Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 35, in

clause 14, page 7, line 34, after 'may', insert 'by order'.

Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 36, in

clause 14, page 7, line 35, leave out 'direction' and insert 'order'.

Amendment No. 40, in

clause 17, page 8, line 24, after 'may', insert 'by order'.

Amendment No. 41, in

clause 17, page 8, line 26, leave out 'direction' and insert 'order'.

Amendment No. 42, in

clause 17, page 8, line 29, leave out 'give a direction' and insert 'make an order'.

Amendment No. 45, in

clause 17, page 8, line 35, leave out 'give a direction' and insert 'make an order'.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

It is good to be back after a short break, which has given me the opportunity to think up some more amendments for the remainder of the Bill's time in Committee.

Clause 14 runs directly on, as one would expect, from clause 13. It gives the Secretary of State the power to give directions on the reinforcement schemes about which the Under-Secretary has been speaking. Some of the amendments deal with other clauses, but they have broadly the same effect.

The clause deals with the Secretary of State's power to intervene to make an order on reinforcement in a situation where, by implication, authorities cannot agree to work together. That does not strike us as a terribly auspicious basis on which to build co-operation and collaboration. I am always wary of either voluntary arrangements that are made with the albatross of the Secretary of State's intervention hanging over them or compulsory arrangements to promote co-operation. Co-operation must come from

the bottom up and cannot be imposed from the top down. However, we accept that the Secretary of State may need a reserve power to require an authority to enter into a reinforcement scheme, to guard against authorities playing an awkward game, which hopefully is unlikely. I hope that the Under-Secretary can assure us that he would not expect such a power to be used routinely and that the Government acknowledge that genuine co-operation and collaboration cannot be imposed by order from Whitehall.

The circumstances in which such an order might be made will invariably involve the Secretary of State taking the side of one authority against another. Although I may be wrong, it seems unlikely that the Secretary of State will order a reinforcement scheme between two authorities that are both reluctant to enter into it. A much more likely scenario is that one authority refuses to co-operate with a scheme that another authority is seeking to introduce, which perhaps involves all the authorities on its borders. Where the Secretary of State intervenes to take the part of one supposedly independent body against another, there needs to be an adjudication process to review and scrutinise what he is proposing.

Initially, I wondered whether there should be a compulsory inquiry along the lines of the permissive power in subsection (3). On reflection, however, I decided that that would not be the most appropriate way to deal with the circumstances that we are considering. With the amendment, and with others relating to clauses 15 and 17, we have therefore sought to provide for the Secretary of State to make the direction by an order that could theoretically be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in a short debate in a Standing Committee. That seems to be a light touch and is a perfectly reasonable and sensible way to proceed. If the order were uncontroversial, it would not necessarily be debated, but if there were an element of controversy and the authority that was being coerced, if I can use that term, wished to raise objections—[Interruption.] I am glad to see that the attention of the Minister of State—the Minister with responsibility for UK resilience—has been drawn to the knocking sound above the ceiling. No doubt he is alert to the risks that might be lurking there and will draw the Committee's attention to them if necessary.

If what the Government were proposing were sufficiently controversial for one of the fire authorities involved to enlist the support of Members of Parliament to scrutinise Ministers, the mechanism suggested in the amendment would be a sensible and light-touch way of allowing them to do so. We would have plenty of time to do what was needed without going over old ground, and we could hold a Standing Committee on a statutory instrument at 8.55 am before a Standing Committee on a Bill took place. Making directions the subject of an order would allow there to be scrutiny, albeit not much, of the exercise of the significant power to override the right of a locally

accountable authority to reject arrangements, or to enter into arrangements that it finds appropriate for its circumstances.

As I said earlier, amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 43 deal with the same matters in clause 17, and would make the directions that the Secretary of State can give subject to statutory instrument and therefore debatable in Parliament. I hope that the Under-Secretary agrees that that would provide the degree of scrutiny that these matters need: something rather less than a full inquiry, but more than simply an instruction issued from Whitehall without any necessity for external scrutiny.

