I beg to move amendment No. 169, in

schedule 1, page 34, line 13, at end insert—

'33A The Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 is amended as follows.

33B (1) Schedule 2 (official pensions) is amended as follows.

(2) For paragraphs 16 and 16A substitute—

''16 A pension payable by a Secretary of State in accordance with a scheme brought into operation under section 33 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.

16A A pension which is payable—

(a) by a Secretary of State under regulations made under section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972; and

(b) to or in respect of a person in respect of whose service a payment may be made under a scheme brought into operation under section 33 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.''

(3) For paragraph 44 substitute—

''44 A pension payable by a fire and rescue authority in accordance with a scheme brought into operation under section 33 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.'''.

(4) Omit paragraph 45.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 170, 171, 177 and 178.

The amendments remedy an oversight in the drafting of the Bill. We need to ensure that pensions paid under the Fire Services Act 1947, which are increased annually to reflect the retail prices index, continue to be increased when the Bill comes into effect. Increases are made under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971, which accordingly must be amended to refer to the Bill.

I call Mr. Philip Holland—I am sorry, Hammond.

Sir Nicholas, I could almost think that you were doing it on purpose.

First, I have a small and, one might almost say, stylistic question for the Under-Secretary.

Here we go.

Yes, here we go. In amendment No. 169 we see, in new section 16, the phrase,

''A pension payable by a Secretary of State'', and again, in new section 16A,

''A pension which is payable . . . by a Secretary of State''.

I have always understood the Secretary of State to be a single and indivisible entity, and legislation invariably refers to ''the Secretary of State'', not distinguishing between one Secretary of State and another. Perhaps I have got that wrong, but I should be grateful for an explanation for the reference to ''a Secretary of State'', as if one can pick a random Secretary of State wandering down Whitehall.

I understood what the Under-Secretary said, and it is clear from a quick reading of the amendments why there needs to be such a provision, but I want to ask him about the use of clause 35 to continue a scheme under the 1947 Act. The amendment refers to a scheme

under clause 33, but not to an order under clause 35 continuing a pension scheme made under the 1947 Act, now to be abolished.

My understanding is that all the references to the 1947 Act are deleted by the schedule. Therefore, a scheme that is continued by virtue of an order made under clause 35 would not be subject to the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and the Superannuation Act 1972 unless an additional amendment were made that referred specifically to the inclusion of schemes made under clause 35 as well as clause 33. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary addressed that point as well as the one about the Secretary of State.

They said that it would be a great glory to become a Minister: one would conduct affairs of state, run the country and do a range of different things that Ministers can get involved with. I have reached the dizzy heights of ministerial duties: I am now discussing whether to substitute ''the'' for ''a'' in the schedule.

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we would normally refer to ''the Secretary of State'', but the 1971 Act uses ''a'', so the amendment is consistent with that. The hon. Gentleman may wish to go back to the Act to establish why it was worded in that way. Fortunately, I was not a Minister in 1971.

That was a Conservative Government.

Indeed, it was.

On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, I can tell him that clause 35 may continue existing provisions. That is what we must ensure and why we have tabled the amendments. If that explanation is not satisfactory, I will be happy, given the complexity of the point that he has raised, to write to him with further clarification, if that would be helpful.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary. I am glad that I am not demented or linguistically paranoid and that he can confirm that ''the Secretary of State'' is the normal terminology. I am sure that Ministers in 1971, had they been asked, would also have replied that the matter was nothing to do with them but was the responsibility of the draftsmen. It is nice to know that draftsmen who go off in a revolutionary direction, as they obviously did in 1971, can come back to the straight and narrow: we have been saying ''the Secretary of State'' for most of the 30 years since.

I am not sure that the Under-Secretary has answered the point about clause 35. I understand entirely the need to ensure that the existing scheme, which can be continued by an order made under that clause, would have the same protections that the amendment gives to schemes under clause 33. However, there must be some process by which that will happen automatically. I cannot find one; there seems to be a gap. It seems that a scheme that owes its existence to an order under clause 35 will not be

included as subject to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and the Superannuation Act 1972. I may be wrong, or there may be a reason why that is the case.

My experience has been that it is almost impossible to deal with schedules making with consequential and minor amendments on the hoof in Committee. The situation is so complicated that there are invariably cross-references through layers of previous legislation. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would be good enough to write to me.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 170, in

schedule 1, page 34, line 14, leave out

'to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971'.

No. 171, in

schedule 1, page 34, line 21, at end insert—

'Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)

In section 24(1)(a) of the Superannuation Act 1972 (compensation for loss of office), for ''in relation to whom a Scheme may be made in accordance with section 26 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (Firemen's Pension Scheme)'' substitute ''in respect of whose service payments may be made under a scheme brought into operation under section 33 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004''.'.—[Phil Hope.]

I beg to move amendment No. 172, in

schedule 1, page 44, line 37, at end insert—

'84A The Local Government Act 1999 is amended as follows.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 173 to 175, 179 and 180.

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

schedule 1, page 44, line 38, leave out

'of the Local Government Act 1999'.

No. 174, in

schedule 1, page 44, line 43, at end insert—

'85A In section 29(2)(a) (modifications of Part 1 for Wales: authorities which are not best value authorities) omit ''or (e)''.'.

No. 175, in

schedule 1, page 46, line 21, leave out from 'general)' to end of line 25 and insert

'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.