Legislation Committee

In that case, we can move on to the School Funding, Budget Statements and Outturn Statements (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations 2026. These regulations make provision for the funding of maintained schools in Wales, so how local authorities allocate budgets to their schools and how they account for that spending within published budget and outturn statements. They revoke and remake the School Funding, Budget Statements and Outturn Statements (Wales) Regulations 2026, and they correct errors in the 2026 regulations in response to the report of our predecessor committee towards the end of the sixth Senedd. There were errors found within this, and so the instrument is the Government's response to that report. Our lawyers have identified 12 technical reporting points and one merits scrutiny point. Kate, if you could talk through the report, that would be fab.

Thank you. Of the 12 technical reporting points, eight are reported under Standing Order 21.27, as they relate to apparent inconsistencies between the Welsh and English language texts of the regulations. So, for example, reporting points three, 10 and 11 each relate to issues with the use of defined terms in the Welsh language text. The other four technical reporting points all fall within Standing Order 21.25. They're all matters that require further explanation from the Welsh Government. For example, here, reporting point four asks whether the Welsh Ministers are content that the very wide discretion conferred on them by regulation 28 is within scope of the enabling power under which these regulations are made, which refers only to prescribed cases.

The merits reporting point is raised under Standing Order 21.32, as it's a matter likely to be of interest to the Senedd, and that's just noting that the regulations were made in response to a report of the sixth Senedd's Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee to address the matters identified in those reports. And we're waiting for the Welsh Government to respond to the technical reporting points.

Fab. Does anyone have any comments, observations, thoughts?

So, am I right in saying that this is in relation to a report written by the predecessor committee to say that there were mistakes, and this created more mistakes?

Yes.

Okay. I'd be interested in hearing what the Welsh Government have to say about it.

So, are we—? Yes, Huw.

This may be an errant point, but paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 of the explanatory memorandum state that the legislation

'will impose no significant additional burdens on local authorities.'

I'm looking across the room at another former council leader. I would expect there to be no additional burdens on local authorities unless they're funded. I don't know whether it's something that is within the remit of this committee to draw attention to that, or whether we share that concern or not.

Can we write—?

You've got, perhaps, two options. As a more general point across all instruments, the committee could write and ask for clarification on the specific wording, what is meant by 'significant'. I guess that would be relevant to the committee's scrutiny of all instruments. The other thing you could do is draw the regulations to the attention of the relevant policy committee, who may be interested in the specifics of the implications.

I think the former option sounds reasonable to me.

The former option. Are you content?

Yes.

Thank you.

Is everyone happy to move on to the next item? That's fab.

The next one is the Building etc. (Amendment) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations 2026. These regulations make corrections in response to reports made by our predecessor committee in the sixth Senedd on the Building (Higher-Risk Buildings Procedures) (Wales) Regulations 2025 and the Building etc. (Amendment) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations 2025. Other than regulation 2, which updates provisions relating to plan charges and inspection charges, they are not intended to have a substantive effect on the regulations they amend. These regulations were in breach of the 21-day rule. We have a letter in response to this from the Cabinet Minister in our papers explaining the reason for that breach. Our lawyers have identified nine technical reporting points and four merits scrutiny points. Kate, if you could talk that through, that would be fab.

Thank you. Of the nine technical reporting points, seven fall within Standing Order 21.25 as matters that require further explanation from the Welsh Government. By way of an example, reporting point 1 asks the Welsh Government to explain why they've cited a provision in the preamble that appears to have been repealed before these regulations were made, and which, in any event, does not appear to contain an enabling power.

The two remaining technical points are reported under Standing Order 21.27 as they identify inconsistencies between the Welsh and English language texts. For example, reporting point 6 notes that there are words missing from the Welsh language text so that it does not make grammatical sense or convey the same meaning as the English equivalent provision.

The four merits reporting points all fall within Standing Order 21.32, as they relate to matters that may be of interest to the Senedd. In particular, reporting point 11 notes that the regulations are making corrections in response to reports by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution committee in the sixth Senedd, but that not all of the points identified in those reports have been addressed. We are waiting for the Welsh Government to respond to all of the technical points and two of the merits reporting points.

Fab. Does anyone have any comments, thoughts or observations?

The basics of getting things right should have been perfected by now, shouldn't they? So, there's something wrong. Is this down to a pressure within translation? Because we know there were some problems within translation in the latter half of the last term. Why are these things not correlating as they should?

We can raise this with the Counsel General next week. If you remember, a few weeks ago, before the recess, we had that great big long paper that identified all the inaccuracies and all the spelling errors. So, this isn't something that's new, but we can definitely raise it with him next week.

