Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee

Can I move a motion, under Standing Order 17.42, to resolve to exclude the public from the meeting for the following items: 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 and 15?

I welcome Julie James, the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery, to this session. Would you like to introduce your officials?

They can introduce themselves, Chair.

Prynhawn da. Dylan Hughes, Prif Gwnsler Deddfwriaethol.

Good afternoon. Claire Fife, for the purposes of this Bill I'm the Bill manager.

Thank you very much. If you're ready, I'll start off with the first question. What is the overall purpose of the Bill and how will it achieve its stated aims?

Thank you very much for the question. This is a technical and administrative Bill and it helps develop the elements that underpin Welsh law and help make it more accessible. The purpose is to amend the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019, which is about making and publishing Welsh legislation, and it brings forward a series of repeals to provisions that are no longer needed. The law on this is currently spread over a few enactments, some of which are around 80 years old, even, and there are gaps in the legislation, and they don't fully reflect the arrangements that we've all become used to working in. Also, none of the legislation is currently bilingual. So this is a general tidying up and codification of the law, which would really help to make it more accessible. And then there are some minor amendments to the provisions in the 2019 Act that deal with interpretation and operation of legislation, and that just reflects our experience of using that Act in the intervening years.

Thank you very much. Alun.

I've just started eating a biscuit.

My fault.

What's your vision for this Bill, Minister?

It's just exactly that: it's a tidying up provision, if you like. It's about accessibility, it's about allowing things to happen in Welsh law that I think some of us might be quite surprised don't happen. I have to say that I was quite surprised to find that there was no such thing in law as a Welsh statutory instrument, for example. I think quite a few of us would find that surprising. So it allows us to tidy it up, to have a series of Welsh statutory instruments that are numbered as such, and to allow accessibility more generally.

It also allows us to access the King's Printer as a King's Printer for Wales for the first time, and again, I think I can't be alone in having been quite surprised that that wasn't something we already had. So effectively I think it's putting the law into the state that many of us might have guessed it was already in.

And that, of course, is an important purpose, I fully accept that. But you know, when I hear Ministers saying this is purely an administrative Bill, two things go through my mind. First of all, what are they trying to hide? And two, why don't you do more, then, with this legislation? And do you know, we've had conversations—I'll put it on the public record—about how we legislate here, from both sides of the desk, in terms of Government and in terms of the Senedd. I think we both feel that we could improve how we legislate, and provide more flexibility for Government and perhaps more opportunities for scrutiny from a Senedd point of view, and I think that's quite a useful conversation to pursue. This Bill probably wouldn't be a place to look at that. But I'm interested as to what you believe this Bill can achieve in terms of making Welsh law more accessible. Because you will know, Counsel General, one of the conversations we've had in this committee over the years has been the confusion of the statute book—using Westminster legislation and Welsh legislation to achieve Government's objectives. You can provide as much opportunity within this legislation as you wish, but if the Government continues to do that, the statute book will continue to be confused and accessibility will be reduced.

Yes, that's true. It's one of the stages of things that I think we need to do. There is a real capacity issue and it's one of the things that—. You and I are both on the Future Senedd Committee as well. It's one of the things that I know that committee is going to look at, and this is part of it. So, this Bill is a really good example. This is a Bill that's been worked on I think it's fair to say, and without wanting to be pejorative, around the edges of the rest of the programme, because it's a Bill that's technically needed but it's not politically needed. So, it's a Bill that people have worked on, if you like, because they think it's technically needed but it hasn't been prioritised by the Government. We've now got an opportunity to bring it forward as part of the legislative programme, but it could quite easily have dropped away if we'd had a Bill with more political priority ready at the right point in time.

And that's one of the things that the Future Senedd Committee will be looking at, Alun, because it is about how do we mesh together proper scrutiny and the capability of the Government to bring forward legislation. For example, using UK legislation is an interesting one. So, I think there are certain circumstances in which using UK legislation makes sense because, for example, you might have a market that isn't sufficiently developed in Wales that is developed in England that we can take advantage of. I can think of several examples over the course of my ministerial career where I've thought, 'Well, it's not beneficial to have a different system in Wales than it is England because, actually, it's really hard to recruit particular professions, or whatever'.

There are also occasions in which something is brought forward by a UK Government of any colour where we think, 'Well, we haven't got that in our priority list but it would be a shame for the people of Wales not to be able to take advantage of it', so we'll piggyback on it at that point. You could at that point, if you had the capability, do a Welsh version of it, but we don't have that capability and it's one of the things I think the Future Senedd Committee wants to have a look at. One of the things I've brought forward in that committee, for example—and forgive me, for my colleagues sitting here on this side of the table—is we have a very strange way of thinking about our parliamentary counsel, because we think of them at the moment as the Government's, and they should be, in my view, the Parliament's. So, there are other things that we could do to make resource available more widely that would help us bring forward that kind of legislation.

I find myself in complete agreement with the Counsel General, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Adam nesaf.

Dwi jest eisiau gofyn rhai cwestiynau technegol i ddechrau. A ydych chi wedi cael cydsyniad Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Gyfunol o ran yr adrannau hynny o'r Bil sy'n ymwneud â swyddogaethau Argraffydd Deddfau Seneddol y Brenin, sydd ar hyn o bryd yn gadwedig? Felly, fel arfer, mae'n rhaid i chi gael cydsyniad ymlaen llaw ar gyfer newid grym corff sydd yn gadwedig.

We've sought consent. Sorry, I can't listen to myself feed back. We've sought consent. We haven't got it yet, but we've had lots of consultations. We're not expecting any kind of problem. I've yet to engage with the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, just because of the age of the incoming Government, but we're not anticipating any difficulty with that, because we've been in correspondence with the various organisations, via the officials, for some time. Dylan, I don't know if you want to say about—.

Yes. We've been speaking to the National Archives.

Yr Archifau Gwladol. Felly, ŷn ni wedi bod yn trafod gyda nhw. Mae'r pethau yma yn bwysig iawn iddyn nhw, yn amlwg, achos nhw sy'n gyfrifol am y wefan lle ŷn ni'n cyhoeddi deddfwriaeth. Felly, maen nhw'n hapus, felly ŷn ni'n hapus, felly ŷn ni'n gobeithio, ar y lefel wleidyddol, y bydd popeth yn iawn.

Ie. Does dim unrhyw fwriad i symud lleoliad wrth greu Argraffydd Deddfau Seneddol y Brenin? Dwi'n gwybod bod popeth yn ddigidol ac yn y blaen, ond ydy hwnna'n ystyriaeth ehangach, tu hwnt i'r Bil yma?

Dyw e ddim ar y funud, oherwydd mae yna un llyfr statud i'r Deyrnas Unedig, i bob pwrpas. Felly, er bod gennym ni ein pwerau ni lawr fan hyn—ac mae'r Alban yn wahanol hefyd—mae popeth yn cyfuno mewn un pan fo'n dod i ddeddfwriaeth y Deyrnas Unedig. Felly, mae yna un wefan lle mae popeth yn cael ei gyhoeddi, a'r Archifau Gwladol sy'n gyfrifol am hynny. Felly, byddai'n anghymesur, dwi'n meddwl, pe baem ni'n trio gwneud y pethau yma i Gymru yn unig. Rŷn ni'n gweithio gyda nhw fel ein bod ni'n gallu gwneud mwy o bethau i Gymru yn unig. Felly, mae tîm Claire, er enghraifft, yn gweithio ar ddiweddaru deddfwriaeth Cymru, ac ŷn ni'n gwneud hwnna fan hyn. Felly, beth mae hwnna'n ei olygu yw bob tro ŷn ni'n diwygio deddfwriaeth Gymreig, mae tîm Claire nawr yn sicrhau bod hwnna yn cael ei gyfleu ar y wefan, fel bod y gyfraith i gael yn y ffordd gyfredol, hynny yw, ei bod hi wedi cael ei diweddaru'n gywir. Felly ŷn ni yn gwneud pethau fel yna.

