue authority is not permitted to privatise any part of the fire and rescue service.
(14) For the purposes of this Bill, privatisation is defined as—
(a) the transfer of ownership of the fire and rescue service to a private sector entity, or
(b) outsourcing of the authority’s frontline functions under this Act to a private sector company.”—(Lyn Brown.)
This amendment, along with amendment 188, would prevent a PCC from privatising the part of the fire and rescue service which they assume control of.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 176, in schedule 1, page 121, line 17, leave out paragraph 10.
This amendment will retain the prohibition on employing police staff to carry out any of the functions of the Fire and Rescue Service.
Lyn Brown
The Bill contains three models of PCCs managing the fire and rescue service. Amendments 175 and 176 would remove the single-employer model.
A large proportion of the work carried out by the fire service is preventive work. In 2013-14, fire and rescue authorities and partner organisations undertook more than 672,196 home fire safety checks—10% fewer than in 2012-13. When this preventive work is done, smoke alarms are checked, sprinklers are fitted and homes are made safer. As we heard earlier in the Committee, fire staff also perform public health functions, such as conducting temperature checks for the elderly and referring on vulnerable people who welcome them into their homes to public bodies that can help them. This preventive work is not an add-on to the fire service’s work; it is at the core of what it does.
We need to be honest: there are some people who would not welcome a policeman into their homes without a warrant. Police officers are enforcers. It can be scary having them turn up on the doorstep, and we often fear the worst. There are fears that, under the single-employer model, it may be more difficult for the fire service to carry out its vital preventive work if a member of the public is concerned that the firefighter coming into their home might have to share information with or report back to their boss, the police. This is not an attack on the police—mine in West Ham are great—but we have to recognise that there is a fundamental difference between the humanitarian service that the fire and rescue service provides and the law enforcement service provided by the police. In order for the public to allow firefighters into their homes for preventive checks, trust in the fire service has to be at a level that is, quite simply, not paralleled in the police force.
There is also the issue of workers in the police force and the fire and rescue service enjoying different terms and conditions of employment, not least on the right to strike. There are legitimate fears that the single-employer model will be used as a means of cutting back on the workers’ rights of those in the fire service. Furthermore, I am genuinely concerned that this model may lead to privatisation in the fire and rescue service. I know that the Minister is going to get grumpy with me, but I gently say to him that Ministers come and go, and although I would like to see him in his job forever—well, until I get there, of course—we need to make sure that we protect the fire service from encroaching privatisation.
There will be a duty on the chief constable to ensure that he is getting good value for money from the functions relating to the fire and rescue services that are conferred on the chief constable. That is sufficiently ambiguous—a bit like the Conservative party manifesto in this area—as to be interpreted as empowering the chief constable to find an alternative provider if they think they can get better value for money.
I urge the Minister to accept our amendments. The single-employer model is a danger to the independence of the fire service and is raising concerns that these changes are more about slashing workers’ rights and privatising the public service than the public good. The single-employer model may undermine the trust between the fire and rescue service and the public, making vital preventive work more difficult. There is also concern that this part of the Bill might lead to privatisation through the back door.
Mike Penning
I beg the Committee’s pardon, but I shall not respond to the comments on privatisation again; I have addressed them and we are where we need to be.
If I accepted amendment 75, it would remove a key advantage of the Bill: the ability of local areas to realise the benefits of the single-employer model where the local case is made. In doing so, it would restrict the options available to local areas in driving further collaboration between the police force and fire services. It would destroy a key part of the Bill.
Although the shadow Minister seems to think that I will be the Minister for ever such a long time, that is not the case, because I am an old man. It is imperative that we keep the three options as they are. The key to the Bill is giving the options for collaboration. The single-employer model is vital to that. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment. Otherwise, we will have to vote it down.
Lyn Brown
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 6, in schedule 1, page 118, line 1, after “(7)” insert
“Subject to subsections (7A) to (7C),”
This amendment and amendment 7 apply where fire and rescue functions are delegated to a chief constable by an order under new section 4F of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. They require the police force’s chief finance officer to be responsible for the proper administration of financial affairs relating to those functions and enable other employees to be responsible for financial affairs relating both to fire and to policing.
Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 118, line 5, at end insert—
‘(7A) Where an order under section 4F is in force in relation to the chief constable of the police force for a police area, the person who is for the time being the police force’s chief finance officer is to be responsible for the proper administration of financial affairs relating to the exercise of functions delegated to the chief constable under the order.
(7B) Subsection (7) does not prevent a person who is employed as a finance officer for fire functions from being at the same time employed as a finance officer for police functions.
(7C) In subsection (7B)—
“finance officer for fire functions” means a member of a chief constable’s fire and rescue staff who—
(a) is not a chief finance officer of the kind mentioned in subsection (7A), and
(b) is employed to carry out duties relating to the proper administration of financial affairs relating to the exercise of functions delegated to the chief constable under an order under section 4F;
“finance officer for police functions” means a member of a chief constable’s civilian staff within the meaning of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 who—
(a) is not a chief finance officer of the kind mentioned in subsection (7A), and
(b) is employed to carry out duties relating to the proper administration of a police force’s financial affairs.”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 6.
Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 118, line 45, at end insert—
‘( ) The chief constable must secure that good value for money is obtained in exercising—
(a) functions which are delegated under the order, and
(b) functions relating to fire and rescue services which are conferred on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment.
( ) The chief constable must secure that persons exercising functions delegated by the chief constable under the order obtain good value for money in exercising those functions.”
This amendment places a duty on a chief constable to whom functions are delegated under an order under new section 4F of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to secure good value for money in the exercise of the chief constable’s fire and rescue functions.
Amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 118, line 48, leave out “and” and insert—
“() secure the exercise of the duties relating to fire and rescue services which are imposed on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment,”
This amendment and amendments 10 and 11 ensure that a fire and rescue authority created by an order under new section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 may scrutinise the exercise of fire and rescue functions conferred on a chief constable by any enactment as well as functions delegated to the chief constable under an order under new section 4F of that Act.
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 119, line 2, at end insert “, and
() secure that functions relating to fire and rescue services which are conferred or imposed on the chief constable by or by virtue of any enactment are exercised efficiently and effectively.”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 9.
Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 119, line 4, leave out
“the functions which are delegated under the order”
and insert “such functions”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 9.
Amendment 104, in schedule 1, page 120, line 11, at end insert—
In section 5A (powers of certain fire and rescue authorities) in subsection (3) (authorities to which powers apply)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (c), and
(b) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “, or
(e) created by an order under section 4A.””
This amendment and amendment 105 make provision for the general powers of fire and rescue authorities in section 5A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 to apply to a fire and rescue authority created by an order under new section 4A of that Act.
Amendment 105, in schedule 1, page 120, leave out lines 13 to 27.—(Mike Penning.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 104.
Amendment proposed: 178, in schedule 1, page 123, line 17, at end insert—
‘(4) An order under section 4A, where modified or not by the Secretary of State, may only be made with either: consent of the relevant local authority and relevant fire and rescue authority, or a majority vote by local people through referendum.”—(Lyn Brown.)
This amendment would ensure that a PCC can only take over a Fire and Rescue Service with the approval of local people or their local representatives.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Lyn Brown
I beg to move amendment 185, in clause 7, page 6, line 16, after “functions”, insert
“, with the decision of the monitoring officer in that authority being final in the event of a dispute on fire related business,”
This amendment would empower the monitoring officer to deal with any disputes in county or unitary fire and rescue authorities about what matters a police and crime commissioner could vote on.
As drafted, the Bill fails to deal with any disputes in county or unitary fire and rescue authorities about what matters a police and crime commissioner should be able to vote upon. Amendment 185 would remove any ambiguity and empower the relevant monitoring officer to rule on any disputes. This is a dead simple amendment, and I would be really surprised if the Minister did not accept it.
Clause 7 would allow a police and crime commissioner to attend, speak and vote at meetings of county or unitary fire and rescue authorities where the business relates to the functions of the council as a fire and rescue authority. This is the so-called representation model: PCCs have a role in the governance of fire and rescue services. In the case of the 15 county fire and rescue authorities—such as Cumbria, Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire and Suffolk, as well as the case of Cornwall—that means they could attend full council meetings when business relating to the functions of the fire and rescue authority was being discussed.
For some items of business, it will be easy to decide whether the business relates to the function of the fire and rescue authority, and therefore whether the PCC is able to speak and vote on it. However, there is a danger that a PCC may use his or her voting rights on fire matters to proliferate their influence throughout local government. Even if they do not wish to do so, there is plenty of scope for dispute about what voting and speaking rights they have. A PCC could potentially make the case that almost any area of business relates to the fire service. Planning could have an effect on response times. Should a PCC be able to speak and vote, therefore, on all matters relating to planning? The fire service clearly has a role to play in any local government public health strategy. Does that empower a PCC to speak on any matter pertaining to public health?
At council budget-setting meetings in February each year, councils discuss their whole budgets. One may decide to invest more in adult social care and less in the fire and rescue service as part of a balanced budget package. During the meeting, the council will vote on whether to agree the overall budget proposals. The PCC may not wish to see reductions in the fire and rescue service budget. Is the PCC entitled to vote on the budget as a whole? That would have implications for who gets social care, the safeguarding of children, waste disposal and even road repairs.
It is not sensible for us in Westminster to try to answer such questions legislatively. They are better answered locally by those who intimately understand how their council works. Our amendment would give the local authority’s monitoring officer the final adjudicating authority in county or unitary fire and rescue authorities about what matters the police and crime commissioner can and cannot vote on. They will do so by weighing up what business relates to the functions of the council as a fire and rescue authority. I look forward with much interest to what the Minister has to say about our excellent amendment.
Mike Penning
If clause 7 were not in the Bill, I would expect the shadow Minister to introduce it. The clause provides for PCCs to request to be represented on the fire and rescue authorities where they do not take responsibility for governance of the fire and rescue service. Where such a request is accepted, PCCs would have full voting rights to ensure that they take part in the business of the fire and rescue authority in a meaningful and effective way. Where the county or unitary FRAs do not have a dedicated committee for fire, the Bill provides for the PCCs’ ability to attend, speak and vote to be restricted to matters relating to the functions of a fire and rescue service authority, and local appointing committees to consider how these arrangements work in practice.
Lyn Brown
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification. I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
The London Fire Commissioner
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lyn Brown
We support the reforms to the governance of the London fire brigade. I will not oppose the clause, but I will speak with some sadness about why we have come to support the abolition of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.
It is fair to say that the effectiveness of the authority has been hampered by the London Mayor and his use of direction. He has repeatedly used direction to overturn the democratic decisions of the fire authority members. The power of direction was intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances; unfortunately, the Mayor has used it almost routinely. He has made more than a dozen formal directions, including to secure the biggest cuts to the London fire brigade in its 150 years, closing 10 fire stations, losing 552 firefighters’ posts and axing 14 fire engines. Alternative proposals would have meant that stations did not need to close, but despite nine out of 10 of those taking part in a public consultation being opposed to the closures, the Mayor prevailed.
The Mayor did not stop there. Fire authority members have a duty to sell former fire stations for the best consideration, but they were unable to sell them, for example, for key worker or social housing. I understand that the Mayor then intervened in the sales process, trying to sell former fire stations to the Education Funding Agency for free schools at lower than the market price. The Mayor’s involvement even politicised the process to recruit a replacement commissioner for the London fire brigade. Traditionally, there has been cross-party consensus on the approach to take, but now the whole recruitment process has been deferred until after the election this May, in effect creating a two-year hiatus. There are more examples, but the point is clear: Labour supports the clause and the abolition of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority because the Mayor has made the existing arrangements untenable through disregard of the views of other elected representatives.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
The London Fire Commissioner
Mike Penning
I beg to move amendment 27, in schedule 2, page 132, line 36, at end insert—
“In section 21 (disqualification from being the Mayor or an Assembly member) after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Subsection (1)(a) does not prevent a person appointed under section 67(1)(b) as the Deputy Mayor for Fire, or appointed under section 67(1)(b) and designated as the Deputy Mayor for Fire, from being elected as or being an Assembly member.’”
This amendment has the effect that a person who is appointed or designated by the Mayor of London as the Deputy Mayor for Fire may be elected as, or may continue to be, a member of the London Assembly.
Mike Penning
These are technical amendments that are required to clarify certain details about the two new roles.
Amendments 27, 31 and 32 will ensure that the person appointed or designated a deputy mayor for fire may still be elected as a member of the London Assembly or continue to be a member, if already elected. Amendments 28 to 30 require that confirmation hearings, which apply to certain appointments by the Mayor of London, will apply to the deputy mayor for fire. Amendment 33 will amend the Localism Act 2011, and amendments 34 to 36 ensure that the London fire commissioner is required to consider reports and recommendations from the local auditor.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Lyn Brown
I beg to move amendment 187, in schedule 2, page 132, line 39, at end insert—
“(2A) Amend section 38 (delegation) as follows—
(a) in subsection (2) (persons to whom functions exercisable by the Mayor may be delegated) after paragraph (db) insert—
‘(de) London Fire Commissioner;’.
(3) In subsection (7) (power to exercise delegated functions where no existing power to do so) after paragraph (bb) insert—
‘(bc) London Fire Commissioner,’.
(4) After subsection (8B) (further delegation, and Mayor’s power to continue to exercise delegated functions) insert—
‘(8C) An authorisation given by the Mayor under subsection (1) above to the London Fire Commissioner in relation to a function does not prevent the Mayor from exercising the function.’”.
This amendment would delegate the GLA’s general power to do anything which it considers will further the promotion of economic development and wealth creation, social development to the improvement of the environment in Greater London to the London Fire Commissioner. This is in line with the powers delegated to MOPAC.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 186, in schedule 2, page 139, line 21, after “Commissioner” insert—
“on all matters relevant to the London Fire Commissioner.”
This amendment would ensure that the fire and emergency planning committee would have the power to scrutinise the entire remit of the London Fire Commissioner.
Lyn Brown
Amendment 186 would expand the remit of the fire and emergency planning committee, which is the body that the Bill will create to scrutinise the performance of the London Mayor, the deputy mayor for fire and the London fire commissioner on fire matters. Amendment 187 would slightly expand the role of the London fire commissioner by giving him or her equivalent delegated powers over economic development and the environment to those held by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
I tabled amendment 186 because the Bill envisages a very narrow remit for the fire and emergency planning committee. Under the Government’s proposals, the committee will be able to look only at fire matters. That does not acknowledge the changing nature of the fire service in London, which, like brigades up and down the country, is increasingly playing a role in resilience and flooding issues as part of its day-to-day role. For example, we recently saw the London fire brigade take a lead on Exercise Unified Response, which brought together key stakeholders in the capital to test their ability to deal with a large-scale building collapse.
In the last month, the London fire brigade has launched a co-responding trial in four boroughs in the capital—Merton, Lambeth, Wandsworth and, happily, the amazing borough of Newham—as part of the national joint council’s workstream on the 21st-century firefighter. If the trial is a success, the new committee will want to scrutinise closer working with the ambulance service in London to promote accountability and good-quality service delivery.
Given the changing role of the fire service and the greater collaboration we are likely to see in the capital, we propose that the committee should be able to investigate and consider all matters relevant to the London fire commissioner. That would ensure that the London Assembly’s scrutiny was as robust as it could be and allow members of the committee to cover everything from prevention and community safety to closer working with the other emergency services and local authority partners.
The Government and the Opposition support greater collaboration between the emergency services. We need to ensure that where that collaboration takes place, there is not a gap in the scrutiny of our public services, with the various scrutiny bodies staring at each other and wondering whether the projects fall under their remit. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to clarify his plans on how we will deal with those situations, both in London and elsewhere in the country.
