Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
3. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.[Mr. Ainger.]
Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 1, at end insert "or disposal".
The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is intended to clarify the consultation arrangements for directions about property or facilities made under the power in clause 1(1)(b), which allows the Secretary of State to give directions to fire authorities about the
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): Nobody could disagree with the notion that there
should be consultation in the case of a disposal, as well as a direction for use. However, I want to place on the record that this was a simple mistakea word was left out of the Bill's original text, which is the sort of error that we would usually expect to be picked up during a proper Committee stage. That rather underlines the dangers of a rushed processof taking a Bill through all its stages in one afternoon. It proved possible for it to go to the other place with an important word missing from the text, and for that fact to be overlooked, despite it being scrutinised in this House. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board and consider long and hard before trying to rush through legislation again. We owe a debt of gratitude not to Government Front Benchers, but to the noble Baroness Turner, who picked up this error from the Back Benches.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton): I, too, accept the Minister's emollient statement that this is a minor amendment, but it will be important to ensure that any consultation required under the Bill is full in respect of all of the proposed changes. It is worth placing on the record that the amendment does not make the Bill any better; overall, it is ill thought through and unnecessary. Although the Minister may say that the current impasse or delay in the negotiations justifies the Bill, the fact that both sides are negotiating suggests that it and the amendment are not needed. It is worth pointing that out, given what is happening outside this place.
Lords amendment: No. 2, after clause 1, to insert the following new clauseInterpretation of the June 2003 agreement
'For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act affects the possibility of the parties agreeing on a reference to mediation, conciliation or arbitration on the interpretation of the June 2003 agreement between the Fire Brigades Union and the local authority fire service employers.'
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 6, at end, add
The purpose of my amendment is to seek to extend the avoidance-of-doubt clause to clear uphelpfully, I hopea further doubt that entered into the debate after the Bill left the Commons and went to the other place. It is a straightforward amendment that explicitly overcomes that doubt, and it reflects the Government's intentions as stated in correspondence with Members of the other House and also in the debate in that House.
That doubt was expressed in the other place at various stages by the noble Lords Wedderburn and McCarthy and by Baroness Turner. Those of us who have had any dealings with industrial relations and the related law during the past 30 years appreciate that Lords Wedderburn and McCarthy and Baroness Turner expressed a view on this subject that is based on decades of experience, and it comes from those who are the most qualified to express such a view. In fact, many in this House learned their industrial relations law at the feet of Lord Wedderburn, as an expert practitioner.
The doubt expressed by those Lords is set out in a briefing note prepared by Lord Wedderburn, Professor Emeritus of commercial law at the London School of Economics, which was published on 1 November. I tried to place this note in the House of Commons Library, but I was informed that only Ministers or Mr. Speaker may do so. However, I have copies available in my office if Members wish to peruse the note.
Mr. Hammond : The hon. Gentleman has set out the credentials of the noble Lords who first raised this issue as amendment No. 3 in the other place. As the Government refuted their case entirely, can he tell the House whether he believes that the Government are simply poorly advised by their legal advisers or are being duplicitous?
John McDonnell: I am trying to create a climate in this debate that is not confrontational. Doubt exists. The Government's advisers are not duplicitous or in any way incompetent; they simply have a view. The noble Lords, who have vast experience in these matters, have another view, and that leads to doubt. The situation is no more contestable or challengeable than that. This is not an "in your face" allegation.
Mr. Edward Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his amendment would simply clarify what Ministers say is already the position, and that it would therefore be helpful to include it in the Bill?
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |