Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee

Thank you very much. I'm grateful to people for another hard-fought election. I'm very grateful to people for that, and welcome, everybody, to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. As Gareth has outlined, Mike is unavailable today and, as such, we have Hefin David as a substitute. Welcome to the committee.

I will remind Members that the meeting is broadcast live on Senedd.tv and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. I would be grateful if we could ensure that mobile devices are switched to silent. As Members are aware, the Senedd operates through the medium of Welsh and English, and interpretation is available.

With that, we're going to move on to item 3, instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3. We have item 3.1, which is SL(6)586, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2025, and we have a draft report in front of us. Members will be aware that the four Governments in the UK jointly operate the ETS as the ETS authority, replacing the UK's participation in the EU ETS. Senedd lawyers have identified one technical reporting point. Could I ask Kate from our legal team to run through that reporting point, please?

Thank you. The technical reporting point is just to note that the Order is in English only and, according to the explanatory memorandum, this is because the Order will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny across the UK.

I'm grateful to you for that, Kate, and Members will be aware this is a matter we are discussing at the moment with parliamentary authorities, about the ability to provide for bilingual legislation for Wales. So, are there any points that anybody would like to raise? If there are not, then we will move on to 3.2. There are no other points.

So 3.2 is—I’m grateful, Kate, for that— SL(6)587, the Landfill Disposals Tax (Tax Rates) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, and we have a report here. Senedd lawyers have identified two merits reporting points, and a Welsh Government response is not required. Members will see that we also have a letter in our papers from the Cabinet Secretary for finance to the Llywydd.

This instrument, as a made affirmative, must be approved by the Senedd in order for it to remain in effect, and we do have a reporting deadline of today, and Members will be aware that the debate will take place tomorrow. Kate, could you run through the reporting points, please?

The first merits point is just to note that the Welsh Revenue Authority is responsible for the collection and management of landfill disposals tax, and must pay amounts collected into the Welsh consolidated fund. And then the second merits point notes that, according to the explanatory memorandum, the standard rate of landfill disposals tax will continue to align with the rate of landfill tax in England and Northern Ireland, but the lower rate of landfill disposals tax will increase above the rate for landfill tax.

Thank you very much for that, Kate. Do Members have any issues they want to raise on that report? If they do not, then we'll move on. Members do not have any issues to raise, so we will move on. I'm grateful to you again, Kate, for that.

The next item is item four, instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3 that have been previously considered. There is here, I think, just one item today, which is SL(6)585, the Food (Promotion and Presentation) (Wales) Regulations 2025, and we do have now a Welsh Government response. The committee will remember we considered this instrument at our meeting on 3 March, last week, and we laid a report the same day. Do you have anything, Kate, to raise from the Welsh Government response, or shall we simply note the Welsh Government's response to the report?

Just to note that Welsh Government is going to address the first technical reporting point through correction prior to making.

Okay. If people are happy with that, we will note the response and move on to the next item.

This is item 5, notifications and correspondence under the inter-institutional relations agreement, and this is correspondence from the Welsh Government—meetings of inter-ministerial groups. Now, we have paper 6, which is a letter from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs on the Interministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and then a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language on the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee. Do we have any issues we want to raise on this or are Members content to note it? Members are content to note it.

Item 5.2 is correspondence from the Deputy First Minister again, and the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025. The letter, for Members' information, is in the supplementary pack. The Deputy First Minister informs us of his intention to consent to the UK Government making these regulations, which will amend the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024 to provide for limited exemptions to the prohibition of the use of certain types of flame retardant and ultraviolet inhibitor. We expect the regulations to be laid in front of the UK Parliament tomorrow, and the Deputy First Minister received a letter requesting consent to them on 8 January. And again, we are very familiar with the correspondence that he considered it appropriate for the substance of the UK amendments to apply to Wales, as timely implementation will prevent production and supply disruptions in the aerospace, defence, medical and automotive sectors. Are we content with this? Gareth, do you have any matters you wish to raise?

One issue if I may, Chair, and that is something that's constitutionally and procedurally noteworthy. The 2024 amendment regulations, which were approved by the UK Parliament in December 2024, have not been signed into law by the relevant UK Minister. This is unusual. As such, the committee may wish to consider raising it with the Welsh Government.

Yes, that is unusual. There is no provision for them not to do that, as far as I understand, Gareth. So, it is something we will need to raise with the Minister. Perhaps you could provide us with advice on that in our private session, because I think, when we do consent to regulations being made by UK Ministers, we do expect them to be made, and to be made in a timely fashion. So, I think we do probably need to look at that. I'm grateful to you for bringing that to the committee's attention.

Item 6 is papers to note—continuing. Item 6.1 is correspondence from the House of Lords International Agreements Committee to the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs. Lord Goldsmith's letter is in our packs and is, I think, quite self-explanatory. If Members don't have any issues to raise on it—I'm looking at Members now—then we'll move on to the next item. Laura.

It was just the importance that it raises of scrutinising those sorts of Bill, which I would completely agree with, I have to say. I think the letter is quite a good one and definitely one that, perhaps, we should support. I don't know. What are your thoughts on it?

