Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee

Gallaf i ei wneud e, Cadeirydd. Diolch yn fawr. Diolch am y cyfle i fod yma. Gyda fi y prynhawn yma mae Anna Adams, dirprwy gyfarwyddwr yr is-adran strategaeth trethi a chysylltiadau rhynglywodraethol yn Llywodraeth Cymru, a fan hyn mae David Greenhough, pennaeth yr ardoll ymwelwyr, a John O'Sullivan ac Emma Anderson, sy'n gyfreithwyr yn y Llywodraeth sydd wedi bod yn gweithio ar y Bil.

Diolch yn fawr, Gweinidog. If I can start with the first question, are you satisfied the Bill is within the Senedd's legislative competence?

Chair, yes, I am. As you can imagine, whenever a Government has a thought of legislating on a topic, one of the very first things that has to be provided—advice and satisfaction—is that it's within the competence of the Senedd to legislate, and the Llywydd confirmed that at the end of her determination period in a letter to the First Minister and in her statement on legislative competence.

Diolch. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill does not discuss human rights. What account have you taken of human rights in preparing the Bill?

Well, again, it's one of the first and most basic considerations that a Minister has to be satisfied on—that the Bill, where it does engage human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, then that it does so in a way that is proportionate and doesn't cause the Bill to have any infractions of those obligations. The equality impact assessment that accompanies the Bill does deal with that issue. All the advice that I have—and, again, the Presiding Officer raised no issues in relation to compatibility with the human rights convention—is that the Bill is compliant.

Diolch. Laura Anne Jones.

Thank you, Chair, and may I just say it's a delight to be on this committee now? Bore da. May I just ask you—? The bill is, of course, in some respects, an enabling one. Why is it needed now?

Chair, Laura Anne Jones is right—of course, it is an enabling Bill. It provides a permissive power to local authorities, and it's for local authorities to decide whether or not to take up that permissive power.

I think it's worth me just briefly reminding the committee of the history of the Bill. So, the first time a visitor levy was proposed and discussed in Wales goes back as far as the Holtham commission report in 2009, where Gerry Holtham included it as an example of how a future Senedd might move to revenue raising. When the previous Conservative Government passed the Government of Wales Act 2017, it included a new power for the Senedd to draw down new forms of taxation in Wales, and the debate about that power included many suggestions from Welsh citizens that a visitor levy could be one of the things that the Government could do. We're not doing it using those powers, as it happens, but it was very much part of that debate. As a result, a commitment to introduce a visitor levy was included in the manifesto of my party going into the 2021 elections. It was confirmed as a commitment in the co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru. The Government confirmed our intention in a statement to the Senedd in February 2022. There was a consultation exercise between September and December 2022, and the results published in March of last year, and, alongside it, a series of research reports were commissioned and published by Bangor University, by Cardiff University and by Alma Economics. In many ways, Chair, I think the question that might be asked of the Government is not, ‘Why now?’ but, ‘Why so long?’ Why has it taken this long to bring this Bill in front of the Senedd? And that is because of the length of consultation and the attempt to work alongside the sector. It's here now because we're in the final stages of this Senedd term and the Government is keen to fulfil its commitment.

Diolch. Laura.

Diolch. We know the consultations that you spoke of just now took place in 2022, as you outlined, but what if any changes have you made to your proposal since the conclusion of those processes? Thank you.

Chair, I think the consultation was decisive in a number of ways, because a clear message that we received through the consultation exercise was that if a visitor levy in Wales were to go ahead, it needed to be as simple and clear as we could make it. There were concerns raised in consultation about offering too many powers for individual local authorities to shape the levy in the way they would want to, and the preference in consultation was for a national scheme capable of being applied locally. We took that very seriously. In the Bill there's only one power that local authorities have to depart from a national scheme that otherwise applies everywhere, in every part of Wales that decides to adopt it.

And there were some anxieties expressed in consultation that the Welsh Government was bringing forward a behavioural tax, that the purpose of the tax was to change the way in which people would behave, and I think we've tried to respond to that in the way the Bill is framed to make it clear this is not a behavioural tax, it is a revenue-raising tax in a modest way, designed to support the industry and local authorities in covering costs related to tourism and being able to invest in creating the conditions of future success.

Diolch. Laura.

Diolch. You initially said that you wanted to simplify the questions when consulting. Therefore, do you think now that there has been sufficient consultation on the proposals contained in the Bill in their current form? And why did you not consult on the draft version of the Bill? Thank you.

Chair, I didn't think there was a strong case for a draft Bill, given that this is a matter that had been under consideration in the Senedd for over a decade, one way or another. There was nothing in the Bill that was likely to come as a surprise to the sector, given the nature of the consultation and the engagement that we'd had with it. So, I didn't feel that the case for a draft Bill was made in this case.

But the provisions in the Bill, I think, do respond very directly to the points that Laura-Anne Jones has made. The Bill is designed to have a simple, straightforward, easy to administer, low cost in terms of cost-efficiency measure that will allow those local authorities who wish to take up the offer to act within the framework that the Bill sets out. And that was very much what we learned from the consultation exercise.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. Has the Bill and the Welsh Government's overall policy approach been informed by the experiences of Scotland and the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024?