Ond o ran yr Argraffydd Brenhinol, mae hwn yn hen bwnc. Mae e'n rhywbeth efallai dylai wedi cael ei wneud yn 1998, yn y Ddeddf wreiddiol, ac yn sicr yn 2006, ond, am wahanol resymau, gafodd e ddim ei wneud. Felly, beth mae'r Bil yma'n ei wneud, mae e'n troedio llwybr gofalus rhwng trio peidio â chreu gweinyddiaeth sydd ddim wir ei hangen arnom ni. Achos y realiti yw, er bod yna Argraffydd Brenhinol i'r Alban a Government Printer for Northern Ireland—felly, mae yna derminoleg wahanol ar gyfer Gogledd Iwerddon, am resymau efallai y gallwn ni i gyd weithio mas—yr un person yw'r bobl yma. Felly, yr Archifau Gwladol sy'n gyfrifol, a beth ŷn ni'n ei wneud trwy'r Bil yw rhoi statws i ddeddfwriaeth Cymru a statws i'r rôl o argraffu deddfwriaeth Cymru heb greu gweinyddiaeth, fel roeddwn i'n dweud, sydd siŵr o fod ddim ei hangen arnom ni.

Dwi ddim eisiau dargyfeirio'r pwyllgor yn ormodol, ond jest er diddordeb, hynny yw, dwi'n gwybod yn San Steffan maen nhw'n dal yn cynhyrchu fersiynau wedi'u hargraffu ar felwm neu beth bynnag. Ydy hynny yn digwydd hefyd ar gyfer Deddfau Cymru?

Oes, mae yna fersiwn swyddogol yn cael ei chadw, ond ddim ar felwm. Un o'r pethau mae'r Bil yn ei wneud, yn ein hachos ni—

There is an official printed version with the Welsh seal on it and so on, yes, but that happens in London at the moment with the general printer.

So, we have a version that we put the seal on here. That's actually—. One of the big perks of taking a Bill through the Senedd is you get to go to the seal affixing ceremony and watch the First Minister do a ratchety thing with the seal that imprints it.

Ac wedi hynny, mae e'n cael ei ddychwelyd i'r archifdy.

I'r llyfrgell genedlaethol.

I'r llyfrgell genedlaethol.

To the national library, yes.

Right, right, right.

Ond mae yna gopi gyda nhw yn Llundain. Ocê. Diolch am hynny. Mi ddylwn ni wybod y pethau yma gan mai ni sydd yn deddfu.

O ran y Ddeddf gyfatebol yn 2019, mi oedd yna gymal yn gosod dyletswydd i gael adolygiad ôl-ddeddfwriaethol yn y Ddeddf honno. Does yna ddim cymal cyfatebol yn y Ddeddf yma. Pam, felly?

I think I'm going to let the officials come in here as well, Adam, but I think broadly because my predecessor went through quite a big deal with the committee about that post-legislative review, and we did all of the things that would allow that legislative review, but actually we've never received any feedback or questions from it, other than the review we undertook ourselves, and this is much more straightforward, so we just don't think it's a necessary thing to do. I think that's broadly it, isn't it?

Iawn, ocê. Cwestiwn nawr ynglŷn â'r memorandwm esboniadol, sydd yn ddogfennau pwysig ynddyn nhw eu hunain wrth gwrs. Mae yna gyfeiriad yn y memorandwm tuag at bwerau dirprwyedig Gweinidogion Cymru a bod yna ystyriaeth, ei fod yn cael ei ystyried ei fod yn angenrheidiol neu'n hwylus eu defnyddio nhw o fewn gwahanol gyd-destunau. Y cwestiwn yw: pam ddim dim ond 'angenrheidiol'? Pam mae'n rhaid defnyddio'r gair 'hwylus' neu 'expedient' yn Saesneg?

I don't think we do, and I think we'll update the explanatory memorandum to reflect the Bill.

Diolch yn fawr, Weinidog.

Diolch. Natasha.

Thank you so much, Chair. Can you please outline, for the benefit of the committee, why the date of 1 January 2026 was chosen for Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill to come into force, and whether indeed the Welsh Government has consulted with the Business Committee and any other affected stakeholders about this date?

So, the date is just so the sequence of numbering starts for a calendar year, so you'll be able to say that for the year 2026, that's the first year in which there's a Welsh statutory instrument with that number, so it's just a really straightforward begin-at-the-beginning provision. We haven't yet, as I understand it, consulted with the Business Committee, but we're in the process of doing so. Obviously, this committee will do its own consultation. We've consulted with a range of other people that I'm sure Dylan or Claire can talk us through. I've only, obviously, recently come into the post, so I haven't been part of that.

That's okay.

We've particularly consulted with the National Archives who, as Dylan said earlier, deal with the registration of legislation, and they were very clear that part way through commencement would be difficult because of the series, so as the Counsel General said, that's the main reason that the National Archives were quite clear that they wanted a 1 January start.

It might be helpful if I explain. When we talk about a series, what happens is that each SI is given a number for a particular year, so you'll start off with SI 2025/1, and then that goes through the year, and our Welsh SIs at the moment form part of the UK series, for reasons we're not totally clear about, if we're totally honest, and again this is something that should have probably changed in 2007 and arguably should have changed in 1999, from the very beginning, really. So, the simple point is that we don't want to break that up in the middle of a year, so in future, the new Welsh series will be WSI or OSC in Welsh, with the new numbering, which is exactly the same position in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Okay, fantastic. And is there any date that you have in mind when you'll be getting in contact with the Business Committee and affected stakeholders in order to make them aware of what's going on?

It's part of the ongoing consultation arrangements.

Fine, okay. Can you please outline the consultation undertaken by the Welsh Government when developing this particular Bill?

Do you want to do that? Which one of you wants to do that?

In relation to part 2, which is the—. Sorry, in part 2 of the explanatory memorandum, which deals with the consultation element, we've set out that we undertook a consultation in late 2022 into early 2023 on the repeals element, so most of the repeals that you see in that Schedule we dealt with as a draft statute law (repeals) (Wales) Bill. There are a few other relevant consultations that have informed those repeals. So, Part 11 of Schedule 1, for example, reflects the Law Commission's own consultation in 2015 on their last statute law repeals Bill. So, you've got repeals in relation to the Industry Act 1979 and the Industry Act 1980, and the Welsh Development Agency Act 1997. So, we've drawn on other consultations. So, that's the main consultation that we undertook in relation to the Bill itself that you see before you.

Okay. From my understanding, Parts 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill did not have any consultation taken place in relation to them. Can you elaborate why?

Are you happy for me to—?

Yes.

We didn't have any public consultation on Parts 1, 2 and 4. Part 4, as the Counsel General alluded to earlier, comes from the review of the 2019 Act. It's very much a Government-operation part of that 2019 Act; it's about how the legislation can be interpreted and operates. So, we did work internally with lawyers who draft legislation to check what we were proposing would meet some of those tiny modifications that they were looking for. In relation to Parts 1 and 2, obviously, Part 1 particularly is of most interest to the Senedd and the Government, and obviously this committee's going to consider that, and in relation to Part 2, we've engaged very closely with the team in the National Archives, who I think Dylan would say have been very helpful in informing some of the fine detail of the printing and publishing elements.

Okay. So, in relation to the entire Bill itself, was the Law Commission consulted on the development of the Bill, in particular in the identification of repeals?

We haven't thought it necessary to involve the Law Commission. They were invited to contribute to an earlier consultation on statute law repeals, but they didn't indicate that they wanted to contribute. They've brought forward a set of statute law repeal proposals since their last report to the UK Government in 2015, and this is partly a resourcing issue for them, we understand, so they'd got one member of the team who dealt with those matters, and they've retired, unfortunately, and not been replaced.

And then, I suppose the other issue is that we actually think it's an issue for us, that we need to get into the habit of reviewing our own legislation and making sure that it's tidied up and repealed. So, I would hope that the Senedd would see a number of these coming forward with regular monotony, where we say, 'Actually, we've got a team of people who are saying that provision x is no longer used for anything, or it's become obsolete for the following reasons.' And so we want to get into the habit, if you like, of that kind of tidying-up-type process. And this is all about—and I think I had this exchange with Rhys ab Owen in Plenary—this is all about making sure that jobbing lawyers, when they come in front of the court, can be clear that what they're looking at is the law. So, I said in Plenary, and I'll say it again here: I remember the liquid-tummy problem when you're looking at it, thinking, 'Oh, gosh, is this actually in force?' So, we really want to be sure that when you consult a lawyer in your local high street that that lawyer, in looking at the law, can be absolutely certain that what they're looking at is law that's in force and hasn't become obsolete because it's been repealed by the miscellaneous provisions Act 2025 that you unfortunately didn't look up.