Amendment 187 would ensure that the London fire commissioner had the delegated powers he needs to use the fire service to help Londoners. Section 30 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 gives a general power to the GLA to do anything it considers will further any one or more of its principal purposes—namely,
“promoting economic development and wealth creation in Greater London; promoting social development in Greater London; and promoting the improvement of the environment in Greater London.”
The Mayor has the ability to delegate those powers to MOPAC, which is the equivalent office to the London fire commissioner, but for policing. That enables the police to engage in any work that they think is for the good of London.
Allowing the Mayor to delegate those powers to the London fire commissioner would mean that the London fire brigade could do the same. It is really important that we accept the amendment for two reasons, and I reckon that the Minister can find it in his heart to give Londoners what they want. First, all of us want to see all of our emergency services working together to serve their communities. That is the spirit behind the duty to collaborate, and it is the spirit behind this amendment. Secondly, it is important that we accept the amendment so as to formally recognise the parity of esteem that fire has with the police service, which is something I have tried to talk about this afternoon—I think I have managed to get Government Members to understand that that is what I am attempting to do.
There is no reason to think that the London fire brigade is not just as capable of finding innovative ways to serve and aid Londoners as the Metropolitan police. To do that, its commissioners require equivalent powers. I look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say, with great hope that he will accept our amendments.
Mike Penning
As always, the shadow Minister has put her amendments forward in good faith. In respect of amendment 187, however, I think that she is slightly misguided about the current powers. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority does not have the GLA’s general powers delegated to it, and nor does the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. On that basis, I could not bring that across to the London fire commissioner, as I think she understands.
On amendment 186, under proposed new section 327I(3), which will be inserted into the Greater London Authority Act 1999 by schedule 2, the fire and emergency committee will be able to scrutinise any actions, decisions or matters relating to the functions of the London fire commissioner and any officer of the London fire commissioner. The powers are already in the legislation, and surely we do not need more legislation.
Lyn Brown
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 28, in schedule 2, page 133, line 3, after “4” insert—
“( ) Section 60A (confirmation hearings etc for certain appointments by the Mayor) is amended as follows.”.
This amendment and amendments 29 and 30 ensure that the provisions for confirmation hearings in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 apply where a person is appointed as a member of the staff of the Greater London Authority by the Mayor of London and is later designated by the Mayor as the Deputy Mayor for Fire.
Amendment 29, in schedule 2, page 133, line 3, leave out from “In” to “applies” in line 4 and insert
“subsection (3) (offices to which section 60A”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 28.
Amendment 30, in schedule 2, page 133, line 11, at end insert—
“( ) After subsection (4) insert—
(4A) This section also applies in any case where the Mayor proposes to designate as the Deputy Mayor for Fire a person appointed under section 67(1)(b).
(4B) References in section 327H and Schedule 4A to appointment of a person as the Deputy Mayor for Fire (however expressed) include such a designation.”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 28.
Amendment 31, in schedule 2, page 133, line 21, leave out “(see section 327F)” and insert
“, or appointed under section 67(1)(b) and designated as the Deputy Mayor for Fire,”.
This amendment and amendment 32 ensure that a person who is appointed as a member of the staff of the Greater London Authority by the Mayor of London, and later designated by the Mayor as the Deputy Mayor for Fire, may be elected as a member of the London Assembly.
Amendment 32, in schedule 2, page 133, line 26, leave out from “Fire” to “from” in line 27 and insert
“, or
( ) a person appointed under section 67(1)(b) and designated as the Deputy Mayor for Fire,”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 31.
Amendment 111, in schedule 2, page 145, line 23, after “Commissioner” insert
“but only for the purposes of section 138B”.
This amendment has the effect that certain provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 about religious observance do not apply to the London Fire Commissioner, as they can only apply to a body which has meetings of its members.
Amendment 112, in schedule 2, page 148, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) for ‘, a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act’ substitute ‘and a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act’,”.
This amendment and amendments 113 to 116 replace the consequential amendments to insert references to the London Fire Commissioner into the Housing Associations Act 1985 with amendments to remove existing references to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority from that Act. This is because the provisions to which the amendments relate apply only to Wales.
Amendment 113, in schedule 2, page 148, line 38, for “for” substitute “omit”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 112.
Amendment 114, in schedule 2, page 148, line 39, leave out “substitute ‘and the London Fire Commissioner’”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 112.
Amendment 115, in schedule 2, page 148, line 40, for “for” substitute “omit”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 112.
Amendment 116, in schedule 2, page 148, line 41, leave out “substitute ‘the London Fire Commissioner’”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 112.
Amendment 117, in schedule 2, page 149, line 38, at end insert—
“In section 1(9) (meaning of politically restricted post under a local authority) for ‘and every member of staff of a fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’ (as inserted by paragraph 12AN of Schedule1) substitute ‘every member of staff of a fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and every member of staff of the London Fire Commissioner’.”
This amendment brings staff of the London Fire Commissioner within the definition of persons holding a politically restricted post under a local authority in section 1 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 for the purposes of the provisions on disqualification and political restriction in that section.
Amendment 118, in schedule 2, page 150, line 3, leave out from “after” to “insert” in line 4 and insert
“paragraph (aa) (as inserted by paragraph 12AO(2) of Schedule1)”.
This amendment and amendments 119 to 126 make modifications to the amendments to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in Schedule 2 to the Bill to take account of the amendments to that Act to be inserted into Schedule 1 by amendment 106.
Amendment 119, in schedule 2, page 150, line 7, leave out “(5)” and insert
“(5B) (as inserted by paragraph 12AO(3) of Schedule1)”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 118.
Amendment 120, in schedule 2, page 150, line 12, leave out first “an elected local policing body” and insert
“a fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’ (as inserted by paragraph 12AO(4) of Schedule1)”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 118.
Amendment 121, in schedule 2, page 150, line 12, leave out second “an elected local policing body” and insert
“a fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 118.
Amendment 122, in schedule 2, page 150, line 16, leave out from “after” to “insert” in line 17 and insert
“paragraph (aa) (as inserted by paragraph 12AP(2) of Schedule1)”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 118.
Amendment 123, in schedule 2, page 150, line 20, leave out from “sub-paragraph” to “insert” in line 21 and insert
“(ia) (as inserted by paragraph 12AP(3) of Schedule1)”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 118.
Amendment 124, in schedule 2, page 150, line 26, leave out first “an elected local policing body” and insert
“a fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’ (as inserted by paragraph 12AP(4) of Schedule1)”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 118.
Amendment 125, in schedule 2, page 150, line 26, leave out second “an elected local policing body” and insert
“a fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 118.
Amendment 126, in schedule 2, page 150, line 31, leave out “(1)” and insert
“(1B) (as inserted by paragraph 12AQ of Schedule1)”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 118.
Amendment 127, in schedule 2, page 150, line 39, at end insert “, and
( ) section 10 (limit on paid leave for local authority duties).”
This amendment applies the provisions on limits on paid leave for local authority duties in section 10 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to employees of the London Fire Commissioner.
Amendment 33, in schedule 2, page 153, line 32, leave out from “authority’)” to end of line 34 and insert
“omit paragraph (g) (the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority).”.
This amendment has the effect that a reference to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is removed from section 27 of the Localism Act 2011 rather than being replaced with a reference to the London Fire Commissioner. Section 27 concerns the conduct of members of a relevant authority, but as a corporation sole the London Fire Commissioner will not have members.
Amendment 34, in schedule 2, page 154, line 13, after “120” insert—
“(1) The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 is amended as follows.”.
This amendment and amendments 35 and 36 apply paragraph 5(7) of Schedule 7 to the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 to the London Fire Commissioner. The effect is that the requirement to consider a report or recommendation of a local auditor at a meeting is replaced with a requirement for the Commissioner to consider the report or recommendation.
Amendment 35, in schedule 2, page 154, line 13, leave out
“of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 34.
Amendment 36, in schedule 2, page 154, line 16, at end insert—
“( ) In Schedule 7 (reports and recommendations by local auditor) in paragraph 5(7) (duty of certain authorities to consider report or recommendation) (as amended by paragraph 25 of Schedule 1) for ‘or a fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004’ substitute ‘, a fire and rescue authority created by an order under section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or the London Fire Commissioner’.”—(Mike Penning.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 34.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Local policing bodies: functions in relation to complaints
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, although it has taken quite some time today for me to have the chance to say that. I am delighted that the hon. Member for West Ham will now get a bit of a break, because she has been working exceptionally hard today.
For the benefit of the Committee, I propose to say a few words about part 2 of the Bill. I do not propose to make further comments on clause stand part, but I will of course address any comments about the amendments.
Karen Bradley
Mr Howarth, I propose to make a few comments now. I will not make further comments on clause stand part as we go on, because my comments will cover the generality of what we are doing. I will, however, address the amendments. I hope that is clear.
Karen Bradley
Thank you, Mr Howarth.
Almost three quarters of people who complain to the police are not satisfied with how their complaints are handled. The current arrangements are seen by the police and public alike as too complex, too adversarial, too drawn out and lacking in sufficient independence from the police.
The Bill will amend part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to make the police complaints system more transparent and robust. It will give the police a new duty to resolve complaints in a reasonable and proportionate manner, while giving them greater flexibility in how they meet that duty. We will inject a greater level of independence into the system, strengthening PCCs’ oversight role and making them the appellate body for appeals that are currently heard by chief constables. PCCs will be able to take on responsibility for other aspects of the complaints handling process, including the recording of complaints and keeping complainants informed of the progress of their complaints.
The definition of a complaint will change. We are extending the definition of a complaint beyond conduct matters to make the system less about apportioning blame and more customer focused. We are retaining and clarifying the focus on immediate resolution of customer service-related complaints where appropriate.
We will enable the Independent Police Complaints Commission to initiate investigations more quickly, ensuring that crucial evidence is not lost and that the public perceive the IPCC as being responsive to events that may attract significant public attention. We will allow the IPCC to reinvestigate a complaint, recordable conduct matter, or death or serious injury matter if it is satisfied that there are compelling reasons to do so.
The Bill also provides for volunteers with policing powers to be captured under the police complaints and discipline systems. We are simplifying the decision-making process so that the IPCC will always make decisions about disciplinary proceedings following its investigations, which will speed up the process, and we are providing that the IPCC must lead independent investigations into certain matters that relate to the conduct of a chief officer or the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Definition of police complaint
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 160, in clause 11, page 13, line 27, at end insert—
“(d) a member of the civilian staff of a police force in relation to whom the conduct took place when in the capacity of a private citizen.”
This amendment is to allow police staff to make complaints to the IPCC in relation to police conduct which impacts on them when not at work and in their capacity as a private citizen.
First, may I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, the shadow fire Minister, for her epic efforts in holding the Government to account throughout what has been, at times, a lively debate?
We tabled the amendment following discussions with representatives of both the police service and Unison, the principal union that represents police support staff. It would allow police staff to make complaints to the IPCC when they are not at work—there is an existing procedure through which they must go—in their capacity as private citizens.
We seek an explanation from the Government as to why, when off duty, police staff who suffer a case of police misconduct should not be able to raise it with the IPCC. There could be a range of issues where they live, socialise and shop. Sadly, incidents sometimes take place and they should have the right to pursue a complaint and use the IPCC’s machinery.
Unlike police officers, police staff are not sworn into office, so they are not limited as police officers are in respect of activities such as political campaigning during their free time. That is reflected in officer pay and employment contracts for the police service. However, under the current provisions, police staff are essentially denied an opportunity that is freely provided to members of the public. It is our view that in accepting a job, a member of police staff should not have to sign away their right to make a complaint to the IPCC regarding a member of the force with which they take the job.
In conclusion, other than where there are legitimate restrictions, for example in respect of police officers and their existing contract of employment, we cannot see a reason why police staff should be so constrained, and we therefore very much hope that the Minister will move on the matter.
Karen Bradley
The shadow policing Minister knows that a number of levels of complaint can be made against police staff and servicing police officers, and the IPCC is there to investigate the most serious cases of wrongdoing—almost the final arbiter, one might say. The police complaints system should be there for members of the public who want to express dissatisfaction with their interaction with the police. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are existing provisions regarding recordable conduct matters and whistleblowing for when a person serving with the police needs to raise a conduct issue about someone else in their force. Every police force has a professional standards department, with strong powers to investigate wrongdoing. Officers and staff members can report concerns directly to those departments, most of which offer an anonymous online reporting system.
Jack Dromey
The Minister comprehensively catalogues the arrangements as they stand in respect of a member of police staff, their terms and conditions of employment, and their rights and responsibilities in the course of their employment, but we are talking about events outwith the course of their employment. Why should Joe or Josephine Soap, a member of police staff, be constrained in making complaints to the IPCC when there are grounds so do to?
Karen Bradley
I remember Joe and Josephine Soap from the Serious Crime Bill last year. I seem to recall that they featured prominently in many of our discussions.
The point I was coming on to is that the Bill significantly strengthens people’s ability to make complaints. For example, clause 21 provides the IPCC with a new power to initiate whistleblowing investigations when a concern is reported directly to it, without waiting for a referral from the police force. In cases where they cannot raise a complaint, members of police staff are explicitly covered by the new definition of a whistleblower.
It is important to repeat, however, that the IPCC cannot and should not handle all complaints at any level of seriousness raised by police staff in their capacity as private citizens. Its role is to investigate the most serious and sensitive cases. All other complaints, whether made by a member of the public or a member of police staff, should be handled by the force or a local policing body. Through the reforms, I want to see the IPCC be the best it can be at ensuring that those serious cases are dealt with. I do not want it to be distracted by issues, albeit important ones, that can be dealt with at a local force level, and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will be minded to withdraw the amendment.
Jack Dromey
Briefly, the clause means that we have a category of citizen who works in support of the police but is denied the opportunity to make complaints about the police in their private life. That situation is deeply unsatisfactory, but we have had an exchange in which we have aired the issues.
Karen Bradley
I also make the point that the IPCC has a dedicated phone line and an email address for people serving with the police who wish to report something to it. What I am suggesting is that the IPCC should perhaps not take on cases that could be dealt with at police force level. We want the IPCC to deal with the most serious wrongdoings of the police.
Jack Dromey
I agree, but the problem remains that police staff in their private lives will not be able to make complaints like every other citizen is able to do. I regret that, but we have had an exchange on the issue and I very much hope that the Government will look at it again before Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Amendments consequential on the amended definition of police complaint
Karen Bradley
I beg to move amendment 37, in schedule 3, page 154, line 32, at end insert—
“2A (1) Section 16 (payment for assistance with investigations) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a)—
(a) before sub-paragraph (i) insert—
‘(ai) an investigation of a complaint where the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the other force,’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (i), after ‘investigation’ insert ‘of a recordable conduct matter’.
(3) In subsection (2)(b)—
(a) before sub-paragraph (i) insert—
‘(ai) an investigation of a complaint where the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with a force other than that force,’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (i), after ‘investigation’ insert ‘of a recordable conduct matter’.”
This amendment is consequential on the changes to the definition of complaint in section 12 of the Police Reform Act 2002 that are made by clause 11 of the Bill.
Karen Bradley
I will not detain the Committee for long. These are additional consequential amendments to the 2002 Act to reflect the new definition of a complaint.
Amendment 37 agreed to.
Amendments made: 38, in schedule 3, page 155, line 5, after “force” insert
“with which dissatisfaction is expressed by the complainant”.
This amendment clarifies who the appropriate authority is in cases where a complaint under Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 is not a complaint relating to the conduct of a person serving with the police (but rather some other expression of dissatisfaction with a police force).
Amendment 39, in schedule 3, page 155, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
“(b) in a case where the complaint or purported complaint was made on behalf of someone else, to the person on whose behalf it was made;’.”
This amendment clarifies who the complainant is in cases where a complaint under Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 is made on behalf of someone else.
Amendment 40, in schedule 3, page 155, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—(Karen Bradley.)
