Power to make further amendments

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

Briefly, the Minister seeks powers to make further amendments. Under schedule 2 he is already making quite extensive amendments to a number of Acts. One that we query in particular relates to section 23(1)(b) of the Land Drainage Act. There are concerns that the Amendment that the Government seek will impose a requirement on internal drainage boards and lead local flood authorities to consult with and, effectively, seek consent from the EA. A number of concerns have been expressed about the amendments later in the Bill. What power will the Committee or Parliament have to review them?

The list of Acts to which the Clause refers does not include the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. I realise that it is a recent Act and the Minister is probably pleased with its content and its passage, but are there no circumstances under which he would envisage a need to amend that? I realise that the Bill has been through a number of drafts and what is now the Marine and Coastal Access Act was probably a Bill at that stage. However, it would be helpful to ensure that the list is as comprehensive as possible. To confirm, does that mean that an affirmative order will have to be laid in the form of a statutory instrument before the amendments will  be made? Are there any other omissions as regards Acts that the Minister can think of that we may need to return to?

The Clause gives the power to amend primary legislation by order on the personal initiative of the Minister of the Crown. Even though that may involve an affirmative resolution of the House, in practice it shifts power from Parliament to the Executive. It is, I am afraid, rather typical of many pieces of legislation that have come before the House in recent years and is wholly unacceptable. It lends extraordinary influence to the personal whim of the Minister and I would like it not to stand part of the Bill.

The Clause will give the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers powers to make consequential amendments through secondary legislation to the existing legislation so as to reflect the changes made through part 1 of the Bill. The sort of Acts that can be amended are the Public Health Act 1936 where relevant to water; the Coast Protection Act 1949; the Highways Act 1980 where relevant to water; the Land Drainage Act 1991; the Water Resources Act 1991; and the Environment Act 1995. To address the question from the hon. Member for Vale of York, the Marine and Coastal Access Act is not relevant to part 1 of the Bill; that is why it is not set out in it.

Many amendments to those Acts are set out in schedule 2 of the Bill. However, it is possible that other amendments might be needed to address inconsistencies between the old framework and the new. It is not reasonably possible to anticipate all such amendments in advance. They could include, for example, amendments to the provisions on powers of entry in the Water Resources Act 1991 so that they are sufficient for the wider activity of risk management as opposed to flood defence. Combined with powers under clause 44, which allows for inconsistencies and errors to be addressed, the clause will enable amendments required prior to consolidation of the existing floods legislation, as recommended by Sir Michael Pitt’s review.

As the hon. Lady said, the clause could allow for amendments to primary legislation, and I confirm that the affirmative procedure requiring a debate in each House, as well as in the National Assembly for Wales, will apply before the measures come into force. We believe that to be the right approach.

I am grateful for the Minister’s confirmation on that point. Normally, however, when a Bill is enacted, it contains a provision which means that the Bill can be amended by order. I find it a little unusual to have a Bill that states that a previous Bill can be changed by order.

As the hon. Gentleman says, I can safely say that this is not without precedent. We cannot reasonably anticipate every eventuality at this moment, but if amendments were necessary we would want to put them in front of both Houses so that they could be properly debated. That is the appropriate way to do it.

I also inform the Committee that it is necessary for the Government to table an Amendment to the Clause to provide for the fact that some of the authorities affected  by the amendments, such as water companies, operate across borders. Clarity is needed in the legislation about when they will be subject to amending regulations.

Order. That Amendment is not before us today.

I apologise. I will return to that technical issue at a subsequent stage.

I was minded to let the Clause stand part, but if the Minister plans to come back at a future date with an Amendment, it would perhaps be best to strike the clause from the Bill until we see the new text. I do not think that it is appropriate. The Minister has had every opportunity to bring forward amendments by this stage. Concerns have been expressed to me about the clause, and it might be appropriate to strike it out until we get the amendments.

It is in the hon. Lady’s gift to make that decision. As I have said, with your guidance, Mr. Martlew, we will probably return to the matter at a later stage. The Amendment has not been tabled. If we bring it forward—it is “if” we do—it will be technical, and we would not bring it forward now but on Report. I will comply with your strictures, Mr. Martlew and not go into detail about what it will be.

Perhaps this question would have come better before the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York. I am concerned about how many times we have done this sort of thing and allowed ourselves to be bamboozled—not quite bamboozled, but put in the position of agreeing something that has not been right. I am concerned about the number of occasions on which we have agreed to put things into the Bill to allow Ministers to amend the construction of previous legislation.

The Clause is in front of us, and hon. Members are free to vote for or against it as they see fit. Should we bring the Amendment forward, it would be purely a technical issue on devolution.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.