Whilst I don't have any objection to anything you've just said there—I completely appreciate what you've just said—from an alternative perspective, though, particularly when it comes to the law, sometimes it is worthwhile just getting a second opinion, and whilst I have no criticism again of the Senedd legal team, and I'm sure they all do a marvellous job, on occasion, it may be worthwhile—and this is just a suggestion, food for thought—to get other opinions on board to make sure that what's going out is (a) going to be reflective of what people, like you said, on the high street are going to be conveying, and secondly, just to keep a check that those lawyers that we do have are working properly and working adequately.

So, we have a very good working relationship with the Law Society and legal professions in Wales and I have already, in the very short amount of time I've been in this job, met with them, and we do have that interactive conversation with them, and obviously we have that conversation with our own internal lawyers as well, and indeed with the external lawyers that the Welsh Government retain, so there's a sort of interactive conversation. I would also expect Senedd committees to pick them up occasionally. So, I know from taking other Bills through that that's come up in other scrutiny. So, you'd expect the committee reports to come back as well, saying, 'Is this particular passage still necessary? Does it add to the accessibility of Welsh law?' and so on.

And then, one of the things that I—I digress, and forgive me for a moment—but one of the things that I hope that the Future Senedd Committee will look at, and I think I raised it in the first statement, was the issue of the way that the Office of the Legislative Counsel currently works. I've had an exchange with several of the Members in this room, where I've said, 'I absolutely understand what you're trying to do in amending this piece of legislation, but the way it's worded doesn't fit with the rest of the Bill, so can we bring it back at a further stage? Maybe introduce it yourself.' I've had that conversation with you, Adam, many times. It seems to me that that's not necessary. We could, actually, just use the Office of the Legislative Counsel as a parliamentary body, if you like—it's done that way in other legislatures—so that your ideas come already drafted in a way that would mean that the law was accessible and held together as a single instrument, rather than this to and fro that we currently have, which I find very frustrating and I know that you do as well. So, that's one of the things that I'd really like to do as part of the improvement. It's not part of this, but it is one of the things I think we should really seriously consider.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Adam.

Yn sicr, dwi’n credu y byddai hwnna yn ddatblygiad defnyddiol tu hwnt, ac efallai yng nghyd-destun Pwyllgor Senedd y Dyfodol, fel ŷch chi wedi cyfeirio’n barod, dyna’r math o syniadau newydd rwyf i’n credu y byddai fe’n gyffrous iawn i’w gweld yn dod trwy’r pwyllgor.

Jest o ran y Bil yma, yn Rhan 1 o’r Bil, rŷch chi’n gosod mas o dan benawdau gwahanol gydag enwau newydd gweithdrefnau gwahanol ar gyfer mynd ag is-ddeddfwriaeth trwy’r Senedd. Ydych chi o’r farn—? Hynny yw, beth ŷch chi’n ei wneud yn y Rhan yna ydy gosod mas y gweithdrefnau fel maen nhw’n bodoli, ond jest yn eu gosod nhw ar statud a rhoi enwau newydd arnyn nhw.

So, broadly, the answer is 'yes' to that. There is one improvement, if I could call it that—. There's a terrible echo if you keep those on and talk. So, there's a new section 37F, which provides a default so that all statutory instruments are laid before the Senedd. Again, it's one of those surprising things, isn't it, because I'm not sure that, if you'd asked me, I'd have known that some of them weren't. So, this will make sure that they all are, and every single one of them then has one of the processes that's more straightforward associated with it and you don't have to have the conversation that I know, again, you and I have been part of about what kind of affirmative procedure are you talking about and what does that even mean. You know, what is a negative procedure? What does it even mean? So, I think this is language that's more accessible and is more straightforward.

And then, obviously, the Senedd still plays all of the roles in putting forward a different opinion during the scrutiny of any legislation, so if the Government is suggesting a negative procedure, and, as you know, the committee often suggests that that's not the appropriate one, well, there's nothing stopping that happening. This isn't interference or anything of that sort. It just makes it, I think, a more accessible conversation for, frankly, more Senedd Members and also for more members of the public, because I'm not sure, myself, when you come in as a new Senedd Member, if you weren't a lawyer previously and so on, quite how accessible any of that is when you're in your first three months of office.

Wrth fynd trwy’r broses oedd wedi canfod y gwall hwnnw, os caf i ei ddisgrifio fe fel yna, neu’r gwagle hwnnw, oeddech chi wedi adnabod unrhyw bosibiliadau eraill o ran gwella’r broses craffu sy’n bodoli ar hyn o bryd, ac oeddech chi wedi ystyried unrhyw newidiadau eraill?

Well, it depends what you think the Bill is trying to do, I think. So, certainly, as part of a conversation that I've had with a number of Members and I've had myself, the issue about where statutory instruments are referred by the Business Committee—so, they tend to be referred to this committee as a technical reporting matter, and I'm on record as saying that I think sometimes it would be more appropriate for them to go to a policy committee. There is an issue that I'm going to ask Dylan to explain, using the right legal wording so I don't mess it up, about what a statutory instrument is and who is the authority that's making it that slightly complicates that, but it's not something we've included in this Bill, because this Bill, apart from that one improvement about laying all of the statutory instruments in front of the Senedd, which I think was an omission, is not seeking to change anything, it's just seeking to make it more accessible and codified, if you like. There are some changes, though, that I think we're all interested in that the Future Senedd Committee, I think, will be looking at, and one of them is a possible scrutiny of big SIs under framework legislation by a policy committee, for example. But, Dylan, I don't know if you want to explain what the legal difficulty with that is.

Yn y bôn, fel mae'r Cwnsler Cyffredinol wedi'i ddweud, codeiddio'r system rŷn ni'n trio ei wneud, ond hefyd gwneud rhywfaint o symleiddio. Felly, mae yna brosesau sydd yn debyg i rai o'r rhain, ond maen nhw i gyd, yn y bôn, yn dod i lawr i'r un peth: a yw'r Senedd yn gorfod cytuno â'r offeryn cyn iddo fe ddod i rym, neu a yw'r Llywodraeth yn gallu ei wneud o flaen llaw, gyda'r gallu i'r Senedd ei alw nôl. Wedyn mae'r trydydd un y gwnaethon ni weld yn y pandemig, lle mae yna gyfuniad o'r ddau. Yn y bôn, dyna'r tri pheth sy'n gallu digwydd. Felly, beth rŷn ni'n ei wneud yw trio symleiddio'r broses. Felly, mae yna dri label ac mae'r labelau hynny, wedyn, yn gallu cael eu defnyddio ym mhob Bil yn y dyfodol. Felly, yn y dyfodol, jest fel bod y pwyllgor yn deall, beth rŷn ni'n bwriadu'i wneud yw—. Er enghraifft, bydd y rheoliadau o dan adran 7 yn ddarostyngedig i'r broses lle mae'r Senedd yn gorfod cytuno. So, rŷn ni'n defnyddio'r label yna heb unrhyw esboniad pellach, achos mae'r esboniad pellach yn fan hyn.

Mae yna elfennau sydd bach yn fwy technegol hefyd, achos beth mae'r Bil yn trio ei wneud yw edrych i'r dyfodol ond hefyd trio tacluso'r gorffennol. Felly, mae yna Atodlenni sydd yn ailadrodd ac yn edrych bach yn gymhleth ac yn ddiflas, ond maen nhw yno er mwyn i ni hidlo, mewn ffordd, beth sydd wedi digwydd yn y gorffennol, fel bod pob offeryn, p'un ai bod y pŵer yn bodoli cyn i'r Bil yma ddod i rym—neu'r Ddeddf yma ddod i rym, gobeithio—neu unrhyw offeryn sy'n cael ei wneud o dan ddeddfwriaeth sy'n cael ei gwneud yn y dyfodol, i gyd yn defnyddio'r un derminoleg. Ond beth dŷn ni ddim wedi'i wneud yw mynd trwy'r holl lyfr statud i newid hynny, so pwrpas yr Atodlenni yw hidlo, fel rwy'n dweud; mae yna gyfeiriad at yr hen derminoleg fan hyn yn golygu'r derminoleg newydd sydd yn y Bil yn y dyfodol. Felly, mae yna elfennau mwy technegol fanna, sydd y tu ôl i'r syniad eithaf syml, yn y bôn, sef bod yna dri phroses, neu mae offeryn yn cael ei osod ac rŷn ni'n rhoi labelau byr iddyn nhw unwaith ym mhob Bil yn y dyfodol.