This amendment removes an amendment of section 29(4)(b) of the Police Reform Act 2002 which it has been concluded is no longer needed.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12
Duty to keep complainant and other interested persons informed
Karen Bradley
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 12, page 14, line 22, at end insert—
“(4A) The generality of subsection (4)(a) and (b) is not affected by any requirement to notify the complainant that is imposed by any other provision of this Part.’”
This amendment provides for the references to the progress and outcome of the handling of a complaint in new subsection (4) of section 20 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which is about keeping the complainant informed, to be unaffected by any specific requirements to notify the complainant imposed elsewhere in Part 2 of that Act.
Karen Bradley
Again, these are technical amendments. They will ensure that we consolidate the reform work as intended by streamlining and consolidating as far as possible the notification arrangements regarding a complaint.
Amendment 41 agreed to.
Amendments made: 42, in clause 12, page 14, line 26, leave out “(2) or (3)” and insert “(1) or (2)”.
This amendment corrects an incorrect cross-reference to provisions of section 20 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
Amendment 43, in clause 12, page 14, line 27, after “findings of” insert
“a report submitted under provision made by virtue of paragraph 20A(4)(b) of Schedule 3, or”.
This amendment reproduces the effect of paragraphs 20C(4) and 20F(4) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, which are repealed by Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Amendment 128, in clause 12, page 14, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—
“(b) section 21A.’”
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Amendment 44, in clause 12, page 15, line 16, at end insert—
“(9A) The generality of subsection (9)(a) and (b) is not affected by any requirement to notify an interested person that is imposed by any other provision of this Part.’”
This amendment amends section 21 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which is about keeping interested persons informed, in the same way that amendment 41 amends section 20 of that Act in relation to complainants.
Amendment 45, in clause 12, page 15, line 18, leave out “or recordable conduct matter” and insert
“, recordable conduct matter or DSI matter”.
This amendment extends the provision in new subsection (11A) of section 21 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which is about the provision of copies of reports, to reports on an investigation of a DSI matter.
Amendment 46, in clause 12, page 15, line 21, after “findings of” insert
“a report submitted under provision made by virtue of paragraph 20A(4)(b) of Schedule 3, or”.
This amendment reproduces the effect of paragraphs 20C(4) and 20F(4) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, which are repealed by Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Amendment 47, in clause 12, page 15, line 22, after “22” insert “or 24A”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 45.
Amendment 129, in clause 12, page 15, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—
“(b) section 21A.’”
This amendment is consequential on NC2.
Amendment 48, in clause 12, page 15, line 31, after “sub-paragraphs” insert “(4) and”.
This amendment provides for the repeal of a duty to notify certain persons of the bringing of criminal proceedings following a report on an investigation under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. It is intended that an equivalent notification will be required to be given under sections 20 and 21 of the 2002 Act, as amended by clause 12 of the Bill.
Amendment 49, in clause 12, page 15, line 34, after “sub-paragraphs” insert “(4) and”.
This amendment has the same effect as amendment 48—see the explanatory statement for that amendment.
Amendment 50, in clause 12, page 15, line 35, at end insert—
“( ) In consequence of the repeal made by subsection (9)(b), Schedule 3 is further amended as follows—
(a) in paragraph 24, after sub-paragraph (6A) (as inserted by Schedule4) insert—
‘(6B) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority—
(a) to take the action which it determines under sub-paragraph (6) that it is required to, or will in its discretion, take, and
(b) in a case where that action consists of or includes the bringing of disciplinary proceedings, to secure that those proceedings, once brought, are proceeded with to a proper conclusion.’;
(b) in paragraph 27 (duties with respect to disciplinary proceedings etc)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (1), omit paragraph (a) (including the ‘or’ at the end);
(ii) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), omit ‘which has been or is required to be notified or, as the case may be,’.”—(Karen Bradley.)
This amendment is consequential on the repeal of paragraph 24(7) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 and ensures that, despite that repeal, the appropriate authority remains subject to the same duty as is currently imposed by paragraph 27(2) of that Schedule.
The Chair
The Committee is rather ahead of the schedule for proceedings that I have in front of me, so we are winging it a bit.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13
Complaints, conduct matters and DSI matters: procedure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 9—Proportionate protection for members of police forces who admit mistakes—
The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to offer proportionate protection to members of police forces subject to an investigation or a complaint who are honest in admitting their mistakes.”
This new clause would ensure that where members of police forces are honest in admitting their mistakes, the Independent Police Complaints Commission gives them credit for that in subsequent investigations or complaints.
Jack Dromey
The amendment would ensure that, when members of police forces are honest in admitting their mistakes, the Independent Police Complaints Commission gives them credit for that in any subsequent investigations or complaints. The purpose of the amendment is to promote the importance of creating a learning rather than always a blame culture in the police. I will start with a rather unusual parallel.
I remember the first time I ever went to the Ford plant in Dagenham. There were 3,000 inspectors. Eventually, a “right first time” culture evolved, through team working and engaging the workforce. In particular, at the heart of that culture was the encouragement, “If you get it wrong, own up; if you can think of a better way for the job to be done, say so.” I think that that was absolutely right. Indeed, that culture of continuous improvement is at the centre of the success of the automotive industry, and we see it elsewhere in the private sector. As I will say in a moment, the Government are also proposing it for the public sector, so we must move towards a situation where members of police forces feel supported to speak out when mistakes happen. We therefore want to start a conversation with the Government about how they can take a proactive role in developing it.
The police are told in the police code of ethics that
“you must never ignore unethical or unprofessional behaviour by a policing colleague, irrespective of the person’s rank, grade or role… You will be supported if you report any valid concern over the behaviour of someone working in policing which…has fallen below the standards expected.”
However—this point pre-empts new clause 8—members of police forces have very little understanding of what, if any, protection is on offer. According to the Government’s consultation on the subject:
“Police officers feel unable to admit to a mistake without fear of being subject to disciplinary proceedings.”
We therefore want to build on what is already starting to happen in the police service, such as the good work of the College of Policing on learning from mistakes.
On where the police service is now, however, in evidence to the Committee, police leaders contrasted the police complaints system with the systems in the airline and nuclear industries, where a real effort has been made in the interests of public safety to develop a learning-based approach to accidents and mistakes. On the one hand, pilots are encouraged to report if they overshoot the white mark; and, on the other hand, the nuclear industry, with which I am very familiar—I dealt with British Nuclear Fuels and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for many years—has placed a huge emphasis on, “If you get it wrong or if you make a mistake, own up, because we need to learn from those mistakes if we are to ensure that we maintain the highest standards of safety.”
Indeed, it is interesting that the Secretary of State for Health has just announced his intention to encourage such a learning culture in the national health service to institute:
“An NHS that learns from mistakes.”
His recent statement to the House should inform the nature of our debate:
“In addition to greater and more intelligent transparency, a culture of learning means we need to create an environment in which clinicians feel able to speak up about mistakes. We will therefore bring forward measures for those who speak honestly to investigators from the healthcare safety investigation branch to have the kind of ‘safe space’ that applies to those speaking to the air accident investigation branch.”
That is precisely the parallel with airlines that I drew a moment ago. The statement continues:
“The General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council have made it clear through their guidance that where doctors, nurses or midwives admit what has gone wrong and apologise, the professional tribunal should give them credit for that, just as failing to do so is likely to incur a serious sanction.”
The Secretary of State is saying, and rightly so, that medical professionals should be given credit for admitting mistakes, which of course does not defend anyone who has done something unacceptable that deserves disciplinary action, but in terms of the culture that he is trying to create, he rightly argues that credit should be given where people own up. The statement continues:
“The Government remain committed to legal reform that would allow professional regulators more flexibility to resolve cases without stressful tribunals.
NHS Improvement will ask for the commitment to learning to be reflected in all trust disciplinary procedures and ask all trusts to publish a charter for openness and transparency so staff can have clear expectations of how they will be treated if they witness clinical errors.” —[Official Report, 9 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 17-18WS.]
It is not often that I praise the Secretary of State for Health, but he is absolutely right on the kind of culture that should apply in public services. I have seen it apply in the private sector. Of course it is early days following the announcement by the Secretary of State, and we do not know how successful the project will be at the next stages, but we very much hope that Police Ministers will take serious note of his political will to institute a culture of transparency and openness.
Finally, I draw a strong distinction between on the one hand serious matters that have to be properly pursued through the investigatory arrangements and on the other what happens in the world of work—in the public and private sectors—where mistakes are sometimes made. It is far better that those mistakes are owned up to and lessons are learned, rather than having a culture where people fear that if they own up, they might suffer as a consequence.
Karen Bradley
May I start by saying that I agree with the spirit of new clause 9? Police officers and police forces should be encouraged to honestly acknowledge their mistakes, and they should be commended for doing so with the aim of ensuring that they do not make the same mistake again. That is why the Bill introduces a range of reforms to simplify the complaints system and, importantly, to make it less adversarial. The Bill redefines a complaint as an “expression of dissatisfaction” against a police force, moving away from linking every complaint with an individual. It also provides forces with much greater discretion in how they can resolve complaints in a reasonable and proportionate manner, encouraging them to seek swift resolution with the complainant.
For allegations below the threshold of gross misconduct, regulations already provide for management, rather than disciplinary action, to be taken where appropriate, but our reforms will go further. We will bring forward regulations to integrate the recommendations of the independent Chapman review into the disciplinary system. That will refocus the system back on learning lessons, ensuring that necessary managerial interventions short of dismissal are focused on transformation.
None the less, we are clear that where a police officer commits an act of misconduct, the public and his or her fellow officers have a right to expect that that officer is held to account and that his or her actions are fully and transparently investigated. A blanket assurance that any police officer should always receive protection from facing the consequences of their actions will not achieve that. I hope that we would all agree, given the conversations we have in surgery appointments, that constituents want to see their complaints properly and fully investigated with full transparency. It is incredibly important that we deliver that.
It is not the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to determine protection for those who admit or apologise for committing misconduct. For the IPCC to consider an officer’s contrition would be inappropriate, not least as the IPCC only investigates the most serious and sensitive allegations. The IPCC must establish the facts of the complaint and other matters and then put forward an assessment of whether there is a case to answer. Following any investigation, an appropriate sanction taking into account any mitigating factors should rightly be considered by the force or, in cases of gross misconduct, by a disciplinary panel chaired by an independent qualified person. The College of Policing is developing benchmarking guidance for chairs of disciplinary panels to assist them in making judgments about mitigating and aggravating circumstances. That also implements a recommendation of the Chapman review.
Chief officers have an important role to play through their leadership, setting the organisational culture within their forces and supporting the learning and development of their officers and staff. We heard last week from Chief Superintendent Irene Curtis that there should be a
“sense of proportionality in how we deal with conduct issues in policing.”––[Official Report, Policing and Crime Public Bill Committee, 15 March 2016; c. 19, Q16.]
Our package of reforms will achieve that, without compromising the need to ensure that misconduct is dealt with fairly and robustly to maintain public confidence in the police. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Jack Dromey
First, for the avoidance of doubt, we are absolutely not seeking a blanket exemption. Where police officers are guilty of misconduct and deserve disciplinary action, that action should be taken. We are focused on having a culture that is not a blame culture, but one of continuous improvement that improves how the police operate. The Minister gave a tantalising hint that regulations will be introduced in due course. If they are combined with the work being done by the College of Policing, I hope that we can move towards something that is more akin to what has been successful elsewhere and that commands the confidence of the police service. We will discuss it in more detail shortly, but that is the final point I want to make: the public want to have confidence in the complaints and disciplinary arrangements, but so, too, does the police service.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Complaints, conduct matters and DSI matters: procedure
Amendments made: 51, in schedule 4, page 157, line 26, at end insert—
‘( ) In sub-paragraph (6)(b), for “a possible future investigation of the complaint” substitute “an investigation of the complaint (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one)”.”
This amendment amends paragraph 4(6)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 to cater for the possibility that there may be referred to the Commission a complaint that is already being investigated by an appropriate authority.
Amendment 52, in schedule 4, page 158, leave out lines 12 to 19 and insert—
“(2C) The appropriate authority must comply with its duty under sub-paragraph (2A) by making arrangements for the complaint to be investigated by the authority on its own behalf if at any time it appears to the authority from the complaint, or from the authority’s handling of the complaint to that point,”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 53.
Amendment 53, in schedule 4, page 158, leave out lines 27 to 33.
This amendment removes new sub-paragraph (2E) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. This provision is not needed. A complaint referred to the Commission which the Commission considers should be investigated will be dealt with in accordance with paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act.
Amendment 54, in schedule 4, page 158, line 35, leave out from “exceptions” to end of line 36
This amendment is consequential on amendment 53.
Amendment 55, in schedule 4, page 159, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
‘( ) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the Commission must determine that it is necessary for complaints referred to it that relate to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to be investigated.
(1B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may provide that the duty on the Commission applies only in relation to complaints relating to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that are of a description specified in the regulations.
(1C) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may also provide that, where the Commission is required by the regulations to determine that it is necessary for a complaint to be investigated, paragraph 15 is to apply in relation to the complaint as if sub-paragraphs (4)(a), (4A) and (5A)(b) were omitted.””
This amendment and amendment 57 have the effect that where the Secretary of State by regulations requires that there be an investigation of complaints referred to the Commission that relate to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (or specified descriptions of such complaints), the investigation need not take the form of an investigation by the Commission. The form of the investigation will be determined in accordance with paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 but regulations may provide that the investigation is not to take the form of an investigation by the appropriate authority on its own behalf.
Amendment 56, in schedule 4, page 159, line 21, at end insert—
‘( ) In sub-paragraph (3)(b), for “a possible future investigation of the complaint” substitute “an investigation of the complaint (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one)”.”
This amendment amends paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 to cater for the possibility that there may be referred back to the appropriate authority a complaint that is already being investigated by the authority.
Amendment 57, in schedule 4, page 159, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (4)
See explanatory statement for amendment 55.
Amendment 58, in schedule 4, page 159, line 33, at end insert—
11A In paragraph 13 (reference of conduct matters to the Commission), in sub-paragraph (6)(b), for “a possible future investigation of that matter” substitute “an investigation of that matter (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one)”.”
This amendment amends paragraph 13(6)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 to cater for the possibility that there may be referred to the Commission a conduct matter that is already being investigated by an appropriate authority.
Amendment 59, in schedule 4, page 159, line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
‘( ) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the Commission must determine that it is necessary for recordable conduct matters referred to it that relate to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to be investigated.
(1B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may provide that the duty on the Commission applies only in relation to recordable conduct matters relating to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that are of a description specified in the regulations.
(1C) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may also provide that, where the Commission is required by the regulations to determine that it is necessary for a recordable conduct matter to be investigated, paragraph 15 is to apply in relation to the matter as if sub-paragraphs (4)(a), (4A) and (5A)(b) were omitted.””
This amendment and amendment 61 have the same effect as amendments 55 and 57 but in relation to recordable conduct matters rather than complaints.
Amendment 60, in schedule 4, page 160, line 5, at end insert—
‘( ) In sub-paragraph (3)(b), for “a possible future investigation of that matter” substitute “an investigation of that matter (whether an existing investigation or a possible future one)”.”
This amendment amends paragraph 14(3) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 to cater for the possibility that there may be referred back to the appropriate authority a recordable conduct matter that is already being investigated by the authority.
Amendment 61, in schedule 4, page 160, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (4)
See explanatory statement for amendment 59.
Amendment 62, in schedule 4, page 160, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
‘( ) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that the Commission must determine that it is necessary for DSI matters referred to it in relation to which the relevant officer is a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to be investigated.
(1B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may provide that the duty on the Commission applies only in relation to DSI matters in relation to which the relevant officer is a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that are of a description specified in the regulations.
(1C) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1A) may also provide that, where the Commission is required by the regulations to determine that it is necessary for a DSI matter to be investigated, paragraph 15 is to apply in relation to the matter as if sub-paragraphs (4)(a), (4A) and (5A)(b) were omitted.””
