Restructuring

I beg to move Amendment 138, in Clause 29, page 16, line 23, after ‘consult’, leave out to end of subsection (4) and insert—

‘(a) the authorities that would be affected by it,

(b) the public.’.

The amendment proposes another piece of transparency that we would like to add to the Bill, which I am sure will be welcome. It would simply ensure that key decisions that have major implications for local people are not taken in secret. Under the clause, changes in responsibility are set down by order, but the shocking truth about orders in this place—it might shock the hon. Member for Norwich, North, who is new to these things—is that once in a while we are presented with orders that have  already taken effect. We are effectively presented with a fait accompli. We then face the choice, in a Committee, of rubber-stamping what has already been done or disrupting procedures that are already taking place. It is an unsatisfactory process.

The amendment is designed to ensure that the Government are never tempted to reassign responsibilities behind closed doors and present them to Parliament subsequently, because there might be an obvious temptation to do so. The reassignment of those responsibilities could be important and could have implications for local people, and that is not something I would like to happen behind closed doors.

I do not see the need for Amendment 138 or believe that it would add anything of substance to the Bill. I would like to make some comments on the Bill’s current drafting. It is welcome that the Minister may add new bodies and that the Secretary of State can step in to reassign responsibilities under certain defined conditions, but I regret that it is not clear how that process will be instigated or what role the lead local flood authority, the district councils and the internal drainage boards would have in possibly instigating such a measure.

Would it not make sense for the Minister to explain the reasons for looking into restructuring flood provision and state them publicly so that we are better advised? Perhaps he would be minded to add to the Clause something along the following lines: “Where all lead local flood authorities in an area request that the Minister consider reassigning responsibilities within that area, the Minister must respond with reasons.”

Perhaps the Minister will expand on the authorities that he believes will be covered. With regard to an order under subsection (2), the reasons should be stated. It is not entirely clear whether devolution has automatically been resolved under subsection (6)? Who will make the order, particularly with regard to trans-border matters?

The Clause provides Ministers with powers to make orders to reassign the flood and coastal erosion risk management responsibilities of lead local flood authorities, district councils and internal drainage boards. That will allow the reallocation of powers between authorities and amendments to the definition of risk management authorities. It will also allow for additional authorities to be included as risk management authorities.

The clause is probably not as clear as we would like it to be, with regard to whether additional bodies can be included as risk management authorities, or whether functions could be transferred to risk management authorities such as water companies. We intend to clarify that on Report.

Returning to the clause as drafted, the powers provide an additional degree of flexibility that will allow the framework of responsibilities to evolve over time, and the powers were recommended by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee during pre-legislative scrutiny. Although we do not have any plans to use them in the short term, the powers will be important in allowing change in circumstances to be addressed.

We are considering whether subsection (6) accurately reflects the devolution settlement. If an intended reassignment of responsibility was from or to a cross-border  risk management authority or other body, it is not currently clear where the ministerial responsibility lies for making such an order. This provision may, therefore, need to be more precise about when an order should be made by Welsh Ministers and when it should be made by the Secretary of State. If further provision is required to clarify that important technical issue, we will bring forward an Amendment on Report.

Amendment 138 would require public consultation on any changes made by order under clause 29. In its current form, the clause requires flood risk authorities to be consulted on any changes. The Government are committed to the code of practice and consultation, and the Welsh Assembly Government endorse the same principles and would take the same approach. Having heard what the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, and having looked at the provision in the light of his amendment, I will not waste the Committee’s time further, because the amendment probably is worth while. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman will let me take away the amendment to ensure that the drafting is correct, I am more than happy to come back with a similar amendment at a subsequent stage, because it is well intentioned and helps to clarify the purpose underlying the clause.

I am pleased and delighted by the Minister’s positive response to my Amendment. Under the circumstances, I am more than happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

On a point of order, Mr. Martlew. When the Bill was brought before the Committee, it was a very small Bill with fewer than 50 clauses. However, there are 17 paragraphs in schedule 1 and 54 in schedule 2. I am keen that we have the opportunity properly to scrutinise the schedules and that there will be the opportunity to have stand part debates. I seek your guidance, Mr. Martlew, on whether that should be indicated in advance, or whether debates will be called as a matter of course if there are no amendments to the schedules and clauses. Almost half the content of the Bill is contained in the schedules.

There will be the opportunity to debate them at the appropriate point in our proceedings.