Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in

clause 5, page 4, line 23, after 'authority', insert

'determined in accordance with section 1 or'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 25, in

clause 5, page 4, line 26, leave out second 'the' and insert 'any applicable'.

Mr. Hammond: I was fascinated, Sir Nicholas, to hear your explanation regarding the Under-Secretary's name. You have had 48 hours to think of an excuse for getting my name wrong, but I notice that the Committee has not received any explanation for that.

Clause 5 gives combined fire and rescue authorities a rather wide power

''to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to''

the discharge of any of their functions. However, in the amendment we seek to address a specific anomaly. There may be a sensible explanation for it and, if so, I

look forward to hearing it. The amendment would introduce some symmetry between the combined fire authorities, created under clause 4 or clause 2, and what I call the underlying fire authorities, created by clause 1. In practice, those will be the metropolitan fire authorities and the remaining—I think—16 county brigades. If, as the Under-Secretary has suggested, the Government are genuinely committed to a mixed economy of fire authorities in future, with county fire authorities surviving where they are appropriate and combine fire authorities being created only where they are necessary for greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness, all fire authorities need the same powers to discharge their functions.

I am pretty resigned to being accused of paranoia by the Under-Secretary. The standard defence is, ''Trust me guv, I'm a Minister.'' We are supposed always to assume that the Government will not do anything disreputable or anything that would undermine the authority of other bodies, and that they will act with the enlightened interests of others at heart. However, we must consider what is in the Bill. My concern is that the authorities in clause 1 do not, certainly under the Bill, have the power to do anything that is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions. Frankly, I want to know why not. The amendment, by inserting a reference to authorities

''determined in accordance with section 1'',

would give them exactly the same powers as those of authorities established under clause 2 or 4. That seems perfectly logical. Unless the Government have a hidden agenda to downgrade county authorities and metropolitan authorities in clause 1, I see no reason why the Government cannot accept that tidying-up amendment.

Amendment No. 25 is simply consequential to amendment No. 24.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. Amendment No. 24 would extend to the fire and rescue authorities listed in clause 1—all non-combined fire and rescue authorities—the power in clause 5. However, clause 5 is designed to address the anomaly whereby combined fire and rescue authorities do not have those powers whereas other fire and rescue authorities do. There is no hidden agenda. The hon. Gentleman is indeed exhibiting his usual paranoia.

Hon. Members will recall a similar debate earlier this week on the extension of compulsory purchase powers to new combined fire and rescue authorities. At that time, the Minister of State said that he would consider any case for extending those powers to existing combined authorities. We await any such information with interest.

The fire and rescue authorities listed in clause 1—including county councils, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, metropolitan county fire and civil defence authorities and the Council of the Isles of Scilly—already have these powers under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. Fire and rescue authorities other than combined fire and rescue authorities therefore already have the power to

do anything that is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions.

Amendment No. 24 is simply unnecessary. Amendment No. 25, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge suggested, would extend the powers in clause 5 to any applicable schemes. That amendment is meaningless unless taken as consequential to amendment No. 24. The hon. Gentleman's fears are unfounded, and I suggest that he seeks to withdraw the amendment.

The Chairman: Before I call the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, I should inform him that I got his name wrong because I was thinking of a very distinguished and respected Member of the House from some years ago called Philip Holland. He was the hon. Member for Carlton. He was highly regarded and very much involved in how the House was run. My mind was on him when I called the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I hope that that is an acceptable explanation.

Mr. Hammond: That is the right answer, Sir Nicholas, and I thank you.

I accept what the Under-Secretary says. An explanation was all that was required. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to follow the Prime Minister's example in preening himself too much when he is using the superior resources at his disposal to explain things that may not be immediately apparent to those outside. I am grateful to him for his explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.Clause 6Fire Safety