I thank the Member for that question. Certainly the Bill has been informed by the Scottish experience, and Welsh Government officials were able to meet with their counterparts in Scotland on a monthly basis during the passage of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act. A Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in May 2023 and became an Act on 5 July this year. I think you can see both similarities and differences between our approach and the approach in Scotland as a result of that engagement.

In terms of similarities, for example, it's a permissive power in Scotland as it is in Wales. It's just for those local authorities that want to take it up. There are consultation obligations for those local authorities to fulfil before they introduce a local tourism levy. And in Scotland, the Bill makes it clear that funds that are raised through the levy must be reinvested in local facilities and services used by visitors. That's the form of words used in the Scottish legislation, and that's paralleled in our obligation on local authorities to reinvest the money in destination management and the tourism experience.

But there are differences as well and, in many ways, the differences relate to the points I made a few moments ago, Chair. So, in Wales, the consultation, as I say, wanted there to be a national scheme, albeit locally delivered. In Scotland, there is simply a local scheme. It's for local authorities to administer, there's no central collection as there will be through the Welsh Revenue Authority in Wales. We set the rates on the face of the Bill. There are no rates in Scotland; it's for each local authority to determine its own rate, and it's not expressed in Scotland as a sum of money—it's expressed as a percentage of the bill that somebody would otherwise be paying.

And it has quite a complex set of possibilities. In Wales, a whole local authority has to opt in. In Scotland, you can opt in and then only parts of a local authority area will be covered by the levy. You can have different rates for different parts of the year. You can have different rates for different parts of a local authority. You can choose different rates for things like the Edinburgh festival if there's a particular event on. And all of this inevitably makes the levy more complex in Scotland, and would cut against the advice that we received in consultation.

Diolch, Gweinidog. Laura.

Thank you, Chair. Just really quickly, if I may just ask, you say that in Wales, like Scotland, any money raised has to go back into the tourism industry. Will you be producing guidelines on that or will local authorities make that definition of what constitutes the tourism industry? Because, as we know, local authorities are financially stretched to the max at the moment. You're categorically saying to us now that that money cannot be spent anywhere else apart from the tourism industry, but how are you going to define that? Is that going to be clear? Thank you.

Thanks to Laura Anne for that, Chair. So, there is a definition on the face of the Bill of the broad purposes for which any tax collected must be applied, and it is destination management of the tourism experience. It will be for local authorities within that umbrella to make their own spending decisions, but what the Bill envisages is a series of ways in which local businesses and local citizens can keep a direct eye on the way in which that local authority discharges those responsibilities. So, before a levy can be introduced, the local authority must consult with its residents and with its local businesses. Any money that it collects through the levy must be kept in a separate account, so you, as a local citizen, will see how much money has been raised. And then, the local authority has to report annually on how that money has been used.

So, the way in which I think anxieties which I've heard expressed as well, that cash-strapped local authorities might divert the money into more general purposes, the Bill sets the parameters but then transparency will keep that local authority in line with those obligations, because an individual citizen will know how much money was raised and what it's been spent on, and if it isn't being spent in the way that that person or that business thinks is consistent with the law, they will be able to challenge the local authority.

I think it's probably going to be good news for public toilets, actually.

Nesaf, Adam.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Ysgrifennydd Cabinet, diwrnod neu ddau ar ôl cyflwyno'r Bil fe wnaethoch chi hefyd ysgrifennu at y pwyllgor yma i rannu gwybodaeth ynglŷn â rhai darpariaethau ychwanegol, ac rŷm ni'n ddiolchgar am y tryloywder hynny, ond roedd y rheini yn ymwneud â'r system o gosbau ariannol i ddarparwyr llety ymwelwyr sydd ddim yn cydymffurfio â'r gofynion o ran cofrestru. Gwnaethoch chi esbonio i'r Pwyllgor Cyllid nad oedd yn bosibl i gyflwyno'r darpariaethau ychwanegol yna wrth gyflwyno'r Bil, felly roedd yn rhaid ei wneud e wedyn. Pam wnaethoch chi ddim oedi cyflwyno'r Bil, yn hytrach?

Wel, diolch i Adam Price am y cwestiwn, Cadeirydd. So, mae dau reswm penodol pam doedden ni ddim wedi gwneud hynny. Fel y bydd Adam Price yn ymwybodol, yn y cytundeb cydweithio mae dau beth, mae cyswllt rhwng y ddau beth. Mae'r Bil sydd o flaen y Senedd ar hyn o bryd, ond roedden ni wedi addo dod â Bil arall ymlaen, Bil sydd yn mynd i greu system drwyddedu hefyd—licensing Bill. Nawr, mae perthynas rhwng y ddau Fil. Roedd e'n bwysig i fi, pan ddes i yn ôl at y cyfrifoldebau yma fel y Gweinidog dros gyllid, yn gynharach yn yr hydref, i warchod yr ail Fil. Y ffordd orau o wneud hynny oedd symud y pwerau i greu'r gofrestr mewn i'r Bil cyntaf, i baratoi'r tir. Heb gael y gofrestr, dwi ddim yn meddwl y bydd yr ail Fil yn gallu llwyddo. A doeddwn i ddim eisiau aros tan yr ail Fil, achos rŷn ni yn y flwyddyn olaf nawr o'r Senedd hon ac mae lot fawr o ddeddfwriaeth sydd yn mynd i fod o flaen y Senedd. So, i warchod y ddau beth a oedd yn y cytundeb, roeddwn i eisiau rhoi'r gofrestr yn y Bil cyntaf. Doedd e ddim yn bosibl i gwblhau'r gwaith i gyd cyn anfon y Bil i'r Llywydd, ond doeddwn i ddim eisiau gweld mwy o oedi, achos mae'r oedi yn creu problemau i ni o ran trial cael y ddau Fil trwy'r broses sydd gyda ni yma yn y Senedd, yn yr amser sydd ar ôl gyda ni.

