Legislation Committee

So, then, if everyone's content, we can move on to the next item, which is the instruments that do raise issues to be reported to the Senedd, compared to the last one. This is 3.1, the Representation of the People (Electoral Registration without Applications) (Electoral Reform) (Wales) Regulations 2026. So, in that, you have the draft report, the written statement by the Cabinet Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, and the Welsh Government response.

Before I move to Senedd legal, for Kate to run through it, I thought I'd flag a few things. These regulations provide for local authorities to conduct automatic voter registration in relation to local government electoral registers in Wales. They make permanent, on a national basis, provisions similar to those used in recent automatic voter registration pilots. So, they use data sources, such as things like council tax and housing association lists, to identify and verify potential electors. And so, these are laid under section 19 of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Act 2024 and may be subject to enhanced scrutiny under that procedure. You remember that we went through it before, on 6 July—so, this will be familiar to you already—and that the debate on this isn't scheduled until 29 September. Our lawyers have identified two technical and three merits reporting points. So, if, Kate, you can go through the reporting points and the Welsh Government's response, that would be fab.

Thank you. Both of the technical reporting points relate to the preamble—so, the opening text of the regulations where it cites the enabling powers and any statutory preconditions. The first point, under Standing Order 21.2(v), is seeking further information from the Welsh Government as to why section 19(1) of the enabling Act has been cited, as it does not appear to be necessary. In response, the Welsh Government notes the point but says that it is satisfied that the issue does not affect the operation, legal effect or overall meaning of the regulations.

The second point relates to the statutory preconditions that apply to the exercise of the enabling powers. In particular, the Welsh Ministers can only exercise these powers where the Electoral Commission recommends making regulations under section 18 to achieve the reform outcome. The wording of the preamble does not make it clear whether this condition has been met, and so this reporting point is raised under Standing Order 21.2(vi) as a potential failure to fulfil statutory requirements. In response, the Welsh Government says that it is satisfied that those requirements have been met, and points to the explanatory note and the explanatory memorandum to confirm this. Senedd legal services would note that this information should be provided clearly in the preamble, as it's not really appropriate to rely on accompanying documentation to clarify unclear drafting.

The three merits reporting points on these regulations are all raised under Standing Order 21.3(ii) as matters likely to be of interest to the Senedd. The first two merits points relate to the scrutiny procedure applying to the draft regulations, which are categorised as electoral reform regulations under the 2024 Act. Firstly, we've noted that the procedure set out in section 19 of the 2024 Act requires the draft regulations to be laid before the Senedd for a period of at least 40 days before the Senedd can vote on whether to approve the draft. This is a longer period than would usually apply under the Senedd approval procedure, and it appears that this statutory 40-day period may engage Standing Order 21.4A rather than this committee's usual 20-day reporting deadline under Standing Order 21.4. Standing Order 21.4A provides that the Business Committee may publish a timetable for a responsible committee to report on the draft instrument. As such, it's unclear why the Welsh Government did not notify the Business Committee of the arrival of these regulations so that the Business Committee could consider setting a timetable. In response to this reporting point, the Welsh Government notes it and confirms that any future regulations subject to this procedure will be highlighted to the Business Committee, and Members may also wish to consider writing to the Business Committee to draw their attention to this matter.

The second merits reporting point notes that these are the first electoral reform regulations made under the 2024 Act and subject to the potential enhanced scrutiny procedure under section 19. It would have been helpful if the explanatory memorandum accompanying the draft regulations had contained a fuller explanation of this procedure and how it might apply, in order to draw this to the attention of Members and the wider public. In response to this reporting point, the Welsh Government again notes the point and states that paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum sets out the novel nature of the procedure. Senedd legal services would just note that this paragraph could have been clearer and should perhaps have provided more information about how the procedure might apply to these particular draft regulations.

The final merits reporting point is just to note that these regulations work alongside some provisions of the 2024 Act that create the duty for registration officers to register local government electors without application, and these provisions come into force on 1 October 2026.

Does anyone have any comments? Yes.

Thank you very much, Kate, for all that. I think it would be useful for you, Chair, to raise that reporting point 2 in the Chamber when we come to discussing this in September/October time, and then for us to write urgently to the Business Committee to draw this to their attention so that they can potentially do something before recess.

I think that's a sensible approach, if everyone's content with that. That's great. Yes.

I had a question on another part of this item. Is that okay?

Yes.