Un gwelliant sylfaenol dŷn ni wedi'i drafod yn y Siambr, Cwnsler Cyffredinol, i'r broses o gytuno is-ddeddfwriaeth fyddai creu modd i offerynnau statudol ac is-ddeddfwriaeth yn gyffredinol cael eu gwella—felly, amendable statutory instruments. Mae yna drafodaeth hir wedi bod ar hyn yn San Steffan, ond fe allwn ni arloesi yn hyn o beth. Dŷch chi wedi dweud yn y Siambr eich bod chi'n agored i'r drafodaeth honno. Ydy hynny dal yn wir? Fyddai'r Bil yma ddim yn gartref posib ar gyfer cyflwyno pedwerydd fersiwn o broses fyddai'n caniatáu hynny?

I think we've—. I am very interested in talking about that, but I think we've very much tried to keep this as a codification and simplification Bill, and I think that takes it out of that into what might be very interesting innovative procedures, but is definitely not just simplifying. I think there are some issues that we would want to go into in how to do that. As you say, it's been the subject of much discussion in other Parliaments, that's for sure, and we would want to think through how that would work. And if we've got these much more straightforward procedures, how would it fit? Dylan and I were actually just discussing it earlier before we came down to the committee, how would that work. So, a statutory instrument is something that's done under Executive authority, under a Bill, it's put forward, the Senedd can say 'yes' or 'no', it can't say 'maybe', or 'with this'. You might have a process where the committee—a policy committee now, not the technical committee—says, 'Well, why don't you think about including this, or excluding that from the policy?' and the Minister could agree to do that and so adopt the language, if you like. But then there'd be a process of having to re-lay the statutory instrument. So, we'd have to think through the process of how that would work, and I think this Bill isn't the place to do that, though I'm very interested in doing it. And I very much hope that the Future Senedd Committee will come up with a methodology for doing that, which we could adopt for the next Senedd.

Frankly, I don't know that the Government capacity to do that in the last year of the Senedd, given the legislative programme that I find myself being put in charge of delivering—. I don't know that we'd be able to do that as well, if I'm honest, Adam. It's very packed, the legislative programme. But I do think there's a place, in the Future Senedd Committee, to discuss that, and there's a complicated conversation to be had about how would that amendment work, and would you really want to re-lay every statutory instrument and start again, because you've—. There's a to and fro to be had, isn't there, about how that might work.

A gaf i eich temtio chi i lawr llwybr hyd yn oed mwy cymhleth, ond diddorol, serch hynny? Mae yn berthnasol i'r Bil yma, sydd yn rhannol yn ymwneud â hygyrchedd a dealltwriaeth y cyhoedd o'r deddfu. Mi oedd y comisiwn cyfansoddiadol, fel ei argymhelliad cyntaf, wedi annog y Llywodraeth i archwilio i beth roedden nhw'n ei alw'n arloesedd democrataidd, ac, i grynhoi yn syml iawn, arloesedd democrataidd, dwi'n credu, oedd unrhyw ddull newydd o greu modd i'r cyhoedd gyfranogi'n uniongyrchol i'r broses wleidyddol, gan gynnwys ddeddfwriaethol. Ac mae yna nifer o enghreifftiau yn y maes yma ar draws y byd o Seneddau sydd wedi arloesi yn y modd yma mewn gwahanol ffyrdd. Ond mae yn gallu golygu—yn Taiwan, er enghraifft, ac yn rhai Seneddau yng Ngwlad Belg—y cyhoedd yn cynnig gwelliannau i Ddeddfau, ond hefyd i reoliadau, dwi'n credu, mewn rhai amgylchiadau. Felly, mae'n berthnasol i is-ddeddfwriaeth hefyd. Hynny yw, mynd gam ymhellach na deisebau ac ymgynghori traddodiadol, ond dweud wrth y cyhoedd, 'Dyma offeryn statudol, dyma beth yw'r bwriad, beth ŷch chi'n meddwl? Oes yna ffordd o'i wella?' Dyna beth yw gwelliannau ar ddiwedd y dydd, ontefe? Dwi ddim yn disgwyl i chi ddod â hwnna gerbron yn y cerbyd yma, ond mi oedd yna commitment gan y Llywodraeth i fynd â'r gwaith yma ymlaen. Ydych chi'n gweld y math hwn o syniadau hefyd sydd nid yn unig yn rhoi cyfle i Aelodau o'r Senedd ymwneud ag is-ddeddfwriaeth mewn ffordd fwy uniongyrchol, ond oes yna gyfle i'r cyhoedd hefyd chwarae rhan mewn ffordd ychydig bach yn fwy cyfoes, os caf ei roi ef felly?

So, I'd be really interested in having a look at that—certainly not as part of this though—and there are a number of other things that I'm very interested in having a look at. I defy anyone at all to follow a Stage 3 proceeding and understand what's happening to the Bill. You can't do that as the Member in charge of the Bill. Anyone watching in the gallery will have long since lost any idea of what's going on with the various amendments falling and not falling, and the way the marshalled list works, which is baffling to absolutely everybody I've spoken to. There's a whole series of things that we need to discuss with the Commission about the way that the software that puts that all together works and so on. So, there are opportunities, I think, absolutely, Adam, to look at how the public can get involved, and, frankly, how the public can even understand what's happening would be a really good start, it seems to me.

I don't want to disrespect fellow Members of the Senedd, but I'm pretty sure that most of them don't understand what's happening in Stage 3 amendments either, because it's so very difficult to follow, isn't it, where you're voting on consequential amendments five groups after the main amendment has been passed and so on. It's near impossible, even with the Bill in front of you, trying to follow what's happened. And occasionally, we've had errors, where we've passed a consequential amendment where the main amendment didn't pass. So, you know, there have been a few little blips of that sort, and so I think there is a piece of work to be done, a serious piece of work to be done, about making sure that the process itself is as accessible as possible, and that, frankly, the outcome of it is good law. Because if you're not following that process, those kinds of mistakes can sneak in. So, I do think there's a big piece of work, and I think the committee on the future Senedd is one of the places to look at that, but I think there will be others, and I'd be more than happy to take part in that, because I'm very interested in it indeed.

There are a number of other things. I don't think we have time today, but there are a number of other issues around how infrequently the Report Stage is used, for example, and what it is used for, and whether that actually works, and so on, which I think are really interesting too. But this is about—and I really do think this—if you simplify the process and make the language accessible, then that kind of conversation is easier off the back of that than it is off what is actually already quite a complicated set of quite difficult to penetrate language, really. I think people who are really interested, even NGOs who are really interested in this kind of legislation, by the time you've talked to them about a superaffirmative procedure, they have long since lost the will to live, haven't they? You can have a better conversation once you've got a simpler set of rules that people are much more likely to understand.

Allaf i ddod i mewn? Mae'r Cwnsler Cyffredinol wedi sôn am y broses, ond un o'r problemau, yn y bôn, yw pa mor gymhleth yw'r llyfr statud, pa mor gymhleth yw'r gyfraith. Dwi'n credu ein bod ni i gyd yn teimlo y byddai'n beth da i'w wneud, y fath o beth rŷch chi'n cyfeirio ato. Dwi'n credu eich bod chi'n cyfeirio at yr ymgynghori, lle rŷch chi'n gallu cael barn cannoedd o filoedd o bobl, neu miliynau o bobl, yn defnyddio deallusrwydd artiffisial a defnyddio systemau hollol wahanol i wneud pethau. Ond er mwyn i'r pethau yna fod yn fwy effeithiol, dwi'n credu bod yn rhaid i ni gael cyfraith sydd yn fwy syml yn y lle cyntaf, ac wedyn mae'n rhaid i ni gael prosesau sy'n fwy syml.

