Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

Clause 1 defines the term ''fire and rescue authority''. It re-enacts existing legislation with modifications to cater for the creation of unitary authorities following local government reorganisation in the 1990s. A fire and rescue authority can differ in constitution from area to area, and the current framework includes county fire and rescue authorities, metropolitan county fire and civil defence authorities, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and combined fire and rescue authorities. There are currently 24 such combined fire authorities in England, which are the product of previous combinations undertaken under the 1947 Act powers and referred to in clause 4.

The fire and rescue service in Wales is provided by three combined fire and rescue authorities, which are also the product of previous combinations of county or county borough fire and rescue authorities. That may account for the slight confusion to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) referred on Second Reading: I think that he had assumed that the reference to such authorities in clause 1 was a definitive statement, without linking it to the combination powers in subsequent clauses.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

As I shall explain shortly, we think that that is the right approach. However, I am trying to understand what the Minister has in mind in defining what I call the underlying fire authorities in Wales. None of them will have the powers of a fire authority because of the effect of clause 4. Could he explain the longer term thinking about defining such authorities in the Bill?

Mr Nick Raynsford (Minister of State (Local and Regional Government), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Greenwich & Woolwich, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman will know, because he is experienced in Committee—I have greatly enjoyed our exchanges in other Committees and look forward to them in this one—the ways of parliamentary counsel are indeed mysterious to those of us lesser mortals who have to try to understand the way that they draft legislation to fit with a range of other considerations. The Bill sets out a structure that carries forward the provision in the 1947 Act, and it explains the subsequent arrangements made under combination powers. As the hon. Gentleman said, they are covered by later clauses.

That structure allows maximum flexibility and provides against future circumstances; for example, without clause 1 there would be no legal authority if a combined fire authority were dissolved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is logic behind what might appear superficially to be a slightly convoluted way of expressing the provisions.

We are changing the legal term to ''fire and rescue authorities'' in recognition of the wider role of the fire and rescue service in the 21st century. However, it will be up to individual authorities to decide whether they wish to rename themselves in line with the new definition. Many authorities already style themselves

''fire and rescue authorities'', and it will be up to the others to adopt that title if they wish to do so.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I have to say that I cannot recall the last time I was involved in a Standing Committee on a Bill to which I could not think of an amendment to clause 1. However, I should not like the Minister to read anything into the fact that the Opposition have tabled no amendments to the clause: it is, as he says, straightforward. It provokes some questions, and I have already asked the Minister the most obvious one.

The Bill's main provision, given that the 1947 Act is repealed, is that it re-establishes what I like to think of as the basic building blocks—the core responsible authorities. We can construct larger operational units from that structure. Some larger units already exist, as the Minister explained, in the form of combined fire authorities, many of which exist only because of the creation of unitary local authorities. For example, the Kent fire authority is a CFA because it covers the county of Kent and the unitary Medway towns—the same geographical area previously covered by the Kent county fire authority. Many CFAs are not the result of a conscious decision to amalgamate brigades to create larger geographical units, but I suspect that, in future, there will be an element of amalgamating brigades for the purpose of creating critical mass. We will debate those issues, but I say at the outset that we will not necessarily or automatically oppose that. Each case must be examined on its merits.

It is important that we start from the lowest level—the fire authorities representing the non-metropolitan county councils, unitary districts and metropolitan areas, as specified in the clause—and that the accountability remains with those units. We agree with the Minister on the structure set out in the clause, but we may differ from him on how the pyramid is built on those basic building blocks.

Were it not for clauses 2 and 4, the authorities set out in clause 1 would be the accountable authorities required to discharge the duties of fire and rescue authorities as set out in the Bill. The authorities specified in the clause are based on recognised and democratically viable areas. Unfortunately, clause 4 severely limits the practical and immediate effect of clause 1. However, I welcome the Minister's response to my question, in which he said that clause 1 provides the legal basis for a reversion, if that is necessary for a future reconfiguration of those democratically accountable units set out in the clause.

One of the principal arguments that we will adopt throughout the consideration of the Bill is that those authorities should be the basic units responsible for delivering the service. That is not to say that they must operate fire brigades or employ large numbers of personnel, but there should be accountability for the operation of the service at a level that represents a viable, democratically accountable unit. It will then be possible to move from that level to an operationally viable level by grouping those authorities together for operational purposes.

I fear, however, that the Government propose to go a different way. They propose to create larger authorities and, as we shall see later in the Bill, in

some cases those would be based on the Government office regions—very large authority areas indeed. We believe that that approach will undermine the democratic accountability of our fire and rescue service. The fact that the underlying authorities are set out in the clause is helpful, and it will create a stark juxtaposition to the structure that could result from the Government's agenda as presented in the Bill—only nine fire and rescue authorities to cover the whole of England.

The clause is important; it is not controversial in itself, but as we build on it our differences with the Government will become plain. However, I support its inclusion in the Bill.

Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)

Before turning to the clause itself, I point out that the fact that we have to recount the lines in the Bill is all the more reason for not starting earlier in the morning.

I am pleased that my inability to find an amendment to the clause was not my failing alone, and that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, too, was unable to find a way to amend it. Perhaps that is due to the expertise of the parliamentary draftsmen and women.

What the hon. Gentleman said was fundamentally right. I agree with his sentiments and will try not to repeat them at length. It is essential that the fire authorities described in the Bill remain. It would be a great tragedy if, when we discussed subsequent clauses, the authorities outlined prominently in clause 1 disappeared. I am sure that many firemen and women, as well as local people, would consider that a move to centralisation and away from localisation, to which the Government tell us they are firmly committed. We will cover that at further length when discussing clause 2, and especially the second group of amendments.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman talked about localisation and centralisation. I know that he wants to discuss regional government under the next clause, but will he clarify whether regionalisation would mean localisation or centralisation?

Mr Richard Younger-Ross (Shadow Minister, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Local Government & the Regions; Teignbridge, Liberal Democrat)

I am all in favour of accountable localisation and the power to take up a matter at the appropriate level. There will be ample opportunity to discuss that in the not-too-distant future.

I shall now move on to the important change of wording from ''fire authorities'' to ''fire and rescue authorities''. In my discussions with firefighters in Devon and throughout the country, they said that their job title does not reflect the tasks that they undertake. The change of wording might appear small and obvious, but it will be important to them and their feeling of self-worth in their job.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.