Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

He's just like Zebedee.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is accusing me of being like Zebedee. I think that Zebedee would have a view about that. If he were able to pursue action in the courts for defamation, he would do so. However, I cannot allow myself to be troubled unduly.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Although I do not wish to introduce levity into the debate, does my hon. Friend not think that merely stating ``Boing!''—as Zebedee used to do—is not adequate for presenting an argument in a court?

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not reply to that.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I shall apply Sellotape to my lips as a result of your instruction, Mr. O'Brien, but shall then rip it off to comment on matters on which you authorise me to speak, as opposed to those about which I am precluded from speaking.

I am concerned about clause 14(2) because it involves what I might call the tantalising technique of creating just a little encouragement for the Opposition. There is a scintilla of hope—if I may pithily describe it thus—that the Secretary of State, in exercising the magisterial functions that the Bill's powers confer on him, will engage in some consultation. We are grateful for that. We are, of course, talking about the relatively dry but nevertheless important matter of the Secretary of State's power to amend or repeal private or local Acts

if it appears to him necessary or expedient to do so in consequence of this Part.

Subsection (2) refers to the exercise of the Secretary of State's power

under subsection (1) in relation to any Act which concerns the area of a local authority or county council.

It specifically stipulates that, in that circumstance,

the Secretary of State shall consult the local authority or county council concerned.

My response to that is ``goodie'', followed by a number of fairly straightforward questions to which I feel sure that the Minister will know the answers without the need for any pieces of paper to wing their way down to him from the highly qualified officials nearby.

First, how will the consultation be conducted? That is not specified in subsection (2). Is the consultation to be undertaken in writing and, in that sense, a formal process? Would it be legitimate for it to be conducted by a conference call by telephone to affected parties, without a minute—a little like last week's Programming Sub-Committee—still less a verbatim account of proceedings? Could the consultation be undertaken in a series of bilateral meetings with a Minister or designated officials acting on his or her behalf? We do not know, because the subsection does not tell us. Further and better particulars are required.

I am not suggesting that anything sinister is involved—[Laughter.] I suppose that I could suggest that: the Minister probably thinks that I am being rather generous in not doing so. Governments often wish to give the imprimatur of a consultation process, which really amounts to the briefest of confabs with one or two interviewees, selected because it is thought that they will be ready to listen to the ministerial line and then to acquiesce to it readily and without complaint.

We need to know the extent to which the consultation will be serious. Will it be in writing? Will it be undertaken at Member level or with very little attention from Members, even if it will ultimately be undertaken on their behalf by officials acting on behalf of the Secretary of State? Will it be invested with the degree of seriousness that consultation between a Minister and a senior councillor would represent?

Secondly, over what period will the consultation be conducted? In a sense, that is inextricably bound up with the question of the consultation's authenticity and seriousness. Will it be undertaken over one, two or three months? Is the local authority obliged to consult among its wider membership or will the consultation be compartmentalised within the particular department of the district, borough or county council concerned? We know not, but it is uncertain whether the Department has given detailed thought to that point.

It is fairly certain that the Minister has not yet given it detailed thought. He is weighty, distinguished, influential, respected, busy and ambitious, and he has a very full diary. He has important responsibilities to discharge—a lot of rubber-chicken circuit dinners to attend, people to cultivate, friendships to maintain and new sources of influence to embrace. He has worthy objectives, so far be it from me—a humble junior servant of the masses—to cavil at what the Minister has on his plate.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

I do not know about humble.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

The Minister objects to the world humble; maybe I am not as humble as I should be, but I am a junior cog in the wheel. I am happy to serve the public purpose as my limited talents enable me to do. I certainly do not mix in the celebrated up-market circles with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar. I am but a Member of Her Majesty's Opposition, and am accustomed to consuming fish fingers for dinner. I make no complaint about that, although it is probably a long time since the Minister ate them. He mixes in altogether more exalted circles with distinguished and up-market people, who either are grand, think that they are grand or aspire to be grand—I know not which.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is a proud graduate of the University of Essex?

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

With first class honours.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am delighted to do so, and am bound to say that that is a fair point for the hon. Gentleman to make. I think that I am right in saying—he will correct me if I am wrong—that that university is located in his constituency.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

No.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am wrong—it is, then, located in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham should stick to the business in hand, and not be provoked by the hon. Member for Colchester.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I will chat with the hon. Member for Colchester about the University of Essex, of which I am a graduate, on another occasion. I am grateful for the commendation of the quality of my degree offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York. However, I will not be diverted because you, Mr. O'Brien, mixing your avuncular manner with just a hint of menace, have emphasised that I should not.

