I beg to move amendment No. 16, in

clause 3, page 3, line 16, leave out from 'authorities' to ')'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 17, in

clause 3, page 3, line 18, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 20.

Amendment No. 19, in

clause 3, page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment No. 7, in

clause 3, page 3, line 35, leave out 'half' and insert 'a third of'.

Amendment No. 20, in

clause 3, page 3, line 37, leave out subsection (5).

The provisions are supplementary and incidental provisions, which, as I have remarked already, the unwary reader might be led to think are of minor consequence. In fact, a careful reading of the clause shows that those supplementary and incidental provisions include fundamental matters that relate to the CFAs that would be established under clause 2.

I suspect that the Minister will not be surprised to learn that the amendment targets the right of the Secretary of State to appoint 50 per cent. of the members of a CFA, minus one, which would give him a huge say in the running of that authority. The Minister has argued that, for reasons of democratic accountability, it would be appropriate for regional fire and rescue authorities to be accountable to elected regional assemblies, should regional assemblies be created. It is slightly disingenuous for the Minister to argue simultaneously that he must be allowed to appoint half the members of any such authority.

If combined fire and rescue authorities were created other than as a result of the establishment of elected regional assemblies, there simply would be a naked transfer of power from local authorities to the Secretary of State; a provision that undermines most, if not all, of the Government's rhetoric about wanting to remove the hand of Whitehall from the affairs of running fire and rescue authorities. The Secretary of State has no such powers of appointment at the moment, and I am curious to know how a Minister who professes the creed of localism can possibly justify seeking to give himself, in effect, the power to appoint half the members of a combined fire and rescue

authority, when the arrangement up to now has been that members of those authorities are secondees from the clause 1 authorities that would underlie the CFA that is created.

The provision, more than any other in the Bill, underlines the Government's centralising tendency, and suggests the hollowness of the apparent commitment to decentralise. Many people who have closely observed what has happened during the past 18 months have detected a sea change in the attitude of the ODPM. At the beginning of the firefighters' dispute in the summer of 2002, Ministers were keen to emphasise that this was an issue between the local authority employers and the Fire Brigades Union and not a matter for central Government. As the dispute dragged on, the Government became more and more involved, both publicly and behind the scenes in negotiations.

It is apparent to many people who are interested in these matters that at some point the Government lost their enthusiasm for the idea that the fire and rescue services were local services to be delivered by local authorities, and decided that they alone could sort out the mess. They decided that they would take for themselves the power to bang heads together to get done the things that Ministers' agendas required were done. The Minister is nodding his head. In some cases, there may be a conflict between the demands of efficiency and the demands of democratic accountability. However, a Minister and a Government who make much of their commitment to decentralisation and localism should think very carefully about how that balance is to be struck.

It is difficult to imagine how anyone seriously can defend the Secretary of State taking completely new powers to appoint the members of a body who up to now have always been appointed locally. That is the essence of the reason for tabling amendment No. 16. Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 20 are consequential amendments, drafted to the best of our ability to deal with changes to the Bill that would be required if the Secretary of State's right to appoint members of a CFA were deleted, as amendment No. 16 seeks to do.

Given that the clause deals with the setting up of CFAs provided for under clause 2, would the hon. Gentleman prefer a system whereby the authority was directly accountable through regional government?

No. If CFAs are established, I would prefer them to operate in the perfectly satisfactory way in which I understand the current CFAs operate, with members appointed by the underlying clause 1 authorities. The Minister is giving a variant of his usually benign smile, which suggests that he thinks that existing fire and rescue authorities do not operate effectively. One is bound to ask why the provisions of clause 3 are limited to new fire and rescue authorities created under the powers of clause 2, and do not extend to those authorities that exist by virtue of clause 4 bringing forward provisions from the 1947 Act. I hope that the Minister will not tell us that the

situation in the 38 existing CFAs is unsatisfactory. If it is, the Minister should put forward proposals to deal with that. I am deeply sceptical of any proposal that seeks to address a problem by giving more power to the Secretary of State.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

I should like now to press amendment No. 16.

