No. NC5, to move the following Clause:—

'(1) The Secretary of State will make an order for the formation of regional management boards.

(2) A board constituted under subsection (1) shall consist of elected representation from the authorities.

(3) The Secretary of State shall make payments to authorities for the formation of such boards established by subsection (1).'.—[Dr. Pugh.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause endeavours to set up a new creature: a regional management board. I am loth to set up unnecessary bodies, but I think that we all accept that certain decisions will be made on a regional basis. Indeed, already in certain regions decisions are made in that way in some circumstances. Such bodies already exist.

The new clause is, if anything, a plea for democratic accountability and control, and follows the model of fire authorities, which by and large comprise nominees of councils, which in turn are elected by ordinary citizens. I must say that there is a rooted bias in my nature against leaving an opportunity for a new quango to emerge. In addition to taking part in these

scintillating debates this afternoon, I have appeared on BBC 2 to harangue the regional development agency in my area. One of its great vices is that it has committed itself to spending on several projects on which it can no longer deliver. I understand that its director of finance is leaving the agency shortly, and it is creating untold troubles and problems. All the new clause endeavours to do is to establish that certain decisions will be made on a regional basis; that when they are made by quangos they are not made well; and that there is a democratic deficit to address. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.

I was hesitant in rising to my feet only because I was wondering whether any other Members wished to speak.

The new clause is neither necessary nor conducive to the objectives of the hon. Members for Teignbridge and for Southport. I remind the Committee of the approach that we are taking, which is spelled out in the draft national framework. We have identified six broad functions that we believe will be more efficiently and effectively delivered at regional level. In partnership with the Local Government Association, we are asking all fire and rescue authorities to set up voluntary regional management boards to take the six topics forward. That they are doing, and I am pleased to inform the Committee that the LGA has confirmed to us that all authorities in England have resolved to establish an RMB by 1 April.

The hon. Member for Southport suggests a change of course that would, effectively, halt the progress already under way, and put it on hold until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That seems neither operationally sensible or, in the case of collaborative procurement, for example, in the interests of the council tax payer.

The Minister has just noted that he has received information from the LGA that all authorities have established, or made plans to establish, RMBs. Is he satisfied that the RMBs that have been established are to his liking? Do they meet his requirements?

The hon. Gentleman must hold his horses, because we are talking about a process. I am delighted to report that progress has been made to the first stage, which is to agree to establish the RMBs. Obviously, we need to see how they progress and work. It would certainly be premature for me say whether they were at this point, in his choice phrase, ''to my liking''.

Subsection (2) of the new clause is a little puzzling. As I have explained both to the House and in Committee, regional management boards are being established under guidance issued by the Local Government Association. That guidance recommends that they be constituted under sections 101 and 102 of the Local Government Act 1972. That means that they can consist only of elected members from existing fire and rescue authorities. So, the new clause would make

the Secretary of State require the bodies to do what they are already doing—thereby substituting a compulsory approach for a voluntary one.

I suspect that there may be an underlying concern that the Secretary of State could appoint non-local authority members to the RMBs, but such a concern is unnecessary. I reassure hon. Members that the Bill gives the Secretary of State no such power. RMBs do not feature in the Bill; they feature only in the national framework. The hon. Member for Southport may fear a future centralist version of the national framework that includes such a requirement. I can assure him that our approach will remain one of encouraging voluntary collaboration among elected members.

Finally, the new clause would require the Secretary of State to fund the formation of RMBs separately and specifically. Again, that seems to misunderstand the nature of the bodies being established. RMBs are about collaboration, not new bureaucracy. They are delivery mechanisms intended to generate more efficient operations. Our figures show that the amount of money that individual fire and rescue authorities are contributing to RMBs is relatively small—indeed, very small compared with the overall budget. For example, the four north-east fire and rescue authorities have each set aside just £15,000 from a combined budget of more than £100 million to fund the first year of operation.

With my usual concern for the Minister, I urge him not to repeat the statement that RMBs are not about introducing additional bureaucracy. I ask him not to repeat that statement by means of telephonic communication to a fire and rescue authority, or he might find himself prosecuted.

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman with great pleasure that I repeat in front of the Committee that this is a practical, sensible way forward to enable real efficiencies—and there are significant efficiencies to be achieved, for example through procurement and training—as well as to achieve more effective resilience. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Southport will accept that the new clause is not necessary and that in some ways it sets back the process of establishing effective regional bodies to achieve the objectives that I have outlined. I therefore hope that he will withdraw the motion.

With such magnificent and plausible assurances, what else can I do but withdraw the new clause? It does seem redundant. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.