We have raised these matters in previous conversations, particularly with regard to agreements around our relationship with the European Union, and it has been noted on a number of occasions exactly the point you make, Laura, that there has not been sufficient scrutiny of these matters, and as a consequence, of course, we've seen things happen that were unexpected, shall we say. I was going to say 'unintended' but certainly unexpected. And so I think greater parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements is something where there is a broad consensus of support across all of our institutions—perhaps less so in Government, I don't know. But it's something that I agree with, and if other Members are content, Gareth, perhaps it's something we could discuss in our private session, but also note as a general point. And perhaps we might reply to Lord Goldsmith, making that point to him—

Yes. Thanks, Chair.

—if Members are content.

The second item is correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales to the Llywydd: Bus Services (No. 2) Bill. Now, this is quite an interesting piece of correspondence, because the Cabinet Secretary states that the UK Government's Bill was introduced at pace, with the intention of applying in England only. He also states that the initial competency analysis by the UK Government was that all elements of the Bill were reserved and no legislative consent motion was required. It's not clear from his correspondence whether the Welsh Government had undertaken its own analysis when the Bill was introduced. But it does now appear that Welsh Government officials consider that some measures in the Bill do apply or may have some effect in regard to Wales. The Cabinet Secretary states that he intends to have discussions with the UK Minister to determine the appropriateness of the effect. Whilst these conversations are ongoing, he will not be bringing forward an LCM. My understanding, Gareth, is that Standing Orders demand that an LCM is brought forward, whether the Minister is having conversations with the UK Government or not. Is that correct?

Standing Order 29.21 says that an LCM must be laid in relation to any UK Government Bill that is a relevant Bill on its introduction to the first House, normally no later than two weeks after introduction. So, I think there is an expectation that that does happen, unless there are good reasons for not doing so.

So, the Cabinet Secretary should be laying an LCM, whether he's having conversations or not?

That would be an interpretation of Standing Orders, yes.

Okay. The letter is to the Llywydd, rather than to the committee, so I'm sure she and her officials will be dealing with it. Laura.

I agree with that, but it's a bit concerning, isn't it, that no analysis was done before this Bill, if it's going to be so significant and have such an impact.

It would be unusual.

Is there something we can advise on that? Is there something as a legislation committee that we can say is necessary to happen? Is there some input we can have?

My expectation is that Welsh Government will carry out its own analysis of competence or issues, and will not rely simply on the analysis of the UK Government. There are numerous examples where the Welsh and UK Governments have disagreed on these matters, because the Welsh Government has its own analysis of competence matters, which will differ to the UK Government's analysis. So, there's enough precedent for this, and the expectation is that the Welsh Government will provide its own analysis. So, it is surprising, shall we say, that that did not occur. Laura.

Yes. Maybe we could ask for a timeline on how long that's going to take, or something like that, just to make sure it's happening, to make sure that, you know—.

Absolutely. Look, the fundamental issue here is that the Welsh Government's taken far too long to introduce this legislation, and this legislation should have been introduced some years ago. So, it's not surprising that we find ourselves in this situation. But it would be useful, I think, Gareth, if our officials spoke to officials in the Llywydd's office, and that we returned to this next week, so that we'll be able to consider this, knowing and understanding the response of the Llywydd. I do tend to agree with Laura that our expectation is that the Welsh Government will carry out its own impact assessments on these matters, and will bring forward an LCM according to Standing Orders, notwithstanding the conversations that may or may not be taking place with the UK Government at any time. So, I think that's quite clear. If we're happy with that, then we can move on to general correspondence to note.

We've got a number of items of correspondence under 6.3, which are noted for the public record. You'll see that we have invitations here to the First Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales, and the UK's Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, asking them to provide evidence to us.

Item 6.4 is correspondence from the Independent Water Commission—call for evidence. This is evidence from parliamentarians. We might wish to have a conversation about this in private session. But I think, Gareth, this is one thing the committee does need to keep a weather eye on, as it were, because we have had conversations with the Deputy First Minister about the nature of this consent motion, first of all, and then the nature of the Independent Water Commission and its relationship with the inter-governmental structures and the various powers held on both sides of the border. The fact that the letter refers to privatisation doesn't fill me with much confidence, since Welsh Water, of course, is not a private company, it's a co-operative. So, I hope the commission will improve its knowledge of Wales before it starts work.

Item 6.5 is correspondence with the Business Committee, which is a report on the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Bill. I think both of these letters are quite self-explanatory. Unless Members have any issues, we can move on.

We have the supplementary legislative consent memorandum, memorandum No. 4, on the Great British Energy Bill. Members will be aware that the Senedd voted to agree a consent motion on these matters on 4 February, and last week the committee noted the laying of memorandum No. 3 on 19 February. In memorandum No. 4, the Cabinet Secretary notes that opposition amendments agreed at the House of Lords Report Stage, and the UK Government's own amendments laid on 17 February, and subsequently changed on 20 February, are the subject of this memorandum. This makes apparently minor supplementary provision to those clauses for which consent was previously sought, and memorandum No. 4 therefore remains in line with consent previously given. The further stages in the UK Parliament are yet to be scheduled, and we expect the Bill to move ahead reasonably quickly to Royal Assent. If Members are content to note this, we’ll move on to the next item.

The final item now is item 7, a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting. Are Members in favour? I'm seeing that Members are in favour. So, Gareth, if we could move into private session, please.