This amendment and amendment 63 have the same effect as amendments 55 and 57 but in relation to DSI matters rather than complaints.
Amendment 63, in schedule 4, page 160, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (4)
See explanatory statement for amendment 62.
Amendment 64, in schedule 4, page 161, line 28, after “determines” insert “under sub-paragraph (4C) or (5B)”
This amendment clarifies under which provisions of paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 a determination that an investigation is to take the form of an investigation by the appropriate authority under the direction of the Commission could be made.
Amendment 65, in schedule 4, page 161, line 31, leave out from “whether” to end of line 37 and insert “that form of investigation continues to be the most appropriate form of investigation.
“(5A) If, on such a review, the Commission determines that—
(a) it would be more appropriate for the investigation to take the form of an investigation by the Commission, the Commission must make a further determination under this paragraph (to replace the earlier one) that the investigation is instead to take that form;
(b) having regard to the seriousness of the case and the public interest, it would be more appropriate for the investigation to take the form of an investigation by the appropriate authority on its own behalf, the Commission may make a further determination under this paragraph (to replace the earlier one) that the investigation is instead to take that form.”
This amendment will enable an investigation under Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 that takes the form of an investigation by the appropriate authority under the direction of the Commission to be changed by the Commission into an investigation by the appropriate authority on its own behalf. This is in addition to the duty (in particular circumstances) to change the form of the investigation to an investigation by the Commission which is currently provided for in the Bill.
Amendment 66, in schedule 4, page 162, line 9, at end insert—
(c) the person to whose conduct the investigation will relate.”
This amendment adds the person to whose conduct the investigation will relate to the list of persons who must be notified of a determination of the form of an investigation made under paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002.
Amendment 67, in schedule 4, page 163, line 34, leave out second “the” and insert “a”
This amendment, and amendments 68, 69 and 70, clarify the process for appointing, and replacing, an investigator of a directed investigation under paragraph 18 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 in cases where the investigation relates to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis or the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
Amendment 68, in schedule 4, page 163, line 36, at end insert “(and approved for appointment in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A) (if required) or (2D)(a))”
See explanatory statement for amendment 67.
Amendment 69, in schedule 4, page 163, line 44, leave out second “the” and insert “a”
See explanatory statement for amendment 67.
Amendment 70, in schedule 4, page 163, line 46, at end insert “(and approved for appointment in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A) (if required) or (2D)(a))”
See explanatory statement for amendment 67.
Amendment 71, in schedule 4, page 164, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
This amendment is consequential on amendments 55, 57, 59, 61, 62 and 63.
Amendment 72, in schedule 4, page 166, line 47, at end insert “and
(i) the other matters (if any) dealt with in the report (but not on whether the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2A) and (2B) are satisfied in respect of the report),”
This amendment requires the Commission, under paragraph 23 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, to seek the views of the appropriate authority on matters dealt with in a report in addition to the matters described in new sub-paragraph (5A)(a)(i) and (ii).
Amendment 73, in schedule 4, page 167, line 10, leave out from “as to” to end of line 13 and insert “any matter dealt with in the report, being a determination other than one that it is required to make under sub-paragraph (2)(b) or paragraph (b) of this sub-paragraph,”
This amendment seeks to clarify the type of determination that the Commission will be able to make under paragraph 23(5A)(c) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002.
Amendment 74, in schedule 4, page 167, line 44, at end insert—
25A In paragraph 24 (action by the appropriate authority in response to an investigation report under paragraph 22), after sub-paragraph (6) insert—
(6A) Where the report is a report of an investigation of a complaint and the appropriate authority is a local policing body, the appropriate authority may also, on receipt of the report, make a recommendation under paragraph 28ZA.””
This amendment enables a local policing body, when it is the appropriate authority considering a report of an investigation of a complaint under paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, to make a recommendation, with a view to remedying the complainant’s dissatisfaction, under new paragraph 28ZA of that Schedule (as inserted by paragraph 41 of Schedule 4 to the Bill).
Amendment 75, in schedule 4, page 167, line 48, leave out from “as to” to end of line 2 on page 168 and insert “any matter dealt with in the report, being a determination other than one that it is required to make under sub-paragraph (4) or that the appropriate authority may be required to make by virtue of paragraph 24C(3).”
This amendment seeks to clarify the type of determination that the Commission will be able to make under paragraph 24A(5) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002.
Amendment 76, in schedule 4, page 169, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about recommendations under sub-paragraph (6)(a) or (b).
( ) The regulations may (amongst other things) authorise the local policing body making the recommendation to require a response to the recommendation.”
This amendment confers power on the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations about recommendations made by local policing bodies on a review of the outcome of a complaint under new paragraph 6A of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (review where no investigation).
Amendment 77, in schedule 4, page 169, line 6, after “paragraph” insert “and of its reasons for the determination made under sub-paragraph (4)”
This amendment requires a relevant review body, on a review of the outcome of a complaint under new paragraph 6A of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (review where no investigation), to notify certain persons of its reasons for determining whether the outcome of the complaint is a reasonable and proportionate outcome (as well as notifying them of the outcome of the review).
Amendment 78, in schedule 4, page 170, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
(a) make its own findings (in place of, or in addition to, findings of the investigation);”
This amendment seeks to clarify that findings of the Commission made on a review under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 may be replacement findings or additional findings.
Amendment 79, in schedule 4, page 170, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert—
(b) sub-paragraphs (4) to (8) and (9)(b) of paragraph 27 apply in relation to the recommendation as if it had been made under that paragraph.”
This amendment is consequential on the repeal of paragraph 28 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 by amendment 95. See also the explanatory statement to amendment 82.
Amendment 80, in schedule 4, page 171, line 46, at end insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about recommendations under sub-paragraph (4E)(a), (b) or (c) or (4G)(b).
( ) The regulations may (amongst other things) authorise the local policing body making the recommendation to require a response to the recommendation.”
This amendment confers power on the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations about recommendations made by local policing bodies on a review of the outcome of a complaint under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (review following an investigation).
Amendment 81, in schedule 4, page 172, line 7, at end insert—
( ) after “paragraph” insert “and of its reasons for the determination made under sub-paragraph (4A)”;”
This amendment requires a relevant review body, on a review of the outcome of a complaint under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (review following an investigation), to notify certain persons of its reasons for determining whether the outcome of the complaint is a reasonable and proportionate outcome (as well as notifying them of the outcome of the review).
Amendment 82, in schedule 4, page 172, line 27, at end insert—
32A After paragraph 25 insert—
“Information for complainant about disciplinary recommendations
25A (1) This paragraph applies where, on the review of the outcome of a complaint under paragraph 25, the Commission makes a recommendation under sub-paragraph (4C)(c) of that paragraph.
(2) Where the appropriate authority notifies the Commission under paragraph 25(4D)(a) that the recommendation has been accepted, the Commission must notify the complainant and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section 21 of that fact and of the steps that have been, or are to be taken, by the appropriate authority to give effect to it.
(3) Where the appropriate authority—
(a) notifies the Commission under paragraph 25(4D)(a) that it does not (either in whole or in part) accept the recommendation, or
(b) fails to take steps to give full effect to the recommendation,
the Commission must determine what, if any, further steps to take under paragraph 27 as applied by paragraph 25(4D)(b).
(4) The Commission must notify the complainant and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section 21—
(a) of any determination under sub-paragraph (3) not to take further steps, and
(b) where the Commission determines under that sub-paragraph that it will take further steps, of the outcome of the taking of those steps.””
Sub-paragraph (4D)(b) of paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (as inserted by the Bill) can no longer apply paragraph 28 of that Schedule (see the explanatory statement to amendment 95). The new paragraph 25A inserted into Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act by this amendment reproduces the effect that applying paragraph 28 would have had.
Amendment 83, in schedule 4, page 173, line 2, at end insert—
‘( ) For sub-paragraph (5) substitute—
(5) The Commission shall notify the appropriate authority of any determination that it makes under this paragraph and of its reasons for making the determination.
(5A) The Commission shall also notify the following of any determination that it makes under this paragraph and of its reasons for making the determination—
(a) the complainant;
(b) every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section 21;
(c) the person complained against (if any).
(5B) The duty imposed by sub-paragraph (5A) on the Commission shall have effect subject to such exceptions as may be provided for by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5C) Subsections (6) to (8) of section 20 apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (5B) as they apply for the purposes of that section.””
This amendment requires the Commission, when it determines under paragraph 26 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 what form a re-investigation following a review should take, to notify certain persons of the reasons for the determination (as well as notifying them of the determination itself). It also makes notification of everyone except the appropriate authority subject to exceptions provided for in regulations.
Amendment 84, in schedule 4, page 174, line 20, leave out “6A or”
This amendment has the effect that section 15(4) of the Police Reform Act 2002 will only be extended by the Bill to apply in cases where the Commission is carrying out a review, following an investigation, under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to that Act (and not where it is carrying out a review under paragraph 6A of that Schedule where there has not been an investigation).
Amendment 85, in schedule 4, page 174, line 34, at end insert—
39A In section 16 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (payment for assistance with investigations)—
(a) in subsection (1)(b), for “in such a connection to the Commission.” substitute “to the Commission in connection with an investigation under this Part or a review under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3.”;
(b) in subsection (2)(b)—
(i) in the words before sub-paragraph (i), for “in such a connection by a police force (“the assisting force”) to the Commission” substitute “by a police force (“the assisting force”) to the Commission in connection with an investigation under this Part or a review under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3”;
(ii) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i);
(iii) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert “, or
This amendment is consequential on the amendments of section 15 of the Police Reform Act 2002 at paragraph 39 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Amendment 86, in schedule 4, page 174, line 38, leave out “6A or”
This amendment has the effect that section 18(1) of the Police Reform Act 2002 will only be extended by the Bill to apply in cases where the Commission is carrying out a review, following an investigation, under paragraph 25 of Schedule 3 to that Act (and not where it is carrying out a review under paragraph 6A of that Schedule where there has not been an investigation).
Amendment 87, in schedule 4, page 175, line 4, after “23” insert “, 24”
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of new sub-paragraph (6A) into paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 by amendment 74.
Amendment 88, in schedule 4, page 175, line 17, after “23(5F)” insert “or 24(6A)”
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of new sub-paragraph (6A) into paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 by amendment 74.
Amendment 89, in schedule 4, page 175, line 19, leave out “(3) or (5)”
This amendment is consequential on the insertion of new sub-paragraph (6A) into paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 by amendment 74.
Amendment 90, in schedule 4, page 175, line 37, leave out from “2002,” to end of line 39 and insert “after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) Where this paragraph applies—
(a) by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) and the report is a report of an investigation of a complaint, or
(b) by virtue of sub-paragraph (2),
a recommendation made under sub-paragraph (3) may not be a recommendation of a kind described in regulations made under paragraph 28ZA(1).””
This amendment is in place of the amendment of paragraph 28A(3) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 that is currently in the Bill. It takes account of the fact that paragraph 28A is capable of applying in cases where new paragraph 28ZA of that Schedule does not apply.
Amendment 91, in schedule 4, page 175, line 42, at end insert—
( ) in section 15—
(i) in subsection (3)(a), omit “, 17”;
(ii) in subsection (5), in the words after paragraph (c), omit “, 17”;”
This amendment is consequential on the repeal of paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 made by paragraph 16 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Amendment 92, in schedule 4, page 176, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (iv)
This amendment removes amendments of paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 because that paragraph is repealed by paragraph 23 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Amendment 93, in schedule 4, page 176, line 34, at end insert—in paragraph 21A(6)(a), for “15(5)” substitute “15(5A) or (5B)”;”
(i) in paragraph 21A(6)(a), for “15(5)” substitute “15(5A) or (5B)”;”
This amendment is consequential on the amendments of paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 made by paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Amendment 94, in schedule 4, page 176, line 47, at end insert—in paragraph 24B(3)(a), for “15(5)” substitute “15(5A) or (5B)”;”
(i) in paragraph 24B(3)(a), for “15(5)” substitute “15(5A) or (5B)”;”
This amendment is consequential on the amendments of paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 made by paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
Amendment 95, in schedule 4, page 177, line 2, at end insert—omit paragraph 28;”
(i) omit paragraph 28;” .—(Karen Bradley.)
Given the repeal of paragraph 27(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, paragraph 28 of that Schedule (information for complainant about disciplinary recommendations) is no longer needed. This is because paragraph 27 recommendations will now only be capable of being made in the case of an investigation of a DSI matter.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14
Initiation of investigation by IPCC
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Initiation of investigations by IPCC.
Karen Bradley
Under the Police Reform Act 2002, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has powers to require the police to refer complaints or recordable conduct matters to it. It can also require forces to refer incidents in which there has been a death or serious injury following police contact. However, it must wait until the force complies with its referral request before it can consider the next steps, which include starting an investigation. Occasionally, there might be disagreement between the IPCC and a force—for example, over the severity of the matter or which force should have to record and refer it. That causes unnecessary delay that can serve only to undermine public confidence in the system, causing the IPCC to be seen as unresponsive and too reliant on the bodies it oversees.
Our intention has always been to ensure that, like several other ombudsman organisations, the IPCC has the ability to initiate investigations into matters that come to its attention. Clause 14 would achieve that by allowing the IPCC to request a referral, as it now can, and subsequently treating that matter as having been referred, either when the force complies with the request or after a certain time period expires. Although that would enable the IPCC to initiate investigations more quickly in the absence of a referral, the requirement for a minimum time period to elapse before the IPCC can initiate its investigations could still cause delay at the beginning of the investigation. Also, clause 14 would not fully address the perception that the IPCC is reliant on the police to permit it to begin its investigations. Although it would go a long way towards remedying the problem, on reflection we want to replace it with an even stronger power.
New clause 1 will provide the IPCC with an unambiguous power of initiative. It will enable the IPCC to treat a complaint, conduct matter or DSI—death or serious injury—matter that comes to its attention as having been referred to it immediately. If the IPCC chooses to treat the matter as such, it will then notify the force, which must record it if it has not been recorded already. As the public would expect, the IPCC will not be reliant on the forces it oversees to refer matters, and it will be able to take swift action to decide whether an investigation should take place and, if necessary, commence that investigation. I therefore commend new clause 1 to the Committee and propose that clause 14 should not stand part of the Bill.
Jack Dromey
I agree substantially with what the Minister has said. These are sensible arrangements designed to make investigations quicker and more effective, which is in everyone’s interests, in respect of both the police service and the public, not least because time and again we hear complaints from the public and the police that they drag on forever. We are content with the proposals.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 14 disagreed to.
Clause 15
IPCC power to require re-investigation
Amendments made: 97, in clause 15, page 19, line 27, at end insert “, in which case the Commission must determine that the re-investigation is to take the form described in that subsection”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 99.
Amendment 98, in clause 15, page 19, line 31, leave out from first “Commission” to end of line 32.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 97.
Amendment 99, in clause 15, page 19, line 32, at end insert—
“(4A) Where—
(a) the Commission determines under subsection (3) or (6) that a re-investigation is to take the form of an investigation by the Commission, and
(b) at any time after that the Commission determines that subsection (4) applies in relation to the re-investigation,
the Commission may make a further determination under this section (to replace the earlier one) that the re-investigation is instead to take the form of an investigation by the appropriate authority under the direction of the Commission.”
This amendment will enable a re-investigation that takes the form of an investigation by the Commission to become instead an investigation by the appropriate authority under the direction of the Commission.
Amendment 100, in clause 15, page 19, line 33, after “determines” insert “under subsection (3) or (4A)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 99.
Amendment 101, in clause 15, page 19, line 44, after “subsection” insert “(4A) or”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 99.
Amendment 102, in clause 15, page 19, line 45, after “(5A)” insert “or (5B)”.—(Karen Bradley.)
