Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee

That takes us on to group 1, approval of draft Welsh statutory instruments subject to specified amendments—amendment 23. The first group of amendments relates to the approval of draft Welsh statutory instruments subject to specified amendments. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 23. I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the amendment.

Thank you very much, Chair. It is a great pleasure for me to move the first amendment in this first group before us today. Just at the outset, I would like to echo the comments that we made during the debate on the general principles of the Bill, in that we support the objectives of this Bill in general terms. The steps that improve the accessibility of Welsh legislation are very valuable, and we agree with those fundamental principles.

But there are some areas where we want to see the Bill being refined, and one of those is this question of how to improve the process of scrutiny on subordinate legislation. It's a theme that we in this committee have expressed some concerns about, with regard to the tendency, in general terms—it's not just, to be fair, in this Senedd, but it's a tendency that we see across the democratic world—for governments to be increasingly dependent on subordinate legislation to meet their policy intentions. A vacuum has opened up in terms of democratic accountability as a result of that, and what we are seeking to do in this amendment, and the amendments in the next group that I will be referring to in due course, is to come up with a solution to this challenge before us that strikes a balance between the need for any government to ensure that its legislative programme and policy intentions are delivered and the need to have democratic accountability that is effective.

The fundamental problem is that, currently, with subordinate legislation, the opportunity that is provided to the Senedd is binary, isn't it? It's, 'Take it or leave it', and that doesn't leave room for that conditional or nuanced support to be reflected in the decisions made by the Senedd. So, what we are doing in this amendment is proposing a third option, namely for the Senedd to ask the government to think again. It's often described as the 'think again' option, and what we're doing in this amendment, truth be told, is reflecting or transposing a similar clause in a Bill that is currently before the House of Lords, namely the Statutory Instruments (Amendments) Bill by Lord Thomas of Gresford, which seeks to do the same thing in their context. Of course, they're doing it in a bicameral context, so sending a message to the House of Commons; in our context, it's sending a message to the Government, asking the Government to think again on the basis of an amendment that expresses a specific concern held by the Senedd.

The amendment would, therefore, allow the Senedd to approve an instrument subject to amendments that would be specified in the decision, and, after that, the Government could decide whether to make the instrument as amended or to withdraw the draft. That still ensures that it's the Government that continues to be the responsible authority that exercises the delegated power to make the legislation. So, it reflects the nature of the constitutional system, if you will. It also prevents the Senedd from compelling the responsible authority to make an instrument that is beyond the enabling powers or that does not work for some other reason. So, simply put, it enables the Senedd to reflect the view of the Senedd, to ask the Government to think again, and to consider bringing forward an amended instrument.

Another thing to note is that this procedure would apply to Welsh statutory instruments alone. So, the proposed processes in this amendment will not apply to joint or composite statutory instruments or to Orders in Council, which will continue to be tabled as 'statutory instruments' rather than 'Welsh statutory instruments'. And with those few opening comments, Chair, I'll let other Members express their views, and the Minister to speak, before I respond further.

Alun, you wanted to come in.

Yes. I'm grateful to Adam Price for the way he's introduced this amendment and the way in which he's approached the amendments in his name in this process. I think it's a very useful exercise to have this conversation, and it's a conversation the committee has already started, of course. I think, in principle, I have no issue with the points that Adam makes. I think we need to look towards a much wider view of how we legislate at the moment. We've seen a number of different themes emerge, if you like, during this current Senedd. We've seen Bills that are, by their nature, more framework Bills than perhaps we would have anticipated, and we've seen far more statutory instruments coming forward as a consequence of that. Now, I have no view on whether that's a good or a bad thing, but we do need to look at how we conduct the legislative process in Wales. This committee, or a previous committee, undertook a review—I think it was about a decade or so ago now—with Daniel Greenberg as a special adviser, I remember, and it seems to me that the committee, or perhaps the equivalent committee in the next Senedd, should make a review of our legislative process a priority, with a view on the amendment of statutory instruments as a key part of that. I understand that the Business Committee is looking into these matters at the moment, and I understand that the Government is reticent to accept these amendments at this point in time. But I also appreciate—and I think the Counsel General said this in further evidence—that there is no principled opposition here from the Welsh Government, but we're looking at how there is an agreed process to take these matters forward. So, I look forward to the comments from the Counsel General to this, but I think the lesson, if you like, is that the Government and the Senedd need to take a wider look at how we legislate, the legislative process in its totality, and then I'm sure the Government, or perhaps the next Government, of whatever colour that might be, would be prepared to bring forward legislation to give life to the conclusions of that review.

Thank you. At that point, I call on the Counsel General.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. So, I completely agree, Alun, with your summary there, and I'm very grateful, actually, to both Adam and Paul Davies for the amendments because I think the amendments that have been brought forward show a set of ambitions that we share broadly. It's clear that a lot of thought has gone into the aims of the Bill and what we're trying to do with it, so I'm grateful for that, and I think this group and the one that follows really show that as well.

There's clearly a developing strength of feeling that procedures established in Westminster decades ago are probably not the only way to look at subordinate legislation. Personally, I agree with that entirely. As I said in the general principles debate, I also think a committee that looks at the actual merits of the instrument and its content is something we need as well. So, this is not just about amending it, because, as I said, we have increasingly a situation where we have policy content in statutory instruments. And, at the moment, we have this committee looking at statutory instruments because they're considered to be a technical legislative instrument, but we don't have a policy committee looking at them, although I think we could have that.

The committee is, clearly, also looking at the possibility of amending instruments, and what Adam is proposing with amendment 23 could be one way of amending an instrument, subject to the new section 37C, before it's approved and made. I just want to remind the committee what Ruth Fox from the Hansard Society noted in her evidence to the committee during Stage 1, which is that the new section 37C requires the Senedd to reach a resolution to approve an instrument. It doesn't set out how the Senedd reaches that point, and she argued it could be done in Standing Orders. In fact, her view was that as little as possible should be set out on the face of a Bill, and procedures played a role in achieving that. She also pointed to concerns about whether a Parliament's decision to amend instruments, which has been delegated to the Executive to make, might undermine the fundamental principles of the delegation.

So, I think there are some complexities there. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I think that there are some complexities there around the way that the delegation to the Executive in the various instruments that set out the statutory instrument-making power needs to be seriously considered, and I thought the committee dealt with all of these points very sensibly at Stage 1 when it recommended, in effect, that the Business Committee needed to consider the issues. My understanding is that the Business Committee have yet to consider recommendations 5 and 6 of the Stage 1 report, but I'm sure that they are going to do that as part of their forward work programme.

Thank you.

