Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 442, in

clause 77, page 53, line 38, at end insert—

'(5A) Any repayment or additional payment arising from the provisions of subsection (5) above must be made within 21 days of the repayment or additional payment becoming confirmed.'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

Amendment No. 443, in

clause 77, page 53, line 43, at end insert—

'(7A) Interest must be paid at the end of every month.'.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

This is the first time in the Committee that I have been pleased to move off a clause, and it is certainly the last time I shall table amendments, even for friends on a friendly council, about which I have reservations. I shall be having words with them. Had I realised that the amendments would provoke such a debate, I would not have tabled them.

The claimant will have gone through the whole of the compulsory purchase procedure, as detailed in new section 33A(4)(d) and (e). Compensation will have been agreed. The whole process will have been gone through and may have gone to the Lands Tribunal. Anybody who has been involved with such a case knows that that can take a considerable time. The amendment deals with new section 33I. Under subsection (2)(b), another three months would be added to the considerable time, and that happens when there is a shortfall in the advance payment. The matter may have gone through the long procedure of notices, counter-notices and objections, the Secretary of State may have confirmed the compulsory purchase order and the case may have gone to the Lands Tribunal. Under the amendment, once the shortfall in the advance payment has been established it should be paid within 21 days. That is entirely reasonable. Under amendment No. 443, interest should be paid at the end of the month. These are two straightforward amendments, so I hope that the Minister will accept them.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I rise for two reasons. First, I have some important issues to raise and, secondly, I want to show that on this side of the Committee we sometimes sing from the same hymn sheet. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend, who entirely agrees with me, so we are back on track. The amendments are straightforward and I live in hope that the Minister will accept them. It is the last occasion on which the Government can put me out of my misery and frustration and give me something before the Bill finishes its Committee stage.

It is tempting, in debating compensation and compulsory purchase, to see major landowners and big projects at the heart of the whole process. However, as the Minister knows, it is possible for small amounts of land and individuals of no great wealth to be involved in road improvements, for example. For such people, the process can be worrying and financially stressful, especially when it goes on for a long time. Advance payments are right when it is clear that real value is at stake. I hope that the Minister will confirm that one of the criteria for deciding whether to make advance payments is that the person whose land is being confiscated is unlikely to be able to sustain the losses. It is all about the individual with a capital ''I'', someone whose land is being confiscated by a big bureaucracy, which can be threatening.

Additional payment should be made at the end of the process. It may be relatively small—perhaps a few hundred pounds—but that is not the point. The smaller the amount left over, the more likely it is to be important to an individual, as opposed to a big consortium or big company, for which even a few tens of thousands of pounds may not be necessary for a few days. We know what bureaucracy is like, and many of us have been deeply frustrated trying to extract from officialdom moneys to which we are entitled.

The amendment is eminently reasonable when there is no dispute that, after long discussions, perhaps going into appeal, additional amounts are owed. I see no reason why any sensible person would oppose the

notion that, having reached the point where it is finally established that some money is owed, it should be paid within 21 days. Interest while one waits is not the point. The provisions will affect many people who need the extra money, and it is important for them to know that they will receive it within 21 days. I shall be amazed if the Government argue against that.

Amendment No. 443 deals with interest payments. Again, it is understandable why most people think in terms of businesses, farmers and property owners being owed money on which interest is payable. It may be accepted that we will not get round to paying it for 12 or six months, and it really will not matter because it is a relatively small amount of interest on a modest sum. However, it is again possible that many people caught in this process are of more modest means and need an income of some sort, particularly if the compulsory purchase powers are depriving them of a source of income. That can easily happen if land or property from which an income is derived is taken away. If money is owed, it is not unreasonable to say that that interest will be paid monthly. No one is disputing that that money is owed; it is not an attempt to get money to which someone is not entitled out of the Government or a local authority. In my dealings with various organisations, I have come across many examples of people using any excuse not to pay today. It would therefore be helpful to make it clear that when interest is payable, we mean that it is payable monthly, rather than annually or when it suits someone's purpose.

I believe that both amendments are reasonable. They do not undermine anything that the Government seek to do, but give reassurance to the individual who is caught up in the process. I look forward to the Minister saying that she believes the amendments to be sensible, and that she agrees with them.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments are reasonable and make a great deal of sense. I support them.