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

I am sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has said—any attempt to prevent local authorities being bullied by the Secretary of State is to be commended—but I am a little unclear as to what his amendments would achieve. As I understand it, one effect would be almost to incorporate Standing Committees into the Executive as courts of appeal, rather than having them look at the general principles of legislation or a particular order made by the Government. It slightly worries me that they could function on a regular basis as some kind of additional arm of the Executive, and it would help if the hon. Gentleman clarified that. It is not clear to me whether, if the proposals were incorporated in the Bill, we, as a statutory instrument Committee looking at orders made under this legislation, would be doing quite the same kind of work as we normally do.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

As I understand it, if these directions were made by order, they would be laid in the normal way as a draft statutory instrument, they could be prayed against by any Member of this House and, if sufficient pressure were applied, a debate would no doubt be allowed. They would be dealt with in exactly the same way as all other secondary legislation coming before the House. I fail to see how that would in any way become part of the process of the Executive. Scrutinising the Executive is a core function of Parliament. I appreciate that that scrutiny has become so diluted it is perhaps difficult to spot it in action, but it is, after all, at least theoretically, our principal function. The amendments simply try to extend the power of Parliament to scrutinise what the Executive are doing.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He says that he wants to extend the power of Parliament, and that is to some extent how it came across. I accept, and I want to put on record, that his experience of these things is far greater than mine, but it seems to me that the effect of the amendment would be to carve out work different from that normally done by Standing Committees on statutory instruments. I understand the mechanics of the process, but the quality of what we would be doing seems to vary from what we normally do.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

If the hon. Gentleman sits down by way of invitation to intervene—

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

I have finished.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

In that case, I should like to comment further. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and the error must be mine. It must lie in how I expressed the intentions of the amendment. It is not our intention to introduce a new class of scrutiny; it is rather to try to resist the growing tendency to make what is effectively secondary legislation by directions issued by Ministers from their Departments without the need for parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State would never have to make such a direction if all the authorities involved were in agreement, so there would be at least one aggrieved party as a result of such a direction being made. Such a matter is, by definition, contentious, and it is entirely appropriate that that direction should be made by statutory instrument and that Members of the House of Commons and, indeed, the House of Lords should be able to debate it if they felt it necessary. In practice, that will happen where the aggrieved authority regards the matter as sufficiently serious to lobby Opposition Members or perhaps Government Members. It is not inconceivable that a Labour Back Bencher would pray against a statutory instrument if local issues were involved—anything is possible these days, as we have seen over the past couple of months.

The intention behind the amendments is to make such scrutiny possible, and I hope that the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and his party, which usually supports the strengthening of the legislature's power to scrutinise what the Executive are doing, will support a move to reduce the Executive's power to issue unscrutinised directions and to strengthen the legislature's power to scrutinise all contentious secondary legislation.

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 would require the Secretary of State to make an order before directing one or more fire and rescue authorities to participate in a reinforcement scheme.

The clause largely re-enacts provisions of the 1947 Act, which allow the Secretary of State to direct fire and rescue authorities to enter into, vary or revoke a reinforcement scheme. The Secretary of State may invoke that power only where authorities are unable to come to an agreement about forming such a scheme and, more importantly for the purposes of the amendment, only at the request of one of the authorities.

As such, the Secretary of State's role is simply that of an adjudicator in a dispute between authorities over a practical arrangement. As is the case under existing legislation, all the parties involved will have the opportunity to make representations to him, and he may even cause an inquiry to be held if he feels that that would be helpful. Given that the parties involved have the opportunity to make representations and that there is the possibility of an inquiry, I see no need to introduce a degree of parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 42 and 45 would impose the same parliamentary scrutiny on the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under clause 17 to give directions about arrangements entered into by fire and

rescue authorities under clause 16. Clause 17 also re-enacts provisions of the 1947 Act, giving the Secretary of State the power to require two authorities to enter into an arrangement under clause 16 or to vary or revoke such an arrangement. The Secretary of State can exercise his power if invited to do so by one or other of the authorities or on his own initiative.

Under clause 17, the Secretary of State therefore keeps his existing dual role, as provided for in section 12 of the 1947 Act. That is in part so that he can act as an umpire when asked to decide on a disagreement between two fire and rescue authorities. It also ensures that he has the power to initiate action when he believes it necessary. Any direction under clause 17 must be given with a view to securing greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness and can be issued only after consultation with the authorities affected. Again, the Secretary of State has the option to hold an inquiry if that would be appropriate.

I therefore say to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that I see no reason for the direction to be subject to an order-making power, which would, as the hon. Member for Southport said, give hon. Members the opportunity to micro-manage the running of fire and rescue authorities. It would also add delay and cause uncertainty about the delivery of a public service should the order be revoked.