This amendment takes account of the fact that further determinations under paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 may be made under sub-paragraph (5A) or (5B) of that paragraph (see paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 to the Bill).
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Delegation of functions by local policing bodies
Karen Bradley
I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 17, page 22, line 4, at end insert—
“(4) In section 107 of the Local Government Act 1972 (application of sections 101 to 106 of that Act to the Common Council)—
(a) in subsection (2), omit the words from the beginning to “and” in the first place it occurs;
(b) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The Common Council may not, under section 101(1)(a), arrange for any person to exercise a function that the Common Council has under or by virtue of Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (see instead section 23(2)(pa) of that Act and regulations made under that provision).””.
This amendment makes equivalent provision in relation to the Common Council as that made in relation to police and crime commissioners and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime by clause 17(2) and (3) of the Bill. It is consequential on the new regulation-making power at section 23(2)(pa) of the Police Reform Act 2002 inserted by clause 17(1).
This is a technical amendment.
Amendment 130 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Review of the police complaints system—
“(1) Within two months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation of the police complaints system.
(2) The evaluation must consider the—
(a) efficiency of the complaints system,
(b) clarity of the complaints process, and
(c) fairness of investigations.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay the report of the evaluation before each House of Parliament by 1 January 2018.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission a comprehensive review of all aspects of the police complaints system.
Jack Dromey
I remember saying in a debate on the Floor of the House that I bow to no one in my admiration for the British police service and for the British model of policing, which is celebrated worldwide. Of course it is right that we constantly seek to raise standards in the police service and that we seek to hold the police to the highest standards. To this end, the work of the IPCC is crucial. It was established originally to ensure both independence and confidence, but it has not fulfilled its historic purpose. To be blunt, there is a widespread perception that the IPCC has been a failing body. Indeed, reference was made earlier to three quarters of those surveyed expressing dissatisfaction with how their complaint had been processed.
In the last Parliament, the Government took some steps, including throwing additional money at the IPCC by way of top-slicing the police service. It was clear from the evidence that the Committee heard last week that there remains, in the words of one of the police witnesses, a crisis of confidence in the IPCC. Indeed, Dame Anne Owers, an outstanding public servant, was refreshingly candid when she said that a view had been expressed that one might start with a blank sheet of paper.
The Bill does not start with a blank sheet of paper; it seeks to rename and rebadge the IPCC. Let me make it clear that the Government have proposed some welcome measures. We support, in particular, the efforts to make the system easier to understand and the widening of the definition of complaint under clause 11. We support the requirement under clause 13 for all complaints to be recorded. We strongly support the introduction of the super-complaints system under clauses 18 to 20, so that harmful trends, patterns and habits in policing can be identified and groups of people adversely affected can join forces to address such institutional issues.
We also support the duty under clause 12 to keep complainants and other interested persons updated on the progress of the handling of their complaint. That is crucial for public confidence. All of us, as Members of Parliament, will have had cases where people have made complaints but have not heard about the outcome or, indeed, where the investigation has reached.
If, in the previous Parliament, a noble concept did not work in the way in which it should have done, we cannot allow that to continue in another Parliament. It is too important to the public and the police that we have an investigation machinery that works and has confidence. The purpose behind the new clause is to seek an independent evaluation of the efficiency of the complaints system, the clarity of the complaints process and the fairness of investigations for both the public and the police. We therefore hope that the Government, in seeking to improve the current arrangements, will agree that there should be an independent evaluation of the new arrangements as they take root. I stress again that we do not want to have another five years like the last five years, when fundamental problems were not properly addressed.
Karen Bradley
The reforms set out in the Bill will overhaul the complaints system to ensure that complaints made against the police are responded to in a way that restores trust and builds public confidence. They are the product of extensive consultation over two or more years and will result in a more simple, flexible and independent complaints system.
Of course, we will want to evaluate the success of the reforms, but there are already a number of ways in which that evaluation will happen. Section 10 of the Police Reform Act 2002 includes a duty on the IPCC to maintain and review the arrangements for the handling of complaints and enables the IPCC to recommend change if necessary. Clause 26 of the Bill will extend HMIC’s remit to include any person involved in the delivery of policing functions, including PCC staff and other organisations. That means that HMIC has the ability to inspect and evaluate all aspects of the police complaints system. In the normal way, there will be a post-legislative review of this legislation three to five years after Royal Assent. The Home Office will submit a memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee, which will then decide whether it wishes to conduct a fuller post-legislative inquiry into the Act.
An early review of the complaints system, commencing within two months of the Act coming into force, would therefore not accurately reflect the impact of the reformed police complaints system. In short, I believe that there are already adequate mechanisms in place to review the effect of legislation without the need for an expensive independent evaluation of the kind envisaged by the new clause.
Jack Dromey
I am not impressed, with the greatest of respect, at the IPCC looking at the IPCC, but the Minister made the point that there is a mechanism involving HMIC, and that is welcome. She also says that there will be a review. The thrust of what we are arguing for is not that there is a review within two months, but that within two months a timetable and a process are laid out as to how the review will be conducted. We will hold the Government to that at the next stages, because it is important that this time we get it right.
Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Charlie Elphicke)
We have made excellent progress today and enjoyed the amazing oratory of the hon. Member for West Ham. With the rest of the Committee now desiring a rest, I suggest that the Committee now adjourn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Charlie Elphicke.)
Policing and Crime Bill (Third sitting)
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Before we begin, I repeat that Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during Committee meetings. Would everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode?
The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a debate. I will work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments.
Members should note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which the amendments are debated but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection list, and decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I hope that that explanation is helpful. I will use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following debates on the relevant amendments.
The Minister for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
On a point of order, Mr Howarth. I am sure colleagues are aware that there is an ongoing terrorist incident in Brussels, and I would like to put on record that our thoughts and prayers are with not only the victims but the emergency services, which yet again will be going in the opposite direction to everybody else. I am sure that Her Majesty’s Government are giving all assistance possible to the services in Belgium and the rest of Europe. It is important to put that on the record, as we are debating such an important Bill on the emergency services.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Howarth. May I strongly support what the Policing Minister said? We stand united in opposition to terrorists, whether in our country or on the continent of Europe. We are facing a uniquely awful threat, and the last thing we should be is divided. We are not divided; we are united. I am with the Minister in giving 101% support to the emergency services and the police, which are at the sharp end in what must be the most difficult of circumstances.
The Chair
I am sure the whole Committee would want to be associated with the remarks of the Government and the Opposition on this appalling tragedy.
Clause 1
Collaboration agreements
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 163, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out “(a) an ambulance trust in England” and insert—
“(a) an NHS body in England,
(aa) a public health body in England.”
This amendment would extend the duty of collaboration on to all NHS and public health bodies, and not just the ambulance service.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 166, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) a local authority in England.”
This amendment would extend the duty of collaboration to local authorities in England.
Amendment 164, in clause 5, page 5, line 2, leave out “(a) an ambulance trust in England” and insert—
“(a) an NHS Body in England,
(aa) a public health body in England.”
This amendment is consequential to amendment 163.
Amendment 165, in clause 5, page 5, line 5, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) “NHS body” means anything defined as an NHS body by the National Health Services Act 2006.
(4A) “Public health body” means—
(a) Public Health England, or
(b) any NHS body or local authority carrying out public health functions.”
This amendment is consequential to amendment 163.
Amendment 167, in clause 5, page 5, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) “Local Authority in England” means—
(a) a district council,
(b) a county council,
(c) a county borough council,
(d) a London borough council,
(e) the Greater London Authority,
(f) the Common Council of the City of London, or
(g) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.”
This amendment is consequential to amendment 166.
Lyn Brown
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The amendments would place the duty to collaborate on all NHS and public health bodies, not just NHS ambulance trusts. They would increase the scope of collaboration agreements to include local authorities. We have tabled these amendments in recognition of the fact that much of the work undertaken by the fire service and, indeed, the police service has a much broader health and social impact than just the immediate emergency response. That needs to be recognised in the Bill.
I have no doubt that NHS ambulance trusts can and do benefit from collaborating with the police force and the fire service. In many parts of the country, the fire service plays a really important role in the first response to medical incidents. In Cornwall, the fire and rescue service works with the South Western Ambulance Service to respond to medical incidents when it can get to a location first. Firefighters have received medical training and know how to use defibrillators and carry out oxygen therapy. As we are all aware, Cornwall is a rural county with many isolated communities, which is why that sort of work is so important there. In fact, over the past three years, firefighter co-responders have made a total of 1,848 life-saving interventions, which is impressive.
Cornwall is far from alone in that activity. I have been to Lincolnshire and heard about the life-saving work of its co-responding scheme. Lincolnshire is another sprawling county with isolated communities, some of which lie close to fire stations—or rather, they are closer to fire stations than ambulance stations. I was told that the most common shout or call-out was to road traffic accidents in country lanes. Similar collaborative projects are going on up and down the country.
In addition, the fire and rescue service is playing an ever more important role in medical incidents. This support is particularly important in rural and semi-rural areas, where it is difficult to provide a comprehensive and rapid response service. The Somerset fire and rescue service attended 3,525 co- and first-responding incidents in 2012-13, equivalent to 41% of its road traffic collisions and special service calls.
English fire and rescue services attended 14,688 co- and first-responding medical incidents in 2012-13, including cardiac arrests, unconscious casualties, people with breathing difficulties and other serious conditions such as anaphylactic shock. The number of co- and first-responding incidents attended by the fire and rescue services is rising by about 10% or more each year, and is expected to treble to more than 30,000 by 2020. The number of category A ambulance incidents has more than doubled since 2002-03. The fire and rescue services have helped to achieve emergency response targets for an ever-increasing number of critical medical incidents.
It is clear that our two humanitarian services—fire and ambulance—are very effective when they work together, side by side. Without getting too far into the Bill, I have raised concerns before that police and crime commissioner takeovers of fire and rescue services may lead to fewer of these sorts of collaboration. The focus and energy of administrators will instead be devoted to responding to Whitehall’s agenda or the Government’s agenda of combining the police with fire services, and not necessarily working on the area of collaboration that will have the most positive benefits for the community.
Has the Minister carried out an assessment of the risk of a reduced collaboration between the ambulance and fire services, if mergers with PCCs go ahead and, if so, what mitigation has he put in place to try to prevent that? There is stark evidence that collaboration between ambulance services and the fire and rescue services saves lives. We cannot afford to see it crowded out by a top-down decision and Government imposition from Whitehall. It makes no sense, and it could take lives.
Having established the importance of collaboration between the blue light services, I will now argue that we are far from the limit of where collaboration can improve public services. In particular, the police force and fire service can and do play a vital role in early intervention and prevention programmes that aid public health, social care and social welfare. One of the many examples I could cite is the Springboard initiative carried out by Cheshire’s fire and rescue service. Firefighters on home visits go well beyond carrying out the traditional home safety assessment, which looks at fire alarms, electrical appliances, and the like. Instead, they use their time to spot the challenges that residents face regarding their health and well-being. Firefighters then report to the relevant parts of social services and other departments in local authorities, the health service, or, indeed, various local charities so that they can meet the needs that have been identified.
This is not insignificant. If hon. Members think about referrals such as those being made in their own area and multiply that by the number of fire and rescue services in the country, one can see the real value of making that first contact with vulnerable people, the preventive actions undertaken and, frankly, the savings for the NHS or social care in catching such issues early.
From May, the Cheshire scheme will focus on smoking cessation and alcohol consumption reduction—it is Lent and I have not had some for a while—as well as reducing hypertension and blood pressure, and informing residents about bowel cancer screening. That public health duty is carried out at the behest of the local authority, and it is innovative and important. The scheme makes a vast difference to the quality of life of many elderly residents in Cheshire, and there are 25,000 of those safe and well visits each year. That really shows what an asset public trust in the fire service can be, and how the subsequent reach in communities can help to improve public health and prevent harm.
In Gloucestershire, the fire and rescue service utilises public trust to aid Public Health England to prevent winter deaths from the cold. The Gloucestershire fire and rescue service is doing its bit to aid public health on its patch by installing thermometers in the homes of over-65s and referring elderly residents to their GP for a winter flu jab. That is just a local pilot at the moment but I look forward to hearing about the results as that type of scheme may become valuable in our quest to aid older constituents to stay healthy during the cold winter.
There are many more such schemes. I could talk about them today, but I am not going to because I hope that hon. Members will mention their own schemes. The schemes lead me to ask the Minister why the Bill limits collaboration agreements to ambulance trusts. Local authorities play a vital role in all the existing schemes and, under this Government, they have been given responsibility for public health, so why are they excluded from the new duty to collaborate? The provision, as written, seems arbitrary in scope. If we are to have a duty to collaborate—although I am rather surprised that the Minister thinks it necessary—why not use the duty as an opportunity to encourage more collaboration with more partners in more ventures such as the projects I described in Cheshire, Cornwall and Lincolnshire?
I say gently to the Minister—he knows that I like him quite a lot—that I fear that the decision to limit collaboration agreements to ambulance trusts speaks to a poverty of ambition for the fire service, which was, I am afraid, a hallmark of the previous Government. The Minister has been a firefighter and I am sure that he knows how much we can use a trusted set of skilled public workers in many different scenarios in the public health arena. Rather than using the Bill as an opportunity to recast and improve our public services to have the best and most resilient services possible, the Government seem driven only by the desire to pair with the police services in the hope that, by doing so, they will be able to find some immediate cuts.
The Government can see that savings can be made by sharing back-office functions in emergency response centres, so they make that their only legislative priority, but I fear that they simply cannot see past it. It is a missed opportunity and I genuinely do not understand why. Perhaps it is because preventive and early intervention work requires the investment of resources today to reap rewards in future. Perhaps it is because it is really difficult to quantify the savings that are made in this public health agenda. For example, we do not know how many older people who did not have the flu jab would have got influenza, found themselves in hospital and been unable to go back home. It is really difficult to quantify a “what if” scenario and offer it to the Treasury as a justification for the work that is done.
The Opposition believe in collaboration between the emergency services, but we recognise that services can benefit and improve when there is collaboration in as many areas as possible. The Government’s narrow vision does not seem to recognise vital preventive health work or its potential for public and preventive health improvement. If the Minister wants to convince the Opposition that these reforms are driven by the best interests of public services, and are not merely a fig leaf for hunting for spending cuts, I urge him to look at our amendments and broaden the scope of the collaboration agreements. He is a good man; I am sure that today we will have a good response from him to our very helpful interventions.
Mike Penning
As the shadow Minister said, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and that of Mr Nuttall on Thursdays.
I fully understand where the shadow Minister is coming from. However, the Bill is concerned with emergency services. If we were looking at only fire and police and the so-called takeover for savings, which I obviously disagree with substantially, we would not have included the ambulance service. The ambulance service is specifically in the Bill in the duty of collaboration.
The shadow Minister and I could read all day about areas where collaboration has taken place. From my experience, it has not gone far enough in most cases and we need an awful lot more. Someone said to me when I was on a recent visit, “We carry defibrillators on front-line appliances these days, Minister.” That is fantastic news, but so does the cashier at Tesco and Sainsbury’s. We need to go much further than that. In some parts of the country we have done so, particularly in Hampshire, where the collaboration is such that a firefighter could not be distinguished from an ambulance technician, because they have those skills. We need to do an awful lot more of that.
I understand the shadow Minister’s point, but nothing in the Bill will stop the collaboration that is already taking place. As Fire Minister, as well as Police Minister, I am adamant that the fire service measures outcomes, although that is difficult. Where does the finance come from for that? Should that come out of the fire budget or the health and social services budget, and should they be paid? That is one of the big discussions at the moment.