Er enghraifft, roedd y Cwnsler Cyffredinol yn sôn am beth sy'n digwydd yng Nghyfnod 3; wel, beth ŷn ni wedi'i wneud, beth mae pob deddfwrfa wedi'i wneud, yn sicr yn y Deyrnas Unedig, yw defnyddio technoleg i droi system bapur mewn i rywbeth digidol heb ystyried fel gallech chi ddefnyddio'r dechnoleg mewn ffordd hollol wahanol. Felly, rŷn ni i gyd nawr yn edrych ar fersiwn digidol o'r Bil, ac wedyn rŷch chi'n edrych ar fersiwn digidol o'r rhestr o welliannau. Pan ŷch chi'n gweld rhestr sydd yn dweud, 'ar dudalen 5, yn adran 7, hepgor hyn a rhoi'r llall mewn', wel, dŷch chi ddim eisiau darllen hwnna; byddai'n well gyda chi weld y Bil, gweld yr adran berthnasol, a gweld beth mae rhywun yn bwriadu gwneud iddo fe. Tracked changes fyddem ni'n eu defnyddio mewn unrhyw sefyllfa arall, ond mewn deddfwrfa, rŷn ni'n defnyddio'r ffurf hen ffasiwn yma o wneud pethau. Ac mae pawb yn ei wneud e. Dŷn ni ddim yn wahanol i unrhyw un arall, ond mae eisiau edrych ar yr holl bethau yma er mwyn, wedyn, tynnu'r cyhoedd i mewn fel bod y cyhoedd yn gallu deall beth sy'n mynd ymlaen, fel dywedodd y Cwnsler Cyffredinol.

So, rŷn ni'n dal yn gweithredu mewn byd analog er ein bod ni mewn byd digidol.

Ydyn, er bod y dechnoleg yna.

Jest er gwybodaeth, rôn i yng nghynhadledd y Seneddau taleithiol yn America yn ddiweddar, ac roedd y defnydd o AI i ddeddfu yn un o'r pynciau mawr, ac mi oedd nifer o'r taleithiau wedi mynd trwy broses o ddefnyddio deallusrwydd artiffisial yn benodol ar gyfer canfod pethau i'w dileu. Oedd hwnna'n rhywbeth roeddech chi wedi'i wneud gyda'r Bil yma, i ddefnyddio AI er mwyn ffeindio pethau a oedd yn hynafol ac yn ddiangen, ac yn y blaen?

Na, dŷn ni heb, hyd yma. Rŷn ni'n dal yn edrych ar sut fyddwn ni'n gallu'i ddefnyddio fe. Rhan o'r broblem, o fy nealltwriaeth i o ddealltwriaeth artiffisial, yw eu bod nhw'n sôn am ddata gwael, bad data, ac os ŷch chi'n rhoi bad data mewn i'r system, cewch chi rywbeth gwael allan ohoni hi. Gallech chi ddweud bod y llyfr statud yn enghraifft o ddata gwael, felly mae'n rhaid gwneud eithaf lot o bethau, yn fy marn i, yn y ffyrdd traddodiadol i ddiweddaru'r gyfraith, ac i ddiweddaru'r iaith sy'n cael ei defnyddio, a thynnu allan peth o'r cymhlethdod, ac wedyn bydd mwy o botensial i ni ddefnyddio'r pethau yma yn y dyfodol.

Sgwrs i'w barhau. Jest i orffen, felly, ar y cwestiynau sydd gyda fi, cwestiwn cyflym ynglŷn ag a oes yna ddiwygiadau canlyniadol—ac yn ôl eich ateb, efallai y bydd yna—o ran Rheolau Sefydlog y Senedd. A ydych chi wedi cael trafodaeth gyda'r Pwyllgor Busnes ynglŷn ag alinio'r Rheolau Sefydlog i adlewyrchu'r Ddeddf unwaith mae'n cael ei phasio? Hefyd, o ran y Llywodraeth, yr un sgwrs, mewn ffordd, gyda Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig—hynny yw, a ydyn nhw yn cydsynio i unrhyw newidiadau a fydd ynghlwm wrth eu prosesau nhw o ran drafftio Biliau seneddol cyhyd â'u bod nhw yn berthnasol i'r sgwrs yma?

It absolutely will need some changes to the Standing Orders, assuming that the Senedd adopts the Bill. At the point in time the Senedd has adopted the Bill, the Standing Orders will then need to refer to the new procedures by their new names. We'd expect that to happen from the beginning of 2026; that's the idea. When the numbering starts, the whole thing starts. So, we'd expect the Senedd Standing Orders to be amended, as they would always be, actually, to reflect legislation that the Senedd has passed.

In terms of the UK Government Bills, Claire, do you want to talk about that? I haven't been involved in that.

UK Government Bills will need to refer to Welsh statutory instruments, whereas today they would refer to statutory instruments, and they will need to refer to the new Senedd procedure names. But, Dylan, I think you've spoken with the First Parliamentary Counsel.

I'll need to speak to the First Parliamentary Counsel to make sure that their office reflects what we're doing, but I don't think that will be a problem—well, it won't be a problem.

Diolch, Adam. Can you give us a note on why we have to do the marshalled list, why we can't go through it section by section?

I'm sure we can do a note. It's a conversation that's ongoing between us and the Llywydd, actually, about the piece of technology that's used to assemble the marshalled list. There's a complicated set of reasons why we're stuck with what we've got. Actually, the UK and Scottish Parliaments have moved to a different piece of software that is rather more user friendly, but it's an ongoing discussion between us and the Commission about how that will happen. But I'm sure we can provide the committee with a note of that ongoing discussion.

Could you write? The marshalled list makes the legislation almost incomprehensible to those who are voting on it, which can't be good for legislation.

The other thing is: should committees be given more than 20 days—not working days—to report on statutory instruments? Anything that's done just before the Easter or summer breaks breaks through that 20 days very rapidly when we're not even meeting.

I think that's just an ongoing discussion that we need to have about what's the most efficient way of doing it. What we count as weeks is one of the ongoing discussions. We were just having the conversation upstairs, actually. You may know, Chair, that the Business Committee discussed how much time this committee would require to scrutinise this Bill, for example, and I think the Business Committee decided that the committee needed 12 weeks. We've only recently discovered that that 12 weeks doesn't include the week between the laying of it in the Senedd last week and this week, so it's actually 13 weeks. So, if you think about the amount of elapsed time, not scrutiny time, that's left between now and the end of the Senedd term, if we're going to count weeks like that we are going to lose a fair amount of the year 5 legislation. I'm going to be invited, as I understand it, to the Business Committee very shortly, and it's something that I do plan to discuss with them. So, I'm happy to report back to the committee.

Thank you. What will Schedules 1A, 1B and 1C achieve?

I'm going to refer that to one of my officials. Which one of you wants to pick that up?

We talked earlier about the new labels for the new procedures, and Schedules 1A, 1B and 1C deal with the pre-commencement and post-commencement position for those labels in relation to, for 1A, enactments that confer powers on the Welsh Ministers. For 1B, it deals with joint and composite instruments. Those are instruments made, for example, between the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State. And 1C deals with subordinate legislation made as an Order in Council both pre- and post-commencement. But Dylan, I don't know if you want to give more detail.

I think you've summarised it very well, Claire. The idea is that we're just capturing everything so that the new terminology is used routinely. It's had to be done in that way from a drafting perspective, because each of those three situations that Claire outlined are a little bit different, so we decided to repeat the process in relation to each one. So, there's quite a bit of repetition there, but in the end, we felt that it was still a bit clearer to do it like that.

Put in terms that I understood, anyway, it's to make sure that we haven't left anything out and that everything that happens will then be subject to one of the three procedures that are set out in the Bill. So, it's a catch-all, isn't it?

Which takes me on to my next question. Section 2 of the Bill results in road traffic orders no longer being made by statutory instrument. What assessment has the Welsh Government made on how this might impact on the accessibility of these orders?