If I could come in on that final sentence, I think it's very useful to have this principled agreement across the table, and so I think it would be useful if the committee were to write to the Counsel General to seek agreement on perhaps ways in which we can consider these matters in the round prior to dissolution next year, so at least the next Senedd will have some work established before it starts on its own programme of work.

Thank you, Alun. Adam, for you to reply to the debate.

Yes, sure. I certainly would welcome that proposal, and I'd welcome further discussions that we could have, Counsel General, also in the context of this Bill, between this stage and the next stage; I'm anticipating. I will be moving the amendment, because I think it's an important parliamentary principle, and I think that it would be good to have it voted on on that basis alone. But I anticipate that it's likely to fail at this stage, and I would appreciate the opportunity to continue the conversation.

I think it's important to recognise that, as I said, this amendment really reflects a growing body of opinion. It actually was—. The whole issue of amendable statutory instruments, of course, has been debated in Westminster for many decades now, but this particular proposal, I think, again, the procedure, I think, was first suggested through a report by Lord Goodlad in 2010; again in a report by Lord Strathclyde in 2015. It was recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the last Parliament, in Westminster. In the context of this statutory instruments Bill that actually went through its Committee Stage unamended on 14 March of this month, with wide-ranging support—it has to be said not on the Government's side, but it did go through unamended, and it obviously has passed its Second Reading as well—it was supported very vocally by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who has been a very high-profile adviser to the Government here. Serious people on the UK Government's governance project, chaired by Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, but also Baroness Hodge, Lord Neuberger, Jonathan Jones KC, very heavyweight people from the world of politics and constitutional law, proposed this in their report last year.

And the reason why people are proposing it in legislation, rather than through Standing Orders, as you said was suggested by the chief executive of the Hansard Society, is that it is such an important constitutional principle—it has become such an important constitutional principle—because of this lacuna, this vacuum of accountability. That is why people believe it needs to be enshrined in law, yes, put on a statutory basis, rather than simply done through a change in Standing Orders. So, that's why I will be moving this to a vote, because I think it—. You know, we have an opportunity here. I mean, there may be discussions—I'm sure there will be discussions—in the Business Committee, and I would welcome any discussions in any format. But here is an opportunity, with this Bill, for us to make the change, and I therefore, on that basis, will be moving it to a vote now, and we may, following further discussions, want to revisit this at Stage 3.

Diolch, Adam. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] As a Member has objected, we move on to a vote. Those in favour of the amendment. Those against. There are only three people in the room, so it's one for and two against, therefore it falls.

I now take us on to group 2. The second group of amendments relates to the partial annulment of subordinate legislation made by Welsh statutory instrument. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 24. I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the lead amendment, and all his other amendments in this group. Adam.

So, Chair, we're staying on a similar theme, but with a slightly different solution to this issue of how the Senedd can scrutinise subordinate legislation more effectively. The amendment gives the Senedd the ability to annul specific sections of statutory instruments rather than having to repeal or reject the statutory instrument in its entirety, and it builds on two decades, I think, now, of experience in Australian Parliaments. There was a very similar discussion on exactly the same issue that was had in the context of the federal Parliament first of all, in terms of this issue of a lack of democratic accountability in relation to subordinate legislation from the 1990s onwards, and then the Legislative Instruments Act was passed in 2003, which provided this ability for partial disallowance, in their own terms. It has worked very effectively since then, and it has been used in various different contexts. And also the state Parliaments—New South Wales, Western Australia and so on—have also adopted this approach of partial annulment or disallowance of a statutory instrument.

Therefore, as I said earlier, this would only apply to Welsh statutory instruments and not to other statutory instruments, and it would allow a Senedd that has concern about a specific section of a statutory instrument, while agreeing entirely with its main intention, just to annul that particular section. So, it's another approach because, in my view, we need a suite or a range of possibilities for the Senedd. Some approaches would be relevant in certain situations; in terms of the previous amendment, for example, it would send a more general message. Let's say that there was a specific concern about a very specific element of an SI, then this amendment would be more relevant and would allow the Senedd to play a far more effective and efficient role in the process than is currently possible. And with those few opening remarks, I will invite other Members.

Alun.

I think Adam is to be congratulated on his creativity in bringing forward amendments that fundamentally do the same thing, and it's important, I think, that this debate takes place, and I think we have agreed during the previous debate that this is a debate that is wanted on all sides of the Chamber, including the Government's side, and I think the contribution that Adam has made is an important one and it's one that shouldn't be dismissed with the fall of a particular amendment. I would hope that the work that Adam has done in terms of reviewing these matters and looking creatively at the way that other Parliaments work will feed their way into the wider review that all sides have agreed needs to take place.

Thank you. I call on the Counsel General.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. So, it won't be any surprise at all, given my remarks in the first group, that I take a very similar view on this one. So, I think the proposal to annul specific provisions of a statutory instrument, rather than the whole instrument, is a very interesting proposition, but something that does require a fuller piece of consideration, in particular how it fits together with some of the other things that we're able to do. I'm really interested in the disallowance procedure that exists in the Australian Parliament, and I'm really grateful, Adam, for you bringing that to our attention. On my behalf, my officials have had a really good look at that, because it is really interesting, and their federal register of legislation displays the legislative instruments that are currently open for disallowance, but it also shows a number of instruments that are exempt from the procedure by reason of the parent Act. So, it's not all instruments that are subject to it. I think your amendment would make all of them subject to the new section 37E, so we have a little bit of a worry about that. That's why we think it needs further consideration.

And then the record of instruments that have been disallowed in Australia is very interesting. So, since 1 January 2005, a total of 109 instruments have either been fully or partially disallowed, but only about one in four were partially disallowed, and the most recent partial disallowance happened in 2019. Oddly enough, it was to do with parliamentary business resource regulations. There's a piece of interesting research to be done there. So, we're not talking about big numbers at all, but it's quite clearly something the Australian Parliament thinks is something that's required, and I absolutely think that it's something that we should explore further, absolutely. I'm really interested, myself, anyway, in that process, so I think it's something worth looking at, but I do think we need to consider it more fully and for there to be an exploration of other approaches in similar jurisdictions as well. I'm certainly going to get that piece of work done by officials, who are themselves very interested in it as well.

So, I don't support the specific amendments at this time, but I really do hope that the Senedd and the Government considers it more fully during the next Senedd term, and I'm very pleased to say that I would support any action by this committee or the Future Senedd Committee or the Business Committee to bring forward such propositions.

Would you take an intervention?

Absolutely.

Thank you, Counsel General. I'm very grateful to you for those words. You did say that you're commissioning a piece of work. It might be useful if you were able to share that work with this committee when that work is completed.

