UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 186-ii

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

WELSH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

PROPOSED NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES (LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE) (HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT) ORDER 2010

Thursday 7 January 2010

MR WAYNE DAVID MP, MR JAMES GEORGE and MR GETH WILLIAMS

Evidence heard in Public Questions 52 - 97

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Welsh Affairs Committee

on Thursday 7 January 2010

Members present

Dr Hywel Francis, in the Chair

Mr David Jones

Alun Michael

Mark Williams

________________

Witnesses: Mr Wayne David MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr James George, Lawyer, Mr Geth Williams, Head of Legislation Policy, Wales Office, gave evidence.

Chairman: Good morning and Happy New Year. Welcome to the Welsh Affairs Committee. Would you introduce yourself and your colleagues for the record, please?

Mr David: Thank you, Chairman. Happy New Year to you and your colleagues. On my left is James George, an adviser from the Wales Office. On my right is Geth Williams from the Wales Office, who focuses upon legislative matters.

Q52 Chairman: As you know, Minister, we are dealing this morning with the Sustainable Housing Legislative Competence Order. To what extent does the context for housing policy in Wales differ from that in England?

Mr David: There has been a difference of emphasis between Wales and England since the advent of the Welsh Assembly. In terms of the nature of housing stock, there are obviously differences and similarities within Wales and between Wales and England. However, the differences which have developed in terms of policy are more evident in the nature of the issues which are being tackled. For example, in Wales we have seen a bigger emphasis placed on a partnership approach towards tackling housing issues, with greater partnership with the housing associations and local authorities in particular. There have been differences in other areas as well. With regard to the right to buy, for example, there has been a difference of emphasis and interpretation of our policy. In England there has been a much larger discount available for people who wish to purchase local authority homes. In Wales the discount has been reduced from £24,000 to £16,000. There has been a difference of emphasis, and the Legislative Competence Order that we have before us takes forward the differences of emphasis in approach that we have seen for the last few years and therefore it is consistent with how the Welsh Assembly Government has been developing these housing policies.

Q53 Chairman: Do I take it that you agree with the Welsh Assembly Government that it would be constitutionally appropriate and in line with the devolution settlement to devolve wide-ranging legislative competence over housing?

Mr David: Yes, I would agree with that. We have already a piecemeal approach towards devolution of responsibility for large areas of housing policy, and in many ways this LCO provides greater coherence to a strategic approach which has already been accepted. That is one of the main things underpinning this LCO. I would also emphasise the fact that this enhances democracy, because Welsh Ministers already have significant powers with regard to housing, but those powers are focused on Ministers rather than on the Assembly as a whole.

Q54 Chairman: Given what happened last time - and we will not go into what happened over a year ago now in too much detail but taking on board what you just said - this LCO arises, therefore, mainly out of a matter of principle and a much more considered view of matters rather than what it appeared to be last time, seemingly a pressing need for legislation. Perhaps I am putting words into your mouth, but, in other words, the Welsh Assembly Government seems to have had more time to consider what they are proposing and are developing a much wider policy initiative.

Mr David: Yes, that is correct. The period between the difficulties experienced by the previous draft LCO and the situation we are in now has been a very productive period. The Welsh Assembly Government has certainly used the opportunity of that hiatus to ensure that its consultation and its thinking and its policy development is far stronger now than it was a couple of years ago. For example, we have seen the publication in June 2008 of the Essex report, and that is of quite seminal importance really in the development of housing policy in Wales. It has come forward with some 43 recommendations, and by and large that report has been extremely well received by the people involved in the housing sector. That report has influenced the LCO that we have before us now. There is also the National Housing Strategy which has gone out for consultation. Although the report has not been finalised, nevertheless we are able to say that generally it has received a favourable response. There is also, for example, the Joseph Rowntree Report, which has come forward with some very interesting and positive ideas. These issues taken together have certainly informed the Assembly's thinking, and the Assembly is in a much stronger position to come forward with an LCO which, if implemented, the measures that follow from it will, I believe, make a big difference in Wales.

Chairman: We will now move on to the scope of the proposed Order.

Q55 Mark Williams: You have acknowledged that this Order is significantly broader than any of the other LCOs we have seen before. Do you think enough time has been allowed for such scrutiny? Or would you say, perhaps in the context of what you have just said, that since the earlier housing LCO there has been a prolonged debate? There are two things: has there been a lengthy enough debate more generally, and, specific to this LCO, is enough time being made available by the Assembly for the very tight deadline of 29 January for their report? It is a very broad LCO to cover a lot of points, is it not?