The principle the shadow Minister talks of is right, but the Bill applies to the three emergency services. As a former shipping Minister, I would also like to have seen collaboration with the coastguard service, but that is probably a little step further on. Nothing in the Bill would prevent the sort of thing that the shadow Minister wants to continue to thrive and move on. With that in mind, sadly at the start of the Committee, I have to say I am sorry.
Lyn Brown
I am genuinely glad that the Minister and I seem to be on the same page, and that he is talking about evaluation and who is going to pay for it. I believe that the only way that we are collectively going to learn about how our services work together and the impact they can make is by evaluating them properly. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Duties in relation to collaboration agreements
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 156, in clause 2, page 3, line 14, at end insert—
‘(8) For the purposes of this Bill, when considering whether a collaboration agreement would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of one or more emergency services that shall include the effectiveness and efficiency with which the emergency service is able to meet its duties under the mental health care concordant.’.
This amendment would explicitly enable a collaboration agreement to cover duties placed on emergency services by the mental health care concordant.
Amendment 169, in clause 2, page 3, line 14, at end insert—
‘(8) For the purposes of this Bill evaluation of the “effectiveness and efficiency” of emergency services includes, but is not limited to, the capacity of emergency services to respond to—
(a) major weather incidents, including flooding, and
(b) other major incidents, including terrorist attacks.’.
This amendment would require emergency services to consider whether a collaboration would improve its capacity to respond to major incidents, when considering whether such an agreement would be in the interests of effectiveness and efficiency.
Lyn Brown
Amendment 168 would ensure that the duty on emergency services to collaborate was carried out in the interests of both effectiveness and efficiency. Amendment 169 would require emergency services to consider whether collaboration would improve their capacity to respond to major incidents, such as flooding.
I tabled amendment 168 because the Bill places a duty on emergency services to collaborate in instances when collaboration would be in the interests of the relevant service’s “effectiveness or efficiency”. This might seem rather pedantic to the Committee, but there is a serious point: there cannot and should not be a trade-off between efficiency and effectiveness in our public services.
Lyn Brown
I doubt it.
Frankly, I worry that, under this Government, efficiency is synonymous with spending cuts. That is not good enough when it is targeted at a life-saving, trusted service.
Furthermore, there appear to be important discrepancies in the Bill. Clause 2(4)(a) places a duty on services to collaborate if
“the proposed collaboration would be in the interests of its efficiency or effectiveness”.
However, clause 2(4)(b) states that collaboration is required to be
“in the interests of its efficiency and effectiveness”.
First, will the Minister confirm whether he believes there is a difference in meaning between the two? Secondly, why is there such inconsistency?
Clause 3(1) makes provision that clause 2
“does not require a relevant…service in England to enter into a collaboration agreement if the service is of the view that the proposed collaboration would have an adverse effect on its efficiency or effectiveness.”
Let us follow the logic. Clause 2(4)(a) states that a proposed party must give effect to the proposed collaboration, as set out in subsection (5), if
“a proposed party is of the view that the proposed collaboration would be in the interests of its efficiency or effectiveness”.
Mike Penning
Just to clarify, clause 2(4)(b) is wrong and I will amend it later. It should state “or” not “and”.
Lyn Brown
No, it is not.
Let us imagine that the relevant services deem that collaboration would have a positive impact on efficiency, regardless of the impact on effectiveness. Under clause 2(4)(a), those services would be duty bound to collaborate. However, if the relevant services deemed that collaboration would have an adverse impact on effectiveness, under clause 3(1) they would not be required to collaborate. That gives rise to an absurd situation whereby a service can be both duty bound and not required to collaborate simultaneously. It is, quite simply, nonsensical.
It would be very efficient to close half the fire stations in the country and halve the number of fire engines. It would certainly save money, but it would not be effective in saving lives and buildings. It would undoubtedly increase response times. Should not collaboration be both efficient and effective, saving money if possible, while providing equal if not superior effectiveness in the service? I am sure that the Minister understands my logic. I hope that he will go away and have a conversation with his team and then come back to this provision, because the Bill risks prioritising spending cuts over an effective emergency service. It is inconsistent, confusing and ambiguous.
I know that the Minister cares deeply about the emergency services that keep us all safe. I know he believes that collaboration should always be done in the name of service improvement. I therefore hope that when he leaves here and has a cup of tea for his lunch, he will consider the amendment properly. I do not mind whether he accepts it today or uses it as a drafting amendment later in the progress of the Bill.
Amendment 169 would require emergency services to consider whether collaboration would improve their capacity to respond to major incidents, such as flooding. The Bill fails to create a specific statutory duty to collaborate on major incidents. We believe that collaboration can be at its most effective when militating against major risks and responding to the worst disasters. Our amendment would direct collaboration agreements towards such major incidents, particularly floods and—as is sadly pertinent—terrorist incidents.
Unfortunately, major incidents are on the rise. As the climate has changed, flooding has become increasingly common across the country. Although we have not suffered a major terrorist attack since 2005, I think we would all agree that the threat of terrorism still looms. MI5 has set the current threat from international terrorism in the UK at “severe”.
In December, we saw much of the north of England devastated by flooding. I know that this is not news to the Government. On 5 January, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs informed the House that 16,000 properties had been flooded during the wettest December for 100 years. Many homes were flooded, bridges connecting communities were washed away, major roads were blocked and, in Lancaster, a substation was flooded, leaving tens of thousands of homes without power. In December alone, firefighters responded to more than 1,400 flood incidents across the north-west. On Boxing day, 1,000 people were rescued in Greater Manchester alone.
This winter’s example is not an isolated incident, nor is this a regional problem. In the winter of 2013-14, the south of England experienced devastating flooding. The Environment Agency reported that at least 6,000 properties were flooded, and damage to the rail network meant that a key transport link to the south-west was severed for many weeks.
Major incidents are not limited to flooding. We all remember 7/7 and the devastation caused on our streets in London. I am thankful that we have not seen another major terrorist incident of that nature. However, the recent atrocities in Paris and what is going on in Brussels today are clear reminders that we must remain prepared to deal with terrorist attacks in our major cities.
The Minister is well aware of the disaster training exercise that was carried out in a mocked-up Waterloo station two weeks ago. I really wish that I could have seen it. Firefighters and other emergency service workers carried out the UK’s largest ever simulated rescue to improve co-ordination and planning during a major incident. It was a practical demonstration of the range of demands on modern firefighters, paramedics and police officers.
Fire and rescue services’ responsibility to provide national resilience is set out in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the national framework of 2013. Fire and rescue services are required to respond to several national and international risks, including extreme weather, terrorist threats and industrial incidents, as well as prolonged energy shortages or outages. The chief fire officers would welcome a statutory duty on resilience and the funding to support it, as the only thing for which they currently receive stand-alone funding is aerial search and rescue. That is simply not good enough.
Weather incidents are on the rise and emergency services must remain vigilant and prepared for the threat of terror, yet the mantra to justify cuts to fire and rescue services is that demand for the fire service is falling. The explanatory notes to the Bill argue that the relevant policy background is a “fall in incidents” to which the fire service responds, but we cannot even begin to measure demand on the basis of the number of times it is called out to deal with situations. We need our fire service to militate against the most severe risks and prepare the best response to those risks.
Equating demand for the fire service with call-outs, as this Government persistently do, not only overlooks the important work that our emergency services carry out in fire prevention, but fundamentally misunderstands the evolving role of the emergency services in the 21st century. There has indeed been a reduction in the number of fires in the home and in the number of fire deaths and injuries, and there has been a rise in the proportion of homes with smoke alarms from 74% to 88%, as was reported by the English housing survey. We must all welcome that important change. It is the result of fire and rescue services undertaking millions of home fire safety checks and installing fire safety products in homes, which began in earnest in 2004 with the installation of long-life smoke alarms.
Despite the focus on prevention, more than 2.5 million English homes remain without a smoke alarm, and the alarms installed in 2004 are, sadly, coming to the end of their life. Understandably, the fire and rescue services are revisiting homes and continuing to seek to reach the remaining 2.5 million-plus homes. The English fire and rescue service completed 747,990 home fire safety checks in 2012-13. I am sorry, but that is the latest year for which I have figures. The number of home safety checks peaked at 811,132 in 2008-09.
Fire and rescue services undertake other forms of community fire safety work, with 164,064 school visits, arson prevention work and youth diversion events, and 75,543 statutory fire safety inspections taking place in 2012-13. Fire safety education has become a standard feature in primary schools, with the support of fire and rescue services. All forms of community fire safety work have increased in quantity and sophistication.
Fire and rescue services are responsible for far more than responding to fires. They attend a wide range of emergencies, including road traffic collisions, floods and medical incidents. A Department for Communities and Local Government report in 2012 noted that there were 51,982 rescues and extrications of casualties by the fire and rescue service between April 2009 and September 2011 at road traffic collisions, other transport incidents, suicide attempts and other special service incidents. There are more than 20,000 rescues and extrications each year. The decline in the number of fires should not distract us from the continued important and valued life-saving role of fire and rescue services at such incidents.
Additionally, as we discussed earlier, the fire and rescue service is playing an ever more important role in attending medical incidents—termed first and co-responding incidents—at the behest of the ambulance service. That support is particularly important in rural and semi-rural areas, where it is difficult to provide a comprehensive and rapid ambulance service.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Amendment 156 is a probing amendment; I will not divide the Committee on it. As I said on Second Reading, I welcome what the Government are doing through the Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983, in particular ensuring that people in mental health crisis do not end up in police cells. I have a little bit of sympathy for the police in terms of how they deal with such individuals. The police are not the appropriate people to deal with those in mental health crisis, but sadly they are sometimes the only ones available. The dedication of our policemen and women is such that they will not turn away people in that type of crisis. The purpose of my amendment is to probe whether we can get more collaboration between the police, the health service and other agencies, including local government.
In February 2014, the mental health concordat was agreed between the third sector, the police, local authorities and the NHS. It is important to read the joint statement, which states:
“We commit to work together to improve the system of care and support so people in crisis because of a mental health condition are kept safe and helped to find the support they need—whatever the circumstances in which they first need help—and from whichever service they turn to first.
We will work together, and with local organisations, to prevent crises happening whenever possible through prevention and early intervention. We will make sure we meet the needs of vulnerable people in urgent situations. We will strive to make sure that all relevant public services support someone who appears to have a mental health problem to move towards Recovery.
Jointly, we hold ourselves accountable for enabling this commitment to be delivered across England.”
I accept that there is no statutory basis for the concordat, which is a problem, but I think it is important to draw the Committee’s attention to the final sentence of the joint statement:
“Jointly, we hold ourselves accountable for enabling this commitment to be delivered across England.”
Well, currently there is no mechanism by which those organisations—I am not criticising any individual—are held accountable for delivering what they promised in the concordat. There is a desperate need for that.
The concordat’s aims are very good. I have seen some very good examples of joint working between all services, including the police, fire service, ambulance service, NHS and local authorities up and down the country. There are examples of mental health professionals being co-located with police officers and triage teams, and that is certainly working very well. In my local NHS trust, community psychiatric nurses are appointed in A&E because, unfortunately, A&E is one of the places to which people in mental health crisis turn because they are unable to get help elsewhere—even though, as everyone knows, that is the last place they need to be. Having a mental health professional has clearly helped in my local hospital by ensuring that people in mental health crisis do not sit around for hours on end getting no form of treatment.
I accept that this is not necessarily just a police problem; it cuts across other Departments including Health. The amendment questions whether we can use the Bill to put the concordat on to some type of statutory basis and to provide for a presumption that local authorities and others should work together locally to deliver the concordat’s aims, to which most people would sign up. Is the amendment about money? No, it is not. Properly implemented, it could save money. Time that the police spend dealing with people in mental health crisis is time that they are not spending doing other things that they are perhaps better qualified to do. Perhaps the Minister could look at this issue and talk to his colleagues in the Department of Health, so that on Report we can have an indication of how this operation could be enforceable. I do not think that it should fall solely on the shoulders of the police.
Jack Dromey
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this crucial issue. He makes the point about police time. The Oleaster centre in Birmingham, a collaborative venture between the NHS, the police and the local authority, has seen the average police time spent on a section 136 incident reduced from 14 hours to five hours. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a powerful argument, regarding not just appropriate treatment of those suffering from mental illness, but the efficient use of police time, for having such facilities nationwide? What he proposes would be very helpful towards that end.
Mr Kevan Jones
I do. The example to which my hon. Friend refers is replicated in other parts of the country where the police have in many cases taken the lead, working jointly with the NHS to set up those facilities. They make the experience better for those individuals who are in crisis. As he rightly says, they provide a more efficient way to deal with police time. Without a provision to enable this, I fear we will do all the work in the Bill on changes to the Mental Health Act 1983, which I welcome, but end up saying, “This is what we want to happen but will it happen in practice?” The example in his constituency shows that where there is a will and local drive, this can happen. My fear is that we will get a patchwork quilt of provision across the country. It would be helpful if we could make co-operation to deal with these issues statutory. I will come to another point later when we talk to amendments relating to the Mental Health Act.
I commend the Government’s aim to prevent people in mental health crisis from going to police cells. However, unless there is alternative provision in place, that will not happen. The need to monitor what happens to individuals should be recognised. If we reach the point, which we all want, of having no one in police cells, but without the people concerned getting adequate care elsewhere, we will have failed them. I will address that point later. I am now interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Mike Penning
I say at the outset that I understand the intention and good will behind the amendments. I put my hand up to a typo where “and” appears instead of “or”, which will be corrected later.
I say to the shadow Minister that the duty in clause 2 would be subject to the restriction in clause 3. Clause 3(1) sets aside the duty to enter into a particular collaboration agreement if that agreement would negatively impact on efficiency or effectiveness. Therefore, the Bill specifically addresses the point she raised. I will not dwell on that because it is not a matter of semantics. She is quite right, but clause 3 addresses that.
Mike Penning
On that narrow point. I have no idea why the shadow Minister was not invited to the brilliant exercise, which was the largest we have ever seen. I was not there either, although I had been invited, because I was at Didcot, for reasons colleagues will understand.
Mr Kevan Jones
I welcome the Minister’s point. Our amendments are the grit in the oyster, in the sense that they are going to force others to improve facilities. Having seen different Departments when in government, I know that without some direction from the Bill, it will not happen. The Minister and his colleagues have great intentions and I pay tribute to him and to the Home Secretary for addressing this issue, but without something on the face of the Bill or some movement during the passage of the Bill, it will not happen.
Mike Penning
Nothing would happen if we were not doing this. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. We are starting to drive this. An inter-ministerial group on that specific issue was formed during the last Government. It still sits and it will push on with this. I do not think that the amendment is necessarily the right vehicle, but I agree that we must push it forward. Otherwise, the health and social services will be knocking at the door, saying, “We’ve got nowhere else to go,” as we often hear.
I used to experience that when I was in the fire service, and it still goes on. I have been stationed with the police when it has happened. It is usually at 4 o’clock on a Friday afternoon. Social services phone up saying, “We haven’t seen Mary or Johnny. Would you go round and check on them over the weekend?” The answer must be “No, that is your legal responsibility, not ours.” I know that that is a development of what we were talking about, but it is exactly what goes on: “Would you go in and open up for them?”. It is a difficult area, but one that we must touch on.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
All the areas in which we are talking about collaborating with police forces are devolved in Wales. I suggest that somewhere along the line, thought needs to be given to how such collaboration will work in that unique situation.
Mike Penning
We have discussed that with all the devolved Administrations. This proposal refers to the concordat within England, because obviously that is devolved, but I do not think that any devolved Administration would not want to do what we are discussing. They might have a different mechanism for implementing it, but nobody wants somebody with a mental illness episode to be treated any differently from someone with a broken leg or other physical injury; hopefully we have moved on from that. That is what we are trying to do.
The shadow Minister has made a point on a couple of occasions about co-responding. This is not just about rural communities—thank goodness London is now doing co-responding through a pilot. I served in areas that were quite rural areas and in areas, like the M25, that could not be described as rural—it is more like a giant car park at most times. For one reason or another, the other emergency services often did not arrive for some time.