Yes. I'm very happy to do that.

Thank you.

I just wanted to—. Before I finish, Chair, I just wanted to record the fact that one of the benefits of this Bill is that we will have brought all the existing procedures together in one place in a modernised form bilingually. So, actually, any further work is made much simpler off the back of this Bill, and I think that's one of the strengths of the Bill. So, if a future Senedd does determine that legislative reform is a better way of doing it, well, this Bill is a really excellent base on which to do that, rather than having to pull together all of the disparate bits that we had before. I only mention that because one of the aims of the Government and the legislature is to improve the accessibility of Welsh law, and this makes it much simpler in legislative terms, and so it would be much easier to change Senedd procedures either through the Standing Orders or, indeed, legislatively in the future as a result of this Bill. So, I just wanted to make that point before I hand back to Adam. Diolch.

Adam, do you want to reply to the debate?

Yes. I'm very grateful to the Counsel General for her willingness to commission some further work in this area and her obvious interest in this. I think that, sometimes—. Without going too much into different scenarios, sometimes I think the way that Governments—and I'm making a general comment rather than a specific one—often approach this question is that opposition parties are very keen on parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive until they get into Government, when the framework sort of changes, really. I think it's important to remember that things can change, can't they? Even a party that has long been in power might at some point find itself in opposition and will then take a different view of this question. And having these powers when you're not always going to be in power indefinitely could become really important. So, it may be that you don't want an over wieldy Executive under all circumstances, because you may not agree, always, with the political make-up of the Executive. So, that's the broad—

I wonder if you'd take an intervention on—

Yes, sure.

I don't disagree with anything you said there. I just want to be really clear that what we want to be able to explore is the effect of partial disallowance on the integrity of the overarching statutory instruments. So, I have no in-principle objection to it at all, but you'd have to have a process by which the Government was able to say, 'Well, if Part 4 is disallowed, it has x effect on Part 2 not yet seen, and therefore we'd rather withdraw the whole thing and start again', or something. And I think that your amendment just—. It needs further consideration in that. I wanted to make it crystal clear that I have no in-principle objection to the process, and in fact I would go so far as to say that we think it's needed, but we just need that further consideration.

Sure. And I really welcome the Counsel General's approach to this and look forward to the further work. Yes, I think there are questions of detail, I fully accept, in terms of the process, because, for example, as you rightly point out, if you have a procedure that just differentiated between some for which a partial disallowance procedure is applied, then you also need to have some kind of framework around that, don't you, because otherwise you could have an Executive that simply ignored it anyway—it was a theoretical possibility, but it wasn't actually implemented. So, there are some questions of detail, and I'd be very interested in engaging further with those.

Again, I would like to move the lead amendment. Obviously, I don't want to test the patience of the committee, but I think it's good to have the amendment voted on, but obviously then the consequential amendments will fall if it doesn't pass, which is highly likely. But I look forward to continuing this conversation at a later stage in these proceedings and in other contexts as well.

To repeat what Adam said at the end there, if amendment 24 is not agreed, then amendments 25 to 32 will fall. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we move to a vote. Those in favour, please show. Those against, please show. It is defeated by two to one. Thank you very much.

As I said, all of the other amendments in that group fall.

We now move on to group 3, amendments relating to the administrative correction of minor errors in Welsh statutory instruments. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 33. I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the amendment.

Thank you very much, Chair. The purpose of this amendment is to enable administrative correction, and we define what that means in the amendment, which applies to all Welsh statutory instruments laid before the Senedd. So, not just those that are subject to the Senedd's approval procedure. And it echoes one of this committee's recommendations. If I remember correctly, Chair, we asked the Government to give consideration to this. The amendment includes a requirement for responsible authorities to notify the Llywydd of any such corrections. The responsible authority must also send a certified copy of the corrected Welsh statutory instrument to the National Library of Wales and the King's Printer for Wales, and the latter must publish the correct instrument.

Now, we have a system at present of correction slips, and that's the system that Westminster also uses. What we are doing here is creating a statutory system that means that the changes or amendments are made on a legal footing in a much clearer way than at present. And it also reflects, once again, what is contained in the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill currently being considered by the House of Lords. On that point, I will conclude my opening remarks and I'll hand over to other Members and the Minister.

Do any other Members wish to speak on this? Laura.

Hi. Sorry I was late, Chair. Just to say that we are going to be voting against this amendment, because we don’t believe that it’s necessary to fall in line with Scotland and to establish this office as an office in its own right.

So, we’re on group 3. The point you raised was on group 5.

Oh, right, sorry—[Inaudible.]—

But I'll call you when we get to group 5. Thank you. Counsel General, do you wish to—

Diolch, Cadeirydd. And also, my thanks to Adam for explaining his reasons for bringing this forward. So, a number of things to say, Chair, on this. First, I want to reassure Members that the Government has clearly heard the concerns raised today and on a number of occasions previously regarding the importance of ensuring we minimise and, ideally, eliminate errors in the legislation. I've prioritised the preparation of the omnibus amending instruments I mentioned to the committee previously, and I'll write to you shortly with details of what those will address, and I'm happy to speak with the committee separately about that if it's helpful. I know that we're currently discussing amendment 33, however.

Can I say, Adam, I think this is a really thoughtful and interesting amendment? And it clearly does build on the proposal in Lord Thomas of Gresford's Bill in the UK Parliament, as you said, by using the same criteria for administrative correction. It does go further by not limiting the opportunity to make a correction to within 40 days of the instrument being made, but I want to just point out a couple of the other things that are not immediately obvious. They weren't immediately obvious to me, anyway, so I just wanted to bring them to the committee's attention.

Adam's amendment allows an administrative correction to be made at any time to a Welsh statutory instrument, but this means only to instruments made after 1 January 2026, as that is when the first Welsh statutory instruments can be made. It wouldn't apply to any of the 6,500 statutory instruments that have already been made prior to that date. I don't think it diminishes the usefulness of Adam's proposal for the future, but I just think Members should realise that we're going to start again with Welsh statutory instruments in January, and so I wanted Members to be aware of that.

I think the absence of the 40-day limit is a really helpful progression to Lord Thomas's proposal. We know that minor errors are spotted long after legislation has been made, but nonetheless, it's right to put them right when they are spotted, so I think that's a really helpful extension, if you like, of the original proposal, but we're concerned about the criteria for administrative correction using amendment 33. If the intention is to replace the convention of correction slips with a statutory rule, then the criteria used for the slips isn't the one that's set out in the amendment. And secondly and more importantly, we don't think the test would work as a legislative proposition, and I'm not sure it would work as intended in practice. So, rather than focus on the detail of the amendment, I’d like to explain to the committee why, despite the apparent attractiveness of the amendment, I think it would only partially address the issues we face.