I have no alternative but to accept that request.

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for being out of breath, as I have just come rapidly up the stairs. I understood that there would be a second Division in the House, which is why I was not back. Before the Division, I understood that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was concerned about the Secretary of State's ability—

Order. Will the Minister make a point of order rather than continue the debate? I am trying to act in the best interests of the Committee as a whole. If the Minister has a genuine point of order, will he put it to me?

The genuine point of order is whether it is appropriate for the amendment to be put to a vote without the opportunity for the Minister responsible to set out the Government's views.

If the Conservative spokesman has completed his speech, I have to put the amendment to a vote. There cannot be a point of order on that, so I shall now put the amendment to a vote.

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I was with Members who were about to leave the Chamber after the Division, and I wonder if they have taken a lift that occasionally sticks. That has happened to me, when four members of a Standing Committee were trapped in a lift.

I fear that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Murphy rose—

I shall now put the amendment.

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I understand that you cannot take a point of order during a Division, but I was seeking to catch your eye in advance of your putting the question. When you called the earlier Division, you said that you would give colleagues from all parties the opportunity to return to the Room. I know that we had advised Labour Members of the possibility of a second Division. I therefore crave your indulgence to give colleagues the opportunity to return from the

Chamber and thus the opportunity to participate in this Division, as well as to participate in Divisions in the Chamber.

I have to say to the Government Whip that I can permit up to 20 minutes only to obtain a quorum. I have no alternative but to suggest that hon. Gentleman resumes his seat.

Question put, that the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived.

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. I am extremely disappointed about the slow progress that the Committee made between the moment when you said you would put the Question and the time when the Division took place. That allowed Government Members, who showed no urgency in returning to the Room to re-embark upon our important deliberations, the opportunity to vote on the matter. The Opposition are also deeply disappointed to note the total absence, as usual, of the Liberal Democrats, with whose presence we would have had a much closer shave.

That is a valid point of order. I think that the Committee as a whole has learned a lesson from what has just occurred. However, I am obliged to take any point of order and to seek to ensure that I fully understand it. I also seek to represent the Committee's best interests, but as both the Minister and the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), persisted in raising points of order, they got two or three in by a whisker. In a way, seeking to be entirely objective, the Committee's best interests were served. It is important that a Bill such as this is taken through with proper scrutiny and, I hope, with the ready and proper co-operation of all members of the Committee.

Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas, when I have tried to pose points of order in Committees—genuine or otherwise—once a Division has been called, those points of order have always been rejected by the Chair and the Question has always been put forthwith. That did not happen on this occasion, Sir Nicholas. Could you please clarify the correct procedure?

I was, as it were, at the point of putting the Question. I was caught by the Minister and the Government Whip, who wished to raise points of order. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) in his normal courteous and appropriate way. The Chair seeks to appreciate points made by Opposition Members in Committee, but I believe that on this occasion, I acted correctly. As we proceed in Committee, that will become increasingly evident.

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. We are now moving on from this incident, so this is a serious point of order. There was a close squeak for the Government, but we have lost the Minister's substantive reply on the amendment. I hope that you will take that in to account, Sir Nicholas, in deciding whether a stand part debate can be held on this clause.

I have already taken that into account, but to an extent, that may be influenced by the next amendment, although I doubt it.

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in

clause 3, page 3, line 28, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 29.

This is a simple and probing amendment that deals with subsection (3)(f) and would give existing combined fire authorities a compulsory purchase power, which I understand they do not currently have. If my understanding of the current position is correct, that would be yet another substantial extension of powers for combined fire authorities, the rationale for which should be justified in detail. I appreciate that existing local authorities have compulsory purchase powers, but I understand that fire authorities created under the 1947 Act do not have such powers. This may appear to be an esoteric subject—one can think of examples that the Minister might use, for example, in relation to the need to acquire land for control rooms—but I am not personally convinced of the case for compulsory purchase. However, I am more concerned to explore the compulsory purchase powers in relation to the roll-out of the Firewave. [Hon. Members: ''Airwave.'']