Mrs Barbara Roche (Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Hornsey & Wood Green, Labour)

I understand the sentiments behind the amendments. I championed such matters in Opposition and, as a Minister, brought in the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. I therefore understand what such amounts can mean to small businesses. However, I shall disappoint the hon. Member for Spelthorne by seeking to convince him that the amendments are not necessary.

New section 33I(5), which amendment No. 442 would modify, provides for any overpayments or underpayments of advances to be rectified

''when the value of the interest is agreed or determined.''

The implication is that such payments should be made without delay, not merely within 21 days. Subsection (5) follows section 32(2C) of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which makes similar provisions for shortfalls or excesses in advances for home loss payments.

Amendment No. 443 would insert a new subsection (7)(a) into new section 33I, and would require payments of interest to be made at the end of every

month. That is unnecessary, because subsection (8) enables the acquiring authority, on request, to make a payment of the interest on account. Opposition Members may believe that giving such discretion to the acquiring authority would enable that authority unreasonably to refuse to make such payments. However, as we have discussed many times, authorities are under a general obligation to act reasonably. There is no incentive for authorities to refuse reasonable requests for payment on account because that will accordingly reduce their eventual liability for interest payments.

The discretionary element of subsection (8) is included to protect authorities from unreasonable requests by claimants. For example, the authorities would be able to refuse a request to pay interest of £5, which would cost more than that amount in transaction and staff costs and would not benefit the claimant significantly. The proposed requirement to pay interest monthly could also result in many small payments being made, when it would be more sensible for both parties to let the interest accrue for a while.

On the basis of my explanation, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

No, the Minister's explanation does not satisfy me at all. It makes me more concerned that the Government are unreasonable. I would perhaps accept what the Minister said if the clause did not summarise the contradictions about which we have argued week after week, when we proposed that ''reasonably'' should be inserted into the Bill, and the Government contended that that was unnecessary. I draw the Minister's attention to new section 33E(3), which states:

''The claim must give such particulars as the authority may reasonably require.''

For weeks we have heard that there is no need to have the concept of reasonableness written into the Bill. Why, therefore, is it included in that clause?

My colleagues and I have been accused of being inconsistent and disunited about the matter but, all of a sudden, when this Minister rather than the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is dealing with the Bill, we find a clause that concedes the need for the concept of reasonableness to be written in. Perhaps the Minister can give us a perfectly good reason why that is different. She argued that it is unnecessary, but that is not so. If one is to rely absolutely on the wording, it means that the extra payment is due when it is agreed. Therefore, if she and I were to come to an agreement, the instant that we said ''done'', the money would have to be produced. That is the literal meaning of the proposal, and it cannot be what the Government intend. They are saying that if something is agreed at 3.35 pm the money should be paid 3.36 pm, but no one could expect that to happen.

There must be an understanding that there will be a delay between the instant of agreement that a sum is due and the handing over of the money. Unless the Government mean that whenever negotiations take place an official will be present with a pot of money out of which he can instantly hand cash over, there will

be a delay. Common sense dictates that, and it is therefore reasonable and sensible to limit that delay.

The Minister may live in a rarefied world where £5 here or there does not matter, but it matters in my constituency. I can understand that it is administratively convenient for bureaucrats not to bother with a fiver here or there but to wait until it mounts up. That is one way of looking at it; it is exactly the way I would expect bureaucrats to think, because it would save them time and effort, and perhaps a bit of money. However, if that £5 matters, and paying monthly will be an inconvenience to officialdom, they might like to pay the interest on account a few months in advance rather than make people wait for interest in arrears. It is a matter of attitude, of whether one wants to be helpful or to trample over people and say that the little people of this world do not matter. This is not about big business and big funds, but about ordinary people who deserve decent treatment. They should get the money they are entitled to within 21 days. They deserve their interest monthly because they may depend on it. The sum may be too small for officialdom to care about but I know many people who care deeply about having a regular income, however small. I am not persuaded by what the Minister said.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I am pleased that my hon. Friend and I are at one. I agree, too, with his interpretation of what the Minister said. The difference between the advance payment and the actual payment and any shortfall could take years to establish in view of the procedures that I have described, such as land tribunals and so on. I accept what the Minister said about payments being made as soon as possible—under Furniss v Dawson, her words will form part of the case law if and when there is a dispute—but for a lot of public bodies, that could mean at least a month because they have a record of sitting on other people's money—indeed, would say that it is good trading practice to do so. However, the 21-day provision would make absolutely clear what every local authority was expected to live up to.