[Inaudible.]

Yes. Well, I'd stopped, but, yes. [Laughter.]

We'll assume you hadn't.

I thought you were breathing, but I'm grateful to you anyway. It seems to me that you're in violent agreement on this matter, and it seems to me as well that there is a commitment on all sides to take this matter forward. Would it be possible for the Government to bring forward an agreed amendment at Stage 3?

I think it's very difficult for us to do that in the time period allowed, because we want to continue the dialogue that's started with the King's Printer and the other parliamentary jurisdictions. So, ideally, for example, the UK would move to the digital record being the primary legislation, and we can't do that on our own for all kinds of complicated reasons—

Yes, I accept that.

—so, I think probably not. But what we are very committed to doing is continuing this conversation, and, with Adam's assistance, will bring this amendment to their attention. I think that puts us in a very good position to be able to do something really quite transformational, but not in this context. It would have to be in the wider context.

Thank you. Adam, I call upon you to reply to the debate.

Yes. Again, I'm very grateful to the Counsel General for the tone and her general approach to this matter. I was wondering, building on Alun Davies's question, whether at least the conversation could be had to see if we can't do everything in the context of this Bill, whether we could do something. I'm very conscious of the fact that, Counsel General, you will not be in this post beyond this election, and sometimes you've got to seize the opportunities when they present themselves.

Other legislatures, well, clearly in the context of—I should give him his proper title, sorry—Lord Thomas of Gresford—. There's a plethora of Lord Thomases, of course, and I think Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd has spoken in the Committee Stage debate and was supportive, I think, of this particular provision. Many of those who contributed said that so much in Westminster operates by—. Correction slips have developed by convention. There comes a point when conventions, really, only can get used so far, and we need to create a modern, fit-for-the-twenty-first-century, digital, if possible, process of correction that doesn't require you to have to revoke, amend or bring something back all the time for all the reasons where there is clearly common ground. It would be still, I think, very useful, notwithstanding the elements within the wider context that we don't have complete control over, to see whether some version of this amendment could be brought forward at Stage 3.

I will move the amendment. I should point out that I think this particular amendment did have, I believe, frontbench Conservative support in the House of Lords. On that basis, I'd like to move the amendment, but I look forward to continuing the productive, constructive discussions with the Counsel General at a later stage.

Thank you, Adam. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] As a Member has objected, we proceed to vote. All those in favour. All those against. And abstention. I missed your vote, Laura, if you made one.

For.

For. Okay, thank you. That means there are two votes for and two votes against. As there was a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

On to the fourth group, which contains amendments relating to consistency and accuracy of drafting. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 2, tabled in the name of the Counsel General.

I move amendment 2 and call on the Counsel General to speak to this amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. This group of amendments seeks to make a number of technical amendments to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, mainly to ensure drafting consistency. If Members bear with me, I'll quickly summarise the changes. Amendments 2 to 13 make various minor amendments in new Schedules 1A, 1B and 1C to be inserted into the 2019 Act to ensure drafting consistency within and across those Schedules. Those amendments will also ensure drafting consistency across new Part 2A as a whole. For example, amendment 8 inserts the words 'referred to in sections 37E' into paragraph 4(2) of the new Schedule 1C. Paragraph 4(2) would work without that change, but making the amendment will ensure consistency with the drafting approach taken in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1C and paragraphs 3(2), 4(2) and 5(2) of Schedule 1B.

Turning to amendments 14 and 15 in this group, they will amend section 2 of the Bill. Members will recall that the section amends both the Highways Act 1980 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to no longer require certain road traffic orders to be made by Welsh statutory instrument. Amendments 14 and 15 make technical but nonetheless necessary further amendments to the 1980 and 1984 Acts. These changes ensure that the Interpretation Act 1978 operates correctly in respect of both Acts, once the powers of the Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation under those Acts has been amended by the Bill.

Finally, amendments 16 to 21 in this group are proposed to meet recommendation 9 of this committee's report at Stage 1. They ensure that, in the six relevant sections in new Part 2B, the reference to the clerk is consistent with the wording used in the Government of Wales Act 2006. I hope that that's provided Members with sufficient information to enable them to support the amendments at the relevant time. Diolch.

Diolch. Does any other Member wish to speak? You've got a right to reply, Counsel General.

I don't need a right to reply, thank you.

Thank you. We move to amendment 2. Does any Member object? There are no objections, so amendment 2 is agreed.

We move to amendment 3 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 3 is agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 3 is agreed.

I move on to amendment 4 in the name of the Counsel General. Does any Member object? No. So, amendment 4 is agreed.

We move on to amendment 5 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. So, amendment 5 is agreed in accordance with Standing Orders.

We move to amendment 6 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. So, amendment 6 is agreed in accordance with Standing Orders.

Amendment 7 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 7 is agreed in accordance with Standing Orders.

Amendment 8 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 8 is agreed in accordance with Standing Orders.

Amendment 9 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. So, amendment 9 is agreed in accordance with Standing Orders.

Amendment 10 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 10 is agreed in accordance with Standing Orders.

I move amendment 11 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 11 is agreed.

I move amendment 12 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. So, amendment 12 is agreed in accordance with Standing Orders.

Amendment 13 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. As no Member objects, amendment 13 is agreed in accordance with Standing Orders.

I move amendment 14 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? No Members object. So, amendment 14 is agreed in accordance with Standing Orders.

I move amendment 15 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 15 is agreed in accordance with Standing Orders.

We will dispose of the remaining amendments in this group, amendments 16 to 21, when we reach them in the marshalled list of amendments.

The fifth group relates to the King’s Printer for Wales. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 34. I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the amendment.

Thank you, Chair. As members of the committee will be aware, a separate Office of the King's Printer has existed in Scotland since 1998. In Northern Ireland, where the relevant office is called the Government Printer for Northern Ireland, that office has existed for over a century. The existence of a King's Printer is also characteristic of other Parliaments in the Commonwealth, for example in Canada, where there is a King's Printer for the Canadian Parliament and every one of the state Parliaments has its own King's Printer.

A decade ago, the predecessor committee—the constitutional committee of the Senedd—called for the creation of the King's Printer for Wales along the same lines as in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Government itself had put forward a clause establishing a King's Printer for Wales in the draft Government Bill on government and laws in Wales. This clause includes less of the detail of this amendment, but it is a version of the clause that the Government had put forward in that draft Bill. Because the situation at the moment, of course, in the Bill as it currently stands, is that although the title is created, there is no specific office. So, it doesn't exist as a separate King's Printer for Wales. It's a role and a title, but without a statutory identity. I do believe—we'll hear in a moment from the Government, of course—that although there is no practical difference in terms of what would be provided, there is a symbolic difference.