So, fy mhenderfyniad i oedd e i anfon y Bil at y Llywydd. Nawr, dyw e ddim yn anarferol i'r Llywodraeth roi gwelliannau o flaen y Senedd yn ystod Cyfnod 2. Ond roeddwn i'n meddwl ei bod hi'n well, yn enwedig i'r Pwyllgor Cyllid, i weld beth rŷn ni wedi'i baratoi yn barod, ac i roi'r wybodaeth nawr o flaen y pwyllgor ac i ddweud, 'Dyna beth yw ein bwriad ni fel Llywodraeth, i'w wneud yng Nghyfnod 2.' Dyna pam rŷn ni wedi cyhoeddi'r pethau a'i wneud e fel yna, heb gael mwy o oedi yn y system o wneud y ddeddfwriaeth.

Diolch am yr esboniad hwnnw. O ran y darpariaethau drafft newydd yma, ydyn nhw wedi bod trwy'r un lefel, neu'r un fath o broses, o wneud asesiad ag y bydden nhw wedi mynd drwyddyn nhw pe bydden nhw'n rhan o gyflwyno'r Bil gwreiddiol?

Yn fewnol, rŷn ni wedi mynd trwy'r broses yna'n llawn. Doedd y gwaith yna ddim wedi ei adlewyrchu yn y memorandwm esboniadol gwreiddiol, ond y bwriad yw, Cadeirydd, fel arfer, i ailgyhoeddi'r memorandwm esboniadol ar ôl Cyfnod 2, a bydd y wybodaeth newydd sydd gennym ni yn barod yn y memorandwm esboniadol ar ôl Cyfnod 2.

Rhan o'r darpariaethau drafft newydd yma yw'r pŵer newydd arfaethedig i wneud rheoliadau Harri VIII o ran symiau'r cosbau ariannol a'r weithdrefn o'u cwmpas nhw. Allwch chi ddweud pa weithdrefn graffu rydych chi'n mynd i'w hargymell ar gyfer y pwerau newydd yma?

Dwi'n meddwl, os dwi'n cofio'n iawn, fod 20 o bwerau, fel mae Adam Price wedi esbonio, ar wyneb y Bil, ac mewn 17 ohonyn nhw rŷn ni'n mynd i ddefnyddio'r draft affirmative, fel maen nhw'n dweud yn Saesneg. So, dim ond tri o'r 20 sydd ddim yn mynd i gael eu defnyddio yn y ffordd yna, ac mae'r tri sydd ddim fel yna yn delio gyda phethau sydd jest i weinyddu'r Bil, nid pwrpas y Bil.

O ran y pŵer penodol newydd yna yn y darpariaethau drafft ynglŷn â symiau o gosbau a gweithdrefnau, pa broses ydych chi'n ei hawgrymu ar gyfer hwnna? Y draft affirmative?

Ie, y draft affirmative. Yr un un broses.

Rŷch chi wedi ysgrifennu at y Pwyllgor Cyllid hefyd y mis yma i amlinellu gwelliannau pellach yn ymwneud â rhannu data rŷch chi'n bwriadu gweithio arnyn nhw cyn Cyfnod 2. Ydych chi'n gallu dweud pam fod angen y pŵer ychwanegol yma, ac unwaith eto, pa un o'r gweithdrefnau rŷch chi'n bwriadu ei defnyddio ar gyfer hynny?

Diolch yn fawr. Un o'r pethau rŷn ni'n clywed bob tro, ac roedden ni'n clywed yr un peth yn y cyfnod ymgynghori, yw bod busnesau a'r dinasyddion—. Beth dydyn nhw ddim eisiau ei wneud yw rhoi yr un data bob tro, dro ar ôl tro. So, dyna pam rŷn ni'n cymryd pwerau yn y Bil i rannu data ble mae hwnna'n help i'r bobl sy'n dod nawr o dan y Ddeddf. Gwnaf jest roi un enghraifft.

I think the most obvious example is in the relationship between the register and the licensing scheme. Accommodation providers will register now as part of this Bill. You would not want businesses who have gone to the trouble of doing all of that to have to provide exactly the same information for the licensing Bill. So, this will allow the data that is collected for the purpose of this Bill, in those circumstances, to be shared for the other purpose, to avoid businesses having to simply duplicate the information they have provided already.

Ysgrifennais i at Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid nôl ym mis Rhagfyr i esbonio yn fwy a rhoi mwy o fanylion am beth yn union rŷn ni'n mynd i gyflwyno yng Nghyfnod 2 i roi pwerau ar wyneb y Bil. A'r draft affirmative byddwn ni'n defnyddio, os bydd pwerau fel yna.