Subsection (8) states:

''The authority may, at the request of the person entitled to the payment, make a payment on account of the interest mentioned in subsection (6).''

It should state ''must'' rather than ''may''. There are many examples in company law of when companies have to send a dividend of 50p because they are required to do so. That amount would not necessarily be accepted as it would be unreasonable to demand the sum, but it is more than reasonable to expect an authority to pay £5 or more. If someone is owed £5 interest, it should be paid at the end of every month. The Government are being unreasonable in not accepting the amendments. However, a vote on the matter would not achieve anything. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 444, in

clause 77, page 54, line 17, leave out ''other'' and insert ''higher''.

I am giving my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold a rest so that he can marshal his

arguments. Amendment No. 444 is the sort of amendment that Government Members will have come to expect from me. It is born of a suspicion of officialdom; it is born of a dislike of diktat and the jackboot. If the Government were reasonable, and I often doubt that they are, they would have no difficulty in accepting the amendment, which would help them hugely. We have the jackboot again in proposed new section 33K(2):

''The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute for any amount or percentage figure specified in these sections such other amount or percentage figure (as the case may be) as he thinks fit.''

We have debated the amounts, yet now we are told that, should the fancy take him, the Secretary of State will pay no attention to them. I sometimes wonder what the point of Parliament is: it is clear that the Labour party does not think much of it. I have a suspicious mind; I assume that if the provision does not rule out putting the figures down, it will occur to some socialist Secretary of State to put them down and thereby reduce the amount of loss payment due.

Mr Matthew Green (Ludlow, Liberal Democrat)

I too have a suspicious mind. If the present or a future Secretary of State increased the amount of loss payment by 200 per cent., a new Government could not, if the hon. Gentleman's amendment were agreed to, reduce the amount without introducing new legislation in the House. If we accept the word ''higher'', the Secretary of State could only raise the amount. If one Secretary of State were to do something unreasonable, his successor could do nothing to reverse it.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

Gosh, this is a good amendment: a Liberal has understood what I am trying to achieve. I am trying to do exactly what he says; I am trying to make it impossible for this mean Government to pinch money off people by reducing the amount of loss payments. If someone were to raise the figure by 200 per cent., I would be against using the jackboot to reduce it by diktat. If a new Government believed that their predecessor had done something monstrously unreasonable and had put that in their manifesto, the hon. Member for Ludlow would have given them a remedy that they could use—the power to legislate. That is what Parliament is for; if one does not like something that one's predecessors have done, one legislates. When we turn this lot out we will have a great deal of legislation to undo all the harm that they have done. We will do that through primary legislation, not by the jackboot. That is all that I suggest.

If this Government have no intention whatsoever of screwing the public even more through this clause, they should have no difficulty in accepting that the amendment is merely intended to help them to be kind, helpful and generous. That would be a first for this Government; nevertheless, they may choose to do so. Let them accept the word ''higher'', and we will all know that they are reasonable people. If they do, I will be delighted to apologise for misinterpreting them and for my suspicious mind. I suspect, however, that my apology will be a long time coming.

Mrs Barbara Roche (Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Hornsey & Wood Green, Labour)

They say, Mr. Pike, that one should never be amazed in politics, but at the moment I am. It was not Governments supported by the hon. Member for Spelthorne that introduced the new loss payments scheme: we introduced it. It is a generous scheme, as the hon. Member for Cotswold acknowledged. Far from penny-pinching, we are giving those whose land has been compulsorily acquired an additional payment. The hon. Gentleman, in a tremendous streak of honesty brought on by an intervention from the hon. Member for Ludlow, actually said that he is against the new regulation-making powers. However, in amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold, to which I am certain the hon. Member for Spelthorne attached his signature, he wanted the Government to introduce such regulation-making powers. Now, however, he describes these same powers as a ''jackboot''. I fail to understand what is going on in the collective mind of the Opposition Front-Bench team and certainly in the mind of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Ensuring that the figures and percentages can be amended only upwards would reduce the flexibility that the Secretary of State requires to adjust them. When they are reviewed, it is of course possible that the indices will suggest that they should be increased, but the upward-only ratchet would prevent the Secretary of State from amending the split between the basic loss payment and the occupier's loss payment.