Airwave.

Firelink.

Firelink, the radio system that, I understand, may be based on the controversial Tetra technology.

Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.

The Minister is shaking his head again, as he did when I said that on Second Reading. However, the next day I received a letter from O2, one of the bidders, confirming that they will put forward Tetra technology, and I was sent a brochure explaining why I should not be concerned about the use of such technology. I assume that the Minister is not short-circuiting a public procurement exercise by ruling out one of the bids.

The reason why I shook my head both on Second Reading and today is that there is no requirement to adopt a particular technological approach. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that one of the bidders will propose the Tetra technology, but that is not an obligation of the procurement. I shook my head at the implication that that system would automatically be used.

That is fair enough and I understand that, but I did not seek to imply that. My point is that if the fire service, or the Government on its behalf, rolls out a new radiocommunications system that needs sites for masts, which are bound to be controversial and raise local hostility, the compulsory purchase powers bestowed on CFAs under subsection (3)(f) could become significant. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government feel that a small group of newly created CFAs—we will call them section 2 CFAs—must have compulsory purchase powers.

I am delighted on this occasion to have the opportunity to respond to the debate and will do so briefly. I hope that we might be able to cover ground in the clause stand part debate that we were not able to earlier.

Amendment No. 18 would prevent the option of granting a newly created CFA the powers to buy and sell land that are already available to other fire and rescue authorities; for example, existing county and metropolitan fire authorities. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was right that a group of CFAs, which are combined as a result of local government reorganisation, do not have that power and that is an anomalous position.

The powers available to different fire and rescue authorities are complex. Subsection (3)(f) deals with a present imbalance by allowing future CFAs to compulsorily acquire land. Not to do so would continue the current anomaly and create a perverse incentive to retain the status quo in cases where combination is a sensible way to proceed. Whereas clause 2(2)(b) powers are used to affect a combination to facilitate regional resilience, the availability of such powers might be necessary, for example, to acquire an appropriate site for a regional control room or other resilience facilities.

I hope that hon. Members will accept that it is prudent to ensure that the enabling powers are sufficient. The relevant statutory requirements that apply to the approval of compulsory purchase powers will be set out in individual combination scheme orders. We are not seeking to apply the powers under clause 3(3) retrospectively to existing CFAs, but we will consider requests in cases in which the absence of such powers is an obstacle to delivery. In the light of those comments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw amendment No. 18.

The Minister's position is slightly inconsistent. If the Government assert that CFAs need compulsory purchase powers, the Bill is the perfect vehicle to give them those powers and provide the

opportunity to argue and debate the issue. However, the Government have chosen not to do that, but to leave the large number of existing CFAs without those powers and to grant them only to newly created CFAs, including regional CFAs. That further reinforces the impression that the Government intend to move quickly toward a full regionalisation of the fire service and are not addressing the position of the section 4 CFAs because they do not envisage them being a long-term part of the scene.

I remain unconvinced by the Minister's argument that, in the south-west region—with 23,000 sq km of land to choose from—the regional fire authority would require compulsory purchase powers to find the half-acre or so that it might need for its control room. That seems a slightly incredible proposition, and I am not sure that the Minister has made the case for compulsory purchase powers. He signally failed to address the issue of radio masts, which I focused on when I moved the amendment. Can he reassure the Committee that compulsory purchase powers will not be used to secure radio mast sites in a way that might frustrate landowners' attempts to prevent those things from being sited in certain areas?

I thought that I had explained that we are at an early stage of procurement and that there has been no commitment to a particular type of technology. The hon. Gentleman's concerns, therefore, are premature. Obviously, any national procurement of that nature—designed to ensure that there is intercommunication between all fire authorities and other emergency authorities—requires a consistent roll-out across the country. It would be slightly odd if, to achieve those objectives, we were dependent on powers that were only granted to authorities that might be brought into existence in the future. I hope that it is clear that we will not be, and that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.