Mr David: I think you are right. My answer to your point follows on from what has been said, that we are not considering this LCO now in anything approaching a backlog. It does follow on from the previous draft LCO but a lot of lessons have been learned, in terms of process and the drafting of the LCO but in terms of policy formulation as well. I can honestly say, as a Minister who delves in some detail into all the proposed legislation, this legislation (the LCO and the explanatory memoranda) does bear testimony to the fact that a great deal of hard work has gone into the development of government policy and the legislation.

Q56 Mark Williams: One of the reasons for requesting legislative competence, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, is that Welsh Ministers already have extensive executive powers in this area which originated from when the Assembly was set up. What areas of competence are being extended to the Assembly which go beyond the remit of existing powers to make regulations?

Mr David: You are right, there have been a piecemeal approach towards which executive powers the Welsh Ministers have had and in many respects the proposed LCO does build upon that and create a good sense of coherence and unity of purpose. There are a number of instances where this has been proposed. One example stands out to me, and that is with regard to the influence that Welsh Ministers have with regard to housing associations. For instance, at the moment the Welsh Ministers have the power to undertake statutory investigation into a housing association which it might feel is not being run properly or effectively, but it cannot serve an enforcement notice. Because of this LCO, if it were implemented and eventually followed, they could do that. In a sense, it is a logical conclusion of powers the Welsh Assembly Government already has. Another big area is the whole issue of the nature of home ownership. One of the things the Assembly has been talking about over the last few months has been a move towards mutual ownership, whereby homes are owned maybe co‑operatively but the land is owned separately. That is an innovative idea which is worthy of positive development and examination. Those are two practical examples. One point I would make is that much of the debate last time focused around the efficacy of the right to buy or not. There has been a realisation that in many ways that is not the central debate. That is a debate of the past, in a sense. This LCO takes us beyond that rather sterile debate into new and innovative and far more relevant and meaningful areas. That is why I think it is important. The final point I would make to reinforce that point is that that is not just our view in the Wales Office but it is the view of many people engaged in the development of housing policy in Wales. Shelter, for example, who I think are giving evidence to you later on, certainly welcome this new approach and recognise that much of the debate to be had around the previous draft LCO was not that meaningful to the development of housing policy in Wales. What we have before us now is far more relevant.

Q57 Mark Williams: I want to turn now to the issue of whether it was appropriate to issue an LCO or the use of framework powers. The explanatory memorandum noted the use of executive powers, giving executive powers to Welsh Ministers in Acts of Parliament. Was consideration given to devolving legislative powers in that way rather than in an LCO? A specific question coming from that is: Why could not some of the powers that you have referred to in the LCO have been given to the Assembly as part of the Housing and Regeneration Act of last year?

Mr David: There is the obvious answer in terms of timescale. In many areas of policy it is the preferred approach of the Welsh Assembly Government to introduce Wales-only clauses in England and Wales legislation which is going through, but stemming from the One Wales agreement there is now a commitment to have a specific emphasis on the development of housing policy in Wales and the natural corollary to that has been the emphasis on the Legislative Competence Order - both the initial one and the one we have before us now.

Q58 Mark Williams: Discussion has been ongoing. There has been a long discussion on housing policy.

Mr David: Yes.

Q59 Mark Williams: Were there discussions between the Wales Office and the Assembly Government on the possible inclusion of framework powers?

Mr David: The Welsh Assembly Government took a fairly early decision that they wished to see a Legislative Competence Order on this view. Certainly, in terms of the LCO we have before us now, it would not be appropriate for the Matters here to be included in any legislation which is currently passing before the House. In a sense it is opportunist whether or not the Welsh Assembly Government can insert framework clauses, and so initially they wanted to have a freestanding LCO, and, second, I do not think it is possible now to see any legislation in which these Matters could be effectively included.

Q60 Mark Williams: Obviously there have been instances when the Assembly Government has requested framework powers but it has been unable to secure them. I suppose the specific question is: What is the Wales Office doing to ensure that Whitehall departments engage with the Assembly early enough so that, if there are two options, both can be explored fully?

Mr David: There is an excellent working relationship between the Welsh Assembly Government and Whitehall departments. The job of the Wales Office is, as you suggest, to ensure that that relationship is as effective as possible. We are the facilitators. But we also have made it clear that it is up to the Welsh Assembly Government to determine (a) how it wants to prioritise its bids for legislation and (b) the nature of the bids which are put forward, whether it is framework powers or whether it is LCOs. We have taken our steer very much from the Welsh Assembly Government on that. Once they have made the principle decision about what they want and how they want it, then we seek to facilitate that, but we do not suggest to the Welsh Assembly Government how they should fulfil their legislative ambitions.