So, on the regulatory impact assessment, the section dealing with costs, I was just struck by the way that some of the costs of table 1, for example, deal with costs on a per authority basis. I assume this must be the case, but it's not made clear in the memorandum as far as I can see, that it would be done on a cost-per-head rather than a cost-per-authority basis, because, obviously, there are different sizes of authority. Is there clarity on whether the Welsh Government would meet the full cost of each authority as reported, as opposed to their estimates of what it would cost?

The only information we have is what's in the regulatory impact assessment, but if it's a point that you're interested in, it would potentially be worth raising it with the Government, possibly by writing.

I'd be keen if we could do that. I'm thinking particularly of some of the wards in Cardiff. For example, if you take Cathays, this is an area with lots of student population, where the percentage of electors on the electoral roll will be low compared with the number of people there, so there's going to be additional workload, and there'll be other council areas with similar types of wards. So, I think, double checking on the principle that it's done on a per-head basis and that the Government funds the actual costs, not the estimated costs.

Just a point of clarity on Huw's point, is that straying into policy area, or is it more of a—? So, is it more for another committee to look at it, or is it for us to look at that? Sorry, I'm just—

I've spoken to Sarah, and this is something another committee may look into, if the Business Committee refers it to them. But is this something that they would definitely look at or—?

No, it's not. There's nothing—. We can certainly write. It's possibly a matter that strays more into policy, and there would be nothing stopping you, as an individual Member, raising it when the regulations come to Plenary. But in the absence of another committee looking, this committee could write and ask for information.

Yes, do that.

Because I do think this is one of the things that is on the boundary between what we do and what another committee does, so I do agree it would be a good idea to write.

I think it's a good idea to write.

If it's for us to scrutinise as part of the memorandum, then it would be in order raising it.

Yes. It's a really good point. Does anyone else have any other points on this? Fab.

In that case, then we can move on to the next item, which is item 3.2, which is the Education (Student Support) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. You will have had the draft report. These regulations provide financial support for eligible students taking designated courses of higher education, and they confer a discretionary power on the Welsh Ministers to specify how a provider is to be treated for the purposes of calculating a student's fee loan entitlement. They also ensure that students continuing in the 2026-27 academic year affected by non-designation in 2025-26 are able to access a full tuition fee loan for the remainder of their course. These regulations are subject to the annulment procedure. Our lawyers have identified one technical and two merits reporting points. So, Kate, would you be happy to go through the points?

Thank you. The technical reporting point is raised under Standing Order 21.2(v) as a matter that requires further explanation from the Welsh Government. This relates to an inconsistency between the date on which the academic year begins according to the regulations and the date given in the explanatory memorandum. Both of the merits reporting points are raised under Standing Order 21.3(ii), in that they contain matters likely to be of interest to the Senedd.

First of all, we note that the amendments will enable students enrolled in the courses specified in the new Schedule 2A to qualify for full tuition fee loans, and these amendments will also enable the Welsh Government to determine the level of tuition fee loan available to students on courses that are designated in the future. Secondly, we've drawn Members' attention to the regulatory impact assessment included in the explanatory memorandum, which sets out the potential ongoing costs if the regulations were not made, which are estimated at £524,700 per academic year. We'll provide advice on the Welsh Government's response to the technical point once we receive it.

Great. Thank you, Kate. Does anyone have any comments or observations on this? Fab.

In that case, we can move on to item 3.3, which is the Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026. Paper 3.3a was a draft report. This updates requirements around the post-movement testing of cattle, and they allow livestock keepers to conduct a pre-movement test with an ear tissue tag in young calves. The Order is not subject to any procedure—it's not subject to the annulment or the approval procedure—and Senedd lawyers have identified one merits reporting point. Kate, if you could run through the reporting point.

Thank you. The single merits reporting point is raised under Standing Order 21.3(ii) as a matter likely to be of interest to the Senedd. This point just draws Members' attention to the paragraphs of the explanatory memorandum, which set out that a full consultation was not considered appropriate in relation to this Order, and instead the matter was discussed in detail with the industry-led BVD steering group with input from the BVD technical advisory group. As this is just a point to note, we've not asked for a Welsh Government response.

Fab. Thank you, Kate. Does anyone have any observations on that? Fantastic.