That fell quite a long way short of an assurance that the compulsory purchase powers will not be used to acquire sites for radio masts. Although I accept entirely that different technologies may be under consideration, I am not yet aware of a radio transmission technology that does not require masts or dishes of some description. Sites will be required for that, whether Tetra or otherwise.

The hon. Gentleman's question was specifically about the Tetra system, and that was what I was responding to. I said that there is no commitment to that particular technology.

I hear what the Minister says, but I referred particularly to Tetra because there is currently a great deal of public controversy about that system. I understand that some Tetra masts that were erected for the police Airwave scheme in Sussex have been removed because of public pressure and the way in which the planning process works. Clearly, the Minister would be reluctant for that to happen to his fire service equivalent.

Will my hon. Friend press the Minister on this point? Railtrack, or its successor, has exactly the type of national scheme, through the Tetra masts, that is being pushed. Because Railtrack is a utility, its permitted development rights have been withdrawn, so it can erect those masts where and when it likes without any consultation or planning permission. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be totally unacceptable for fire services to be given the same powers? Indeed, the Minister's Department is currently considering those exemptions.

My hon. Friend accurately focuses on an issue that is of great public concern. The Minister will have to be mindful of those concerns when he considers his national communications programme for the fire service, if the erection of new radio masts is required for such a service. In his response to my points—in which I pointed out that the existing CFAs do not have compulsory purchase powers—the Minister failed to explain why, if those powers are considered necessary, he has not taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to grant them to existing CFAs. I can only conclude that they are not intended to be a permanent or long-term part of the structure. Otherwise, he would give them the powers that he says newly created clause 2 CFAs will need to possess.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we seem to be considering masts only when it comes to compulsory purchase, but that the issue is more generally applicable? The public sector should be willing and able to be transparent in all its dealings in that regard. If he is saying that, I have some sympathy, because too often what is expected of the private sector does not necessarily seem to be expected also of the public sector. I hope that he is saying that.

That is precisely what I am saying. I used the example of masts because there is such public controversy over that issue. My view is that compulsory purchase powers, generally speaking, should be used if the location requirements for a matter of public policy are not transferable; if something must be in a certain location. It clearly would be wrong to allow a landowner to hold the state or public authorities to ransom because he happened to own the piece of land where, for some critical defence or civil resilience reason, something had to be located.

However, the Minister has not made the case—or certainly not a case that I have understood—that it is likely that the new CFAs will need to occupy specific pieces of land about which there is no choice and for which there is no competition, so that they cannot reasonably be expected to enter the market and acquire the land and buildings that they need and have to rely instead on compulsory purchase powers. That is of course appropriate if we are talking about defence or resilience and the piece of land in question is specified and there is no alternative. However, that will not be the case with regional control rooms, over the siting of which there will be considerable flexibility

and, in some regions such as the north-west, considerable controversy and debate between the leading contenders. I am quite confident in predicting that.

I heard what the Minister said and I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division. However, I shall talk to the existing CFAs and I hope that we might have an opportunity to return to the issue on Report. I should not like to encourage the Minister to go down the route of extending compulsory purchase powers to all CFAs, but he cannot have his cake and eat it. Either he can give us solid reasons for needing the powers or they are not needed and should not be given as an additional bit of icing on the cake to the newly created clause 2 CFAs. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: As I said earlier, because of the little local difficulty that occurred some minutes ago, I am perfectly happy to allow a brief debate on clause 3 stand part.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I am grateful to you for making this opportunity available, Sir Nicholas. I will offer as a reciprocal thought my best wishes for Macclesfield Town football club to have a successful outing on Saturday. We have discussed this issue many times in the past in Committees, and I hope that the fortunes of our respective teams, both of which are sadly too near the bottom of the third division, will improve before we meet again.

The clause sets out the financial and administrative matters that an order combining fire and rescue authorities must or may cover, including the appointment of members to the new authority. The clause largely follows the existing 1947 Act. Subsection (3)(a) allows the Secretary of State, if appropriate, to appoint a minority of authority members to provide wider experience, including the managerial expertise that may be required if combination is necessary to tackle the failure of existing authorities.

