Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

Clause 58(2) states:

''The provision which may be made under subsection (1)—''

again, that is the Secretary of State making regulations—

''includes provision—''

these are the important words—

''amending any enactment (whenever passed or made).''

It is outrageous that the Secretary of State should take power to himself to fetter any future enactments made by Parliament. He is trying to circumvent the whole British constitutional law that one Parliament cannot bind its successor.

The clause should be struck out. I think that it is the parliamentary draftsmen having a poke at the democratically elected Parliament. They thought that we would not notice. I hope that their lordships will strike out the clause. I did not table an amendment, because I knew that the Government would use their overbearing majority to vote it down, but having placed that on the record, I hope that their lordships will take note and strike out the clause.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am happy to support my hon. Friend on the Front Bench in his hostility to the clause. A similar clause appeared in the Education Bill on whose Committee I was privileged to serve—I believe under your chairmanship, Mr. Conway; I cannot quite remember. It seems to be a trend among Ministers to want the power not only to push legislation through the House—given a majority, that is not unreasonable—but to change the law where they forgot to make a particular arrangement when pushing that legislation through.

Given the number of different ways in which Ministers can regulate, legislate, direct, order and

otherwise fetter the liberty of the subject, it is profoundly important that we scrutinise to the greatest possible extent the exercise of their powers. However, the clause simply does not permit Parliament to do that effectively. What I have said may not apply to the Under-Secretary, who is a reasonable and, as far as I can see, an honourable man. It may not even apply to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, who is not in his place at the moment, but who has shown in his munificence to the Isle of Wight that he is reasonable and honourable. He will further demonstrate those qualities if he accepts my invitation to visit my constituency and receive the plaudits of the multitude for his actions.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Given that the same generosity was not apparent in the case of North Yorkshire, is the Minister only reasonable and honourable south of a particular line in the United Kingdom?

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I accept that on the north island, as we call it, the Minister might be regarded in a different light, but for the time being, in the Isle of Wight, he is seen as a reasonable and honourable man. His right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has just shown his desire to bulldoze the north and concrete over the south, has a different approach to local democracy. I will not drift into other aspects of legislation, even though the clause entitles me to do so.

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Order. Not too much drift, I hope.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I can drift into aspects of any housing measure, which may include the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which was recently in Committee, because the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to amend any legislation.

Although it is unlikely given their lordships' care in scrutinising such Bills, let us assume that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill had been pushed through the House unamended. What would happen if their lordships then managed to obtain a trifling concession, with which the Minister was dissatisfied, but on which he had to yield to their lordships, because this House has recently, by not one but seven votes, demonstrated satisfaction with the current arrangements for the upper House? Then what would happen if the Minister, having made a minor concession to their lordships, decided a week later that he was not satisfied and wished to overturn it and it claw back from their lordships?

The hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) is making a winding motion. I understand he has to keep himself awake, but I am explaining exactly what Ministers are proposing. They do not want to wind the clock forward, as the hon. Gentleman is doing, but to wind it back, so that they can retrieve any position that they have been forced by their lordships' House or by this House to concede. That could affect almost any measure concerning landlords and their arrangements with tenants; local authorities and their arrangements for the provision of housing; registered social landlords and borrowing undertaking by them; and the Audit Commission and its intervention in how local government works.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is expounding the scope of part 1 of the Bill. Does he agree with my analysis that the scope of part 2 includes the Human Rights Act 1998?

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Indeed, so it appears. Mr. Conway, perhaps you could tell me if I will be straying out of order by talking about the Human Rights Act 1998. Until you do so, I will assume that the proposal also covers that Act.

Mr Paul Goodman (Wycombe, Conservative)

Is my hon. Friend not being a little unfair to the Minister who has been scrupulous throughout the Committee? Is it not reasonable to assume that the Minister will have had detailed discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister about the circumstances in which he is likely to exercise the powers in clause 58(2)? In replying to my hon. Friend, I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us chapter and verse of his detailed discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister and let us know when these powers will be exercised.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, with his customary scrupulousness, will have attempted to direct the Deputy Prime Minister's attention to the clause in order to clarify the matter to which my hon. Friend refers. If the clause indeed covers the Human Rights Act 1988, the Under-Secretary will also have sought the advice of his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I do not know when he was last entertained in the Lord Chancellor's capacious apartments—

Mr Paul Goodman (Wycombe, Conservative)

After the vote. [Laughter.]

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Had I known that such an invitation were available, I would have been rather more sanguine about making it clear at an such early stage to my hon. Friends which way I intended to vote. The noble Lord might then have felt the need to encourage me to vote in the same Lobby as the Prime Minister on that singular occasion.

I do not need to detain the Committee indefinitely on the issue. I simply want to put it on the record, with no fear of misunderstanding, that the provision is so immensely wide-ranging that it would allow the Secretary of State to abolish the Welsh Assembly at the stroke of a pen and deprive it of all its powers over local government, education and so forth—even over fisheries or the Severn tunnel bridge, if it has any powers over them—or, alternatively, to hand such powers to the Welsh Assembly. That is wholly unacceptable to this Committee—[Interruption.]

Mr Derek Conway (Old Bexley & Sidcup, Conservative)

Order. I welcome the Wales Office Minister to our proceedings.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

Such an eloquent contribution from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will doubtless feature as a cornerstone of the section of his autobiography on his time in Parliament—the ''Severn tunnel bridge'' sounds like a wonderful erection, but he may not want it to appear on the log of his parliamentary career.

I hate to deflate the Opposition's scrutiny, particularly that of the hon. Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and for Isle of Wight, who

spotted the provision ''amending any enactment''. However, I must draw the Committee's attention again to the manner of the framing. If hon. Gentlemen examined it more fully, they would see that the amending provisions are made under subsection (1), so subsection (2) is fundamentally linked with it. It is self-evident from subsection (1) that it is all about giving full effect to the proposals on business improvement districts, with the clear proviso that the Secretary of State's power to make regulations applies only to

''such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision as he considers necessary''.

Mr David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

In contrast to my colleagues, my attention was drawn to subsection (1). Will the Minister clarify the distinction between ''supplementary'' and ''incidental'' on the one hand, and ''necessary'' and ''expedient'' on the other?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, I am confident enough to place a wager on the fact that a similar provision was incorporated into legislation that he passed when he was Minister of State for Local Government and Planning.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

The difference is that he knew what it meant.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

The right hon. Gentleman may well have known what it meant at the time, but he clearly does not know now. ''Supplementary'' refers to matters other than the original ones; ''incidental'', ''consequential'' and ''transitional'' are self-explanatory—all are limited to the purpose of giving effect to business improvement districts and no other purpose. It is a narrow, reserved power designed to ensure that the provisions in this part of the Bill and subordinate legislation work as they are intended to and not for any wider reform of the Human Rights Act. It is not to be read as a self-standing power.

I hope that those assurances help hon. Members. I will research legislation prior to 1997 to find out how many other examples there were before I became an MP.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 6.