Let me focus on the consultation, and on how and when it will be conducted. Finally—and this point I can make in a pithy manner—will the details of the consultation, a summary of the discussions that took place and the results therefrom, be published? Will we have to take a ministerial interpretation of the consultation at face value?

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am trying hard to conclude because I do not want to detain the Committee a moment longer than is necessary. I therefore put it on the record that I am being detained as I must give way to my hon. Friend simply out of my natural chivalry.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

I am most grateful. Is there not a huge omission on the part of the Government, who places such great credibility on regional government, in that there is no consultation with the regional development agencies? Does my hon. Friend not share my surprise at that?

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. We are not going to start discussing regional agencies. We will stick to the clause.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I will not animadvert to that point, because you have told me that I must not, Mr. O'Brien. However, I suppose that the point is narrowly relevant—it is probably relevant more widely, but I am not allowed to say so—in the sense that it suggests that less than full thought has been given to the composition of the clause. It would not be right of me to go further, but my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York makes a point that the Committee might usefully consider. ``Local authority'' is, by its nature, if not an all-embracing term, a term that incorporates a multitude of different categories.

Mr Keith Simpson (Mid Norfolk, Conservative)

Of sins.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Indeed, as my hon. Friend remarks, it sometimes embraces a multitude of sins. There is a degree of ambiguity and a degree of specificity in the clause. The ambiguity lies in the reference to the local authority, the specificity in the reference to a county council. I am not sure why it is thought appropriate to contain a reference to county council but not to a borough, district or city council. That is relevant. I hope that we are not getting county councilitis in this Committee, and that a political hegemony is not being exerted within the Home Office by what might be called the ``county council brigade''.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

The county set.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Yes, I am bound to agree that ``set'' is the more appropriate term. I was not always a natural friend of what might be called the county set—and I think that the Minister will readily understand that—because, hailing as I do from the wing of the Conservative party that pays mortgages and buys his own furniture, I do not always identify with those people. However, there is a lack of specificity, and it would be helpful if there were some clarification.

The case rests. It may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York would prefer to develop her own argument at length, but within order. That would be an exacting challenge, to judge by the robust approach that you are now taking, Mr. O'Brien.

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

Strictness.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Strictness is the order of the day—certainly as far as a Chairman, if not my hon. Friend, is concerned. I am happy to rest my case, and I look forward to the Minister's comments before we take the weighty decision on whether to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

My main concern relates to clause 14(1), but I should point out that, for one moment, I feared that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York was going to ask why the European Commission has been excluded from consultation. I was therefore delighted to discover that she was in fact talking about regional government.

I have read clause 14(1) several times, and having argued that clause 12 was too specific, I think that this one is far too broad. It states:

The Secretary of State may by order amend or repeal any provision of a private or local Act passed before or in the same session as this Act, if it appears to him necessary or expedient to do so.

That seems to be an extremely broad provision, given that there is no definition of what might constitute ``necessary'' or ``expedient''.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Just a moment.

I read and re-read clause 14(1) and it made no sense at all—until I consulted the explanatory notes. They state:

Clause 14 allows the Secretary of State to amend or repeal any private or local Act if it appears to conflict with this Act.

Does omitting from clause 14(1) the sense of its explanatory note create an all-powerful clause that will enable the Secretary of State to amend or repeal any private or local Act passed before, or in the same Session as, this Bill, whether or not it conflicts with this Bill?

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is prescient, and he is also multi-faceted. He has many talents, most of which are available for public inspection, although others are perhaps not. Does he have the foggiest idea—the square root of a clue—which private or local Act, or Acts, the Government might have in mind? One cannot seriously believe that this apparently innocuous, brief and curiously elliptical clause was inserted without Ministers having at least some idea of the circumstances in which it will be invoked.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Having read the explanatory notes, which, as ever, are very well written, I now understand what the clause is getting at. Certain local Acts or private Acts—I do not expect the Minister to give examples—could be in conflict with the Bill, although I find it hard to believe that such Acts exist. I see no reason why any Act should have been created that might so conflict. Nevertheless, it is good drafting that such a clause be included, just in case.

Mr Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman is such an expert on the North Yorkshire Act, does he think it possible that Acts relating to the sale of second-hand goods, which might include motor vehicles, could contain provisions that conflicted with the Bill?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. As I said, he and I had the joy of serving for several weeks on the Committee that considered the North Yorkshire Bill—although I was assured by certain parties that our considerations would take only a couple of weeks.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. That is the fifth time that reference has been made to the North Yorkshire Act, and it is time that we drew the matter to a close.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I was merely going to say that I do not see how that Act would conflict in any way with the Bill. However, that is not the point. I am not saying that there are no such Acts. I accept that it is right and proper that Home Office drafters should think it fit to include the clause in case there was—or were, to use the subjunctive—an Act—

Mrs Anne McIntosh (Vale of York, Conservative)

Conditional.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Well, conditional and subjunctive are the same thing. We must not get into philology, as that would be out of order.