I am aware that the issue was controversial, and although the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge did not want to provide me with an opportunity to respond to his allegations during the earlier debate, I am pleased to be able to explain why we believe that our response is right and proper.

It is right that we should be frank and open about the matter. During the debate on Second Reading, the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) said openly and clearly that there was a problem with the hierarchy of local council activity, in which the fire service often plays second or, in some cases, third or fourth fiddle to much larger areas of expenditure such as social services and education. Many other hon. Members participating in that debate

indicated either by supporting his comments openly or simply through their body language that they shared his analysis.

We must honestly acknowledge that where action is necessary to tackle failing authorities through combination, it would be curious and counter-productive to restrict appointments to existing authority members. To ensure effective future operation, it may be necessary and desirable to import new skills. We are doing no more than applying the same logic that we apply to our own activities.

The Minister's position is surely illogical and inconsistent, because he could find himself in a situation in which, to appoint members to an existing CFA that he considered to be failing, he would have to recombine it under clause 2 and then appoint members to it. As with the point about compulsory purchase, he is not seeking the powers to appoint members to existing CFAs created under section 4 of the 1947 Act. Why not?

The hon. Gentleman knows well that, in the intervention clauses, the Secretary of State has powers relating to failing authorities which mirror the Secretary of State's role in relation to failing local authorities under the comprehensive performance assessment framework. We will be able to debate that in due course.

As we have made clear in earlier debates, however, if there was a failure to move on the resilience front to ensure effective regional co-operation, and the Secretary of State felt obliged to make a combination scheme to give effect to regional co-ordination on resilience matters, it would probably be appropriate for him to consider appointing people with the necessary expertise to ensure that the constituent authorities of the new combined authority had the expertise to perform in that area.

The Minister's position is still inconsistent. He says that further on in the Bill we will discover powers of intervention to deal with a failing authority which might cover the areas that I have raised. Why, then, does he not allow new CFAs to be created with a membership reflecting that of existing CFAs, giving them a chance to do their job properly, and relying on the powers that he has to intervene in the event of their failing, which he says are adequate for dealing with the existing CFAs?

That is because we are envisaging circumstances in which it may be necessary to create new CFAs because of a failure to achieve effective regional co-ordination among existing authorities. The hon. Gentleman cannot be seriously suggesting that if the Secretary of State had to use those powers, because of the failure of the existing authorities to take those responsibilities seriously and to operate an effective regional management board, he should then simply allow those same authorities to fill all the places on the new combined authority, and that he should not have scope to bring in any additional expertise to plug

the gaps, ensuring effective resilience planning and co-ordination with the other services. If that is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, I am sorry to say that he is not taking the issue of resilience seriously.

Can the Minister point to a single instance in which an existing fire authority either has not performed its functions properly or has failed voluntarily to co-ordinate with its neighbouring fire authority?

We discussed that at considerable length in our earlier sitting. We pointed out that in the Government's view, it is necessary for certain issues, particularly resilience issues, to be handled regionally. We want to see voluntary bottom-up approaches from local authorities to achieve that result, and if the authorities fail to set up effective regional management boards, we will have to use the Secretary of State's powers. It is not acceptable that we should have a framework under which those serious responsibilities are not being properly discharged. That is the context: we do not intend to use the powers unless there has been a failure, but, as a sensible and prudent Government, we are making provision for that possibility, and I am surprised that the Opposition are so suspicious of our intentions.

The Minister is creating the chimera of the resilience issue in order to create a new, unnecessary structure to resolve it. There has been no greater fire emergency than the fire at Windsor castle. Fire authorities from as far away as south Dorset backed each other up, and the whole operation worked perfectly. If an operation of that size can work so well, why do we need these new structures?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not come to regret those words. We live in a world in which the risks are far greater than those posed by the fire at Windsor castle. If, in the event of a major terrorist incident, there is no effective resilience in the area involving all the appliances in the region, we will be criticised, rightly, for having failed to ensure proper advance planning to guard against such circumstances. That is what we are doing, and that is why we are taking the matter seriously. These are simply precautionary measures to enable the Secretary of State, performing his duties under the legislation, to satisfy himself that the fire and rescue services are properly equipped to cope with that range of circumstance.