We currently publish copies of those on a dedicated part of our website alongside all the stopping-up orders and other temporary road notices that are not made as statutory instruments, and they're also published as public notices through local newspapers. It's arguable that there's a more comprehensive set of arrangements than is provided by legislation.gov.uk or Westlaw UK, which only publish statutory instruments. So, it won't change our practices of publishing all the road traffic legislation on the gov.wales site. In fact, if anything, it strengthens it, because it says that we're going to publish them all in that way. You'll know, I know, Chair, from previous experience, how arcane some of the rules are about how road traffic orders are or are not published.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Natasha.

Thank you so much, Chair. Just for my knowledge, can you please outline how the approach taken for the publication of Welsh legislation differs from the role of the King's Printer for Scotland and Scottish legislation, please?

I think Dylan covered that a little bit earlier, but I don't know if you want to elaborate on that.

I mentioned that the King's Printer for Scotland and so on are all the same person, so that's the starting point. There's a King's Printer for Scotland because there was a King's Printer provided for in the Scotland Act 1998, and then the Scots also have a piece of legislation from 2010 that is similar to what we have here. So, what we've sought to do in relation to Wales is, first of all, to say that the person who does this does so in the name of the King's Printer for Wales, and then it fills certain gaps that we had in relation to the King's Printer. So, there's the King's Printer of Acts of Parliament, who's the original, if you like, and some of the older legislation refers to the King's Printer and what the King's Printer has to do in relation to Wales. So, we've plugged some of those gaps—quite technical things.

Probably the most important thing is that there's a new obligation on the King's Printer to publish Welsh legislation in an up-to-date form. This is something I touched upon earlier. The main point here is that we have a relatively novel but albeit—. You might be surprised that there isn't something like this; again, as the Counsel General said, it's the kind of thing that you would expect to see. But in fact, this will be the first provision in the UK that actually requires somebody to publish legislation in an up-to-date form. So, this is something that's quite common in other jurisdictions. In Australia and New Zealand, Canada, these kinds of things have been happening for a long time. So, this is the first time that it's been done, and it's being done, at the moment, only in relation to Wales.

Okay. Thank you for that. Have any consequences been identified in moving away from the dual-column printed format for statutory instruments and whether any engagement has been undertaken on the decision to do this?

Do you want to deal with that? I'll start. I'll just start by saying that I cannot stand the dual-column format and it causes us lots of problems. It was something that was the right thing to do 25 years ago, going back to that discussion we had about print and paper and all the rest of it. People don't read legislation like this anymore; they read it on legislation.gov.uk. Claire can give us the details, but the dual-column format causes us practical problems when we're drafting legislation. So, during the pandemic, when I was drafting the rules on the restrictions, I was drafting with this document that was just half of the page. And then there are manual processes that actually cost us money to generate this thing that nobody uses. I've probably said most of the things that need to be said, Claire, but is there anything else?

The cost is an interesting point. To produce a Welsh statutory instrument costs the Welsh Government significantly more than an equivalent would cost for the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive or the UK Government. The standard cost is set out in the explanatory memorandum, but the standard cost per instrument is £320. But for a Welsh statutory instrument, we then pay on top of that £16.75 per page. So if you look at a 100-page instrument—which isn't common, but it's not so unusual—you're looking at a significant cost to produce that instrument, whereas the same instrument doesn't cost that money to the Scottish Government, for example; it would still cost them £320. It's all to do with the process that the National Archives and the publication concessionaire have to go through to combine that instrument to a print. And then if you look at the number of sales of those instruments, the cost-benefit is not there at all.

So, we do want to move away from the dual-column format. The National Archives are equally keen to move away from the dual-column format and we want to find a format that reflects, really, how people access legislation now. That's the engagement we're having, and the National Archives are going to do some user research, I think later this month, that considers how users access legislation in both languages, how they can be certain what they're seeing is the correct version, and that's going to inform the next steps on moving away from the dual-column format.

So, you've had engagement with the National Archives, but with the general public, nothing.

They're doing that part. They're doing the user research. They use a company with the unusual name Bunnyfoot. Bunnyfoot undertake their user research and they work with people in Government, the general public, the Law Society, all sorts of different bodies about how they access legislation.

Fine. Great. Thank you so much for answering that. I want to ask you a little bit about repeals of Welsh legislation, if that's okay. I just wanted to ask why planning laws are repealed within the Bill, and not dealt with in the up-and-coming planning consolidation Bill, and whether this will impact on the accessibility of planning law here in Wales.

That's really straightforward. It's preparatory to the consolidation Act. We want to consolidate existing up-to-date law and not obsolete law, so this is just taking the opportunity to get rid of some of the obsolete provisions prior to the consolidation. So it's the first step towards the planning consolidation Bill.

Great. Is it possible for you to provide us with a timetable for the introduction of the planning consolidation Bill now?

Yes, it'll be next year. I can't be more definite than that at the moment, but we are working to make sure that we can bring the First Minister's legislative statement as early as possible next year. It would be our normal practice to do it at the end of the Senedd year, which doesn't make any sense to anyone outside the Senedd, so it would be in July next year, but that obviously leaves us with very little time before the Senedd elections, so I'm speaking with the First Minister's office with my hat on that's in charge of the overarching programme to see if we can bring that statement as far forward as possible so that we can have a discussion about the timetable. I think this committee will be very interested in the shortage of time we have to get what are pretty cherished Bills through the year 5 process. And the year 4 process—so that's the year up to July of next year, just for anyone in the public who's listening, because the years don't make any sense, do they—the year 4 Bills, many of those are going to go over into year 5, the way that we're currently scheduled. And therefore, there's the compression of year 5, and we have a number of Bills that people in this room are pretty keen to have go forward. That time period is squishing down as we speak, so I'm really looking forward to having that statement as early as possible, but I'm not, as we speak, in a position to be able to say exactly when.

That's fine. Thank you so much.

We're coming very close to the end. Can you drift over by five minutes?

Yes.

Okay. Over to you, Alun.

It might be useful to pursue the conversation about the legislative process that you were having with Adam, because I think this Bill is not being seen as a consolidation Bill, is it, but in many ways it has many of the features of that, reading through it, and I think it would be a useful conversation for us to have.

When I was reading it, I have to say, I turned straight to the repeals section. I wanted to see, 'Right, what are they getting rid of here?' And quite often when you look at repeals, they're not always as interesting as perhaps one would hope. But I was astonished, actually, to see that the Welsh Development Agency Act 1997 is being repealed. I thought I remembered that being abolished some years ago. [Laughter.]

Yes, it was, of course, but the Act that set it up wasn't abolished, the Act that set it up—

So, how can you abolish it without repealing the Act?

What happened was that the functions of the Welsh Development Agency, which were in the Welsh Development Agency Act—what was it?

It was 1978 or something. Or 1974.

Yes, something like that, 1973 or 1974. So, there was an earlier piece of legislation. This Act just made a minor amendment to the Act that established the WDA. What happened, and I know this because I did it, is we drafted legislation that transferred the functions of the agency to the Assembly at the time, and then, in turn, to the Welsh Ministers. So, that legislation still exists because it conferred powers on the agency that are now exercised by the Government. This is something else. I can't remember exactly what this is, but this was an amendment made to the earlier legislation that's no longer relevant.

I could spend the whole day having this conversation. So, I assume that the Development Board for Rural Wales and the land authority are similar—

Yes.

—repeals. But I was also astonished to see the Domestic Fire Safety (Wales) Measure 2011 being repealed. I was on that committee when that was enacted, and my memory was that that was seen to be a very important piece of legislation at the time, partly because I think it was the first Measure of its sort that was passed. So, why have you chosen to repeal it? Does that mean that the legislation is repealed, it no longer exists, or have its objectives been subsumed into another piece of legislation since then?

The second one. Basically, the current building regulations completely supersede the Measure, really, and there was one last bit that was to do with sprinklers in care homes that has just gone through, so it basically now doesn't do anything. I have to pay tribute to Ann Jones, who fought tooth and nail to get this through, and it was very innovative at the time, but it's been superseded by the building regulations, which have basically caught up, if you like. So, it doesn't make any sense to have them in two separate places, and, again, if you're looking—

I absolutely agree with you—

—for enforcement and so on, you want it in one place.

