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

I only regret that I was not present at your agreeable dinner last night, Sir Nicholas, but I hope that the equally agreeable evening that I shared with my family will ensure that the mood that you described is replicated on this side of the Committee.

I hope that we can conclude our discussion on clause 3 and move on to the many other important measures in the Bill. In our second sitting on Tuesday, I explained that clause 3 largely follows the existing Fire Services Act 1947 in setting out the financial and administrative matters that an order combining fire and rescue authorities must or may cover, including the appointment of new members to a new authority. Subsection (3)(a) also allows the Secretary of State, where appropriate, to appoint a minority of authority members to provide wider experience, including the managerial expertise that may be required if combination is required to tackle the failure of existing authorities.

We had an extensive and energetic discussion of the latter point, and I am aware that not all hon. Members agreed with me. In particular, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was worried that the Secretary of State appointees might be party to policy on operational decisions that effectively tied the hands of those representing local communities, forcing them to raise the level of council tax. I assure the Committee that it is to give the final say to local authority appointees that subsection (5) requires that precepting decisions be approved by a majority of those not appointed by the Secretary of State.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Does the Minister not foresee a problem if one electoral college determines a local authority's spending and commitments while another determines the revenues? Will that not give rise to difficult

tensions? In practice, will not the electorate setting the tax be obliged, because of the strictures of the Government among other things, to set a tax that balances their budget and is prudent given the commitments that the broader authority has made?

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

No. There is a precedent for local government bodies engaging wider stakeholders in their deliberations but ensuring that matters of finance are determined only by elected local councillors. The proposed framework will enable the Secretary of State, not as a matter of course but only if necessary, to appoint people with particular expertise to augment that available through elected councillors. To ensure that any decision affecting a precept is taken only by those who are democratically accountable through the local authorities, the provision in subsection (5) prevents those appointees from having a say in such matters. That is entirely proper.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The Minister, in seeking to reassure me, said that there is a precedent for wider stakeholder consultation that ensures that those people are not involved in matters concerning finance. Will he therefore confirm that Secretary of State appointees will not be able to take part in decisions that incur cost to the authority?

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 only too clearly, any authority decision might have cost implications at some stage. How that is to be met and how the precept is determined should be decided solely by elected councillors, and our provision ensures that. Most people thinking in a fair-minded way would see that as a sensible way forward.

Mr John Pugh (Education Spokesperson, Education & Skills; Southport, Liberal Democrat)

Thinking in a fair-minded way, I must say that some precedents are not promising. The Minister will be aware that there have been independent members on police authorities. On the police authority on which I served, the independent members organised themselves into a caucus and held the balance of power, which was evenly distributed between political parties.

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

I do not wish to be diverted into discussing the goings-on in particular police authorities. They are entirely outside my remit, and I am sure that I would be brought rapidly to order by you, Sir Nicholas, if I strayed in that direction. This is a sensible and practical provision to enable outside experts to play a role and to augment the expertise of elected councillors on a new combined fire authority. However, it includes the safeguard that the precepting decision of that authority can be reached only by elected members. That is a fair, sensible and practical way to proceed, and I hope that the Committee agrees.

I am sure that we can trust the good sense of those involved if outside experts are brought in, but it may never happen because the powers will be used only in the limited circumstances described earlier this week. However, if such a situation arises, I am sure that those involved will act in a common-sense way to ensure the best interests of all parties. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 5.