The hon. Member for Cotswold asked how all that could be changed, and we pointed to the regulation-making power. I really think that the amendment is nonsense, and I invite the Opposition to withdraw it. If they do not, I will urge the Committee to oppose it.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

I rather predicted that I would not have to apologise for saying that the Government were mean-spirited, and, sure enough, I do not. The Minister did not say that it was not in the back of her mind, or of someone else's mind, to reduce the figures, so I can only conclude that the Government are probably thinking of reducing them. The Minister has said that it is reasonable to have 10 per cent. here, 1 per cent. there and 2.5 per cent. somewhere else, and we have argued about that all afternoon. The Government's case for resisting the amendment is that their approach is perfectly adequate. We now find that there are powers to reduce the payment, so I am not sure whether any of our debate is worth relying on. The Minister is not prepared to rule out going back on every single thing that the Government have said in that regard.

As for inconsistency, I make no apologies for signing up to amendments that probe the Government. The Minister was not present—I do not criticise her for that—when I, in one of my fits of honesty, admitted wanting to help the Government. I sometimes wonder whether I am sane on such occasions, but I have nevertheless admitted once or twice that it would be good to help the Government to be consistent.

Nine times out of 10, the Government love to introduce regulation-making powers—they love to put the jackboot in wherever they can. However, they have been inconsistent once or twice, and I have simply offered them another opportunity to trample over democracy. I do that purely in the spirit of co-operation and helpfulness. I am a reasonable person, so the Minister should not try to make anything of my kindness or to say that it is not what she expects. I make no apologies for seeking to help or for signing up to some of the amendments.

Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister has said, and it simply fuels my suspicion. We all know the reality—we have had the debate, but the Minister is not going to concede. She is clearly not interested in showing that the Government are in the business of helping people rather than trampling over them. I have little choice but to withdraw the amendment, because the Government will not accept it even if I press it. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 445, in

clause 77, page 54, line 20, leave out 'annulment' and insert 'approval'.

Mr Peter Pike (Burnley, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 446, in

clause 77, page 54, line 20, leave out 'either House' and insert 'both Houses'.

Amendment No. 460, in

clause 87, page 58, line 21, leave out 'annulment' and insert 'approval'.

Amendment No. 461, in

clause 87, page 58, line 22, leave out 'either House' and insert 'both Houses'.

Amendment No. 462, in

clause 87, page 58, line 22, leave out from 'Parliament' to end of line 26.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

The Committee knows full well that I have an abhorrence of regulations or so-called secondary legislation. Last year, the House, through its various mechanisms, passed almost 4,000 bits of secondary legislation. Almost half the legislation that goes through both Houses of Parliament is secondary legislation, and much of it is undebated. That is an abuse of democracy, and if I had anything to do with it, I would considerably cut the number of order-making powers in primary legislation. The previous Conservative Government used such powers, but this Government have used them with huge regularity, and their volume has increased. Parliament's aim should be to reduce the amount of secondary legislation and to fetter the Government's use of it. If we have to have it, it would be better if it were subject to the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. The negative resolution procedure simply states that a statutory instrument will be debated for an hour and a half. The Government will use their majority, and it can be voted in or out. It cannot be amended, and that is the end of the matter. Under the affirmative resolution procedure, there must be a proper three-hour debate on the Floor of the House.

We want to amend the subsection further to ensure that it will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. We are seeking to raise the threshold of difficulty for changing regulations. Having passed regulations under the Bill, we want them to remain the same. We do not want them to be altered on a whim by a Government with a huge majority. That is not what this House—or democracy—is all about. When we pass legislation, we should be quite clear about what it is that we are passing. We should not leave it to the whim of the Secretary of State or his or her civil servants.