Given those problems, I ask the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to withdraw the amendment, which is simply unnecessary.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am disappointed to hear the Under-Secretary justify the provisions simply by saying that they replicate the 1947 Act. It would be a grim business if we spent out our time in Committee repealing provisions from the 1947 Act and then reinstating them clause by clause, with no greater assurance of whether they were appropriate than the Minister's statement that they were in the Act whose provisions we had just repealed. That would be a time-wasting exercise. It is appropriate that we look at all the provisions of the 1947 Act that the Government intend to reinstate and consider whether, 57 years on, they are still appropriate and necessary and whether they further the cause—which I hold dear—of maintaining the independence, autonomy and local accountability of fire and rescue services.

I am not persuaded by the Under-Secretary's apparent assumption that it is wrong for Parliament to consider the micro-management of fire authorities but right for the Secretary of State to intervene.

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

This raises a puzzle. For many of those 50 years the Conservatives were in power, but not until now do they find it necessary to scrutinise in the way that is being suggested, so they have made a belated conversion to this new role for Standing Committees on statutory instruments.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am delighted to say that for none of those 50 years have the Liberals come anywhere near even a sniff of being in power. It will probably be the same for the next 50 years—actually, it was not the same for the whole of the previous 50 years.

I make no apology for taking the opportunity, in Government time, to scrutinise a Bill, which, unusually, seeks to abolish the entirety of earlier legislation and then to reinstate rather a lot of it. I am sure that the Under-Secretary would not want to give the impression that he is abolishing chunks of the 1947 Act and then reinstating them without reviewing them. If the Government have reviewed them and decided that they continue to be required in more or less their original form, it is entirely appropriate that Parliament should assess whether it agrees with the Government's assessment.

I am not a great advocate of giving more quasi-judicial functions to the Secretary of State—be he such an eminent and dignified personage as the Deputy Prime Minister. It is not my view that politicians are primarily equipped to make quasi-judicial decisions. It does not seem to me obvious that where two democratically accountable bodies, both probably under party political control, disagree about how one of their functions should be discharged, a party politician holding the office of Secretary of State is the best-placed person to make that decision.

We do not necessarily have an alternative to the Secretary of State making a decision in extremis, but if a party politician holding that office is to make that quasi-judicial decision, it seems that people of other persuasions, with other views and perhaps with local connections to the authorities involved, might reasonably be afforded an opportunity to scrutinise the decision in a brief 90-minute Standing Committee, which would be the maximum allowed to deal with a statutory instrument.

Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

I want to make sure that I have understood the hon. Gentleman's position. Two elected authorities of politicians have difficulty coming to a single decision and are therefore referred to the Secretary of State, but the hon. Gentleman does not believe that politicians should make a decision, so he wants a Committee of more politicians to deliberate on that decision. Am I clear?

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

Very good.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am delighted to hear the Minister of State saying, ''Very good'', because, wearing another hat, he is engaged in a process of grafting on to us tiers of politicians to solve all sorts of problems. He seems to come from the school of thought that says the more politicians and elected bodies the better.

I suggest to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) that if we take local democratic accountability seriously, we must regard local fire and rescue authorities as autonomous bodies. If the Secretary of State is to be given power to intrude on

that autonomy in a way that undermines the sense of local ownership and accountability, we need to ensure the maximum scrutiny of that activity.

I did not think that the amendments were tremendously radical; the proposals are simply designed to stop a pernicious tendency, which could almost be missed if one was not focused on the language of the Bill. In one clause, the Secretary of State makes an order; in the next, the Secretary of State makes a direction. A layman reading the Bill might think that those were the same thing, but of course they are different. An order is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and it is secondary legislation. A direction has exactly the same effect but is not subject to scrutiny, and it is simply slipped out in a letter from No. 26 Whitehall late on a Friday evening. I shall not press the amendment because it is a relatively minor point, but I am surprised that the Government have not been able to say anything reassuring.

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

The hon. Gentleman asked whether this would be a routine matter. I would like to put it on the record that we do not anticipate this happening often, so it will not be routine. The measure provides for intervention where there is a dispute about participation in a reinforcement scheme. The Secretary of State will be able to make a sensible intervention following the request of one of the authorities taking part, or on his own initiative under clause 16, in order to make the system work efficiently and effectively. I repeat: this will not be routine, but a last resort. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman in deciding whether to press his amendment.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. With your permission, Mr. O'Hara, I hope to raise another question in a stand part debate, but perhaps it would be sensible if I extend what I was just saying so that we can move on.