Maybe there is a resourcing or capacity issue somewhere.

It's a really good point and we should definitely raise that then. Does anyone have any other comments? In that case, are we content to agree the report, obviously provisional on—? That's great.

The next one is a set of letters relating to the Representation of the People (Electoral Registration without Applications) (Electoral Reform) (Wales) Regulations 2026. If you remember, we considered this regulation before we went on the summer break, and we agreed to write to the Business Committee to highlight the bespoke scrutiny procedure. This one was a bit complicated because it relates to electoral reform, so there was an additional step. This provides the Senedd with an opportunity to undertake additional scrutiny of regulations making permanent electoral reforms following a pilot.

Since we looked at these, the Business Committee—. If you remember, we had to refer it to the Business Committee. It has now been referred to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for scrutiny. On 21 July, that committee published a report recommending the extended 60-day scrutiny period should apply to these regulations. We also agreed to write to the Welsh Government to seek more information about the regs. In his response, the Cabinet Minister states that the automatic voter registration pilot did not provide a reliable basis for estimating costs per person, that Welsh Government officials are working with local authorities to provide a reliable estimate of that cost, and that the Welsh Government has identified £965,000 for implementation. Although if you look at the letter, these costs will go down over time, so this isn't a permanent thing. The Minister intends to continue supporting ongoing costs, most likely through the revenue support grant. Is there anything—?

Just to add that the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee are about to undertake scrutiny of the regulations and they're holding evidence sessions with relevant stakeholders this week before taking evidence from the Cabinet Minister.

I'm on that committee, so I look forward to that. But from this committee's perspective—. Because I know some of the anxieties are the time frame and if it is possible to get this in place for the local government elections. The Welsh Local Government Association has some anxieties, councils have capacity issues. Is it right for us to say something? And actually, for good legislation to take place, it needs to be made sure that all the ducks are in a row, and this looks like it might be rushed. Again, that might be something that we will ask in that consultation and evidence sessions in the other place. But I don't know if we as a committee feel that there should be—. If something is going to struggle to be good legislation because of timing, should we say something?

Chair, if I may, the making of legislation as a process, from Bill through to enactment of the Bill, and then to the bringing forward of subordinate legislation, is definitely something this committee could be interested in. When you look at strategic planning again in a couple of weeks' time and at some inquiries that you may wish to take on, this perhaps is an example that you could look at if you were looking at that process from A to Z.

It may be, though, that this committee wants to take on board evidence that is given. Some of these questions are going to come through the local government committee and it might skew our thinking about the quality of the legislation. Do we get it back to look at it?

Procedurally, this committee wouldn't get the regulations back to look at, but certainly, as supporting officials, we would look at any evidence that that committee received, and if it was relevant to anything that you're doing in future—like I said, if you decided to do an inquiry into the A to Z of making laws—we would certainly draw it to your attention.

Following on from what Peter was saying, obviously, there may be more power to Peter's elbow in that committee. Would you suggest that maybe the Chair writes to the Chair of the committee to say, 'This is something that we're particularly interested in. If you find time within your scrutiny of the Minister, would you be able to raise this as part of your scrutiny session?', just for us to be able to make sure that it's covered in there as much as we can? It would help to inform our thinking, maybe, going forward, rather than—. Because we won't be able to take any evidence from that particular Minister on this regulation, but it might highlight the issue in a different committee so that we can learn from it for future work from our point of view.

Chair, if I may, it's a matter for that committee if it does decide to write to anyone, but I wouldn't necessarily say that there would be any particular rush for next week's session, only because if you do decide to do a larger piece of work on making laws, the process, and then what happens in terms of the quality of the output, it would be very likely that you would want to take evidence again from relevant Ministers. So, there wouldn't necessarily be a rush for anything to be done by next week. That's notwithstanding the committee might choose to write—

Could I suggest, then, maybe rather than writing, maybe if officials could speak to the clerks of that committee, and as part of that briefing paper that they would produce for those Members, that it might be raised through that, just so that it's covered somewhere in the briefing pack for that committee? Just so that it's got a chance to be covered off in that, if that's something we'd be able to do.

The briefing pack has just come out, but I can't recall if it's covered in there.

I'm happy with that.

Yes, we can liaise.

We can do that. Does anyone else have anything more to add? Great.

