Policing and Crime Bill (Fourth sitting)

James Cleverly Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Jake Berry]

Never.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

No.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

History suggests that democratically accountable administrators have performed better in fire than those who answer only to remote shareholders, but democratically accountable administration is only one reason to oppose privatisation. The most important reason is that it is a completely inappropriate model for a public good such as fire services.

[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]

I am now getting tired, and I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at.

[James Cleverly]

I am happy to clarify.

[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.