The Under-Secretary refers to the Secretary of State being able to act on his own initiative under clauses 16 and 17, but that is a separate issue that we will come to. Under clause 14, we are dealing with an application by one of the fire authorities involved. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can be a little more specific about how a Secretary of State will go about making that judgment. What weight will he give to what I consider to be the precious commodity of local autonomy when considering what is being proposed by the other fire authority?

Let us take the example of a large metropolitan fire authority such as Greater Manchester and the neighbouring, rather smaller, county brigade of Cheshire—I emphasis that the example is plucked from thin air and has no basis in reality. Let us suppose that the larger, metropolitan authority wanted to enter into a reinforcement scheme with its much smaller neighbour, but the terms of scheme and its operation led the smaller neighbour to fear that it would lose autonomy and be dominated by the needs of its larger neighbour to the detriment of its obligations and duties to its electors and citizens. When the Secretary of State came to make a decision in such a case what weight would he give to economy, efficiency and

effectiveness—cold and, to some extent, measurable concepts—as opposed to the important but much more difficult to measure commodities of local ownership and the sense of autonomy, control and accountability?

One of the things that concerns me hugely about the Bill and the national framework is that the Government are trying to impose a modernisation agenda based on an idea that, from the outset, has been counter-intuitive to a lot of people in the wider world: that a better service can be provided at less cost. Whether that can be achieved is for another debate, but Ministers have to acknowledge that a sceptical public are likely to regard that initially as counter-intuitive. As that programme is rolled out, any erosion of local control and accountability, whether by the Secretary of State or a large, powerful neighbouring fire authority, is likely to fuel scepticism.

If the Under-Secretary wants to help the Committee by elaborating on how the Secretary of State would make a decision between two autonomous independent bodies, perhaps he could also tell us about the existing power under the 1947 Act, which, as he has already told the Committee, the Secretary of State has possessed for the past 57 years. How many times has that power been used to impose a reinforcement scheme against the wishes of one of the fire authorities involved? Assuming that is only a small number, can the Minister tell the Committee about the circumstances that made it appropriate on those occasions to impose a reinforcement scheme? How was that decision reached between the opposing positions of the two or more fire authorities involved?

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

Are we now debating clause stand part?

Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

No, we are still debating the amendment. I extended latitude to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to save time.

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

If I may, I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's points directly.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned his fears about modernisation, which have been articulated in the debates on earlier clauses. The Bain review looked at the nature of, and the need for, modernisation. The Bill is a radical transformation in the way that the fire service is structured and how it delivers its services. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman is reluctant to embrace that agenda.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

For the sake of clarity, I reiterate that we endorse Bain's modernisation proposals. The Government go much further in the Bill than we understood they would last summer, and they propose a framework for a wholesale reorganisation of the fire and rescue service on a coercive, regionalised basis.

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

On the one hand, we hear that the hon. Gentleman supports modernisation, on the other he tells us that he does not want us to re-enact the 1947 provisions. We say, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' The parts of the Act that we propose to include are there to operate effectively. If they work, we wish to re-enact them, as we are doing now.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a particular example: a small authority fearing that a larger neighbour will do something in a reinforcement scheme that will be in some way detrimental to its duties. The Secretary of State will make judgments about such matters on a case-by-case basis, and he is unlikely to intervene in a dispute between two authorities in the way that has been described.

The measure has effect when there is a greater area of dispute; for example, if one inefficient authority is unprepared to co-operate with all the other authorities in trying to establish a national emergency scheme. Those are the type of circumstances in which we envisage the powers being invoked.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Is the Under-Secretary talking about firefighting, or the functions under clause 9?

Phil Hope: Clause 13 deals with reinforcement schemes. They have been established for many years and are nothing unusual.

Clause 14 deals with the Secretary of State's ability to intervene, in response to a request by the local authority where there is a dispute and an arrangement cannot be agreed. The fire and rescue authorities were previously concerned that these matters were not set out on a statutory basis: they will be now. I made that point during the debate on clause 13. That reassures the authorities that they can enter into the kind of schemes that they believe to be in their own interest and that of public safety.

The hon. Gentleman's concern is unnecessary. Yes, the powers are there, but they are powers to intervene in the circumstances that I have described, such as those in which an unco-operative and inefficient individual authority prevents a wider group of authorities from entering into a mutual reinforcement scheme to the benefit of the people whom they serve.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Can the Under-Secretary tell the Committee anything about the circumstances in which that power of the Secretary of State has been exercised since 1947?