In that case, we'll move on to item 4.2, which is the Education (Student Support) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. We've received the Welsh Government response to this. If you remember, we considered those at our last meeting in July; we've received the response. These regulations protect 165 students whose courses were not designated in 2025-26. Those students became eligible for full tuition fee loans for the rest of their courses. These regulations make provision for financial support for eligible students whose designated courses of higher education began on or after 1 August 2018. The technical point has been answered and the memorandum corrected. Kate, if you could run through that, that would be fab.

Thank you. The technical reporting point on these regulations identified an inconsistency between the date on which the academic year begins according to the regulations and the date that it begins in the explanatory memorandum. In response, the Welsh Government have confirmed that it's the explanatory memorandum that was incorrect, so they've withdrawn it and relaid a corrected version.

Thank you. That's great. Does anyone have any comments or observations?

In terms of this committee and the points of merit that we raised, what happens to them?

If we've raised a merits point, then it's in the draft report. If we've asked for a response, then we'll receive a response. But if we haven't—

So, raising a point that merits scrutiny doesn't prompt a Government response.

Not necessarily. It depends whether we've asked the Welsh Government to respond to a reporting point. Some of the merits reporting points raised are just to note—so, there for information—so your report is drawing them to the attention of other Members of the Senedd so that Members can decide whether that merits them taking any other action.

Okay. Thank you.

What I would say is that the draft reports that come to you in any particular meeting are drafts, and the lawyers will have identified—. In this case, for example, they will have perhaps said they don't think that two of the merits points necessarily need a Government response. If you as Members disagree as a committee, and you would like the Government to address things, you can ask us to amend the draft report as per your wishes. But as Kate has said, there may often be no further information needed from the Government, and some merits points are just there to highlight factual positions for the Senedd to see.

Does anyone have any other comments or observations? No.

In that case, we will move on to the Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. We've had the Welsh Government response back from that. If you remember, we considered them back in July, and they capped the maximum interest on plan 2 and 3 loans at 6 per cent for the 2026-27 academic year. Without intervention, these rates would have run between 4.1 per cent and 7.1 per cent. We wrote to the Deputy Minister on 20 July to ask whether consultation had been carried out on these regulations. In his response, the Deputy Minister confirms that neither the Welsh Government nor the UK Government have consulted on these regulations. So, Kate, if you could run through those points, that would be fab.

Thank you. So, we asked Welsh Government in the draft report to respond to two merits reporting points. In response to the point that asked Welsh Government whether they intend to take further action on interest rates after the expiry of these regulations on 31 August 2027, the Government confirms that interest rates on student loans are fixed for the duration of the academic year and they're reviewed annually. So, any decision on whether further action is required will be taken ahead of the next academic year.

And then, in response to the question of why no consultation was carried out, the Government noted that there was no statutory requirement to consult and explained that the reasoning why, in this case, no consultation was carried out was because it's a temporary adjustment and because there was limited time to implement this ahead of the next academic year. And obviously, the Deputy Minister's letter provides the same information, but, in particular, emphasises that the effect of the regulations is to benefit borrowers.

Does anyone have any comments?

I have a comment—it's not in the remit of this committee. I just think 6 per cent is tight. We're trying to enable young people to skill up, and they're already burdened with a blooming great bill. And if we've got a high interest rate—. Six per cent is still pretty high. It's a pretty big burden. I'd have thought there ought to be some holistic governmental view that assists students in getting through their—

Well, as someone with a plan 2 loan myself, I can definitely attest to that.

Yes, agreed. Anyway, it makes no odds what we say about it, but I just wish there was a little bit more sympathetic thinking about it.

Don't we all? Does anyone else have any other comments or observations? That's great. That was a very good point. I completely agree, but—.

We'll go on next to the papers to note, which are just correspondence. So, these are a series of letters we've received. You would have received those in your pack. One of them is the invitation to the scrutiny session next week, where we will cover some of the issues raised today and raised over last term, as well as some other letters received back relating to different LCMs and different Bills. Are you happy to note them, or does anyone have any comments or observations? Fab.

In that case, we can move on to item 5.8. So, this is what we kind of covered at the start of the meeting, which is the written statement by the Counsel General regarding the Welsh Government's principles on UK legislation in devolved areas. So, the Counsel General has announced a revised set of Welsh Government principles in UK devolved areas. These principles state that law in devolved areas should ordinarily be made by the Senedd, and UK legislation should only make devolved provision where justified and with appropriate consent, and delegated powers should generally be conferred on Welsh Ministers alone, and concurrent powers should not be created unless exceptional safeguards apply—although what you would have seen today has seemed contrary to that. And these principles are directly relevant to our scrutiny of legislative consent memoranda.