Ydy gwybodaeth ynglŷn â phobl yn cynnig llety yn eu cartrefi eu hunain—hynny yw, Airbnbs ac yn y blaen—yn mynd i fod yn y gofrestr gyhoeddus?

Na. Mae hwnnw'n gwestiwn da. Bydd y gofrestr yn ddogfen gyhoeddus, ond nid popeth. Ac yn enwedig pan fydd pobl yn rhoi llety i bobl yn eu cartrefi eu hunain, dwi ddim yn meddwl bod hwnna'n rhywbeth rŷn ni eisiau i bob un ei weld. Bydd y rhan fwyaf o'r gofrestr ar gael i'r cyhoedd, bydd pobl yn gallu ei weld e, ond am rai pethau sy'n fwy penodol i'r unigolyn, fe allwn ni gael eithriad i wybodaeth fel yna. Ni fydd hwnna ar agor i bawb.

Jest ar hynny, o ran cael darlun, er enghraifft, o ran y sector llety gwyliau, a hefyd deall beth sy'n mynd ymlaen o ran ei draweffaith ar y sector tai—. Hynny yw, dwi'n deall y rhesymeg y mae'r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet wedi ei rhoi dros hepgor y wybodaeth yna o'r gofrestr, ond ar y llaw arall, yn y cyd-destun polisi ehangach yna, mi fyddai'n ddefnyddiol i wybod, er enghraifft, faint o dai, weithiau mewn ardaloedd cymharol fach, sydd yn llety gwyliau—dwi'n defnyddio Airbnb fel llaw fer. Felly, ydy'r wybodaeth yn mynd i fod ar gael mewn ffordd mwy—beth bynnag yw'r gair—pseudonymised, neu beth bynnag, heb ichi fedru adnabod yr union dŷ, ond eich bod chi'n gallu gweld y canrannau sydd yn y categorïau yna ar lefel eithaf meicro?

Dwi'n mynd i droi at Anna neu David i helpu fi fan hyn, achos mae'n bosib fy mod i wedi camgofio, ond beth roeddwn i'n cofio oedd y gallwn ni rannu'r data fel yna gyda'r awdurdodau lleol, er enghraifft, heb gael y data yn y gofrestr gyhoeddus. Am resymau polisi, fel roedd Adam Price yn sôn, pan mae'r awdurdodau lleol yn meddwl a ydyn nhw eisiau defnyddio'r pwerau, er enghraifft, neu gael mwy o wybodaeth am natur y busnesau yn eu hardaloedd nhw, bydd y wybodaeth ar gael iddyn nhw am y pwrpasau yna, ond ar lefel pobl sydd jest yn rhedeg busnesau bach, bach yn eu cartrefi nhw, ni fydd hwnna ddim yn gyhoeddus i bobl. Gadewch i fi tsiecio i weld os ydw i wedi cofio hwnna'n iawn.

In terms of the full data, part of the goal of the register is to have that data. That's one of the key aspects right now. I think we reference it quite a lot in the explanatory memorandum and regulatory impact assessment that the data isn't great about the accommodation sector, and the value added by the register is that we will have accurate data. But in terms of what components of that become public, we're really conscious of, obviously, not providing too much private information, and so there's going to be a fairly thoughtful way of making sure that we're not revealing too much private information, but at the same time being able to use that data for policy purposes is really important. So, we're trying to strike that balance.

Ydych chi wedi edrych ar rai ardaloedd lle mae yna broblemau o ran gordwristiaeth—mae Barcelona yn un enghraifft—lle, yn y sefyllfa yna, byddai rhai aelodau o'r cyhoedd yn dweud, 'Wel dwi eisiau gwybod os ydy cymydog neu rywun ar yr un stryd wedi cofrestru', am resymau digon dilys? Hynny yw, mae yna broses, mae yna fframwaith, mae yna gost i'r cymdogion, felly maen nhw eisiau tsiecio bod rhywun wedi cydymffurfio â'r drefn, ac os nad ydyn nhw'n gallu tsiecio eu bod nhw ar y gofrestr, sut ydyn nhw'n gwneud hynny, er eu bod yn gweld tystiolaeth eu bod nhw'n rhentu'r lle mas? Ydych chi'n cydnabod bod hynny'n bersbectif dilys hefyd?

Wrth gwrs, ydw.

I don't mind coming in on this point. I think, as you mentioned before, a pseudonymised way, where you can provide a level of information, at postcode level, for example, may tell you rough details about the property but then hold back the details that relate to that provider, for example—so, the person's individual data. So, at that level, you've only got the premises information, which may be of more relevance to the person in that scenario that you mentioned.

When you mention postcode, do you mean the first two parts of the postcode, like SA6, or do you mean the whole postcode? If you have the whole postcode, it gets very close to identifying people.

Exactly. That's a really good point. So, yes, it depends at what level of information you start to identify someone. So, it would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, because you could have a property in the middle of nowhere that you could identify via a postcode, for example. So, yes, careful consideration would have to be given to what level of information is provided.

Ocê. Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Mick sydd nesaf.

