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

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.

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.

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.