These principles are also relevant to the committee's scheduled discussion at item 11 of today's agenda, which I think is in the private part of the session. So, we may want to go into it in a lot more depth in the private part of the session. But do Members have any comments or observations?

Just to say it's good to have these laid out. And as Josh was explaining earlier, maybe less vague—or the more vague line that we had in the responses in the past, I think this will help. But, as you say, there is more that we can look into on this, but it's a good starting point to have that on the record to be able to hold the Government to account on it.

It gives a framework.

Yes, it's a framework.

That's a really good point. Does anyone else have any comments? Fab. So, are we content to note the statement for now, but we can revisit it in item 11? That's fab.

So, the next one is item 5.9. This is the correspondence from the Chair of the Finance Committee to committee Chairs. So, this will be the approach to scrutiny of the Welsh Government's draft budget. Of note is the fact that they're writing ahead of the budget to encourage committees to play a leading role in detailed scrutiny, but most of that scrutiny, if I'm not mistaken, will happen before the budget. It's asking for views about the principles of the budget, rather than scrutinising the actual budget. The letter notifies committees that the Finance Committee consultation closes on 25 September, so that is before the budget, but that evidence received will be shared with other committees. We may want to discuss this further in the meeting under item 12. Is there anything I've missed off here? That's fab. Does anyone have any views or shall we—? Fab. Is everyone content to move on? That's great.

And so the next one is correspondence from the Cabinet Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning. This is the Welsh Government's legislative consent memoranda on the Representation of the People Bill. We've received two letters on that. The first letter from the Cabinet Minister, dated 5 August, notifies us that a second supplementary LCM has been laid in response to the Representation of the People Bill. We are considering this supplementary LCM today under item 10. The second letter, dated 3 September, is a response to the questions we received in our letter dated 20 July, which is at item 5.6. We will be considering legal advice on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum on this Bill under item 10. Does anyone have any comments or observations? Fab. So, if everyone's content, we will move on to the next item.

This is, just to take note, item 5.11, correspondence from the Counsel General and the Cabinet Minister for Government effectiveness. This is inviting them to the scrutiny session next week. So, this is simply in response to our outgoing invitation, item 5.4. So, they'll be joining next week from 12 p.m. Are we content to note the response? That's fab. We will be talking a bit more about that at the end of the meeting, where we'll be looking at preferences in terms of breaks and that sort of thing. So, we will have a chance to revisit this.

Item 5.12 is correspondence from the Welsh Government. If you remember, this is a response to the steel nationalisation Bill. We had some concerns about things like the despatch box commitment and the limited time with inter-governmental engagement, which I did bring up at the meeting I had over the summer. The Welsh Government accepts all six of the committee's conclusions, and it does acknowledge the inadequate scrutiny time and limited inter-governmental engagement, which did impact our ability to scrutinise, which the Government put down to the commercial and market sensitivities. Also, to note, this was a programme motion, so it was expedited through the Commons. This response commits to providing recommendations on consent at the earliest opportunity. It also states that the non-binding despatch box commitment secured from the UK Government should not be treated as precedent, and these were extraordinary circumstances in some cases. That's the general view. Do Members have any comments or observations? Fab. Are we content to note the response? Fab.

The next one is a letter from the Counsel General. The Counsel General has responded to the committee's letter on behalf of the First Minister. He says that recommendations on whether to grant legislative consent were initially withheld while the Welsh Government developed a consistent framework on UK legislation in devolved areas. That why it's good we've got those kinds of principles, because they will help guide us. He brings the Welsh Government's revised principles on UK legislation in devolved areas to the committee's attention, but we've noted these principles under item 5.11, and the most important thing is that he commits to bringing forward recommendations on consent at the earliest opportunity, although notes that might not always be possible. We might want to better note this under item 11 in the private part of the session. Is everyone content to do that? Great.

The next one is item 5.14. This is correspondence from the Cabinet Minister for Government effectiveness regarding the legislative programme. Before we broke up, the Government announced its legislative programme and—this is important—the Cabinet Minister has responded to the committee's letter on behalf of the First Minister. He agrees to provide as much advance notice as possible of substantial or complex subordinate legislation, as well as regular information on forthcoming Senedd Bills. He recognises the value of early indication of where UK Bills announced in a King's Speech are likely to engage the legislative consent process and will do so in future parliamentary sessions. He will give advance notice when consent memoranda may be late or at short notice. Does anyone have any comments on this? Fab. In that case, we can move on.