Just a couple of questions with regard to the probity of the legislation. You've already referred to the fact, Cabinet Secretary, that there are considerable delegated powers within the legislation. One of the issues that's always of concern to any parliamentary body is the way in which delegated powers are given to Ministers. Quite considerable powers have been allocated to Ministers. I'm just wondering what consideration was given to that within the legislation, to the balance of that. Are there exceptional reasons for there being so many delegated powers, because of the very technical nature of this Bill? Really, just what your thoughts are and what consideration was given in the preparation of the legislation on this.

Thank you. I think there's a great deal of information on the face of this Bill—the register, the parameters of the Bill, the amount of money that can be charged and so on. All of that is on the face of the Bill. The secondary legislative powers, almost all of which are subject themselves to further Senedd scrutiny, are mostly in the area of futureproofing the Bill. They're there to make sure that, as we develop this policy, and that policy meets the dynamic nature of the industry, we don't have to revert to primary legislation every time we need to respond to that sort of development. So, the essential reason why there are ministerial regulation-making powers is to make sure that the Bill continues to be effective into the future while providing the Senedd itself, the legislature, with the ability to scrutinise and vote upon the use of those powers.

Thank you for that. There's been, of course, considerable engagement with the Wales Tourism Alliance, and of course, one of the concerns they have raised is that there are quite important areas within this legislation that they don't think have been sufficiently considered. If I just quote them, they say that

'there are areas of importance where the consequences, let alone practical requirements, have not been sufficiently considered before publication of the Bill.'

I'd just like your comments on that. Is that a fair comment?

I don't believe it is, Chair. How do I put this in the most diplomatic way? Sometimes, Government can find ourselves in the crossfires of two sorts of criticism. There is the sort of criticism that Mick just reflected: the Bill isn't sufficiently definite, it doesn't nail down every detail. But the alternative criticism that is made is that Government doesn't listen enough to the sector, that the Government has made its mind up already. We have done our very best to make sure that we continue to work alongside those voices in the industry, and there have been many of them, who have been willing to help us to shape that legislation.

Sometimes, things are not nailed down in every particular, because you want to make sure that the industry has a continuing opportunity to help us to make sure that the Bill is as workable as possible, as simple and effective as possible. Sometimes, you need to wait to have those conversations, and to use the powers when they're mature. That's what I think we are trying to do here. So, I don't think it is a fair criticism, and I think if we'd done it the opposite way, you might have had a different criticism from the alliance that we'd gone ahead and legislated without taking into account their views.

Staying on the subject of the exercise of powers, section 7 of the Bill, of course, has extensive powers for Ministers in respect of the registration processes and so on, and that leads on to the issue of enforcement, and of course there will obviously be Stage 2 issues that might well arise. I'm just wondering if you'd be able to tell us a little bit about what consideration has already been given to what might be required in terms of either powers or changes to the legislation in readiness for Stage 2.

Thank you, Chair. So, as I rehearsed a little earlier with Adam Price, the Government has published, made available, clauses that we will intend to introduce as Stage 2 amendments. If those amendments succeed, then, instead of the regulation-making power that is currently in the Bill and is there, let's be frank, as a placeholder, because unless you have a reference to these matters on the face of the Bill, you've got nothing to amend—. But the Government's intention is to amend those powers to put these matters on the face of the Bill, rather than to deal with them by regulation.

I know that some of the concerns that have been raised are that, as the Bill currently is drafted, it might give Ministers the power by regulation to introduce criminal offences where the register requirements are not complied with. Just to be clear with the committee that the clauses that the Government intends to introduce at Stage 2 will not create criminal offences. My decision has been that you need to make the penalty proportionate to the nature of the harm, and that it is better that where these provisions are not complied with you must have a penalty, but it will be a civil penalty, it will be a monetary penalty and will not, if the Stage 2 amendments succeed, result in a criminal offence having been committed.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I don't have any further questions. Thank you for that helpful answer.

Thank you very much. Laura Anne.

Diolch, Chair. Thank you. Section 9(5) contains a Henry VIII regulation-making power for the Welsh Ministers to amend the circumstances in which an overnight stay in visitor accommodation takes place and whether the levy is payable. This could be fundamental, of course, to the operation of the levy. So, why is this power necessary and appropriate? Diolch.