Q61 Mark Williams: I welcome that. I think that emphasis is right and appropriate. You are satisfied that the processes are robust enough early on for that discussion nonetheless to take place?

Mr David: Yes, I am satisfied. I will add, however that I am more satisfied now than perhaps I would have been 12 months ago, because this is a new process that we have before us and all players, all participants in it, are learning as they go along. I am far more confident about the situation as it is working now than perhaps was the situation in the past.

Mark Williams: Thank you.

Q62 Mr Jones: Could you explain the purpose of the changes that have been made to the wording of Matter 11.5 since the Committee last considered a similar proposal - which was the Affordable Housing LCO, which I understand has been now abandoned altogether?

Mr David: Matter 11.5 covers the disposal of land held and used for social housing.

Q63 Mr Jones: That is right.

Mr David: And enables the Assembly to propose legislation to suspend the right to buy in areas of housing pressure. It is important to recognise that Jocelyn Davies, the Deputy Minister for Housing, made it emphatically clear to yourselves when she gave evidence that it was not -----

Q64 Mr Jones: I am sorry to interrupt you, but I will be asking about that a bit later on. I am asking if you could explain the purpose of the textual changes that have been made since we last considered the 2008 proposal.

Mr George: The main reason for the changes is really to reflect the way the rest of the LCO is now drafted to fit it in with that. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are talking generally about disposal of social housing and related land. Paragraph (c) is referring to the specific pieces of legislation that were also mentioned in the previous LCO. The reason for including those is that there may be some categories of disposal under the existing legislation which would not fall within paragraphs (a) and (b) in a few situations.

Q65 Mr Jones: Thank you. To move on to the policy aspect which you just started on, this Order, which is essentially the revision of one that we have already considered, would still allow the Welsh Assembly to amend or, if necessary, abolish the right to buy. I recall that this proposal was something of a deal breaker on the last occasion that a similar rule was considered by your department. To what extent do you now consider it appropriate that the Assembly should have the right to abolish the right to buy?

Mr David: Last time there were essentially two issues which focused the collective mind of this Committee: one was the policy per se of the right to buy and the second was the fact that the explanatory memorandum did not, I think it is true to say, adequately reflect the nature of the LCO. That second issue has been very effectively addressed. That is why the explanatory memorandum that we have before us, on this issue and other issues as well, is exemplary in the way that it has given a very, very clear and precise explanation of both the policy background and also the legislation that is proposed. That is extremely important. In terms of the right to buy, one of the difficulties last time was that because in other areas policy development had not been anywhere near as advanced as it is now, the right to buy tended to stick out. The impression may have been given that the Assembly believed that that was a much more significant policy than what in fact it was. Although the right to buy essentially is by and large the same as it was in the previous LCO, it is put in a much broader context. If we judge that alongside the policy pronounced last week by Jocelyn Davies, that the Assembly Government has no policy intention to abolish the right to buy across Wales, we can see it in a context of being one element of a broader housing strategy.

Q66 Mr Jones: To that extent, the policy of the Welsh Assembly Government remains unchanged. Jocelyn Davies gave evidence to this Committee a few weeks ago in which she said that in terms. The policy objective in terms of the right to buy or not to abolish the right to buy is identical to its position as it was when the previous application was made for the Affordable Housing LCO. There has been no change to that extent. Do you consider, therefore, speaking corporately on behalf of the Wales Office, that the right to buy should be empowered to abolish the right to buy? If so, why have you changed your mind since the last LCO?

Mr David: There are a number of points there. The first point I would make is that the Welsh Assembly Government is committed to the One Wales agreement. The One Wales agreement is very clear with regard to the right to buy but the agreement has not been changed, and, therefore, the policy of the Welsh Assembly Government has not changed. In terms of the Wales Office, it is not our position that we have been opposed to the right to buy per se. If you look at the last evidence session of my predecessor Huw Irranca-Davies, he gave no indication that that was the Wales Office's policy at all. Reservations might have been expressed by Members of this Committee, and following the suggestion by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI), the LCO was modified so that before there would be any waiving of the right to buy Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State for Wales would have to give their explicit consent. That position was accepted by the Welsh Assembly Government and indeed by the Government here, but nevertheless the vires of that was questioned by the JCSI. Following that, it was decided that, although we were confident about the legal veracity of it, nevertheless it would be better if we did not pursue that rather complicated arrangement but suggested to the Welsh Assembly Government that they might look at the issue afresh - which they have done.