In that case, we can move on to item 3.4, which is the Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. This included a draft report and a letter from the Deputy Minister for Skills and Tertiary Education to the Llywydd. These regulations cap the maximum interest rates on certain undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral loans for Welsh borrowers at 6 per cent from 1 September 2026 until 31 August 2027. So, these were brought in in recognition that, without doing this, the interest rates would have climbed even more than 6 per cent, and so this is a composite statutory instrument made jointly with the UK Government and these are subject to the annulment procedures in the Senedd.

These regulations come into force 13 days after being laid before the Senedd. They therefore breach the 21-day rule, and the 21-day rule, as we know, says that regulations subject to the annulment procedure should not come into force until at least 21 days after they have been laid, and this is to allow everyone affected by the change in law to prepare for the changes before they come into force. And when the Government brings into force regulations within the 21-day period, they're legally required to notify the Llywydd and to provide an explanation. Therefore, we have had in our papers a letter from the Deputy Minister for Skills and Tertiary Education to the Llywydd explaining the reason for this. Our lawyers have identified one technical and three merits reporting points. So, Kate, if you could run through that, that would be great.

Thank you. The technical reporting point falls under Standing Order 21.2(ix), in that these regulations are not made in both English and Welsh. We've drawn Members' attention to paragraph 2.5 of the explanatory memorandum, which sets out that it was not considered reasonably practicable to make the regulations bilingually, because they are also subject to UK parliamentary scrutiny.

The three merits points each raise matters that are likely to be of interest to the Senedd, under Standing Order 21.3(ii). First, we have noted that the regulations will expire on 31 August 2027, and so we have asked Welsh Government to explain whether it intends to take further action to regulate the impact of interest rates at that point. Secondly, we have asked Welsh Government to explain why no consultation was carried out in relation to the regulations, as this information has not been provided in the explanatory memorandum. The final merits point, then, notes the breach of the 21-day rule, and we've drawn Members' attention to the explanation provided in the letter to the Llywydd and this essentially relates to the availability of UK parliamentary time.

We're waiting for Welsh Government to respond to the first two merits points and we'll bring their response to you at a future meeting.

Amazing. Thank you, Kate. Does anyone have any comments, obviously taking into account that these are not being laid in Welsh as well? I think that's a major—[Interruption.] Yes.

Just asking on that, is it because the regulations are laid with the UK as well—is that why?

That's the reason that's been provided, that it wouldn't be reasonably practicable for them to be laid in Welsh and English, when they're also being subject to UK parliamentary scrutiny.

But they would be drafted here, though, would they?

They would have been drafted between the two Governments. We don't know the exact arrangements, but they're being made by both the UK Minister and the Welsh Ministers, so they will have worked together on them.

Is it standard to not do it in both languages? Is it that impractical?

When they are laid before the UK Parliament as well, that has been past practice; they have been only in English.

Is there no right for people here to have access to them in Welsh, to be able—? Do you know what I mean? Surely there's something there.

It is something that previous committees have looked into.

And Sarah might be able to provide some more—

Yes. It was an issue that was raised not just by the predecessor committee in the sixth Senedd—it goes back, I think, to the fourth Senedd, with the committee with the responsibility for what you're doing now engaging in quite a lot of correspondence with not just the Welsh Government, but UK parliamentary authorities and UK Government to try to get to the bottom of what was the restriction on Welsh text appearing in a statutory instrument laid for scrutiny before the UK Parliament. There was a vast exchange of correspondence in the sixth Senedd. I think part of it comes down to a concern in the UK Parliament that they cannot scrutinise text that's not in the English language. But if you would like, in time for September, we can bring something to you that highlights all the correspondence that's gone on in the previous Seneddau, should you want to take any action yourself—if you want to follow up on anything.

I'd be keen for this committee to also make some sort of comment—if everyone else was wanting to just continue that—that in the Senedd here we do operate bilingually, and Welsh is part of the UK languages. It shouldn't really be a problem.

If you would like, we could add an additional merits point to the report, which notes that the predecessor committee had been engaging on this matter, noting that Welsh and English are official languages in Wales, and that the committee intends to return to it in the autumn.

Okay, yes.

Is everyone happy with that?

Yes, please.

Yes, that's no problem. Are you content for the Chair to sign off the additional merits point? Yes, you're happy. Thank you.

I think there was someone on screen that wanted to come in. I think I heard that. No-one, okay, great. Does anyone else have any other observations or comments on these? Yes.