This is item 5.15. This is correspondence from the Cabinet Minister for enterprise on the LCM on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. We've received two letters, and this letter responds to the questions in our letters, which we noted in item 5.2. The letter states that the UK Government revised its assessment of the provisions in the Bill requiring consent when the Bill moved to the House of Lords and the additional provisions that the UK Government identified as requiring consent were already included in the memorandum laid by the Welsh Government in June. This also confirms that Welsh Government have not requested that the UK Government make any amendments to the Bill and the Cabinet Minister will formally update the Senedd with a recommendation on consent shortly.

The second letter to the Economy, Energy and Connectivity Committee responds to questions dated 14 July from that committee relating to inter-institutional working. We are scheduled to consider a draft report on this LCM next week. This letter is relevant to the committee's scheduled discussion at item 11 on today's agenda. Are we content to note that, or do we have any—? Fab.

The next one is correspondence from the Cabinet Minister for rural resilience. This is the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Act 2026. We've received a letter back, and the Cabinet Minister provides an update on the implementation of this Bill. The first report of the implementation group and the Welsh Government's response have been published, and this Act requires a prohibition to be brought into force between April 2027 and April 2030. Are we content to note this correspondence? Fab. Sorry, there are a lot of letters coming; we've had a pile-up from the summer.

Item 5.17 is the correspondence from the Cabinet Minister for Government Effectiveness and the Constitution. This is the Welsh Government's legislative consent memorandum on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. This is simply a response to our outgoing letter at item 5.3. He does not consider that additional provisions identified by the committee require consent, but officials are seeking a carve-out from the Government of Wales Act 2006 for the concurrent powers of the Bill, in line with the Welsh Government's principles of UK legislation in devolved areas, and a further supplementary memorandum will be laid after the agreed amendment extending inquiry provisions to the Welsh Ministers is tabled. We are scheduled to consider a draft report on this LCM next week. This letter is relevant to the committee's scheduled discussion at item 11 of today's agenda. Does anyone have any comments? Great.

It's the next item.

Okay, I wondered if that was—. Okay, fab. Does anyone have any comments? Great.

So, the next one is item 5.21 and this is correspondence from the Deputy Minister for Public and Preventative Health on the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 (Display of Tobacco Products) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026. This letter notifies us that the Deputy Minister intends to consent to the UK Government making these regs in relation to Wales and they make consequential amendments to provisions governing the display of tobacco products. Unlike the regulations considered under the previous item, because this covers a devolved area, the Deputy Minister considers that these regulations require the Senedd's consent. And actually, this has a specific process, unlike the other ones, and this will actually trigger the statutory instrument consent process in accordance with Standing Order 30A. The Deputy Minister states that the statutory instrument consent memorandum will be laid within three working days of the regulations being laid before the UK Parliament, which is expected to be today. And can you remind the committee of what that special process is?

Yes, of course. As the Chair mentioned, these regulations, the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 (Display of Tobacco Products) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026, have the effect of amending primary legislation, whereas the previous regulations under item 5.20 do not. Because of their effect on primary legislation in a devolved area, they trigger the statutory instrument consent process, which is a process that we have covered in Standing Orders under Standing Order 30A. So, it's a similar consenting role to an LCM, except the legislative consent memorandum process is for primary legislation and the statutory instrument consent memorandum process is for secondary legislation. So, the Welsh Government, once the regulations are laid in the UK Parliament, will lay a memorandum before the Senedd, and this committee will be responsible for looking at the details of that memorandum and reporting to the Senedd. So, as the Chair has outlined, we're expecting that memorandum to be laid in the coming days, and we will bring the memorandum itself and some advice to you for consideration at a future meeting.

Does anyone have any comments or thoughts? Great.

In that case, we can move on to the final bit of correspondence before we go into the private session. So, this is the correspondence from the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care, and these are regulations under section 3 of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act. This letter notifies us that the Cabinet Minister intends to consent to the UK Government making these regulations in relation to Wales. Welsh Ministers have powers to make regulations for Wales under the Act, but may also consent to the Secretary of State making regulations on a UK-wide basis. The regulations will maintain for the 2027 speciality training recruitment round the interim approach currently in place, whereby immigration status is used as a proxy for significant NHS experience when determining application prioritisation. These regulations extend the interim arrangements for a further 12 months whilst additional work is undertaken to inform longer term arrangements. Does anyone have any comments or thoughts? Fab.

In that case, we will go into the private part of the session. So, this is item 6, motion under Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix) to resolve that we will exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Is everyone content to go into private? Fab. Yes, so in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix), I invite the committee to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. If we're all content, we can go. That's great. So, now, for the public record, the committee is—

We're just waiting.

We're just waiting.