I assure the Minister that this is my last intervention. He talks about serious incidents. Regrettably, we have had serious terrorist incidents in the City of London and in Manchester, and serious plane crashes on the M1. All those incidents were dealt with very satisfactorily by voluntary co-operation between adjoining fire services. Why, if we have been able to deal with such incidents in the past, do we need to set up new structures?

I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my earlier comments. In the event of a major terrorist incident, we would be

dealing with far more serious consequences than anything that we have previously had to deal with. I pay tribute to our emergency services—not just the fire services—for their great professionalism in responding to the threats that we have faced, whether through natural disaster or through terrorism. However, we cannot be complacent; we must plan according to the risk of events on a far larger scale than anything that we have had to face in the past. That is why we have insisted on a framework for regional resilience, and we have put it in place—it has been debated by the Standing Committee considering the Civil Contingencies Bill. We are clear about the importance of regional planning to enable the fire and rescue service to co-ordinate with other emergency services and deliver effective resilience against such eventualities.

I stressed that, on Second Reading, the Chairman of the Select Committee highlighted problems about the calibre of some of the local authority representatives who form a number of the fire authorities, and his comments were endorsed by other hon. Members. I said that it would clearly be curious to depend on the same framework that has produced that not-altogether-satisfactory outcome if we were establishing a combined fire authority, possibly on a regional basis. We believe that it is necessary, in such circumstances, to consider bringing in additional expertise—that is, to apply the same logic that we apply to our own activities.

The Government accept that we do not have all the answers, and we have set up a number of new bodies to ensure that policy making for the fire and rescue service is informed by the views of experts in the field: practitioners through the practitioners forum, wider stakeholders through the business and community safety forum and other experts through the ministerial sounding board. We believe that new combined fire authorities may benefit from additional expertise, and it is in that spirit that clause 3(3) was framed. It allows the Secretary of State to make appointments to new combined fire and rescue authorities; it does so not to enhance central control, but to improve the delivery of a vital public service. In the same way—the Opposition Members appear to be curiously unaware of this—the relevant Secretary of State can make appointments that contribute very positively to other emergency services. Those powers will be used to bring wider experience and expertise into the authorities.

I assume that the Minister is talking about powers in relation to police authorities. Will he tell the Committee what percentage of members of a police authority could be appointed or directly influenced by the Secretary of State under the Local Government Act 1992?

I was thinking about the appointment to ambulance trusts. My point is that there is a role for outside expertise in other emergency

services. It seems slightly curious to deny that to, and to depend wholly on the contribution of elected councillors for, fire and rescue services.

We are now moving down a route that might allow the Minister to reassure the Committee somewhat. The Secretary of State has a role in appointments to police authorities, but it is a limited one. He produces a shortlist, or a long list, of local candidates, from the magistracy in particular. If the Minister has in mind an intrusion by the Secretary of State into the process of appointing local people or approving them for appointment by authorities, that may be viewed in a different light. What is envisaged by Opposition Members is a power to appoint the helpful man from Whitehall who will make it all right.

Once again, the hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun, because I was just about to come on to the way in which the power would be exercised if we had reason to use it. We are quite clear that if these appointment powers are to be exercised, that will be done in an open, advertised way, in accordance with the provisions of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and the code of practice. Not only that, they will involve a numerical minority, and those involved will not be allowed to take part in voting on precepting. Only elected members will be able to make decisions on how resources are allocated, but they will do so with the benefit of expertise that they themselves may not possess.

Will the Minister give way?

I will, but I am very conscious that time is moving on.

Indeed, I understand that the Committee wishes to finish debating this clause by the close of play. Before he concludes, will the Minister say something about how local people will be consulted on the precept in clause 3(5) and how local authorities' property rights will be divided?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman missed his opportunity at an earlier stage; we are now debating clause stand part debate, and I am simply bringing matters to a conclusion.