I think that it is important that the national nature of our democracy and Senedd is reflected on an equal footing. There is too much asymmetry in terms of the constitutional settlement. In that regard, there should be a specific office for Wales, and that, very simply, is what this amendment seeks to create. On that note, I will listen to the comments of other Members and the Cabinet Secretary.

Laura. It's the item you spoke on earlier.

Yes, I know. Thank you, Chair. Sorry. Well, you've probably heard what I'm going to say, but thank you very much for that, Chair. As my colleague Paul Davies has already made clear, the Bill does not provide for the creation of a King's Printer for Wales as a separate role, and I share the Counsel General's view that a separate administration is not needed. Therefore, I will be opposing amendment 34. Thanks.

Does any other Member wish to speak? Alun.

I'd be interested to hear the Government's argument on this, because it seems to me there is no argument from the Government on this point of view. The Government does not support the amendment, but has said, and I think the Counsel General has made clear, that there is no practical difference between the situation that has been described by Adam Price and the situation as described in the current Bill. So, if there is no practical difference, there can be no administrative or cost difference either, and there can be no political or legal reason why Wales shouldn't exist on the same basis in these terms as Scotland and Northern Ireland. It appears to me that the Government's position on this is quite difficult, to say the least.

At that point, I call on the Counsel General to respond.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'll attempt to explain why the Government takes a view. Despite having listened carefully to what Adam said, my view is unchanged. I’m pleased, though, that we’re able to have this debate, because I think it’s an important debate, so I was very pleased to move the financial resolution to allow it. But the reason we needed the financial resolution was what I’m going to come on to now.

At present, there’s only a partial recognition of the King’s Printer’s responsibility for Welsh law in statute, despite the last quarter of a century of this legislature and the Executive making and passing Welsh laws. We’ve long argued the publication of Welsh legislation should be fully and correctly reflected in statute, and new part 2B of the 2019 Act introduced by this Bill will achieve that. This Government, the King’s Printer, the team at the National Archives and the Secretary of State are satisfied that the new legislative provision we are setting out in the Bill reflects the existing practical reality of where we are. We also all recognise that, for the first time, there is now a clear responsibility on the King’s Printer for the publication of Welsh law, and I do not underestimate the importance of that specific and clear responsibility.

I’m also very pleased we’ve gone further than Scotland and the existing legislation to provide, in new section 37V, that the King’s Printer must publish legislation as it has been amended. This is the first time a duty of this kind has been created. It’s something that’s been strongly welcomed by the team at the National Archives and it’s attracting interest from other Governments in the UK. But, as Adam has noted, we did not go further and create a new office of the King’s Printer for Wales in this Bill. Instead, we’ve conferred functions relating to the publication of Welsh legislation on the King’s Printer, but made it clear that, when those functions are being exercised, he is to be referred to as the King’s Printer for Wales.

If we create a separate office, there are cost implications for the National Archives for how they would have to organise themselves. They would have to be passed on to the Welsh Government. We have not explored in detail what those would be, but Members are aware that the management charge levied on the Scottish Government to support the office of the King’s Printer for Scotland is just over £100,000 a year, every year. The latest report of the King’s Printer for Scotland refers to work undertaken by the National Archives on the operation and maintenance of the legislation.gov.uk platform. We also receive those benefits and will continue to do so in the way the Bill has been prepared but without the additional charge.

The Scottish report also refers to the compilation of legislative amendment data in relation to Scottish legislation. Again, that work takes place for Welsh legislation, but we do not have to pay a management charge for that. So, I emphasise again the creation of the separate office would require the National Archives having to organise themselves differently, and that has a cost implication that we would then have to meet, and, frankly, the costs vastly outweigh any benefit that the Government thinks would flow from that.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

From whom would you receive consent?

From the Minister of the Crown.

Which one?

There is a Minister of the Crown who has responsibility. We're changing a non-devolved office. We have to have consent for that. So, we'd be changing—

Yes, I understand the process. I'm interested to know which Minister—

The consent we've asked for doesn't set up a separate office. We'd have to ask for consent to do it.

Yes, I understand that. 'Which Minister' is the question I asked.

It's the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Good question, and I'm glad my assistant knows the answer.

We're all glad of that.

Thank you, Claire. So, I absolutely understand Adam's intentions, and I wanted to be able to have the debate about it, but I don't support amendment 34, and I hope Members will agree that it shouldn't be supported.

Adam, do you want to reply?

Yes. I'm very grateful to the Counsel General for explaining the Government's position. You weren't persuaded by my argument, and you won't be surprised to hear that I'm not persuaded by yours at this stage. I'd like the Government to make some further inquiries in relation to this. There is a payment that is made at the moment by the Scottish Government that you're referring to, which is revealed in the annual report that the King's Printer for Scotland publishes, of just over £100,000. I've written to the National Archives to ask them if we simply changed the statutory definition that's set out here, would there be an additional cost. I only wrote to them last week, and I haven't yet received a reply. I was wondering if the Minister wants to intervene on me if the National Archives have indicated to you that they would raise a charge.

Yes, they have.

Right. And have they given you a figure?

No.

There aren't any figures that I've been able to see for the Government Printer of Northern Ireland. I don't know if you're aware if they are charged equally. So, the first thing that I would do, Counsel General, is ask, 'Well, can we have the Northern Irish version, if they get it for free, rather than the Scottish one?' I think there is an important factor here, though, isn't there, and it's the Barnett formula. Let's assume that Northern Ireland is charged as well. They may not be. I think it would be, as I said, interesting to find out. But in the statement of funding of the National Archives, the comparability factor for Scotland and Northern Ireland is 100 per cent.

Would you take an intervention, Adam?

I certainly would.

The problem with the Barnett formula, it sets a minimum, and Northern Ireland has consistently been given above the minimum. A government can give any amount of money to a devolved jurisdiction. The difference is that Wales and Scotland tend to have what the Barnett formula produces; Northern Ireland tends to have Barnett plus.

Yes, well that takes us into a whole wider area of debate, but you're right. There have—

Would you take another intervention?

Yes, sure. I'm causing chaos in all directions here, but carry on.

We're interested in the proposition. We don't know the answer to the question you're asking. We'll endeavour to find out. We think it might have something to do with the fact that we're a single jurisdiction, England and Wales, and the others aren't.

Right, okay.

We don't know, but we will make further enquiries.