I was confused—I guess it's going to be raised anyway, but the lack of consultation I just found quite concerning, particularly, because the cap is at 6 per cent, and then here it suggests that the interest rates could be 4.1 per cent. So, there are some people—knowing how caps work—who haven't been consulted, and the fact they could end up paying a higher interest rate technically, that seems to merit—there should have been consultation about this. It seems like something quite big to have not engaged with students or educational providers about. Just to flag that that's quite concerning to me.

Would you say this is partly because it's been driven so much by the UK Government?

We don't know why they haven't consulted in this particular case. They don't always consult on this type of regulation. Sometimes they say it's a technical matter, that there's no reason to consult, but once we get Welsh Government's response and we know why they didn't consult, at that point, you may want to consider it further and probe that a bit more.

Okay.

But what we can do is we can write to the Welsh Government Minister to probe as to why there wasn't that thorough consultation, if you're content with that.

Yes, sounds good.

Great, we'll do that. Does anyone else have any more for any more? Great.

In that case, we will move on to item 4, which is instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21 or 21.3. This is the Education (School Day and School Year) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, and you would have received a Welsh Government response. We considered these regulations last week, so they're probably quite familiar to you, and we've received a Government response. These regulations make provision regarding in-service training days. The legal services here disagree, but will suggest no action. So, Kate, could you run through your observations? Thank you.

The two technical points each sought further information from the Welsh Government. In response to the first reporting point, which identified potentially superfluous wording, the Welsh Government says that it considers the meaning of the provision to be clear. It remains the view of Senedd legal services that the sentence is not quite grammatically correct. However, we are content that, in context, the intended meaning of the provision can be ascertained by the reader.

In relation to the second reporting point, the Welsh Government agrees that there is an inconsistency within the provision, but Welsh Government does not consider that this creates any ambiguity as to its meaning. In relation to this point, Senedd legal services would suggest that consistency in drafting is very important, but we do consider that the risk of confusion in this particular case is low.

So, they're not going to change it, then.

No.

Does anyone have any comments? Anyone on screen? Great. In that case, we can move on.

So, this is just papers to note. This is quite a quick one. This is outgoing correspondence. So, the committee will publish outgoing correspondence on a routine basis so that stakeholders are aware of matters that are being pursued by the committee. This includes item 5.1, which is the letter to the First Minister regarding scrutiny. So, we agreed on 29 June to write to the First Minister to propose ways of working that would provide better forewarning to the committee about the legislative scrutiny task it will be responsible for undertaking, and we will consider a response when it's received.

In a similar vein, there's a letter to the First Minister regarding legislative consent. We agreed last week to write to the First Minister to seek clarity on the Welsh Government's approach to legislative consent memoranda laid before the Senedd to date, particularly in relation to recommendations to the Senedd about consent, and we will similarly also consider a response when it's received.

Item 5.3, the letter to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade regarding the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. We agreed last week to write to the Secretary of State regarding the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill following our consideration of the LCM, and we will consider a response when it's received.

So, moving on to item 5.4, which is correspondence from the Cabinet Minister for Enterprise, Connectivity and Energy regarding the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill: in the letter, the Cabinet Minister provides an update on inter-governmental negotiations on the steel industry Bill. The Cabinet Minister now provides in his recommendation that the Senedd should consent to the Bill, in part because of a commitment from the UK Government to involve the Welsh Government should the Bill's power be used in relation to a steel undertaking in Wales. Does anyone have any comments on that? Fab. The LCM—we're looking at it tomorrow, so I will be speaking to this tomorrow.

Are you going to be making the point about LCMs and the content of the other letter, the outgoing letter—are you bringing that up in your speech?

Yes. Can I just ask: this is the one where the despatch box commitment was made, isn't it?

Yes.

Great. So, item 5.5 is a written statement by the Deputy Minister for Social Care, Mental Health and Women's Health, and this is on removing profit from the care of children who are looked after—implementation progress and next steps. So, this announces the launch of a consultation on further regulations that will impose restrictions on the further expansion of existing for-profit restricted children's services. So, to note, the Government is about to open a consultation on this, which will close on 12 September to ease the transition to the new model, and the Government gave its statement to the house last week about its plans to remove profit and what the implementation period of this would look like, and, as such, there's no role for the committee at this stage in the process. Do Members have any comments? Great. In that case, we can move on.

We're about to go into the private part of the meeting. So, is everyone happy that we go into the private part of the meeting? That's great. 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. So, everyone is content. That's fab. So, we will just wait for 10 seconds or so until we get into private session.