Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I cannot let clauses 51 and 52 pass without comment. I sought to table amendments to both of them because I do not understand why the conventional language has been changed. There is nothing offensive about the statement in clause 51 that

''Schedule 1 contains minor and consequential amendments'' because that is indubitably the case, but it does not state that schedule 1 shall have effect. In every Bill that I have dealt with, schedules are introduced into the legislation by a clause that specifically gives effect to them.

The same point applies to clause 52. It is one of the most bizarre clauses that I have ever come across. It states:

''Schedule 2 contains repeals.''

Order. That clause must be referred to in passing only, because I hope that we will address it in a few moments.

I was hoping to draw the Committee's attention to a single point that applies to clauses 51 and 52 to obviate the need for any further discussion of clause 52.

A mere statement of fact does not do anything very interesting; clause 51(a) could state ''the sea contains fish.'' I am concerned that these schedules might not become part of the Bill merely by a statement that refers to what is contained within them. Why does clause 51 not state that schedule 1 shall have effect, s well as that it contains minor and consequential amendments, and why does clause 52 not contain a provision that states that schedule 2 shall have effect? As far as I am aware, that has always been the conventional form.

I will not deal with clauses 51 and 52 in detail because I understand that the hon. Gentleman is happy with the idea that they are included in the legislation. He is concerned about their effect. The style in which a Bill is written is a matter for parliamentary counsel. It appears that the hon. Gentleman is troubled by the revolutionary nature of the style that he keeps on identifying. We are content that clauses 51 and 52 have the required legal effects, although he has quarrels with the wording and whether the clauses do what he wants them to do.

That begs the question why I have spent the past seven years voting on clauses that give effect to schedules. I am astonished that the Under-Secretary has nothing more substantial to say about that. It appears to me that there is a big gap, but if that is all he has to say we will let the matter pass and I will try to find out more in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1Minor and consequential Amendments