Q67 Mr Jones: Pausing briefly there, I thank you for reminding me of the process that we went through last time. Effectively the Wales Office insisted upon what can only be described as a veto before this particular power should be implemented. Clearly that was done for a particular reason. The particular reason, I would suggest, is that the Wales Office had concerns about the policy that might flow from such a power being granted. To that extent it is fairly clear that your predecessors and the former Secretary of State had concerns about this particularly policy. It is fair to say that, is it not?

Mr David: The first point I would make is that the Wales Office did not insist on a veto, as it has been described, by the Secretary of State. That was a suggestion which came forward in joint discussion between ourselves and the Welsh Assembly Government. It was not at our insistence, but we saw this as a way in which the matter might be effectively expedited. It was a novel approach but, nevertheless, we thought that that was certainly something which was legal and something which could take us out of the difficulty which had arisen. The legal correctness of that, as I say, was questioned, and we took the decision that it would be better, therefore, not to pursue any further that unique approach. I will emphasis that in terms of the policy matter it is not our position in the Wales Office to question the policy of the Welsh Assembly Government.

Q68 Mr Jones: No, the only policy that you exercise is whether or not you consider it appropriate to grant a particular power. That is the only extent to which you consider policy, is it not? Beyond that, you will leave it up to the Welsh Assembly to decide what they want to do with that power once granted.

Mr David: It is the decision of Parliament as whole really to make a decision as to what powers are appropriate for the Welsh Assembly to have.

Q69 Mr Jones: But it is your department that puts the proposal before Parliament for consideration, so you do have to exercise a judgment to that extent.

Mr David: The emphasis would be placed on facilitating the policy objectives of the Welsh Assembly Government rather than questioning what the Welsh Assembly Government wish to do.

Q70 Mr Jones: With respect, I think you are mixing up two points. I fully understand that once the power has been devolved then the way that that power is exercised is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government, but you have to make the decision beforehand whether or not you are prepared to recommend to Parliament that the power be devolved in the first place. That is the point where you exercise your judgment.

Mr David: I would not wholly agree with that definition of the role of the Wales Office. It is the Welsh Assembly Government who come forward with their wishes for which legislation they wish to have enacted. Obviously negotiations take place, but the negotiations are very much focused on the practicalities of ensuring that the Welsh Assembly Government is able to fulfil its objectives. We do not come to a determination of what is right or wrong or appropriate or inappropriate. It is our job to facilitate things as far as practically possible.

Q71 Mr Jones: To summarise the position, so that it is on the record and we can return to it later, you acknowledged that the Welsh Assembly Government's policy has not changed in respect of this issue of whether or not there should be the sale of social housing and whether or not that right should be abolished. That is identical on this occasion to the position it was in at the time that this Committee considered the last proposal of the Affordable Housing LCO.

Mr David: You are not wholly accurate in the way you depict the policy of the Welsh Assembly Government.

Q72 Mr Jones: I understand.

Mr David: The Welsh Assembly Government has been very clear that they are talking about limited circumstances and not a permanent lifting but a temporary lifting. That caveat is very important, that the Welsh Assembly Government's position is not misrepresented.

Q73 Mr Jones: No, I am not misrepresenting it.

Mr David: Can I also agree with you that there has not been any change in regard to that policy. What is different is that that particular policy has now, in my view, assumed a far less great significance, because it is now placed in a far broader policy context. The emphasis has been placed on other areas rather than, as the impression was given last time, on the right to buy.

Q74 Mr Jones: I am sorry to press the point, but to deal with this issue of whether or not the Welsh Assembly Government either wants or needs the power to abolish the right to buy, the policy of the Welsh Assembly Government as enunciated a few weeks ago by Jocelyn Davies, from the seat in which you are sitting at the moment, was that there is no intention on the part of the Welsh Assembly Government to abolish the right to buy, and that to that extent, and that extent only - let us not stray beyond that - their policy remains unchanged. That is the case, is it not? That is what she said.

Mr David: With regard to the right to buy, the policy of the Welsh Assembly Government has not changed.

Q75 Mr Jones: No. Thank you very much indeed. Has the Wales Office explored any alternative legislative vehicles, other than an LCO, to enable the Welsh Assembly Government to achieve its policy aim of limited local suspensions of the right to buy? Is it necessary to do it through an LCO or could it be done in any other manner?