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

Inspiration will come my way soon about whether such a power has been used in the past. Where authorities were in disagreement, we would not allow one inefficient authority to hold up the good work of the others. The power has not been used often in the past, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact figure when we have tracked back through the records to 1947. A purely voluntary approach would not deliver the resilience necessary to ensure that we can meet the new terrorist threat to which many of the reinforcement schemes are intended to respond.

I hope that I have reassured the Committee about the nature of the schemes that the clause would apply to and the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might intervene, which would be decided on a case-by-case basis. It would be, as I have described, when a regional or national reinforcement scheme was being developed and one local authority, through inefficiency or a lack of willingness to co-operate, could undermine arrangements that other fire rescue

authorities wanted to enter into. Those are the terms on which we have been endeavouring to proceed with the proposals, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Edward O'Hara (Knowsley South, Labour)

Order. Before we proceed, I want to make it clear that the way in which the debate has proceeded means that I am ruling that the clause stand part debate has been incorporated in the debate on the amendment. If any member of the Committee wishes to speak to clause stand part, he or she should do so now because I will put that question formally at the appropriate time.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. O'Hara. I listened carefully to what the Under-Secretary said, and I am grateful to him for saying that he will write to me with details of the past use of the power. I wonder whether it has ever been used at all. It may not have been, which would put an interesting slant on the hon. Gentleman's saying, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it''. If the power has not been used in over 55 years, do we really need it?

Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I should have guessed. I am happy to give way.

Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

If the provision has not been used in 57 years, perhaps the hon. Gentleman's worries are unjustified. The matter has never bothered any of his past or present colleagues. In fact, I should like to know the source of the inspiration for his sudden concern.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The source is obvious.

Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

Tell me.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

I will, if the hon. Gentleman gives me a second. We are now being required to consider the Bill clause by clause, including those clauses that have been brought forward from the 1947 Act. I am a believer in small government; I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman is. [Interruption.] I did not hear that, but I am sure that it was very amusing. Frankly, if legislation gives a Secretary of State significant powers to override the decisions of autonomous local authorities, and those powers have not been used in over 55 years, we might question whether we need them. That is a perfectly legitimate matter to raise.

In his final words, which were generally emollient, the Under-Secretary said something that I find alarming. On the basis of the inspiration that reached him, he said that a purely voluntary approach to reinforcement would not deliver the resilience that is now required. That is an a priori condemnation of fire authorities and their willingness to work together. My contact with fire authorities suggests to me that most of them are jealous of their independence when it comes to dealing with their core local functions, but readily recognise that they need to submit to a broader pattern of command and control when dealing with resilience issues.

I am not aware of a fire authority having said that it intends to stand out against the resilience arrangements into which it would be entirely proper for fire and rescue authorities to enter when dealing with the discharge of their functions under clause 9. That was the point of my question to the Under-Secretary.

As we go through this debate, I find that, having prayed in aid draconian central powers, we have always a need for resilience against non-conventional threats. None of us would dispute that the unit of organisation for combating such threats needs to be much bigger because although such episodes will, hopefully, be rare, they call for specialist types of intervention. However, I am concerned that there is a theme throughout the Bill of praying in aid the resilience agenda in order to create a structure that is then applied to all core functions of fire authorities.

I would have taken a different attitude to this debate if the Under-Secretary had said that the Government intend to use the powers only when dealing with a reinforcement scheme for non-conventional threats and risks, and that they will not use it for schemes that address what I would call conventional fire and rescue work. The issue slightly alarms me, and I want to return to why the hon. Gentleman thinks that a purely voluntary approach would not work. What evidence does he have?

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

What if the voluntary approach breaks down? That is the point about having the ability to direct when necessary. We hope that the voluntary approach works. There have been occasions when, perhaps because there has been a bit of pressure and people are negotiating, the Government have helpfully intervened to encourage a resolution between two authorities working together in a mutual reinforcement scheme. To deny us the fall-back of being able to intervene when a voluntary approach might not work is foolish. I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's fears in that regard. It is important to have the ability to step in if required. However, we hope and expect the voluntary approach to be successful.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The record will show that the Under-Secretary is now saying something different.

Mr Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Corby, Labour/Co-operative)

Not at all.

Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede & Weybridge, Conservative)

The record will show that the hon. Gentleman is now saying that he expects a voluntary approach to be successful. A few moments ago he said that a purely voluntary approach will not deliver. He seems to be saying two different things. I support what he has just told us—that he expects and hopes that the voluntary approach will be successful—and I am relieved that he does not think that a purely voluntary approach will not deliver the resilience that the Government seek. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.