That would be very welcome. The broader point I'm making is this—. I accept the Chair's intervention, of course; there have been some Barnett-busting political agreements, most recently in relation to Northern Ireland, but they get 100 per cent of the comparability on the National Archives. Now, there's a wider context to that, because there is the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland and National Records of Scotland, and many of us believe there should be a national archive of Wales. But the point is this: they get substantial money in any case in relation to the National Archives. Even though the National Archives, of course, has many UK-wide responsibilities, Scotland and Northern Ireland get money which would more than—in my assumption—pay for the £100,000 that Scotland pays back for this small duty. Wales gets zero at the moment. We get a zero comparability factor. Quite clearly, if we were to change even this element, there would be a case then, if you were going to get Minister of the Crown consent—I accept that you would need to get that—then there would have to be other discussion in terms of the comparability factor because the relationship of the National Archives and its role would change.

So, there are solutions on the table is what I'm saying, Counsel General, to this question, and I think it is not beyond the wit of any of us to come up with a means by which we wouldn't be out of pocket, essentially. I would welcome the offer that you've made to make some further enquiries into the position of Northern Ireland and the potential Barnett context that I've referred to, because I think these symbols are important. That's why we have a—. We don't call it a mace, do we? But we have letters patent, we have a Welsh seal, et cetera, because all of these things in a parliamentary democracy are important, because they send out a clear message that this is a sovereign Parliament, recognised as such, given parity of esteem in these islands. I think that having a King's Printer for Wales not just in name, which is unfortunately what we have, is the right thing to do.

Going back to the evidence that we heard from the National Archives, I asked them, 'What would be the difference if you were officially a King's Printer for Wales?' 'What's the difference between what you actually do compared to Scotland?', and they said, 'In terms of the practical arrangements, no'. The Scottish statutory instruments are received through the same system and managed by the same team at the National Archives as UK statutory instruments are now. And under the new arrangements, Welsh statutory instruments in their own series will be received by the same group of people. So, even though, in statutory terms, in legal terms, there's a separate King's Printer for Scotland, it's the same people in the same team doing everything across these islands. So, I think it would be difficult to justify why we would be invoiced on that basis because it's the same people doing the same thing.

At that point, I'd say that the question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, Laura has objected. Okay, I'll take it to a vote as the Member has objected. All those in favour. All those against. Therefore, it is defeated.

We now reach amendments 16 to 21 on the marshalled list, and I propose to take these amendments en bloc. Does any Member object? No.

I move amendments 16 to 21 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendments 16 to 21 be agreed. Does any Member object? No Member objects. Therefore, amendments 16 to 21 are agreed in accordance with Standing Orders.

Group 6, unrecorded public rights of way. The sixth group of amendments relates to unrecorded public rights of way. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 22, tabled in the name of the Counsel General.

I move amendment 22 and call on the Counsel General to speak to the amendment.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. This group is quite a change from the other matters we've discussed this morning as it deals with the part of the Bill concerned with repeals of provisions that are no longer of practical utility or benefit. Members will recall that, during Stage 1, you received evidence from the Open Spaces Society. The society wanted to see a repeal of sections 53 to 56 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in relation to Wales. I explained in my evidence to the committee at Stage 1 the reasons why, although originally part of our draft Statute Law (Repeals) (Wales) Bill, such a repeal was not included in this Bill on introduction, but I also committed to bringing forward an amendment to the Bill to reinstate that repeal if the committee did not object. Amendment 22 will achieve that, and I hope Members now support its inclusion.

In the Open Spaces Society response to our draft Bill, it also recommended we consider the repeal in relation to Wales of paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the 2000 Act. It made a similar point in evidence to this committee. The Government's now had the opportunity to consider this and Members will see that paragraph 55 in the proposed amendment deals with this matter. Chair, it may be helpful to explain this a little further. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires, amongst other things, that definitive maps and statements be kept under review. The surveying authority for an area may make by Order such modifications for a definitive map and statement as it considers are required. If paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the 2000 Act were enforced, it would insert a new section 54A into the 1981 Act. The new section 54A would prevent a surveying authority making an Order after the cut-off date of 1 January 2026 that modified a definitive map and statement for the purposes of recording a byway open to all traffic, except where such a byway is recorded in the place of any other way already recorded in the map and statement. As sections 53 to 56 and paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 to the 2000 Act are not in force and we have no intention of bringing them into force, I trust Members will, therefore, support amendment 22. If included and the Bill enacted, those provisions will be repealed in relation to Wales, something the Open Spaces Society has strongly welcomed. Diolch.

Any Members wish to speak? Yes, Laura.

Thank you, Chair. I'm still uneasy about these amendments and the impact that they might have on Welsh landowners. I'm disappointed at the UK Government's announcement to remove the cut-off date for rights of way claims, and I'm disappointed that the Welsh Government has decided to follow suit. I'm not opposed to the public, of course, having access to the countryside, but our priority should be tackling the massive backlog of cases that we currently already have in Wales. There are nearly 8,000 unprocessed applications in England and Wales. If the deadline is removed here, the backlog will only continue to grow. It is not clear how the backlog of our current applications will be cleared, let alone any additional claims, and so this will increase the strain on local authorities.

I believe that, in order for the public to have access to the countryside, we need to create networks fit for the future that encourage responsible use, respects farmland and promotes safety. This way, the public can have access to the countryside without impacting vital food production or the management of farms in Wales. Instead of creating new footpaths, the focus should be on a network fit for the future that encourages responsible use, respects working farmland and promotes safety in accordance with the countryside code. Therefore, I'll be voting against amendment 22. Diolch.

Thank very much. Does any other Member wish to speak? Counsel General, do you wish to respond? Sorry—Alun were you indicating or not?

I was just going to say a short word, that I was very taken with what the Counsel General said, and I think there's going to be wide and broad public support for this.

Okay. Thank you. Now to the Counsel General.

Diolch, Chair. So, only to say, in response to Laura Anne Jones's remarks, that what we're doing is removing the deadline, and that will allow local authorities to properly consider the definitive map in slower time, and I think that's something that's welcomed by almost everyone apart from—. I hadn't understood that the Conservatives didn't support it, but I think it's welcomed by a very large section of society.

Okay. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed. Does any Member object? Laura. [Objection.] Thank you. We have an objection, so I will proceed to a vote. All those in favour of the amendment, please show. All those against. The amendment is passed by a vote of three to one.

That takes us on to group 7. The seventh group of amendments relates to reporting on the correction of Welsh statutory instruments. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 35. I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the amendment.

