Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I make the following comments so that the Under-Secretary can add to the words ''paranoiac'' and ''preposterous'' the word ''pedantic''.

Or ''opportunistic''.

It does not begin with ''p.''

My hon. Friend rightly reminds me of the word ''opportunistic'', but, as the Minister of State observes, it does not begin with ''p''.

Because so many standards slip—there are slippery slopes all around us—it is important to draw attention to some matters, however trivial they may seem at the time. I am curious about the drafting of the clause, particularly subsection (2). My understanding is that subsections of a Bill should always be capable of being read alone and that they refer to other subsections in order to be properly understood. I have never seen a subsection of a Bill begin with the words, ''These are the questions''. What questions? The subsection does not say that the questions are those referred to in subsection (1)(a).

I must make a general point. The drafting of the Bill seems to break new ground in several ways. The strange drafting may be an attempt to bring drafting

closer to natural language and make the Bill more understandable, but it has the effect of making the Bill more opaque in many cases. Does the Under-Secretary have anything to say about the revolutionary wording of subsection (2)?

As a Minister in this Government, I am happy to be described as revolutionary. I shall take that back to my constituents and the Labour party members in Corby. I shall put it on the front page of my next newsletter.

The hon. Gentleman will understand that, however revolutionary I may feel at any moment, the drafting style to which he refers is essentially a matter for parliamentary counsel. No one has ever described them as revolutionary; perhaps they are, for the first time.

Before we get too far from our purpose this morning, I must point out that the clause is designed to ensure that firefighters receive accurate information on pensions. I am thankful that very few firefighters were affected by the pensions mis-selling of the 1990s. I am tempted to drift into that territory but shall not. Most firefighters remained in the scheme. The employee's contribution at 11 per cent. is among the highest for any public service scheme, but it reflects the benefits that are available.

To avoid the mis-selling of personal pensions to firefighters, clause 34 re-enacts provisions in the 1947 Act that were inserted by the Police and Firemen's Pensions Act 1997. Such provisions will enable fire and rescue authorities to provide information on pensions to firefighters who have opted or transferred out of the pension scheme.

On the specifics of one subsection referring to another, subsection (1)(a) refers to providing

''information in connection with the questions mentioned in subsection (2) to a prescribed person'', and subsection (2) describes the questions. The hon. Gentleman may not have seen such parliamentary drafting before, but it clearly and effectively states what it does. I hope that he will support the clause.

The drafting is a departure. One would like to think that there is a reason for the words at the beginning of subsection (2) not saying, ''The questions in connection with which a fire and rescue authority may provide information under subsection (1) are'', but the Under-Secretary clearly has not given the matter any thought. It is clear that there is no ministerial style input, but I find it somewhat surprising that parliamentary counsel are able to change the style of drafting. We were told earlier that the explanation for the change of wording between the Fire Services Act 2003 and the Bill was simply that different draftsmen had drafted them. That seems a bit of a hit-and-miss approach, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least having a go at explaining the problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35Preservation of existing pension scheme