We want to save lives. That is part and parcel of what the emergency services do. Co-responding is critical to that, as is moving on, in training terms, way beyond some of the things that we have discussed today. For instance, in Hampshire, the service was desperate to get the necessary qualifications to give fluids by IV. We know from Afghanistan and Iraq that that saves lives.
I understand the theme, but I do not agree with the amendments, because I think that they are unnecessary. Sadly, yet again, I will oppose them.
Lyn Brown
I thank the Minister for his response. I have not been to see London since my early days, and my early stint as the shadow Fire Minister before the election, so I am grateful to him for letting me know about the pilot. I will get in touch with London so that I can find out more, because I am interested. I have also not been to Hampshire; I do not believe that I have been invited yet. I deliberately did not go to see the flooding. I felt that it was inappropriate for me to be a water tourist, and that I would merely get in the way, so I have not been up or down to flooded areas.
Mike Penning
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: neither of us should be at an incident. Having politicians there is dangerous. Once it is finished and we are starting to learn, the experience that she will get from the frontline is better than any briefing she will ever get.
Lyn Brown
The Minister is absolutely right, which is why I spent my time as shadow Fire Minister during my first stint popping up and down the country, going to many fire and rescue authorities in constituencies represented in this room. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I said to the people affected by flooding that when they had dried out, I would be grateful for the opportunity to come and talk to them, although I have not yet had an invitation. In my second stint as shadow Fire Minister, I look forward to renewing my request to be talked to and to pop up and down the country yet again, as part of this impressive, exciting and enjoyable part of my brief.
I am grateful to the Minister for being open to the idea of a statutory duty on flooding. We both know that professionals in the fire service have called for that duty since the last days of the last Labour Government, and I genuinely think that it would be welcome and useful. If nothing else, the fire service would welcome some kind of acceptance, understanding or acknowledgment of its work on flooding.
I have talked about major incidents, and the Minister tried to reassure me on that, but the chief officers of six metropolitan fire and rescue services recently warned that they feel that the UK’s resilience to major incidents is at threat. They genuinely believe that the reduction in plant and firefighters would make us weaker in our resilience to a terrorist threat. I do not want to ramp that up into a big issue—I am not fearmongering—but we all need to recognise that that is what our professionals are saying to us. Collectively, we do not want to get into a position where our fire services cannot respond to incidents, where they are needed.
I leave it at that. The Minister has been very generous, and very sweet in offering to invite me to the next big event, so long as the gift is in his hand and there is no other reason for me not to go.
Lyn Brown
The Opposition support the duty to collaborate, and thus we will not be voting against clause 2, but I take this opportunity to raise some concerns about the way in which the clause is drafted. Subsection (5) makes it mandatory for emergency services to enter into collaboration agreements when conditions are met, which is a move away from the successful programme of treating collaboration in communities as a voluntary, organic exercise among blue light services. As we have heard this morning, and as all Members will agree, excellent local collaborations have saved a number of lives. Collaboration projects are already happening between emergency services across the country, and we welcome that direction of travel. Well-designed, thought-through collaboration projects can allow for better and more comprehensive service delivery, saving on back-office costs so that resources can be diverted to the frontline.
That is all good practice. Much of the collaborative work that the Government wish to encourage is already happening, and it will continue to happen as pilots are evaluated and lessons learned. Our emergency service professionals are good people. They do not need to be told of the benefits of collaboration, and they are best placed to judge when collaboration is in the interests of their communities.
I do not have time to go through a whole bunch of examples—I could if I wanted to take up the Committee’s time—but I will mention a few. For Members who are interested in reading about further examples, I recommend the excellent “Beyond Fighting Fires” report by the Local Government Association, which contains a series of enlightening case studies. One case study is the safe and independent living initiative from Dorset fire and rescue service. In 2008, Dorset suffered 13 separate home fire deaths, having previously experienced just one or two a year. The Dorset service, understandably, wanted to know what was happening. It investigated thoroughly and found out that half the fires were caused by smoking and combustible materials and the other half were caused by electrical factors. All the deaths were harrowingly preventable. The service also found out that the majority of people who died were known to one or other of the public sector services.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point, as these things are already happening. In my local area in Durham, the fire and rescue service works closely with the police and ambulance services, particularly in co-location of appliances. For example, in Barnard Castle, which is in a rural area, the ambulance, fire, police and mountain rescue services work together, which improves the service but saves money for the estate.
Lyn Brown
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of my visit to Durham fire and rescue service. I was really impressed by what they were doing. They were clearly cash-strapped, but went out to maximise their impact and save money where they could by collaboration. Their most important focus was on saving lives and improving services to the local area, and I was very impressed.
The clause gives the impression that under this Government there is a hierarchy of services, and that the fire service is the equivalent of Lepidus—that is, the least in the triumvirate. That is from Shakespeare’s “Antony and Cleopatra”—I did it at A-level. The Opposition believe that collaboration between the emergency services is a good thing. Providing the funds to encourage and support collaboration, and giving an opportunity to evaluate the collaboration and disseminate good practice, are essential. Providing an institutional framework for supporting further collaboration has some merit, but it is likely to be superfluous and I honestly believe that there are dangers in making that mandatory. Local experts, who understand their service and their local needs, are best placed to make final decisions about collaboration—just as they have been doing effectively over the past few years.
Mr Kevan Jones
May I echo the points made by my hon. Friend? This is actually happening on the ground. As a former Minister, I have seen close up the tendency of this Government to think that all the pearls of wisdom are contained within Whitehall, when clearly they are not. As my hon. Friend says, in many cases this is being driven by cost. County Durham and Darlington fire and rescue service, whose budget has been cut by the Government, has had to look at new ways of delivering services. However, the driver has not just been cost; it is also the recognition that, working together, ambulance, police, fire—and, in this case, mountain rescue—services can deliver a better service for the public. That public sector ethos is alive and kicking in my local area, where the public come first in terms of the service they give. If they can do things to improve that, it is all the better.
What would the Minister judge as collaboration? I accept that he might want to give examples of where that is not happening and the reasons why. In Durham, we have tri-responders: the police, fire and ambulance services. In a large rural county such as Durham it is not possible to have a physical presence from all three services in all areas, and they have worked together very closely. That has been driven not just by the police and crime commissioner but by other services working together.
What would be an example of failure? The Bill talks about co-operation, but to what level? Is this about the response to incidents? There are good examples of the co-location of services. In County Durham, it is not just about ensuring that we get more efficient use of estates. Things such as open days and the provision of public information, including to schools, are now being done on a joint basis by the police and fire. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the incidents that affect many of our constituents are not just pigeonholed as requiring a police response, a fire response or an ambulance response. Those things are working very well, so I would like to know what will be achieved with this measure. Can the Minister point to examples of where that is not happening and, if it is not happening, has he examined why? I have outlined the great work being done in County Durham. What would the Minister see as failure or as not meeting the co-operation target? Is he laying down from Whitehall, as seems to be the tendency of this Government, a framework that local PCCs and fire authorities have to meet if they are to meet this test? I think that, without that, what happens in different areas will be pretty arbitrary.
I represent quite a rural constituency in County Durham, although the Government have not recognised Durham as a rural county in their local government funding settlements, possibly because it votes Labour rather than Conservative. Responses that work in London may not work in rural areas such as County Durham. Providing the flexibility to allow local fire chiefs, local fire authorities, PCCs and the NHS to collaborate on what works best locally would be the right approach. If the Minister tries to direct from Whitehall a template that each area has to adopt, it will not work.
Mike Penning
I will not detain the Committee long. I think that there were three main questions.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister give way?
Jake Berry
May I encourage the Minister not to listen to the representations from the Labour party? The whole point of the Bill is that it does not seek to put PCCs and fire services in the straitjacket of a definition driven from Whitehall. I hope that he will, in the spirit of the Bill, ensure that it is a localist, devolution Bill, rather than one seeking straitjackets directed by the Minister in Committee.
Mike Penning
My hon. Friend may well be sitting in this chair in a couple of years’ time if he makes contributions like that, or in even less time than that. In a perfect world, this legislation would not be required. It would not be required if all the wonderful work that we hear is going on around the country was universally going on. One size does not fit all, but London probably is an example. The responsibility will not be with a PCC; it will be with the Mayor. We are passing the responsibility for fire services to the Mayor. How many fire stations in London are police stations?
Mike Penning
I will give way to my hon. Friend, who is much more experienced in this.
James Cleverly
The hon. Member for North Durham asked for examples. May I provide one from my London Assembly constituency rather than my parliamentary constituency? In Bexleyheath, the Bexleyheath fire station shares a party wall with a London ambulance station, which shares a party wall with a Transport for London bus depot, which is only a few yards from the Metropolitan Police headquarters. They all have separate cleaning contracts. They all have separate catering contracts. That is in an area where we have made a concerted effort to have more collaborative working, so I think that it is fair to say that this needs extra impetus. That is just one ultra-local example.
Lyn Brown
I am not going to stand here and argue that London does not have its problems, because quite clearly it has. One of the reasons why the London bit is in the Bill is because the existing London bit has not worked; there has been serious conflict, which has seriously damaged London’s ability to respond to the collaborative agenda as other areas of the country have. However, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham still stands, because I have not been anywhere else in the country where there has not been collaboration with fire and rescue services, and with other services.
The Chair
Order. I have been very generous with interventions, I remind Members that interventions need to be short and to the point, and should contain a question. So far, I do not think that any of the interventions have fulfilled any of those requirements, and I expect interventions to do so in future.
Mike Penning
Finally, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree that I will listen to Opposition Members and I will particularly listen to the shadow policing Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham. The duty of collaboration is welcome; there is no doubt about that. I agree with my hon. Friend completely; that is why the duty is in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Provision for police and crime commissioner to be fire and rescue authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lyn Brown
The Opposition do not believe that the Government have even begun to make the case for the fundamental governance reforms to the fire and rescue service that would be introduced by clause 6, so we will vote to remove it, and consequential schedule 1, from the Bill.
Clause 6 and schedule 1 contain provisions that allow for a police and crime commissioner to become a fire and rescue authority and, in so doing, effectively assume control of a fire and rescue service. I will have plenty to say in later debates about the lopsided process by which the Government are proposing that these takeovers should happen, and what the governance and scrutiny of the fire and rescue service would look like once the takeovers have gone ahead, but I will take this opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposal in the first place.
I know that that is not the way the Government think things should be done. They have been quite happy to go through a consultation exercise that does not ask stakeholders what they think of the merits of the proposals, and they have completely ignored the recommendation of Sir Ken Knight that these proposals need to be put through a rigorous pilot programme so that we can know whether they are likely to bring about any benefits.
It was not really a consultation, was it? It was stuffed full of leading questions that were not about whether the plans were right or about what should be done, but about how to implement them. The Government have ignored the evidence-based strategy suggested by Sir Ken. Why did the Government not undertake a pilot, as recommended by the Knight review? Why not undertake a proper risk assessment and outline the implications of the plans, alongside those of the budget cuts that are now starting to take effect and affect response times? The Government have acted on the assumption that it is a given that police and crime commissioners will get powers to take over the fire and rescue services. Why is that reasonable? They need to present arguments as to why that is a good idea. In whose interest is it? It is not right simply to propose reforms to a vital public service without producing a detailed set of arguments as to why those reforms are in the best interests of that service and the public.
Government impact assessments always start with the same two questions: “What is the problem under consideration?” and “Why is Government intervention necessary?” Those are two very conservative questions: if there is no evidence that something is not working as well as it should or that there is a problem that needs to be solved, the Government simply do not have reason to act. They should certainly not be legislating for its own sake. If the problem is London, legislate on London.
There is absolutely nothing in the impact assessment identifying tangible problems with the governance of the fire service, nor is there any attempt to explain why the legislation is necessary. The only relevant reason in the impact assessment is the fact that the Conservative manifesto pledged to “develop the role” of police and crime commissioners. Why is that? What did the fire service do to deserve this? It is an extraordinary way to go about the business of government. I am not surprised that civil servants at the Home Office could not come up with any tangible reasons why PCCs need to play a role in the governance of the fire and rescue service; there are plenty of reasons to think it is a bad idea.
Mr Kevan Jones
Although the clause refers to the fire and rescue service, it does not refer to ambulance services, for example. Does my hon. Friend agree that PCCs adopting ambulance services is a logical conclusion, if they are to encompass all the emergency services in an area?
Lyn Brown
I can only imagine that the Home Office lost the argument with the Department of Health. That is the only thing that comes to mind. The Home Office wanted a big takeover for PCCs, but it has failed to do so because the Department of Health said no.
PCCs are a nascent institution. With suitable caution, the Home Affairs Committee has said that it is
“too early to say whether the introduction of police and crime commissioners has been a success.”
If we do not know whether PCCs have been a success in their core duties, why are the Government proposing that they expand their portfolio by adopting fire services? We all hope that the turnout for PCC elections in May is better than the 15% managed the first time round, but before we hand over more powers to PCCs, would it not be better to see whether public support and interest in the institution has improved from such a dismally low level?
The Government may see things differently and want to bolster the powers and budgets of PCCs to help them through their difficult start, but a vital public service such as fire should not be pawned off to save struggling Whitehall inventions. What is next? Stretched NHS ambulance trusts running community volunteering schemes to rekindle the big society?
Lyn Brown
I am frightened of giving the hon. Gentleman ideas, particularly if he is going to rise to the Front Bench.
We know that the Chancellor is very fond of mayors. I have no problem with them, but they should not be imposed. The coalition Government balloted people, and in nine out of 10 metropolitan areas, people said no. However, the Chancellor likes to get his own way by attaching mayors to combined authorities in exchange for devolved powers. Could he get more mayors by developing the role of PCCs? Is that what this proposal is about? Get PCCs to take over fire and rescue, and what is next? Will it be probation, the ambulance service or some of the free schools? Perhaps I should not give anybody ideas.
We must also question what expertise PCCs are supposed to bring to the management of fire and rescue services that those services do not themselves possess. Most of the present batch of PCCs were selected by their parties before they even knew that PCCs could take control of their fire services, so a candidate’s vision, plans and manifestos for their local fire service cannot have played much role in their political ascent.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not agree that PCCs have as much experience as many members of the fire authorities, who are councillors? I do not see any additional expertise there.
Lyn Brown
The hon. Lady is mistaken. Councillors play a prominent role on many management committees of fire and rescue services, but they are not the only players. I do not know whether she has met many of them, but they are people who have devoted their time in local government to truly understanding and working on fire issues. They know so much. There is a wealth of knowledge and experience on those panels. When I am in a room with them, I cannot but be impressed by their collective—
Lyn Brown
I hear the hon. Lady saying that about her own fire and rescue authority. When I get back to my office, I will have a look to see which fire and rescue authority it is and why she has such a view, but in my experience of speaking to people from each political party who have served on fire and rescue service committees, they are highly knowledgeable and committed to the area for which they are responsible. I do not like to denigrate local democracy in that way. We in the Labour party appreciate what our local councillors do, many of them for not much reward at all.
The point that I am making is not that PCCs are bad and fire services are good; it is that in the Bill, the Government are creating unnecessary conflicts with one preferred model: PCC control, the favoured approach. It is not about what works locally, and it should be. If the Government are to turn PCCs into mini-mayors with responsibility for all sorts of policy positions, which I think is their real agenda, they should at least do so openly, so the democratic process can respond to the expanding office.
I genuinely think that the proposals come with significant risks. The most important is that fire, with its much smaller budgets and less media attention than policing, will become an unloved secondary concern of management, a Cinderella service. I have raised that point repeatedly with the Minister, but he has not indicated what he proposes to do to mitigate that risk. I know that he wants to champ on with the Bill, but I would like him to answer that particular point. What will he do to ensure that the fire services taken over by PCCs do not become Cinderella services?
