---

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 491 and 492.

Mr. Hain: The Government have tabled the amendments in order to keep alive certain references to the DBRW in the Housing Act 1985 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. I have been advised that to repeal the references might have undesirable knock-on effects on former tenants of the board, or on bodies to which the board may have assigned leases.

For example, without the changes it is possible that former tenants of the DBRW would effectively lose their time as such tenants in calculating their right-to-buy discount. It might also be the case that certain terms of existing tenancies would change simply because the DBRW's functions had been taken over by the WDA.

I hope that hon. Members will agree that those consequences would be undesirable and unfair, and I therefore urge the Committee to accept the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 122 to 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 125

Abolition etc.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move amendment No. 274, in page 59, leave out lines 18 to 20.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 275, in clause 131, page 62, leave out lines 8 and 9.

No. 276, in clause 135, page 64, leave out lines 27 to 29.

No. 512, in clause 141, page 66, leave out line 30.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for the opportunity, in the brief time that I have available before the witching hour

25 Feb 1998 : Column 446

at 9 o'clock, to deal with this group of amendments. Amendment No. 512 does not belong to us, so I shall leave that to those who claim paternity to it--[Interruption.]--if anyone wants to claim paternity to it. Ours are the type of probing amendments that would be relevant for the Committee stage of any Bill. Had the proceedings been taken in Standing Committee, we would have gone into such detail much more.

Amendment No. 274 seeks to delete lines 18 to 20 to ascertain the exact intention of clause 125, particularly the interplay between subsections (3) and (4). I suspect that that amendment, which deals with the Development Board for Rural Wales, and amendments Nos. 275 and 276, which deal respectively with the Land Authority for Wales and Housing for Wales, are the type of provisions that were heralded in the White Paper. Paragraph 3.23 of the White Paper says:

"Where necessary the Bill will give the Assembly limited powers to amend existing primary legislation."

That is what is happening by virtue of those clauses.

I want to ensure that we know the extent of that power to amend. As we heard in a number of our debates this evening, the DBRW has important functions for the parts of Wales for which it is responsible. Those responsibilities might well have been applied in other parts of Wales, as was suggested earlier. The question of amending other legislation because of the effect of the repeal of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 is fairly significant. If it is felt that, because of the absence of that Act, there is a need to amend other legislation that impinges on a range of economic and social powers--social powers are within the purview of the 1976 Act--these provisions enable such primary legislation to be amended by order introduced by the Secretary of State to this House.

Subsections (3) and (4) must be taken together in order to understand what we are discussing. I shall select just one part of the wording so that the provision makes sense, because the way in which the draftsmen have attacked this part of the Bill has not resulted in the most attractive English. Subsection (3) says:

"The Secretary of State may by order make any consequential . . . provisions . . . in connection with . . . the repeal by this Act of any provision of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976."

It goes on:

"An order under subsection (3) may include provisions . . . of amendments . . . of any . . . other enactment."

Any other enactment could be amended by order if it was deemed to be dealing with any matter that was incidental to or consequential on the abolition of the Development Board for Rural Wales. That is fairly far-reaching, but it is necessary because many aspects will come to light that should have been covered by the legislation. This provision allows a fast route for changes to primary legislation.

Mr. Öpik: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to ensure that we do not drop the ball when powers are transferred from the Development Board for Rural Wales to the new organisation? Is that correct?

8.45 pm

Mr. Wigley: Yes, that is correct, but I am going beyond that. These are probing amendments. I want to know what the effect of leaving out those lines would be,

25 Feb 1998 : Column 447

but first I want to establish what they facilitate. They seem to facilitate the far-reaching changes that may be necessary.

Amendment No. 275 deals with the Land Authority for Wales. Clause 131(3) and (4) give the Secretary of State the power to amend any enactment relating to land that it is felt appropriate to amend according to the wishes and policies of the National Assembly for Wales. Amendment No. 276 deals with Housing for Wales. Clause 135(3) and (4) enable the Secretary of State by order to make any incidental provisions that he deems appropriate.

Those three clauses could have substantial significance, because they allow the Secretary of State to make orders that change whole sections of housing, land or rural affairs legislation. I welcome that. The White Paper included that proposal: the Government said that they would enable primary legislation to be amended by order. The House will not lose its veto over changes to primary legislation, because an order will have to be approved by the House. An order is the vehicle for enabling provisions that would otherwise have to be included in primary legislation to be taken quickly through Parliament, to meet the requirements of the National Assembly for Wales to change the law in those three areas. The proposed mechanism is fast and effective.

Mr. Letwin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State could make the process even faster if, by a transfer of functions order or subsequent such order, he were to transfer the order-making power in those clauses to the assembly?

Mr. Wigley: Yes, that would be a mechanism whereby the assembly could change primary legislation of its own volition without reference to the House of Commons, but the Government are not proposing that. Under the Government's proposals, the House of Commons will ultimately have a veto over such changes to primary legislation. Scotland is allowed to change primary legislation, and we want our assembly to be able to do likewise, but the clauses do not allow that.

Mr. Letwin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the structure is in place to permit that change? Under the Bill, the Secretary of State could, by order, transfer those powers to the assembly so that it could thereafter by order change primary legislation.

Mr. Wigley: Yes, but only for such matters as are covered by the Bill. There is no provision for a general facility along those lines.

Mr. Letwin indicated dissent.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but the clauses and amendments that we are discussing deal with the activities of the Development Board for Rural Wales, Housing for Wales and the Land Authority for Wales.

Mr. Letwin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wigley: By all means.

25 Feb 1998 : Column 448

Mr. Letwin: I apologise for intervening again, but the matter that I wish to raise is of some constitutional significance. Clause 22(1) makes it explicit that

"Her Majesty may by Order in Council . . . provide for the transfer to the Assembly of any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales".

Clearly, the provisions to which the right hon. Gentleman draws attention are "in relation to Wales". They concern the power

"exercisable by a Minister of the Crown".

Therefore, under clause 22, the powers involved could presumably be transferred by a transfer of functions order to the assembly, which would then have the power, by order, to overturn an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Wigley: At the risk of trespassing on our earlier debates--I remember that the subject was touched on, although I think that we got into time trouble--let me say that there are restraints on clause 22.

I was not aware that primary legislation, in its generality, could be amended by order, but if that is the case, and if the arrangement is open-ended, the hon. Gentleman is clearly right. The amendment may be redundant, having already been dealt with by that mechanism. In the case of three of the four areas specified in part VI, however, there are mechanisms to allow changes in primary legislation.

I think that right and proper, and I believe that it should apply to other areas, too. I will not pursue the argument, because I would be trespassing on the Committee's time; but, if responsibilities that lie firmly with the assembly need to be modified, it would be nonsensical not to modify them. The modifications would relate only to Wales, and there is a long stop on the order in this part of the Bill. There are other long stops in other parts with regard to the financial implications. If we do not allow such a development, we shall create a structure that could lead to tensions between the assembly and the House of Commons.

If we want a devolved structure--I realise that Conservative Members may not--we must ensure that it takes on proper responsibility, carries that responsibility and does not merely lead to sniping between one Chamber and another. That is why I welcome the facility provided in the three subsections to which our three amendments relate. I hope, however, that the Minister will tell us how he envisages the working of those subsections, in the context of my comments. I hope that he will justify the need for them, given that--as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pointed out--clause 22 may provide an overarching mechanism that makes those requirements redundant. Some clarification is needed.

---