Looking at those sections that go through repeals, I don't know if I was expecting a very small number or a very large number, and I actually got something in the middle. So, what was the process you followed? Because there must be other pieces of legislation that are sitting on the statute book that are, essentially, gathering dust and not performing or delivering any real purpose. You must have gone through a process of choosing or thinking, 'Is this a difficult one?' or 'This is a controversial one.' What was the process?

I think I'm right in saying that this started life when we inherited some proposals that the Law Commission had made that they hadn't provided for in their own legislation. I think we touched upon this earlier: the Law Commission used to do this fairly regularly. They would be known as statute law repeal Bills in Westminster. We inherited those initially and then we did an internal consultation asking for people to come forward with any ideas for legislation that was obsolete. The idea in future, within the Government, at least, is that we try to keep track of legislation that we come across. The difficulty with this is that the statute book is so vast, you don't just sit down one day and start reading it to look for these things, but if you come across them that we keep a record of them so that we keep doing this, as the Counsel General said earlier on.

I presume, therefore, that the Government would seek relatively non-controversial areas to repeal in this nature, because if you're repealing other areas where there's a policy issue involved, then you do it through substantive legislation.

There are a couple of examples of that where we were thinking of doing one and then it's come back out again, because—

I accept that completely. So, I assume that this is a regular sweep, if you like—not a conclusive one, I accept what Dylan said there. But this is something that, perhaps, the Senedd could expect to see through the process of consolidation, as well, whereby the Welsh Government will look through the statute book on a regular basis and then bring this sort of legislation to the Senedd to be formally repealed as part of a process of cleansing, if you like, the law.

Absolutely. But it's one of the things that we'll want to discuss again as part of the future Senedd thing, and also with the Business Committee. So, if you go back to my timetable for the legislative programme—and bearing in mind that's assuming that the rest of this term all goes splendidly, and so on—we go to the new reformed Senedd in the next session, so we go to a four-year term, so whoever the Government is has to get their whole programme through in four years. So, the idea that you have a last year, which is, necessarily, compressed between the September and the May, and you haven't got time to do anything because of the way the scrutiny processes work—I mean, that's not going to be a thing.

So, I think there's a real issue here and it's something for discussion. I'm not setting this out; it's something the Senedd needs to consider. What is the process for a consolidation Bill, for a technical Bill, for a repeal Bill, for a tidying Bill? Are they the same scrutiny processes as you require for everything else? It's a question. I'm not suggesting it is or it isn't, but it's a question we need to look at. We've managed to do this Bill now in this small moment of opportunity, but there are several others. There's the tribunals Bill that I'd very much like to get through—it's not controversial, but it's waiting for a slot to go, for example. It would make the landscape much better. It's not the end of the world if we don't do it, but it would make it a lot more accessible. There are a number of others. Adam has a Bill he very much wants to get through. There are a few others. So, it's to query do we need the same set of processes for all of these different types of Bills.

We've all got a Bill up our sleeve, let me tell you. [Laughter.] But I don’t disagree with you, Counsel General, I think it's an important conversation that we have. Because Standing Orders currently do allow for an expediated process and for an emergency process, as well as the process we're following at the moment. And it does feel to me that—. It's a question for you as Counsel General, possibly. Do you feel that the Government doesn't have the ability to use all of those different means and mechanisms or processes at the moment?

It doesn't feel to me as if there's an agreement between the Government and the Senedd and Business Committee about what the definition of those things is. So, if I were to suddenly say, 'This is an expedited process', there'd be a long drawn-out conversation about it as to why I said that, what's the justification, and so on. I think we'd be far better off having a set of definitive, 'This is a technical Bill, this is a repeal Bill, this is a consolidation Bill, here's the thing that says what it is, it fits into that process, away to go', rather than what we have at the moment, which—. It might not be justified to say this, but it feels to me like we'd have to justify it.

We've exceeded the five minutes in almost the same format as Alex Ferguson got injury time. Are you ready for one more question?

I have to get to Cathays by 3 o'clock, so I'm pushing it now.

Okay. We'll stop it there, then. We'll write to you on the other thing. And this is something you could perhaps write to us about: if you do away with something like the WDA, what about the WDA's borrowing? What's going to happen to that? I don't expect you to answer that now, but what's going to happen to it?

I have no idea, but I will find out and let the committee know.

Thank you.

The simple answer is that it was transferred.

It was transferred, was it?

The WDA's borrowing powers were transferred over.

The WDA had borrowed money and it was paying back money—money was being paid back under the debt from the WDA. Anyway, perhaps you'd like to write to us.

I think the borrowing powers were actually abolished, not transferred. I remember it well, but—

Let's find out.

The Welsh Government had its own borrowing powers, but that's a wider discussion.

'I don't know', Chair, is the answer, but I will find out.

Anyway, thank you very much. I'd tell you about the transcript, but I'm sure you know all about it. Thank you very much for coming to talk to us and thank you for going on for nine minutes, longer than the five minutes you promised. Thank you.

Pleasure.

Shall we have a five-minute break and come back here at 14:45?

Okay, welcome back, everybody. We'll move on to item 8, instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Orders 21.2 or 21.3. The first item is the Special Procedure Licences (Wales) Regulations 2024. These regulations make provision in relation to special procedure licences that cover acupuncture, body piercing, electrolysis and tattooing. Senedd lawyers have identified nine technical and four merits reporting points. A Welsh Government response hadn't been received—we'll discover now whether it has. Kate, from our legal team, would you like to run through the reporting points and any Welsh Government response?

Of the nine technical reporting points, two relate to potentially defective drafting and seven are matters that require further explanation from Welsh Government, particularly in relation to the guidance notes in the application form in Schedule 1 to the regulations.

The first merits point is asking the Welsh Government about the proportionality of requiring applicants to disclose all unspent convictions and conditional cautions through a criminal record check. The second merits point notes that a previous version of these regulations was considered by the committee before being withdrawn by Welsh Government. No response was received to the committee's report on that version of the regulations, which identified 18 reporting points, and a response to the committee's original report might have removed the need to raise the same points again in this report. The third merits point notes the length of time taken to implement the licensing regime and Welsh Government's response to this same point when it was raised by the committee on other regulations implementing the regime. And then the final merits point just notes the paragraphs in the explanatory memorandum that set out the consultation undertaken in respect of the regulations, and we’re still waiting for Welsh Government’s response.

Thank you. Members, anything to add? No.

Yes.

Sorry.

I don’t think we can allow legislation that is seven or eight years late in being implemented and is then defective just to pass without comment or scrutiny. We’ve written to the Welsh Government on a previous matter similar to this, I recognise that, but I really think we should write to the First Minister and say to her very clearly that, in a Government committed to delivery, we need legislation that is enacted to be delivered in a timely way and in a way that is fit for purpose.

And she’s the fourth First Minister to be dealing with this.

Yes.

Okay, right. Are we happy to agree the reporting points? Yes.

On to item 8.2, the Land Transaction Tax (Relief for Special Tax Sites) (Wales) Regulations 2024. These regulations amend the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Act 2017 to insert a new Schedule 21A, '(Relief for Special Tax Sites)', which provides for a new relief from land transaction tax for qualifying transactions of land within a special tax site. The regulations apply the new relief to one site, the Celtic Freeport special tax site, with effect from 26 November 2024. Senedd lawyers have identified three merits points. A Welsh Government response was requested for the third merits point and has been received. Kate, would you like to run us through the reporting points and Welsh Government response?

Thank you. The first merits point is just to note that land transaction tax is paid into the Welsh consolidated fund. The second merits point just draws Members’ attention to the paragraph in the explanatory memorandum that explains that applying this relief to any new special tax sites in future will require further regulations. And then the final merits point asks Welsh Government to explain why the regulations have been laid before the Senedd prior to the conclusion of the Competition and Markets Authority’s consideration of the proposed scheme. The Welsh Government was also asked to confirm to the Senedd prior to the debate on these regulations whether the CMA has raised any concerns about the scheme. In response, Welsh Government explains that it was necessary to lay the regulations at this stage in order to align with the coming into force of the UK Government’s designation of the Celtic Freeport special tax site and the availability of the reserves tax incentives. Welsh Government also confirms that the CMA published its report on 1 November and Welsh Government agrees to write to the committee in advance of the Senedd debate to advise whether the CMA has raised any concerns about the scheme.