Amendments Nos. 445 and 460 are grouped together, as are amendments Nos. 446 and 461. Amendment No. 462 returns to the discussion we had about the provisions relating to Wales. The amendment is designed to probe the Government's thinking on why the English regions should be subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State, whereas in Wales, where there are properly devolved functions and powers, the National Assembly can make regulations with no recourse to the Secretary of State. In the interests of consistency, surely if the Government really trusted devolved institutions, they would allow the devolved regional bodies—whatever they might be—to make their own regulations without constant tinkering and interfering from the Secretary of State.

There seems to be an inconsistency in the Government's thinking. The amendment provides us with another opportunity to probe them on that inconsistency. Perhaps the more senior Minister now present will be able to tell us something that we have not already heard. We look forward to what she has to say with interest.

Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)

It will come as no surprise that I consider the amendments some of the most important that we have discussed. We have had a long debate during many sittings. Sooner or later during those debates I—or one of my colleagues—have protested about the powers granted to the Secretary of State. It is not as if we are talking about footling, unimportant provisions. In a moment, we shall consider an issue raised by amendment No. 462, under which it might be appropriate to allow the Secretary of State to do something.

We are considering giving the Secretary of State powers to tear up plans irrespective of a spatial strategy or what someone else has done. The Secretary of State by regulation or diktat can put the jackboot in and say, ''I don't care what you've done; I'm going to scrap it.'' This is important stuff. We are talking about the Secretary of State's power to determine what can be considered, or what people may decide.

The Secretary of State will have power to determine what goes into plans. The Secretary of State will have power to alter compensation, upwards and downwards. We are even giving the Secretary of State powers in some cases to determine what consultation means, which will restrict the input of the public into the whole process. Those are not footling little powers that a Secretary of State can sort out on a Friday afternoon. They are right at the heart of the Bill.

However, we are being told that all those draconian powers need to be subjected only to the negative resolution procedure. That confirms all my suspicions of what the Government think about the role of Parliament. They do not want parliamentary involvement. We have been told that we can debate this measure, but in the end the Secretary of State will change what we have decided in Committee. The Government are making every attempt to have those draconian powers exercised outside the purview of Parliament if they can get away with it. We know how it will happen. We will be bombarded with orders, dozens of them at a time, and Ministers will hope that they can be slipped through without anyone noticing them. When that happens, the jackboot has gone in and we can do nothing about it.

It is not in the least unreasonable to suggest that if the Secretary of State seeks to use those powers, given their extent—heaven knows, I have made it clear that he should not have them, but we have lost that argument—Parliament ought to have a role. The Government should be proud of themselves for wanting to embrace the democratic process. They should understand that people are concerned that the powers may be abused. In order to satisfy democracy and to allay people's concerns, they should bring draft regulations to Parliament voluntarily, and give Members the opportunity to decide. That is vital.

Those are our reasons for tabling amendments Nos. 445 and 446. We are not being pedantic, or trying to make changes for the sake of it. We want Parliament to have a real role in the process—a role for those Back Benchers who have experience of such matters, because we can sometimes help Governments of whatever political persuasion to keep in touch with reality. I suspect that regulations are far too often made for bureaucratic convenience or because the Secretary of State is in a hurry. If such matters are to be automatically scrutinised by Parliament, we stand a chance of controlling that dictatorial attitude, and of improving the regulations. As things stand, the chances of regulations being scrutinised are limited. That is the reason for amendments Nos. 445 and 446 to clause 77. Another pair of amendments would do the same in clause 87.

Amendment No. 462 deals with a curious matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold picked up on the point about Wales. On reflection, the real target of the amendment is subsection (5)(a)there is some sense to subsections (5)(b) and (5)(c). The amendment would remove the words ''unless it contains'' and paragraphs (a) to (c). It is a probing amendment. I can understand why the Secretary of State and the House of Commons should not get involved in subordinate legislation made in the National Assembly for Wales. It will be a devolved matter and the Assembly must be left to get on with its own affairs, so subsection (5)(c) makes sense. Subsection (5)(b), too, makes sense as it deals with commencement under clause 86. Even I can bring myself to accept that orders saying when something should start need not be subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses.