The purpose of this amendment is to improve the transparency and accessibility of Welsh law by requiring Welsh Ministers to prepare and publish reports on corrections to Welsh statutory instruments every 12 months. The amendment will also make it a requirement for those reports to be laid in the Senedd as soon as possible, in order to allow Members to scrutinise the ongoing work of Government in refining the statute book.

You'll recall, Chair, that we made this recommendation in our report, and the Government had accepted the recommendation in principle. At that point, I will listen to contributions from other Members and the Minister.

Do any other Members wish to speak? No. I call on the Counsel General to respond.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. The Government's made several commitments to ensure this committee and the wider Senedd are kept up to date where legislation is amended or corrected. So, for example, we've sought to make sure the Government's responses to the committee's reports make clear what is to be amended, the route taken for achieving that and, where possible, an indicative timescale. When we do not agree an amendment is required, we also set that out. When amending legislation is brought forward, we ensure that the accompanying explanatory memorandum brings the correction to the attention of the committee. I've also explained we'll be bringing forward an omnibus amending instrument and, earlier this morning, I mentioned I'd be writing to the committee with more information about that. So, I hope this is reassuring the committee that information about corrections is regularly made available and we'll continue to do that.

However, I absolutely recognise the information isn't being brought together in a collated way, and I can see that that is what Adam is hoping to achieve with this amendment. Unfortunately, as drafted, the amendment doesn't quite work as intended. In particular, it only relates to Welsh statutory instruments—in other words, those instruments that are made by a relevant authority on 1 January 2026 onwards. The first report envisaged by amendment 35 would, therefore, be a nil return, and subsequent reports would include only Welsh statutory instruments, rather than corrections made to any instrument during the reporting period. So, I'm afraid we don't want the amendment included in the Bill in the way it's currently set out, but I absolutely understand the strength of feeling on this matter, both as part of the group and the early group on corrections, so I want to propose working with you, Adam, to ensure a suitable amendment is brought forward at Stage 3, which would support action being taken on errors and ambiguities in Welsh law as well as provide for regular reporting to the Senedd. So, I want to be clear that I'm envisaging something that covers Acts, Measures and subordinate legislation, and ensures a synopsis of the work undertaken is laid before the Senedd as a formal record.

So, I hope the commitment, together with practical actions we're taking, assures Members that although this particular amendment isn't suitable, we will come back at Stage 3, hopefully with Adam's help, with something that does achieve the current intention and hopefully quite a little bit more besides. And I hope, Adam, you'll work with us to present that amendment. Diolch.

I call on Adam to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much. I very much welcome that offer for me to work with the Counsel General to bring forward another amendment, and in that context, I won't move this amendment to the vote, so I would like to withdraw the amendment, if I'm allowed to do that, with the committee's consent.

Does any Member object to the withdrawal of the amendment? No. The amendment is withdrawn.

That takes us on to group 8. The eighth and final group of amendments relates to post-legislative review. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 1, and I call on Laura Anne Jones to move and speak to the lead amendment, tabled in the name of Paul Davies, and speak to the other amendment in the group.

Thank you, Chair, and yes, I move the amendment in the name of my colleague Paul Davies. I believe the amendment is pretty self-explanatory. I believe that there should be a review of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019, as amended by this Bill, on the new Parts 2A and 2B. It presents a vital opportunity to make sure that this legislation is serving its intended purpose. The committee has rightly encouraged the Welsh Government to give further consideration to undertaking a post-legislative review of the Bill, so I hope all Members will continue to support that principle. As part of that review, I believe there needs to be a requirement to consider the format of Welsh statutory instruments in order to address any problems and the requirement to consult with the Welsh Language Commissioner, so that he or she can provide a commentary on any impacts that there might be on the Welsh language. Diolch.

Alun, I call you to speak on your amendment in this group.

Adam, I think.

Adam. Sorry, what did I say?

Alun.

Sorry. Adam, sorry.

Thank you, Chair. Not much to add from me. I believe that the amendment that I would like to move shares the same foundations. In general terms, of course, we have seen a foretaste of the Government's arguments against this, as they touched on this in their response to the relevant recommendation in our report as a committee. We just believe in general in a principle, across all legislation, of having post-legislative reviews. There are some that disagree with that. We believe that there is merit in having a rule that is relevant to all legislation, and then, of course, it's true to say that there will be some pieces of legislation where the review will be more valuable and more useful because of the nature of the content, and we don't disagree entirely with the Government's analysis in that sense. But I do think that it's just easier to say that there will be some level of review, a tailored review. Not every review has to be as lengthy and intensive, just that there is some sort of general process. That's the basis for our amendment and our support for the Conservative amendment.

Thank you, Adam. Now, Alun, do you want to speak on this item? No. I call on the Counsel General to respond.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'm grateful to both Laura Anne Jones and Adam Price for setting out the intentions behind the respective amendments. It's clear that both Members are seeking to ensure that the purpose of the Bill or the amendments it makes to the 2019 Act are working in practice as intended. I absolutely agree it's important that when legislation is made that its value and effect are kept under review, and given that one of the things this Bill does is repeal provisions that are no longer of practical utility or benefit, it's no surprise that that's what I think, I think.

I'll turn to Adam's amendment in a moment, but I understand from the points made by Laura Anne that the intention is that a review would consider how Parts 2A and 2B in particular are working. And whilst I acknowledge that builds on my response to recommendation 2 of the committee report, the amendment itself doesn't quite achieve that. The amendment would require another full review of the whole 2019 Act, and I'm afraid I don't see the value in that, but the amendment also seeks the review of the format of Welsh statutory instruments. The format of those is not set by either this Bill or the 2019 Act, as it will be amended.

But I can update Members that a decision on the format of the Welsh statutory instruments needs to be taken in the next month or so, and that's necessary to enable the National Archives to deal with the move to a single-column print publication, alongside the other changes they need to make for the coming into force of Parts 2A and 2B on 1 January 2026. And it will also form part of their work to move drafters of Welsh subordinate legislation onto new drafting software. So, making the change now will minimise the cost of changing the registration and publication systems within the National Archives and for the publication concessionaire, but also potentially for the Welsh Government, and longer term should result in important cost savings for the Government and the King's Printer and his teams. So, my officials are already in discussion with the National Archives about this and are approaching the Welsh Language Commissioner for a meeting, if she would wish to be involved. And I note this amendment seeks consultation on the wider review with the commissioner, but I think the intention is that, really, that consultation is about the format of instruments. So, I hope my commitment to engage with the commissioner satisfies that element.