Only elected members will be able to make decisions.

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas? May the Minister ride roughshod in such a way? Surely the Opposition is fully entitled to question the him. If he refuses to answer, we shall simply prolong the debate so as not to deal with this clause today.

I am not sure that that is a relevant point for me. I repeat the observation that the Minister will have heard: the Committee is minded to try to dispose of the clause this evening. If, in the remainder of his remarks, the Minister can make reference to the intervention by the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will.

Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas. My understanding is it that it is perfectly proper to raise in a stand part debate any issues that have not been covered by amendments already debated. Can you confirm that?

I can confirm that. That is why, a moment ago, I made the observation that I did.

I was simply observing that the Opposition had chosen for opportunistic reasons to deny me an opportunity to respond to the earlier debate. If they had not, we would have had a much greater opportunity to deal with the matters concerned. However, we are running out of time and, given all the issues, I hope that the Committee will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

The Minister has not reassured me entirely. The safeguard to which he refers in subsection (5), which concerns the issuing of a precept to an authority, is hollow. If the authority is determined to enter into commitments, the fact that the members appointed by the Secretary of State will merely be unable to vote on raising the resulting precept will not help matters. The money will have to be raised to meet the commitments into which the authority has entered.

We have made significant progress in the debate. The Minister is now clearly on the record as saying that the existing combined fire authorities are inadequate and that he is not happy that they are performing—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

In a minute. I can only ask why the Minister has not chosen to use the Bill as a vehicle for restructuring the membership of those combined fire authorities. It seems bizarre for the Secretary of State to appoint outside members to the few new ones that will be created and to ignore what he is telling us is a problem with the many existing ones.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that I did not say the words that he has tried to put into my mouth: that the existing CFAs were inadequate. I referred to the carefully considered words of the Chairman of the Select Committee, on Second Reading, which highlighted some weaknesses in the existing structures which were widely acknowledged on both sides of the House, and I highlighted the particular circumstances in which it might be necessary to use the powers to create a new CFA. I argued wholly logically for a power to be made available to enable the Secretary of State to reinforce the expertise and skills of the new CFA.

I am grateful to the Minister for what he just said, but the thrust of the debate over the past 20 minutes or half an hour is that there is a perceived problem with the membership of the CFAs. That is the perception of the Chairman of the Select Committee and of Members of this House. [Interruption.] I would say, from the Minister's body language, that that is his perception as well.

Our concern is that, without its being explicit, the ODPM's agenda has changed. I have said this before, and I make no apology for saying it again, but at some stage in the course of its close interaction with local fire authority employers during the dispute, the ODPM decided that it did not like them, that it was not satisfied with what they were doing and that it was going to centralise the process. We see clause 3 as a centralising measure that gives the Secretary of State significant powers that he did not otherwise have for a purpose that is not clear and does not require a more general solution. The Minister has put forward several arguments for the powers that he seeks to take, and those are arguments for a much more radical set of proposals than the ones that he has put before us.

Our concern is that the combination of clauses 2 and 3 provides an ability to create new CFAs based on the pattern of the Government's regionalised agenda and then pack them with people selected by the Secretary of State, not by local people. That removes still further the local democratic accountability of our fire and rescue services at the same time as Ministers are trying to tell us that the Bill is all about creating a community-based service. I shall have to urge my colleagues to vote against clause 3.

We might be able to dispose of the clause if we can deal with matters expeditiously, but we will need some answers from the Minister. We do not want to hear the ill-tempered outbursts that we heard from him a few minutes ago. If we can get some answers as to how the council tax payers on whom a precept for the new category 2 authorities will be issued will have their rights protected, and if we are told how they will be consulted about the new precept, we might be able to deal with the matter more expeditiously. If we do not get those answers, we will need to examine subsection (3)(g) in detail, as well as issues such as the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, valuations and outstanding liabilities. Many matters in the clause could be dealt with. Perhaps the Minister will now tell us clearly how the new combined precept is to be operated and how local council tax payers will be protected.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 12 February at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.