Subsection (5)(a), however, is a provision that I cannot accept. Even if the Government are right to say that the procedure to be followed is an annulment—I have argued that they are wrong—and even if they ignore us about using the affirmative procedure, under subsection (5)(a) not even the negative procedure will apply. Some time ago, we debated clause 81(2)(a), which is about the Scilly Isles. The Scilly Isles may not matter to some people: they may not care because there are only a couple of thousand electors out there. However, the Government should tell us why they are stripping away the protection of parliamentary involvement from the people of the Scilly Isles. They contend that we can discuss all the other draconian powers of the Secretary of State under the negative procedure. However, if the Government act on the Scilly Isles, there will be no democratic involvement. What is it about the Scilly Isles? Is it a little fiefdom that the Government want to treat as a colony? Do they want to throw their weight about somewhere so that they can prove that they do not care about democracy or Parliament?

The Isles of Scilly may be small and insignificant—several Labour Members might not know where they are—but they are an integral part of the United Kingdom. Although the islands are small, a long way away and populated by only a few people, in my book the residents of the Scilly Isles are entitled to exactly the same democracy, consideration and protection from the Government's jackboot as the rest of us. The Minister must justify why the people of the Scilly Isles have been singled out to have both boots going in at a time, rather than the one that will go in to the rest of us.

Mrs Barbara Roche (Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Hornsey & Wood Green, Labour)

I understand that the Committee debated regulation-making powers while considering earlier parts of the Bill—that is probably the understatement of the year. It might help hon. Members if I refer to existing regulation-making powers.

Section 30 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which is amended by new section 33K, to which the two amendments refer, provides a power for the Secretary of State to change the maximum, minimum and flat rate amounts under the existing home loss scheme by order. It reads:

''The power to make orders . . . shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament''.

The approach in new section 33K is broadly similar to the approach already in the relevant legislation. Opposition Members will not be surprised to hear that that was introduced when the Conservative party was in power.

Section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 governs the power to make regulations under that Act. Members of the Committee may not be surprised to hear that subsection (3) reads:

''Any statutory instrument containing regulations made under this Act . . . shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''

Again, clause 87 follows a path set out in an Act made by the Conservative party.

The Bill follows well-established precedents for using the negative procedure for statutory instruments in respect of changing amounts and percentages under the home loss scheme. The idea that Parliament cannot scrutinise regulations made using the negative procedure is nonsense.

I understand that the my fellow Minister had an enjoyable morning last year debating regulations on the inquiry rules for major infrastructure projects with the hon. Member for Cotswold. I confirm that we will consult on the details of the matters to be included in regulations as we develop them.

A couple of other issues arose during the debate, including devolution and the National Assembly for Wales. Powers for secondary legislation have been devolved to the Assembly. Of course, there is a difference regarding English regional assemblies. It would be an interesting departure if the hon. Member for Cotswold was making a plea for such bodies to be given powers.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne asked about the Isles of Scilly. The provision follows established practice, as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The council of the Isles of Scilly will have to be consulted before an order can be made. I hope that that reassures Opposition Members.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

With great respect to the Minister, I must say no, it does not. She quoted section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but I do not know whether she quoted all of subsection (3). It says:

''Any statutory instrument containing regulations made under this Act (except regulations under section 88 and regulations which by virtue of this Act are of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''

I do not know why the 1990 Act makes an exception of section 88, which has to do only with planning permission in enterprise zones. Anyhow, that subsection shows that all sorts of legislation specify sometimes a negative, and sometimes an affirmative resolution. If there must be secondary legislation, it should be subject to affirmative resolution unless there is a cogent reason otherwise. Under the affirmative procedure, the Government face a higher threshold in getting changes to regulations through Parliament. Once legislation is in force, I would like there to be as few changes as possible.

The Minister made mischief about my comments on Wales under amendment No. 462. I was merely trying to probe the Government on the dichotomy in their thinking. The Government are prepared to give fully devolved functions to the National Assembly for Wales, but for some reason they do not trust England's eight regional assemblies, and they reserve huge powers for the Deputy Prime Minister. However, we have debated the amendments at length and there is no point in carrying on the debate, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.