Looking at Adam's amendment, I explained at Stage 1 that this Bill is merely a vehicle to amend other legislation. So, once the Act makes those amendments, it's finished. Its purpose is done. So, I think a review of this Bill doesn't deliver anything, and we don't need to wait a year to be able to say, 'It's done', because it will be done as it's passed. But I think what we're really looking at is how the 2019 Act as amended works. I think I'm right in saying that.

Thank you, Counsel General. Laura, do you want to reply?

[Inaudible.]—and to the Counsel General for her response and for her commitment to this that she's just outlined. I'd still like to push the amendment to the vote, but I really appreciate the offer to work together should it fall. I just want to ultimately remind Members that these amendments will lead to more accountability, so I urge you to support it.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 1 please show. All those against please show. There is a tie. As there's a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders.

We move now on to—

I would like to withdraw amendment 36 if I may, Chair. And before you decide on that, as the Counsel General has been so kind in her comments to me, may I also thank her for the approach and her willingness to collaborate and to discuss these matters further, and may I also thank the clerks for their assistance and support? I shouldn't take all the credit for these amendments; a great deal of detailed work has been done, and also, of course, by the researchers in my own party.

Thank you, Adam. Adam wishes to withdraw amendment 36. Is there any objection? There aren't any objections, so amendment 36 is withdrawn.

That completes our proceedings for this Bill at Stage 2. I would like to thank the Counsel General and your officials for your attendance today. You'll be sent a transcript of the meeting to check it for factual accuracy. The Bill will enter Stage 3 tomorrow and the date for proceedings at that stage will be published. As the Counsel General said, Standing Orders make provision for the Counsel General to prepare a revised explanatory memorandum taking account of the amendments agreed today. The revised memorandum will be laid at least five working days before Stage 3 proceedings.

We are now in a position where we will resume in public at 1.30pm.

But, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi), I invite the committee to resolve to exclude the public from items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of our agenda. Do Members agree?

Croeso nôl i'r cyfarfod hwn o'r Pwyllgor Deddfwriaeth, Cyfiawnder a’r Cyfansoddiad.

As a reminder, the meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. Please can Members ensure that all mobile devices are switched to silent mode? Senedd Cymru operates through both the mediums of Welsh and English languages. Interpretation is available during today's meeting.

Item 3: Instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3. The Education (Information about Children in Independent Schools) (Pilot) (Wales) Regulations 2025. These regulations are being made for pilot purposes, and place a statutory duty on proprietors of independent schools in Wales to share information about children on roll with them with the local authority where the child is ordinarily resident. Senedd lawyers have identified one technical reporting point and two merits reporting points. A Welsh Government response has been requested in relation to the technical reporting point. Firstly, Kate, from our legal team, would you like to run through the reporting points?

The technical reporting point seeks further explanation from Welsh Government about an inconsistency between these regulations and related regulations that the committee considered last week. The first merits point notes that there is a sunset provision in these regulations, which provides that they will cease to have effect on 20 May 2025, and the final merits point just notes which local authorities are included in the pilot scheme.

Thanks, Kate. Do Members have anything they wish to add? No.

On to item 3.2, the Charges for Residues Surveillance (Amendment and Revocation) (Wales) Regulations 2025. These regulations revoke and replace the Charges for Residues Surveillance (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2025, which the committee considered last week. As we noted last week, those regulations were revoked because of an error identified by our draft report on the regulations. Senedd lawyers have identified one merits reporting point. A Welsh Government response is not required. Would you like to run through the reporting point, Kate?

The technical reporting point is simply to note the breach of the 21-day convention and the explanation that's been provided in the letter to the Llywydd.

Thank you. Do Members have anything to raise? No.

Item 4, instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3, previously considered. The Children Act 2004 (Children Missing Education Database) (Pilot) (Wales) Regulations 2025. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 24 March and laid its report the same day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government response to the report, which has since been received. Kate, do you have anything to raise?

Just to note that Welsh Government will be addressing several matters through correction prior to making, as set out in their response.

Okay. Members? No.

Item 5, notifications and correspondence under the inter-institutional relations agreement. A letter from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, the Inter-Ministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 25 March. A letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government, the Interministerial Group on Elections and Registration, 26 March. And paper 10, a written statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government, the Interministerial Group on Elections and Registration on the 26 March.

The Deputy First Minister informs us that the Inter-Ministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was originally due to be held on 10 March, will now be held on 31 March—although I understand that it’s now been moved to 12 May—and that the meeting is expected to focus on various issues, including a potential UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 on the environment, food and rural affairs sector. The Deputy First Minister commits to update us on this meeting in due course.

The Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government informs us that a meeting of the Interministerial Group on Elections and Registration took place on 12 February, and provides a link to a communiqué published on the gov.uk website. Are Members content to note these?

Item 5.2, correspondence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, the Official Controls (Extension of Transitional Periods) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. The Deputy First Minister informs us of his intention to consent to the UK Government making and laying the Official Controls (Extension of Transitional Periods) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 in relation to Wales. The Deputy First Minister states that the purpose of the regulations is to extend the implementation period of import checks on certain sanitary and phytosanitary goods entering Great Britain from certain countries until 31 January 2027.

The Deputy First Minister states that on this occasion it is considered appropriate for the instrument to apply to Wales as

'there is no policy divergence between the Welsh and UK Government in this matter'

and he considers that legislating separately for Wales would be

'neither the most appropriate way to give effect to the necessary changes, nor a prudent use of Welsh Government resources given other important priorities.'

Are Members content to note this? Yes.

Item 6, papers to note. Correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip to the Llywydd, the Crime and Policing Bill. A letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip to notify the Llywydd that there's a delay in laying the legislative consent memorandum in relation to the Crime and Policing Bill, which was introduced into the House of Commons on 25 February. The Cabinet Secretary states that there are a number of reasons for this that

'relate primarily to the complexity and length of the Bill'.

Are Members content to note?

Correspondence between the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales and the Llywydd: legislative consent memorandum on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill. Members are invited to note the correspondence between the Llywydd and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales in relation to the Welsh Government’s legislative consent memorandum on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill.

The Cabinet Secretary responds to the letter from the Llywydd, in which she notes her concern that the Cabinet Secretary took the decision not to include provisions in that legislative consent memorandum that may later be disapplied in relation to Wales. In his response, the Cabinet Secretary states that, upon further reflection, he has decided to lay a supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the remaining clauses of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill that make provision in relation to Wales, in order to allow the Senedd the opportunity to effectively scrutinise these provisions. The Cabinet Secretary says that discussions are ongoing with UK Government over the appropriateness of the provisions having effect in relation to Wales, and that he will update the Senedd in relation to the outcome of those discussions. Are Members content to note? Yes.

Well, earlier today, we moved a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting.