| Fire and Rescue Services Bill
| ||||||||||||||||
|
Phil Hope: I beg to move amendment No. 172, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 173 to 175, 179 and 180. Phil Hope: The amendments will ensure that the Welsh Assembly is able to specify operation of the best-value regime for fire and rescue authorities in Wales, in line with the Government's commitment to devolve responsibility for the service in Wales, as set out in the White Paper. The amendments will bring Welsh combined fire authorities within the definition of a best-value authority as defined in section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999. Amendments Nos. 179 and 180 are a consequence of bringing Welsh combined fire authorities into the best-value definition, and they will repeal a now superfluous section of the 1999 Act. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 173, in
'of the Local Government Act 1999'.
'85A In section 29(2)(a) (modifications of Part 1 for Wales: authorities which are not best value authorities) omit ''or (e)''.'.
Column Number: 380 'omit paragraph (b) and the word ''or'' immediately preceding it.'.—[Phil Hope.] Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| ||||||||||||||||
|
'London County Council (General Powers) Act 1949 (c lv) | Section 51.'. |
The amendment will repeal section 51 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1949. That provision gave London county council powers to permit employees of the London fire brigade to be employed permanently or temporarily at a training institution, as may be desired by the Secretary of State. It also dealt with superannuation issues consequential on such an employment. We have confirmed with lawyers that for the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority that this provision was never extended to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority following abolition of the Greater London council. This provision is, therefore, spent, and may be repealed.
- Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 177, in
| schedule 2, page 47, line 22, at end insert— | |
|
'Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (c. 56) | Section 15.
In Schedule 2, paragraph 45.'. |
No. 178, in
| schedule 2, page 47, leave out lines 24 to 27. |
No. 179, in
| schedule 2, page 48, line 4, at end insert— | |
| 'Local Government Act 1999 (c. 27) | In section 29(2)(a), the words ''or (e)''.'. |
No. 180, in
| schedule 2, page 48, line 14, column 2, at end insert— | |
| 'In section 101(7), paragraph (b) and the word ''or'' immediately preceding it.'. —[Phil Hope.] | |
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53
Pre-commencement consultation
Mr. Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in
- clause 53, page 24, line 32, after 'force', insert
- 'but after this Act has received Royal Assent'.
The clause legitimises consultation that takes place before the relevant provision of the Bill comes into force. I have always thought that this is a slightly dubious process, but let us gloss over that for the moment. This is a probing amendment, because I hope that the Minister of State will tell me that purpose of the clause is to ensure that such consultation, taking
Column Number: 381
place before the relevant clause commences, should not take place before the Royal Assent is granted to the Act.The amendment may be inelegantly worded, but the purpose is clear: we must not get into a situation where a consultation or discussion that took place last year, the year before or 10 years ago can be used in support of a claim that adequate consultation has taken place in respect of some matter dealt with in this Bill.
We reluctantly concede the principle of pre-commencement consultation in the interests of speeding things up, but it must be after the Act has received the Royal Assent. The context in which a consultation takes place will be relevant to the responses that are received, and the consultees must be able to see that context. That means that the Act of Parliament must be finished, even if the relevant section has not yet commenced. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that no consultation prior to the Royal Assent would be treated as being a pre-commencement consultation for the purposes of this clause. It will then be possible for me to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
4.15 pm
Mr. Raynsford: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that not only will I disappoint him by not giving him the assurance that he wants, but I will tell him that his proposition is preposterous—a word that he finds particularly attractive.
I remind him that a year ago we spent a great deal of time on the Local Government Bill. Had we not begun the consultation necessary to allow the prudential borrowing regime to come into effect before the Bill received Royal Assent, local authorities would not have that facility this April. I will not go into the reasons why that Bill took so long to go through Parliament, but the proposition that there should be no consultation before Royal Assent, and therefore that various benefits, which would be very considerable to those members of the public, institutions and bodies interested in the outcome of our discussions, could not be introduced because of strict adherence to a formal rule, is wholly undesirable.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are currently consulting on the charging regime. We issued a consultation document, and it is perfectly proper that that consultation should take place now, so that as and when the legislation takes effect we will not risk the hiatus between the old and new regimes which he highlighted. If there were no prior consultation, there would inevitably be a hiatus.
The hon. Gentleman's concept is wrong, although I can understand his genuine concern that we should not treat as relevant consultation that took place 10 years ago. I assure him that we have no intention of doing so. The consultation that is relevant to the Bill is that taking place while the Bill is going through Parliament. The implications of the consultation are well known and understood by the parties involved, and I see no merit in the amendment. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw it.
Column Number: 382
Mr. Hammond: Since the Minister has called me preposterous, I shall say that he is displaying the fantastic arrogance that we have got used to from the Government: because he is doing this and can see nothing wrong with the way that he is doing it, he can see no purpose for the amendment. He recognises that it would be outrageous if obsolete consultation were deemed to satisfy a requirement in the Bill to consult.
So often, when we seek reassurance about a provision, Ministers say, ''Well, there's no need. Don't worry because we are going to consult.'' However, they want to consult before the Bill is in its final form—before it has been through the other place and is perhaps further amended. The context in which responses to consultation will be given will depend on the legislative framework in which that consultation takes place.
I find the Minister's bogus inability to understand the concern rather distressing. Of course he says that he will not produce consultation that happened 10 years ago—it did not cost him anything to give the Committee that commitment—but what about consultation that is six months, a year or 18 months old? There is no obvious cut-off point, so we are left to trust the Minister. The same old phrase, ''Trust me, I'm a Minister in this Government,'' is not a principle to which I wish to adhere.
I am very disappointed that the Minister did nothing but pour scorn on a well-intentioned amendment, but as I have taken some pity on the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), who is anxious to move on, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. I urge the Minister to consider carefully in future Bills whether we should have such retrospective legislation—as we had in the regional assemblies Bill—because that is what it is. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 54 to 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Wales
Phil Hope: I beg to move amendment No. 168, in
- clause 59, page 26, line 6, at end insert—
- '(1A) In its application to Wales, section 21(6) has effect with the omission of the words ''and lay before Parliament''.
- (1B) In its application to Wales, section 24 has effect as if for ''report to Parliament'' there were substituted ''publish a report''.'.
The amendment seeks to ensure that an appropriate procedure applies to the fire and rescue service framework for Wales. Laying the framework before the UK Parliament, and reporting to Parliament on authorities' compliance and on the steps taken by the National Assembly for Wales to ensure it, would cut across the overall intent of the clause. That is to ensure that the powers exercisable by the Secretary of State for English fire and rescue authorities are exercisable by the National Assembly for Wales for Welsh fire and rescue authorities. The amendment therefore deletes
Column Number: 383
the references to Parliament in clause 21(6) and clause 24, leaving the method of publication and report to the discretion of the National Assembly for Wales.Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Richard Younger-Ross: Does not the Under-Secretary think that the devolved powers that he has given to Wales should also be devolved to the elected English regional assemblies when we have them?
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 2 March 2004 |