Thank you, Chair. In general, the answer is the answer I gave to Mick Antoniw, that you need to futureproof the operation of the Bill. There are two powers in the Bill that are closely related, but different. The power to which Laura Anne Jones refers is where you would want to make sure that where there is existing accommodation the people occupying it are not made subject to the visitor levy. So, if I could give you just one practical example with which I was very familiar, since Russia declared war on Ukraine, we have had thousands of people come to live here in Wales. It was the view of the Welsh Government, and, indeed, the view of the Senedd, that we should do everything we could to welcome those people to Wales and to create circumstances in which they could be resettled here in the most helpful way. One of the ways that we did that at the height of the numbers of people coming to Wales was to take over a number of holiday parks across Wales, holiday parks with self-contained accommodation, and to use that accommodation for the reception of people coming to Wales from Ukraine. Now, in the normal course of events, people staying in a holiday park, in a self-contained chalet, for example, will be subject to a visitor levy, but you wouldn't want people coming from elsewhere in the world for purposes of resettlement to be charged a visitor levy. So, what this power does is it would allow you to redesignate existing visitor accommodation as not being subject to the levy should you need it in those sorts of circumstances. So, it's a futureproofing part of the Bill, and it's designed to make sure that we can respond to changing uses of existing accommodation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. That's a very good example. Using it in that way, of course, I think everyone would deem as appropriate, but are there going to be things in place, because that's quite a significant power, to ensure that only in emergency situations such as that can that be used? I'd just like your reassurance on that, and also, in written evidence to the committee, the Wales Tourism Alliance suggests that the Welsh Government should not use proposed powers to change the rates of the levy for a set period to allow the system to bed in. Would you be willing to amend the Bill to give effect to that as well? Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I think I'll try and answer the two points separately, if I could. In relation to changing existing accommodation as far as the visitor levy is concerned, as I said, the power in the Bill is designed to take account of unforeseen circumstances, so, in that sense, I think I can give an assurance of the sort that Laura Anne Jones has asked for, that you'd only be using these powers when something had happened that you hadn't foreseen and that you needed to respond to reasonably quickly. The powers can only be exercised with the oversight of the Senedd; Ministers would have to come in front of the Senedd, make that case, and they would be voted on on the floor of the Senedd through the draft affirmative procedure. So, there would be the safeguards of that sort built in as well.

I think the second question that I was asked was to do with the rates at which the visitor levy is to be charged—

Sorry, yes. The higher and lower rates. Sorry, Cabinet Secretary.

Yes, the higher and the lower rate, and they're there on the face of the Bill at £1.25 and 75p. And I've seen the suggestions to which Laura Anne referred from some that we should have on the face of the Bill a period in which those rates could not be altered. Well, Chair, I'm willing to listen carefully to what the committee says on that. It's not the intention of the Government that those sums of money should be changed rapidly. There'll come a point, if you don't change them, when inflation will erode them and their real value will be reduced and you will need to uprate them in line with inflation. And inflation itself can happen more quickly than was anticipated. But if the committee feels that there is a strong case for a short set period in which those sums of money could not be changed, then I'm very happy to listen carefully to what the committee concludes.

Diolch.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. That is, of course, in section 12 and includes, again, that Henry VIII regulation-making power for the Welsh Ministers to amend the rates. You've outlined when—. I wanted to ask you when you envisage using that power. You mentioned inflation—would there be any other reason you'd do that?

No. The intention of the power, as drafted, is to allow us simply to keep the current levels, to sustain their real value, not in order to be able to increase them. If I can go back just very briefly to a point I think, Chair, you asked me in the very beginning, the rates we are introducing in this Bill are at the lower end of what you would see anywhere in the international comparisons, and that's because we want to keep it simple. We've got a broad tax base here, we're exempting very few people from paying the levy, and that allows us to keep the sum charged to any individual as low as we can make it, consistent with this being a revenue-raising Bill. But, because that's the approach we have taken, the Government doesn't envisage those rates being raised other than in order to sustain their real value.

Ocê, diolch. Adam nesaf.

Diolch. Mae adran 13 o'r Bil yn creu pŵer Harri VIII i amrywio'r mathau o arosiadau dros nos sydd yn talu'r gyfradd uwch neu is, neu'r gyfradd dim byd o gwbl. Pam mae angen y pwerau yma?

Wel, Cadeirydd, mae adran 13 yn eithaf cymhleth ac mae lot o bethau ynddi, so dwi'n mynd i ofyn i'r swyddogion i'm helpu gyda'r cwestiwn. Ond jest un pwynt i fi ei wneud: fel yr esboniais i i Laura Anne Jones, mae pwerau yn y Bil i ddelio â'r llety sydd gyda ni'n barod, os bydd yn rhaid inni feddwl am y ffordd mae hwnna'n cael ei ddefnyddio. Mae adran 13 yn rhoi pwerau i'r Gweinidogion i ymateb i natur y busnes pan fydd y natur yn newid. So, er enghraifft, siŵr o fod rŷn ni i gyd fan hyn nawr yn gyfarwydd â'r term 'glamping', ond, ddegawd yn ôl, byddai bron neb wedi clywed am hwnna. So, mae natur y diwydiant yn newid, ac rŷn ni eisiau cael pwerau yn y Bil i ymateb i'r pethau yna pan fydd ffyrdd newydd o roi llety i ymwelwyr yn cael eu datblygu yn y sector. So, dyna pam mae adran 13 yn wahanol i'r adran roedd Laura Anne Jones yn sôn amdani, achos mae'r adran roedd hi'n cyfeirio ati'n edrych ar y pethau sydd gyda ni'n bresennol; mae adran 13 yn edrych at y dyfodol ac yn rhoi pwerau i'r Gweinidogion i ymateb i'r posibiliadau y bydd pethau newydd yn codi. Ond mae'n fwy na hynny, ac, fel y dywedais i, yn adran 13, mae lot o bethau yn yr un adran. So, dwi'n mynd i ofyn jest i Anna neu David esbonio un neu ddau o bethau eraill yn yr un clause.