Mr David: My understanding is that it can only be done under the existing powers of the Welsh Assembly Government. That is why this stipulation here is with regard to Matter 11.5.

Q76 Mr Jones: Is that the view of the legal advisers too?

Mr George: It would have to be either by giving the Assembly the competence to pass legislation, amending existing legislation, or through an Act of Parliament in the Housing Act.

Mr Jones: Thank you very much.

Q77 Chairman: Minister, I want to ask about Matter 11.7 relating to Gypsies and travellers. That Matter would enable the Assembly to compel local authorities to provide sites. Do you think this diminishes the key strategic housing role of local authorities?

Mr David: No, I do not. Matter 11.7 is ensuring that the policy objective of the Welsh Assembly Government is fulfilled with regard to Gypsies and travellers. Concern has been expressed that some of the local authorities in Wales have not been forthcoming in terms of identifying sites for Gypsies and travellers and, therefore, this Matter will ensure that local authorities do come forward with what is expected of them.

Q78 Mr Jones: This particular power would enable the Assembly Government to adopt a highly interventionist position, would it not, in certain cases?

Mr David: It would give a reserve power for Welsh Ministers to require local authorities to provide sites for an identified group, but the idea of having a reserve power does not imply that it would be used. It would be a means to ensure that the local authorities themselves identify suitable sites.

Q79 Mr Jones: Jocelyn Davies reiterated this point when she gave evidence.

Mr David: A reserve power is not novel; it has been introduced in other legislation.

Q80 Mr Jones: If the Welsh Assembly Government considered it appropriate, it could, under the provisions of this power, not only tell a local authority that it should provide a site for Gypsies and travellers but could in fact specify where that site should be.

Mr Williams: There is no indication whatsoever that the Welsh Assembly Government would wish to do that.

Q81 Mr Jones: I understand that, but it would have the power to do so if it wished.

Mr David: In an entirely theoretical sense, but that would cut across the whole approach that the Assembly has adopted with regard to its engagement with local authorities and the way the planning process works.

Q82 Mr Jones: I understand that. Forgive me, if ----

Mr David: Yes, but, forgive me, there is no point in talking about things in an abstract, theoretical way.

Q83 Mr Jones: I am not talking in an abstract way.

Mr David: Yes, you are, with all due respect. We are talking about how policies will be implemented on the basis of this legislation.

Q84 Mr Jones: But the point is that the power would be granted to the Welsh Assembly Government, should it seek to do so, in terms of acting in a very interventionist manner and telling the local authority whether it should have a traveller site and where it should be. Whether or not they intend to exercise that is a matter for them, but they would have the power to do so.

Mr David: A local development plan would be drawn up, as is the case at the moment, and the relevant local authority would be expected to cater for the needs of Gypsies and travellers. The inspector appointed by the Welsh Assembly would examine the local development plan and examine whether or not it fulfils the objectives which are set out by the Welsh Assembly Government, to which local authorities are obliged to adhere. It would be up to the local authority then, with proposals asked of them by the inspector on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government, to come forward with appropriate sites. Frankly, it is inconceivable that the Assembly in Cardiff would somehow, by some vague mechanism, determine that a particular site in an area which they are not familiar with, would have a Gypsy site. They just would not do it.

Q85 Mr Jones: Why would they want the power?

Mr David: Because the reserve power makes it absolutely clear that this is what is expected of a Welsh Assembly Government. This would focus the minds of the local authority to come forward with appropriate sites.

Q86 Mr Jones: Precisely, and if the local authority did not do so, in the opinion of the Welsh Assembly Government, then the Welsh Assembly Government could impose one on the local authority.

Mr David: In a theoretical sense, that could happen, but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the local authority, if they were in that situation, would come forward with a reasonable and appropriate site.

Q87 Chairman: Let us move on to cross-border issues, Minister. Council tax benefit and housing benefit are not devolved. Do you consider that this restricts the future development of housing policy in Wales?

Mr David: We do not see any hugely significant cross-border issues here. As you correctly say, housing benefit and council tax benefit are issues which would not be part of this Legislative Competence Order and our understanding is that there is only a handful of RSL sites which belong to Wales and England and vice versa. We are talking about only a few hundred registered social landlords in England who would have houses in Wales. We are talking about a very, very small number, and obviously those have been identified and careful consideration would be given to any impact upon registered social landlords in that sense. I do not see cross-border issues as being a hugely problematic area in this context.