I can understand that there may be an Act that would conflict with the Bill. However, the drafting of the clause may not be tight enough to restrict the Secretary of State to repealing or amending only an Act that, in the words of the explanatory notes,

appears to conflict with this Act.

Does the Minister agree with the wording of the explanatory notes?

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

Yes.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The Minister says yes from a sedentary position. Does he not therefore agree that the Bill would be clearer if the words that I quoted were included in clause 14(1)?

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

No.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am much impressed by the advocacy of my hon. Friend. I noticed the alacrity and immediacy with which the Minister of State said that he agreed with the explanatory notes from which my hon. Friend quoted. Perhaps he can therefore tell us immediately, and preferably word for word, exactly what the explanatory notes to clause 14 say.

Mr. Clarke rose—

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham is intervening on an intervention by the hon. Member for Lichfield.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

I will give way to the Minister if he is not merely going to prove that he can read by reading from the explanatory notes.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

I rise because the hon. Member for Buckingham, in the course of the games that he plays—I shall turn to his pedantry in a moment—asked whether I knew what I was talking about. In fact, I carefully read the relevant paragraph of the explanatory notes some three or four minutes ago during the rather boring speech by the hon. Member for Lichfield, so I was well aware of its contents by the time that I was asked the question.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

As soon as the Minister says that an Opposition Member is boring, he issues a challenge to that Member to be even more boring and to go on and on—remaining in order for the whole time—for 50 or 55 minutes or an hour. I think that he is trying to provoke me.

Mr Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman is easily provoked.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

The hon. Member for Colchester made that intervention from a sedentary position. As we serve on the same Select Committee, he knows me well.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to return to the business of the Committee and to speak to clause 14.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

Of course, Mr. O'Brien, I shall take that on board and concentrate on clause 14—[Interruption.] The more interventions that are made, the more I shall be delayed in reaching a conclusion.

Clause 14(1) appears to be extremely broad. It is not a Henry VIII clause; it is an Adolf Hitler clause. It seems to give the Secretary of State the power to amend or repeal any private or local Act passed before or in the same Session as this Bill if he thinks it is ``necessary or expedient'' to do so. How many times did Hitler decide to do things because he though it expedient? Although the Minister has many faults, some of which we discussed earlier today, I know that he is not unnecessarily exhaustive in his use of power. Given that he has been listening to my speech and that he has been reading the explanatory notes, which state specifically that the provision can apply to a local Act only if it appears to conflict with the Bill, why will he not agree to using those words in the Bill, which would then limit the Secretary of State's powers? I give way to my hon. Friend, for whom I have the greatest respect.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I certainly have no desire that his speech should end, and I would not ordinarily wish to interrupt his flow, but I hope that he will he take it from me that one benefit—probably the only obvious benefit—that would flow from his concluding his remarks within the time scale would be that we had a chance to hear from one or other of the two members of the Committee from whom we have so far heard absolutely nothing. They might volunteer a contribution. Is my hon. Friend aware—he was away last week—that neither the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who is serving his last few weeks in the House, nor the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who is most assiduous and highly articulate and exceptional, has contributed?

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. What on earth does that have to do with clause 14?

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Absolutely nothing. I call Mr. Fabricant.

Mr Michael Fabricant (Lichfield, Conservative)

All that I can say to my hon. Friend is yes. I shall therefore resume my seat, and I expect the two hon. Members who have not yet spoken to say something. When I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I spoke on a Treasury Bill. I am sure that the PPS will speak today.

Mr Charles Clarke (Minister of State, Home Office; Norwich South, Labour)

No point of substance has been raised. I therefore move that clause 14 stand part.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

The question is that clause 14 stand part.

Mr. Bercow rose—

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order.

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. We have not concluded our debate on clause 14 stand part. It is a serious matter. I do not want the Committee to finish on a bad note, because the Minister has generally been good natured and accommodating in his responses. However, it is the height of arrogance to conclude as he suggests. I asked specific questions, which have not been answered. If the Minister wants trouble, he is going the right way about it.

Mr Bill O'Brien (Normanton, Labour)

Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. I consider that the Committee is repeating much of what was said previously. I have been generous, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to vote against clause 14, that is his prerogative.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.