Peter Murphy, the director of the public policy and management research group at Nottingham Business School, has argued that slipping into the status of a Cinderella service would only be a repeat of what happened the last time the fire service had to share an agenda with policing. I shall quote him, because it gets to the point. He said that
“if the current plans are implemented, there is a very strong chance that the fire and rescue services would go back to the ‘benign neglect’ that characterised the service from 1974 to 2001, when the Home Office was last responsible for fire services. Police, civil disobedience, immigration and criminal justice dominated the Home Office agenda, as well as its time and resources.”
If the fire service becomes the lesser partner in a merged service
“the long-term implications will include smaller fire crews with fewer appliances and older equipment arriving at incidents. Prevention and protection work, already significantly falling, will result in fewer school visits and fire alarm checks for the elderly, not to mention the effect on business, as insurance costs rise because of increased risks to buildings and premises.”
What a chilling vision for the future of our fire service.
Mike Penning
I often agree with the shadow Minister, but on this one she has taken her feed from the FBU too far.
Mike Penning
That is my view. I have listened to the shadow Minister’s view, and that is my view.
I quite like some of Sir Ken Knight’s comments, which the shadow Minister quoted extensively. Sir Ken is probably the biggest reason why the measure is in the Bill. I do not know whether the Committee noticed, but the shadow Minister’s argument is almost identical to the one against PCCs taking over the police. It was a Labour party manifesto commitment to abolish PCCs. Labour lost and changed its mind. This measure is a Conservative manifesto commitment, and we will take it through Parliament.
Sir Ken Knight was specific. He said that collaboration between the emergency services across the whole country is patchy and will not begin to change consistently without more joined-up and accountable leadership. The police and crime commissioners are uniquely placed to provide that leadership, which is why we support clause 6.
Mike Penning
The rest of it was rubbish, so I am not going to bother responding to it.
Lyn Brown
That is poor from the Minister, really poor indeed. There are serious issues here. If he wants to quote Ken Knight, let us quote Ken Knight. I ask the Minister yet again why he has not conducted the pilot that Ken suggested in his report. Why not do the pilots? My second question is: why now? We have PCC elections in a couple of months’ time, and this is not even in the manifestos of the candidates who are standing in those elections. The public will not be given an opportunity to decide whether they want X running their fire services, as well as their police services. In fact, the PCC candidates have not really been given an opportunity to debate fire services and what they would actually do with them, such as whether they would choose to take the option of putting them under the control of—
Lyn Brown
It is not an FBU line, and I really, really resent that suggestion. In previous discussions, the Minister and I have managed to be courteous to each other. I urge him not to diminish my political concerns by telling me that they come from someone else. They do not; they come from my being a local councillor for 18 years and my belief that local councillors and local democracy matter. The Minister has done the Committee no favours at all with his very short answers in response to the comments and concerns that my hon. Friends and I have expressed. Perhaps he would like to take some time and do it again.
Jack Dromey
Like my hon. Friend, I am disappointed that, a powerful case having been made, there should be such a cursory reply. The point was made earlier that PCCs are elected. Yes, they are, but so too are local authority representatives on fire authorities—they are elected, and they are accountable. Why is it that a PCC, with the support of the Home Secretary, could take over responsibility for the fire service against the will of locally elected representatives? That cannot be localism by any description.
Lyn Brown
I totally and utterly agree with my hon. Friend. I think the Minister has done this Committee a disservice by not answering our questions properly. I urge him to get back on his feet and give us a much more reasonable and considered answer to the points that we have made.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Mr Howarth. This is a habit of the Minister. On Second Reading, he gave a 15-minute—or even less—response to the debate, and we saw that again today. I thought the purpose of Committee was to scrutinise legislation and for the Government to argue their case for the Bill. That is not what we have seen today. I wonder whether you can give some guidance to the Minister. He needs to answer questions or even put a case for his proposals.
The Chair
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the Minister’s response. He is responsible for his own response, so I will not allow the matter to go any further.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lyn Brown
I beg to move amendment 174, in schedule 1, page 113, line 12, leave out “or” and insert “and”.
This amendment ensures that when the Secretary of State decides whether to allow the Fire and Rescue Service to come under control of PCCs she must do so in the interest of “economy, efficiency and effectiveness” and “in the interest of public safety”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 181, in schedule 1, page 122, line 10, at end insert—
“with the cost of obtaining such information to be met by the police and crime commissioner.”
This amendment would require the police and crime commissioner to pay the costs the fire and rescue authority incurs in providing the police and crime commissioner with the information needed to prepare a proposal to transfer governance to the police and crime commissioner.
Amendment 172, in schedule 1, page 122, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) consult each relevant fire and rescue authority,
(ab) any local authority all or part of whose area forms part of the fire and rescue authority area, and
(ac) the relevant workforces.”
This amendment will make it a statutory obligation for the local authority Fire and Rescue Authority, and relevant workforces, to be consulted before being taken over by a PCC.
Amendment 170, in schedule 1, page 122, line 25, leave out “make arrangements to seek the views of” and insert “consult comprehensively with”.
This amendment would require a police and crime commissioner to consult local residents about the proposal to transfer governance of the fire and rescue service to the police and crime commissioner.
Amendment 171, in schedule 1, page 122, line 26, leave out “commissioner’s police” and insert “fire and rescue authority”.
This amendment would mean that police and crime commissioners need only seek the views of people living in the affected fire and rescue authority rather than across the whole of the police force area.
Amendment 180, in schedule 1, page 122, line 43, after “proposal”, insert “from an independent panel of experts chosen by the relevant police and crime commissioner and local authorities,”.
This amendment would guarantee the independence of panels tasked with assessing takeover proposals submitted by a PCC.
Amendment 173, schedule 1, page 123, line 17, at end insert—
“(4) An order under section 4A, where modified or not by the Secretary of State, may only be made with the consent of the relevant local authority, relevant fire and rescue authority and relevant police and crime commissioner.”
This amendment makes it a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to get the consent of the PCC, Fire and Rescue Authority, and local authority, before making an order.
Amendment 177, in schedule 1, page 123, line 17, at end insert—
“(4) Before submitting a section 4A proposal to the Secretary of State, a relevant police and crime commissioner must make arrangements to hold a referendum.
(5) The persons entitled to vote in the referendum are those who, on the day of the referendum—
(a) would be entitled to vote as electors at an election for the relevant police and crime commissioner, and
(b) are registered in the register of local government electors at an address that is within a relevant fire authority area.
(6) The referendum is to be held on—
(a) a suitable date corresponding to the regular electoral cycle, or
(b) if there are no elections scheduled within the next 365 days, such other date as the Secretary of State may specify by order.
(7) The police and crime commissioner must inform the Secretary of State of the result of the referendum.
(8) The Secretary of State may only grant an order if—
(a) the proposal was approved by a majority of persons voting in the referendum, and
(b) the turnout for the referendum is greater than 25 per cent of those eligible to vote.
(9) A police and crime commissioner may not hold another referendum within the period of ten years.”
This amendment would ensure that a PCC can only take over a Fire and Rescue Service with the approval of local people.
Amendment 178, in schedule 1, page 123, line 17, at end insert—
“(4) An order under section 4A, where modified or not by the Secretary of State, may only be made with either: consent of the relevant local authority and relevant fire and rescue authority, or a majority vote by local people through referendum.”
This amendment would ensure that a PCC can only take over a Fire and Rescue Service with the approval of local people or their local representatives.
Mr Kevan Jones
It would be nice to hear the case for why PCCs should take over fire and rescue services, because we have failed to hear that from the Minister.
Lyn Brown
We have indeed failed yet again to hear a case from the Minister as to why this massive change to how our public services are run is to happen. I really am disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity in the previous debate to give us some decent reasons. But there are none—simply because of one obscure line in the Conservative party manifesto, the Government want to boost the role of PCCs. That is a really poor reason.
However, if the Government intend to go down that path and the reforms are to happen, the Bill could be strengthened if the Government accepted the amendments. They would make significant changes to the process by which a PCC can take over, and to the structures of accountability and scrutiny that they face once they have taken charge of the local fire service.
Amendment 174 would ensure that the Secretary of State could approve a takeover only if it was in the best interests of public safety and efficiency. The schedule currently requires it to be in the best interests of only one or the other. Amendment 181 would require a police and crime commissioner to pay the costs incurred by a fire and rescue authority in preparing information for a takeover bid.
Amendments 170, 171 and 172 all deal with the consultation process. Amendment 170 would require full consideration of people’s views. Amendment 171 would restrict the scope of the consultation to residents who are served by the relevant fire and rescue service. Amendment 172 would make workers and fire and rescue authorities statutory consultees. Amendment 180 would ensure that the panel the Home Secretary used to guide her through a business case was genuinely independent.
Amendments 173, 177 and 178 all deal with who must consent before a takeover can be approved. Amendment 173 would require the consent of local authorities, and amendment 177 would require local people to approve a takeover by a referendum. We have offered a compromise in amendment 178, which would require the approval of either the local authority or the local people. Either way, there must be local consent through a referendum or through the locally elected representatives.
I have outlined a lot of issues, but then again, there are a lot of problems with the Government’s proposals. I shall start with amendment 174 and the grounds on which the Home Secretary is to make her decisions, before I address the process. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State does not allow PCCs to take over control of a fire and rescue service unless it is in the interests of public safety. I tabled it because, as currently drafted, the Bill states that when the Secretary of State decides whether to allow a fire and rescue service to come under the control of a PCC, she must do so
“in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness…or…in the interests of public safety”.
The amendment is small, but its impact would be substantial. It would prevent the Secretary of State from making her decision on whether to allow a fire and rescue service to come under the control of a PCC solely in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, to ensure that it is also in the interests of public safety. Who could possibly object to that? As the Minister is in one of his collaborative moods, I expect that he will accept the amendment with gusto, because he will want to ensure that the interests of public safety are truly served.
I know I have made these arguments before, but it is really important to make our arguments as we go through the Bill, so I shall do so again, albeit briefly. The decision to allow PCCs to take over fire and rescue services must not be allowed to become a trade-off between economy, efficiency and effectiveness on the one hand and the interests of public safety on the other. If PCCs are to take over fire and rescue services, the interests of public safety should be paramount. There should be no other interest—certainly not the Conservative party manifesto.
Under the existing proposals, if the takeover is in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, that is enough to satisfy the Secretary of State’s requirements. That is simply not good enough for the fire service, and it is certainly not good enough for the general public. I am glad to see that the Government have recognised that consideration must be given to both efficiency and effectiveness, but I am concerned that they have once again misunderstood the meaning of efficiency. I reiterate that Sir Ken Knight stated:
“Efficiency does not just mean doing the same for less, nor is it just about one-off cashable savings. It is an entire approach to service delivery, achieving the best possible service for the public.”
I would hope all of us in this room can agree on that.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are arguing that local people should have a say in electing a police and crime commissioner, while at the same time they are giving the Secretary of State powers to impose on an area a set of arrangements in which local people would have no say at all? It is another example of the Government looking both ways—they talk about devolution, but now they are talking about centralisation.
Lyn Brown
That is absolutely right. It is not a localist agenda at all.
Amendment 181 would require a police and crime commissioner to pay the costs incurred by a fire and rescue authority in preparing information for a takeover bid. The Bill places a statutory duty on the PCC and fire and rescue authority to work together in the preparation of a takeover proposal, although not as equal partners. The process is to be led by PCCs, and the fire and rescue authorities will merely be duty-bound to co-operate. The amendment is intended to clarify who will pay the costs of preparing the proposal.
Ensuring that proposals are put together to the desired standard when putting forward the case for PCC takeover of fire and rescue authorities will of course take time, and providing the information needed to prepare a proposal will inevitably carry a cost. The costs include everything from staffing and research costs to stationery and paperwork. Paragraph 2 of proposed new schedule A1, which schedule 1 would add to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, sets out that a fire and rescue authority must provide information and documentation at a PCC’s request. That makes it clear that the application process could easily prove very costly to a fire and rescue authority.
The schedule places duties on fire and rescue authorities, but gives them no powers in return. For example, while a fire and rescue authority must co-operate with a PCC and provide him or her with documentation and support, the fire and rescue authority is given no corresponding powers whatever in return. I find that quite astonishing. Fire and rescue authorities have a legal responsibility to oversee the strategic direction and policy of their local fire service. How can they possibly carry out that duty if they are not even allowed to ask for documentation on staffing, finance and plans from the person who plans to take over the fire and rescue service?
In response to the Government’s proposed process, amendment 181 would place responsibility on the PCC to pay the costs incurred in producing a takeover proposal. There are two good reasons for that. First, as the PCC is actively seeking to take over responsibility for the fire and rescue authority, it is fair that those costs fall on them. Secondly, PCCs have larger budgets than fire and rescue authorities. They are therefore presumably better staffed and better able to absorb costs. If PCCs are not to be responsible for the costs, the Government need to work out how they will fund what could be a fairly costly process, especially when our fire and rescue services are under the cosh from spending cuts.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know that this issue will be considered later, because the Government have tabled amendments on it, but if we are to get a full idea of efficiency, one of the tricky areas is unpicking fire authorities’ budgets. To give an example, in Northumberland one PCC covers two fire authorities. One, Tyne and Wear, raises its fire budget by precept and the other is part of the county council. Does my hon. Friend recognise that unpicking those budgets will be a hugely expensive exercise?
Lyn Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why East and West Sussex fire authorities failed to merge when both wanted to do so—it was impossible to unpick one of their budgets, and the Government were demanding back £2 million of the local authority’s money. That completely floored the opportunity to do something that both fire and rescue authorities wanted. They could not do it because it was too expensive.
The other point I would make to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right, is that many of the fire and rescue services that are integrated within a local authority structure have already found back-office cost savings. Their emergency services departments are fully integrated into the fire service. If fire services are dragged out and given to the PCC, that will have a massive cost for many of those local authorities, which will find themselves short in the pocket, just like in the case of the East and West Sussex merger.
Perhaps more presciently, being given responsibility to pay the costs of any takeover may stop police and crime commissioners from using the risk of cost escalation as a means of coercing fire and rescue authorities to support their takeover bid. The Government’s proposal is a recipe for hostile takeovers. We can imagine a situation arising under the Bill where a PCC requests that a fire and rescue authority produce a constantly escalating amount of information and documentation. As it does so, costs will spiral for the fire and rescue authority, possibly to saturation point. There may come a time when the fire and rescue authority decides it is no longer viable to continue paying such costs simply for the creation of a proposal and agrees to a takeover in order to stop haemorrhaging funds. The Government have been worried about the use of freedom of information requests as a deliberate tactic to burden public institutions, so they should be receptive to my argument and the picture I am painting.
Amendment 181 would take away PCCs’ ability to abuse their power, but it would also take away any fire and rescue authority’s suspicion that that might be happening. That would not only avoid PCCs coercing fire and rescue authorities but make fire and rescue authorities more receptive to working together with PCCs in putting together proposals. It would help to mitigate any conflict of interest. If the Minister is truly interested in collaboration between our emergency services—frankly, I doubt it—he ought to support it.
The amendment would solve two problems. It would clear up the ambiguity around who will pay for costs incurred in putting together proposals and help to mitigate the potential for hostile takeovers by PCCs when the fire and rescue authority—
Jack Dromey
On a point of order, Mr Howarth. This part of the Bill is too important to rush, so I propose to the Government that we take this afternoon to deal properly with legitimate concerns. I also ask that the Minister gives a considered response this afternoon to the powerful points that the shadow Fire Minister is making.
The Chair
The timing of debate on this part of the Bill is a matter for the usual channels. I am sure that the Opposition Whip will make that point to his opposite number, but that is a matter for them. Whether the Minister chooses to speak is a matter for him, not for the Chair, but I am sure he has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.