There are just a couple of things that I'd add, and then David can also add other things. I think part of it is, as the Cabinet Secretary mentioned—. The intention with the lower rate, for example, is to try and have the lower rate for those types of accommodation that are the lowest cost, and, in the future, there might be some other accommodation; we might get policy evidence that's coming through that there might be other accommodation that might fall into that category, and it might be an appropriate thing to include, therefore, that type of accommodation within that lower rate category. Or, for example, there might be situations where we're understanding about how, potentially, homeless people are housed in certain ways, and we want to make sure we're accommodating those within the nil rate category, where the intention is not for homeless people who are housed by local authorities in certain situations to be subject to the visitor levy. So, we want to allow for some flexibility to futureproof in those circumstances, and so that's what the intention is with that. It's also related to documentation that the Welsh Revenue Authority may need, and that's also included in this. So, there might be situations where the Welsh Revenue Authority may require different types of documentation, and that's also included in the regulations. But, David, did I miss anything that you wanted to add?

I think you covered most of it. I suppose it's the concept of visitor accommodation not being used as you would normally expect visitor accommodation to be used. So, the key nil rate we've got in the Bill at the moment relates to those homelessness-related stays, but, of course, in the future, there may be other uses that we simply can't account for at this moment in time where we would wish the legislation to reflect that.

And then there's another concept within here—another regulation power—that relates to exemption vouchers. Now, that is a manner in which a voucher can be provided via either the WRA or the council to an individual that would qualify them for a nil rate, without them having to disclose any particular sensitive information in that scenario. So, again, that just comes back to futureproofing. Should that need emerge, there is a power there to make sure that happens.

A allaf i jest symud ymlaen i adran 14, felly, sydd yn creu'r gallu i gynghorau godi premiwm ar gyfradd ardoll, a phŵer i Weinidogion Cymru bennu uchafswm ar y premiwm hwnnw? Pam dŷch chi ddim yn bwriadu rhoi terfyn penodol ar y premiwm—cyfran dros ben y lefi uwch, neu rywbeth felly?

Wel, yng nghanol y Bil, Cadeirydd, mae'r berthynas rhwng y Llywodraeth yma yng Nghaerdydd ac awdurdodau lleol, a'r berthynas dwi eisiau ei gweld yw un ble mae'r ymddiriedaeth uchaf. Yn fy marn i, gallwn ni ddibynnu ar awdurdodau lleol i ddefnyddio'r pwerau sydd gyda nhw mewn ffordd resymol. Dwi ddim eisiau defnyddio'r Bil mewn ffordd sy'n treial rhagfeddwl y ffordd maen nhw'n mynd i ddefnyddio'r pwerau. So, mae fallback, mae pŵer gyda ni, os dyw pethau ddim yn troi mas fel yna. Ond, dwi'n dod o gefndir awdurdod lleol—dyna le gwrddais i â Chadeirydd y pwyllgor am y tro cyntaf, ddegawdau yn ôl nawr. Yn fy marn i, mae'n lot well i ni roi'r pwerau i'r awdurdodau lleol. Maen nhw'n atebol i bobl leol, a dwi'n meddwl y gallwn ni fod yn hyderus y byddan nhw'n defnyddio'r pwerau sydd gyda nhw mewn ffordd resymol. Os dyw hwnna ddim yn troi mas, mae pŵer gyda Gweinidogion i gamu i mewn.

Un peth, Cadeirydd, dwi'n meddwl amdano—dwi ddim wedi gweld y cyngor terfynol eto—mae'n bosibl, gyda'r Bil fel y mae e'n bresennol, y bydd awdurdodau yn gallu ymgynghori ar yr un pryd am y ffaith eu bod nhw eisiau defnyddio'r pwerau a hefyd, ar yr un pryd, symud y lefel lan. So, dwi eisiau ystyried gwelliant yng Nghyfnod 2 i fod yn glir nad yw hwnna'n gallu digwydd.

They will be separate decisions for local authorities. You couldn't consult just once on whether to introduce and to change the level at the same time. You would have to consult as the Bill requires on whether or not you wish to introduce the levy, and you would separately and later need to consult on whether or not you wanted to have a premium rate.

Wrth gwrs, rŷn ni'n defnyddio premiums gyda council tax, ac yn y blaen.

Diolch, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet. Jest i fynd nôl at y drafodaeth y cawsom ni'n gynharach ar gwynion posib, er enghraifft, gan aelodau'r cyhoedd yn lleol neu gyngor y gymuned, neu beth bynnag, lle maen nhw'n meddwl nad yw rhywun wedi cofrestru ac a ddylai fod, does yna ddim manylion ar hyn o bryd yn y Bil, neu unrhyw wybodaeth dwi'n ymwybodol ohoni hi yr ydych chi wedi'i darparu, ynglŷn â'r broses gwynion. Hynny yw, pa bwerau a pha weithdrefnau fydd Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru yn eu dilyn os bydd rhywun yn gwneud cwyn nad yw rhywun ddim ar y rhestr? Ydych chi'n bwriadu rhannu'r gweithdrefnau drafft yna yn ystod y broses? Ydyn nhw'n mynd i fod ar wyneb y Bil, achos maen nhw'n eithaf pwysig, onid ydyn nhw, i weithrediad effeithiol y gofrestr?