Q88 Chairman: The question was not specifically about the physical border, it was more about non-devolved policy areas. Given how important these two major areas of council tax benefit and housing benefit are in the development of housing policy, that is the nature of the question. It is an open-ended question really. I am not suggesting the matter should be devolved, but you would acknowledge that this does constrain the development of housing policy in Wales.

Mr David: You are obviously correct in terms of those two benefits having a direct bearing on the ability for the Welsh Assembly Government to develop its policy on the legislative basis that we are talking about, but I would not see that as being necessarily a huge problem because no one has suggested in Wales that there will be that kind of devolution of that aspect of the benefit system. All organisations, all providers of housing, work within a certain context, and that is how the policy formulation takes place.

Mr Williams: It is about the Welsh Assembly Government working closely with relevant government departments in Whitehall as well, like CLG and DWP, and they certainly do that at the moment.

Chairman: Let us now move on to the drafting of Matters.

Q89 Alun Michael: I apologise, Minster, for the fact that having a question on the floor of the House means that I have missed some of your good evidence this morning. Language is important, particularly when there is a difference between the language that is used in everyday parlance and language that is used in statutory provisions. The proposed Order includes a number of terms that are already defined in legislation. Are these terms intended to bear those statutory definitions; for example, the term "homeless"?

Mr David: As is always the case, the definitions which have been employed in this LCO are definitions which have been on occasions used elsewhere, but the definitions are particular to the circumstances in which they are deployed. There is not an automatic read-across between what is existing in current legislation and what has been employed here. There is, however, some read-across, but the important thing I would suggest is that there is no incompatibility between the terms which are used here and the terms used in other legislation.

Q90 Alun Michael: There are two different contexts. One is whether there is incompatibility; the other is whether the terms are meant to take the same meaning as it did in other legislation. Would it not be sensible for the interpretation provisions, when you come forward with the substantive Order, to be amended to include cross-references to the statutory definitions so that it is clear where the same intention is placed on the words, or, if there are differences, that those differences are clear?

Mr George: There is a general issue about cross-referring to other legislation which we have talked about in other sessions. The general approach we take is to try not to do that, because then the other legislation may be amended and that would then have a sort of potential knock-on effect upon the competence of the Assembly or the two might get out of sync. On the particular point you mentioned about homelessness, the approach here is that homelessness should have its ordinary meaning, which we think is pretty easily understood. There are statutory definitions of homelessness, but they are there specifically to determine what the duties are of local authorities to provide accommodation and assistance to particular groups of people. They have tied in a lot of other definitions about eligibility and so on, and so they are not meant to apply directly to this Order.

Q91 Alun Michael: When it comes to explanatory memoranda it may sometimes be helpful to explain in the explanatory memoranda why there is not a cross-reference, if there is not, for the avoidance of doubt. Perhaps that is something that could be considered before the final draft comes forward.

Mr David: That is a fair point and something that we will clearly consider in terms of the final explanatory memoranda.

Q92 Alun Michael: In relation to social housing, was consideration given to prescribing a single Matter "social housing" (appropriately defined) rather than three matters, 11.1, 11.3 and 11.4, and their linking definitions?

Mr David: The three Matters to which you refer 11.2, 11.3 and 11.4, are dealing with specific aspects of the issue of social housing.

Q93 Alun Michael: I understand that, but the alternative of course would have been to have a single Matter, rather more broadly defined. I am trying to understand why this was the choice that you made.

Mr George: Partly we thought that this proposal makes it clear what is intended. The first Matter, 11.2, for example, "Social housing providers", clearly indicates that we are talking there about things like the regulatory system for social landlords. Matter 11.4 is separate to do with tenure and the kind of tenancies people have in the way in which property is allocated. It might be that if we used a more general term, like "Social housing", we might bring in things that we had not thought of.

Q94 Alun Michael: You are seeking, therefore, to do something that this Committee has asked for, to be absolutely clear what the intention is in all of this.

Mr George: Yes.

Q95 Alun Michael: I suppose we ought to welcome that. Are there aspects of social housing other than those specified in these Matters that will remain outside the Assembly's competence?

Mr Williams: Social housing finance is the obvious answer. The housing revenue account does not fall within the competence of the Assembly.

Q96 Alun Michael: Otherwise it would cover all aspects.

Mr Williams: Otherwise, yes.

Chairman: Thank you very much for your co‑operation this morning and answering our questions very thoroughly. That is all we have to ask you this morning. Once again, thank you very much.