Any Members want to raise any points? No. Are we happy to write, as laid out there by Kate? Yes.

Item 9 is instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Orders 21.2 or 21.3. Item 9.1, the Local Government Finance (Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocations) (Secondary Legislation) (Wales) Regulations 2024. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 21 October and laid its report the same day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government response to the report, which has since been received. Kate, do you have anything to raise?

Yes. The first reporting point here identified that there was doubt as to whether the regulations are intra vires—that is, within scope of the Welsh Ministers’ powers—to the extent that the regulations were made under section 54(1) of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. In response, Welsh Government accepts that the power in section 54(1) has not been transferred to the Welsh Ministers and therefore cannot be exercised by them. Welsh Government says that section 54(1) was cited to make the provision in regulation 11(4) of the regulations, which would have omitted a spent provision from a 1996 Order. Welsh Government suggests that regulation 11(4) having no effect because it’s ultra vires will have no impact in practice, because the relevant article is already spent and the omission was simply a tidying-up exercise. So, Welsh Government may be correct that there’s no impact in practice, but the more significant issue is that the Welsh Ministers have sought to exercise a power that they do not have in order to make this subordinate legislation. The Welsh Government response does not explain the basis on which the Welsh Government understood the Welsh Ministers to have this power and it doesn’t set out any action that they might take to deal with regulation 11(4), which is currently sitting on the statute book, despite Welsh Government acknowledging that it’s ultra vires. So, the committee may wish to write to Welsh Government on this to ask for an explanation about why this has happened and whether Welsh Government is going to do anything about it.

The committee may also wish to ask Welsh Government to provide a fuller response to the third technical reporting point, because the Welsh Government's response doesn't actually answer the question that the committee asked.

Are we happy to do that? Natasha.

[Inaudible.] But can we also, please, clarify why they're using powers that they don't actually have—that would be something that I'd really like to know—and if anything will be done to rectify it?

Yes. Everybody happy with that? Yes.

Item 9.2, the Education (Amendments Relating to the Co-ordination of School Admission Arrangements) (Wales) Regulations 2024. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 21 October, and laid its report the same day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government response to the report, which has since been received. Kate, do you have anything to add?

No further comment on that one.

Members, are you happy? Yes.

Item 9.3, the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (Procedure and Interest Rate) (Wales) Regulations 2024. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 30 September. Following that meeting, we wrote to the Minister and have now received a response. We welcome the news that a correcting instrument will be made before the end of the year. Kate, anything to add?

No, nothing.

Thank you very much.

Item 10, notifications and correspondence under the inter-institutional relations agreement—a written statement by the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs: the Sea Fisheries (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024. The Cabinet Secretary informs us that he has given consent to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make this subordinate legislation in relation to Wales. He states that

'Consent was granted as these Regulations apply to a shared fishery which operates within and beyond the Welsh zone. In order for them to be effective, they need to apply on a UK basis and apply to all vessels operating in UK waters.'

He also states that the regulations will come into force on 16 December 2024. Are Members content?

Item 10.2, a written statement and correspondence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs: the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024. The Cabinet Secretary informs us that he has given consent for the UK Government to make these regulations, which will apply in relation to Wales. The regulations introduce an extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging and packaging waste, which will require producers of packaging to pay the cost of managing packaging waste and the provision of public information about the disposal of packaging waste. He states that consent was given as the regulations will

'enable consistency across the UK while enabling Wales to sustain and build on its performance as second in the world for recycling.'

The regulations are set to be debated in the Houses of Parliament during the window of 7 November to 4 December 2024, and, if approved, the scheme will come into force on 1 January. Are we content? Yes.

A written statement and correspondence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs: the Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024. The Cabinet Secretary again informs of consent being given to the UK Government to make these regulations, which will apply in relation to Wales. The regulations are a result of the agreement of the border target operating model, and their purpose is to preserve the benefits of unfettered market access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Great Britain. The Cabinet Secretary states that consent was given

‘for reasons of efficiency and expediency in future policy change and adherence to international obligations, cross-UK coordination, and consistency.’

Are we content to note?

Correspondence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs: the Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024. We have another notification from the Cabinet Secretary, informing us of his intention to consent to the UK Government making and laying these regulations, which will extend to Wales. He states that the regulations provide a long-term legislative basis for further aspects of the border target operating model to be delivered. He intends to give consent as this will

‘ensure a coherent and consistent sanitary and phytosanitary regime for goods imported into Great Britain’.

Are we happy to note this?

A written statement by the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs: independent commission and review of the water sector. This written statement informs the Senedd that the Deputy First Minister has, jointly with the UK Government Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, launched an independent commission to review the water sector and its regulation. Members will be aware that we are currently considering the Welsh Government’s legislative consent memorandum on the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which makes provision about the regulation, governance and special administration of water companies. Are Members content to note this? Yes.

Item 11.2, correspondence from the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership with the Llywydd on the Employment Rights Bill. The Minister informs the Llywydd that a legislative consent memorandum will be laid as soon as possible in relation to this Bill, but that it will be outside the normal two-week Standing Order 29 deadline. Once laid, the committee will consider the LCM as per usual. Are Members content to note this? Yes.

Correspondence from the Local Government and Housing Committee to the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government on the Welsh Government's legislative consent memorandum on the Renters’ Rights Bill. The Local Government and Housing Committee have written to the Minister with a number of questions in relation to the Renters' Rights Bill, in particular the decision to use the UK Bill rather than a Senedd Bill. You may wish to discuss this in private session.

Item 11.4, correspondence from the Minister for Children and Social Care on the Health and Social Care (Wales) Bill. We have a letter here from the Minister to us, the Finance Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee in relation to our respective reports on this Bill. Are Members content to note these letters? Yes.

Correspondence from the First Minister on the invitation to give evidence. The First Minister has declined to give evidence to our committee on specific matters for which she has responsibility and which come within our remit. Members may wish to discuss this in private session. Or in public. [Interruption.] Go on, then.

I don't think it's acceptable, really, for the First Minister to decline our invitation, and I think that we should press the First Minister further to appear before the committee.

I think there's general agreement on that. What can we do? We spend a lot of our time in different committees pretending we've got the power to make people come and give evidence to us. But if we can't make the First Minister come and give evidence on an area she's responsible for, what powers do we actually have?

Well, I think that's something that we need to explore, what powers do we have. But it's quite clear the First Minister decides the ministerial responsibilities. If she would prefer to give those responsibilities to the Deputy First Minister, then she has the ability to do that. But Wales and Europe, international relations, which are part of our responsibility, are also her ministerial responsibility, and it's very simple then. We're the scrutiny committee for those areas and she is the only Minister, she is the responsible Minister, and therefore only she can appear on behalf of the Government. So, I think it's fairly clear cut, really, and we've had other First Ministers who have appeared before this committee. It has never been an issue, so I don't understand why it's an issue now.

Okay. Alun.

I agree with that, actually, and I don't think it's a matter—. I see the First Minister in the final paragraph, or final sentence, is confident that another committee will be well placed to answer questions that fall within the remit of the committee. I don't think it's a matter for a First Minister to determine what questions are asked by committees, either, as it happens. I think it's a matter for committees and the Senedd to take those decisions. So, I really think this is a poor response, and the First Minister should make herself accountable and available to committees in order to be scrutinised on the Government's exercise of its powers and responsibility.

So you wish to write accordingly.

We should write accordingly.

Okay. Thank you.

Item 11.6, a written statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, UK Government amendments to the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill. The Cabinet Secretary informs us the UK Government has tabled an amendment to the Bill. The amendment was only tabled in UK Parliament last week, but it is not clear from the statement why the Welsh Government has not laid a supplementary legislative consent memorandum. Members will know the legislative consent motion debate is taking place in Plenary tomorrow. There will be an opportunity to seek clarification from the Cabinet Secretary on this issue. Are Members content to note this? Yes.

As previously agreed in item 4, we now move to private session for the remainder of our meeting.