Cadeirydd, dyw'r WRA ddim gyda fi heddiw. Dwi'n hollol hapus i gael y trafodaethau yna gyda nhw ac i ysgrifennu at y pwyllgor gyda'r manylion am sut rŷn ni'n mynd ati yn y cyd-destun mae Adam Price wedi'i godi brynhawn yma.

Jest un peth ychwanegol, ar y 31 noson, felly—maddeuwch i fi os dwi wedi camddeall—mae hwn yn rhyw fath o drothwy. Os ydych chi ar 32 diwrnod, does dim rhaid i chi gofrestru. I roi senarios gwahanol, er enghraifft, os ydych chi'n rhentu rhywle mas am 32 diwrnod neu fwy weithiau, ond rŷch chi hefyd yn rhentu mas am 28 diwrnod, ydych chi'n dal yn dod o dan yr angen i gofrestru, oherwydd am beth o'r amser rŷch chi o dan y trothwy? A gyda sefyllfa lle mae rhywun yn rhentu mas am setiau o 31 diwrnod—hynny yw, cyfres ohonyn nhw, dyweder—ydy hwnna'n golygu nad ydyn nhw—? Dwi'n gwybod bod y rhain yn swnio'n ddamcaniaethol, efallai, ond ydyn nhw'n gorfod talu'r lefi o gwbl? Ydyn nhw'n cofrestru o gwbl yn y sefyllfa yna?

Gallaf i dreial ateb yn gyffredinol am y pwrpas tu ôl i beth sydd yn y Bil, a gallaf i ofyn i David ac Anna fy helpu i, hefyd.

The reason why we have this provision in the Bill, Chair, is to distinguish between people who are visitors from people who are more long-term users. So, Cardiff is the best example of this. Cardiff has a significant population—no doubt, there will be some Members of the Senedd amongst them—who stay here during the week for work purposes and then return to where they live at the weekend. Now, they're not visitors in the sense captured in the Bill, so how do you distinguish between people who are here for those longer term work-related purposes who you don't want to capture. That's where the 31 days comes. That's how you distinguish between people who are visitors for the Bill's purpose and people who are renting places and staying in visitor accommodation but for a different purpose, and one that we weren't looking to capture in the Bill. So, that's the general purpose behind it. I'll see if David wants to respond to some of the more detailed questions Adam was asking.

Yes, sure, of course. So, yes, it's essentially as you describe the threshold. So, after that 31 nights is hit, there's no levy payable past that point. So, for any stay where the contract determines that the stay is longer than those 31 nights, there will be no levy payable. In terms of the registration scenario, again, there's the concept in there of the short-term stays. For those stays that are longer than that 31-night period, again, they don't have to register, but if they are providing any stays under those 31 nights, then it's registrable accommodation.

Ie, ocê. Iawn, diolch.

Diolch. Of course, in Pembrokeshire they've got people doing it the other way round, haven't they, leaving Pembrokeshire on a Sunday evening or Monday morning and coming back on a Friday afternoon? They won't be picked up by it either, will they?

No, not in those circumstances.

Fine. Section 17(3)(a) contains a Henry VIII regulation-making power for the Welsh Ministers to amend section 17 in relation to annual return threshold amounts. It is subject to the negative Senedd procedure. Why did the Government conclude that this is the appropriate procedure for the use of this power?

Because I think it is entirely operational, Chair. So, the Bill provides that if you collect less than £1,000 in the visitor levy, you are able to provide an annual return or a quarterly return. Just as we were talking earlier about needing to sustain the real value of that £1,000 threshold, at some point in the future we will need to come forward with a new threshold. I did not myself think that it was necessary to have a debate and a vote on the floor of the Senedd to keep the real value of the £1,000 threshold every time you move it to £1,050, and so on. So, I think, in that sense, it is just a power to keep what's in the Bill real for the future.

Thank you. Section 24(4) contains a further Henry VIII regulation-making power subject to the negative Senedd procedure. This power concerns reporting by principal councils on the use of the levy. Why was the negative procedure chosen?

Chair, essentially, the negative procedure is chosen here because the use of this power that we envisage is if a local authority needs a brief extension of a week or so in order to comply with the timetables that the Bill sets out, and I wasn't sure that the Senedd would expect to hear that and to vote upon whether or not to allow that to happen. This clause, though, does go beyond that and would allow changes to the way in which local authorities report on the levy that is raised. And, again, I'm very willing to think carefully about points that the committee might want to make. I would need a lot of persuasion that section 17(3)(a) and 17(3)(b) would need to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. I think there is a more closely balanced argument in relation to section 24(4) and I look forward reading what the committee concludes on that.

We've had lots of questions there. We've got nowhere near the number that we had intended. I normally ask at this stage if you could stay for an extra five minutes or so, but as we've only got two thirds of the way through the questions, that's not possible. Will you be prepared to answer in writing the questions we didn't get to today, because there's an awful lot of them?

But of course, yes, Chair, by all means.

Thank you very much. Can I suggest we break for five minutes?

Thank you very much.

I forgot to tell you that, as you know, the transcript is coming. I have to say that every time, and I'm telling people who know it's coming.

Thank you. We'll look forward to that.