Legislation Committee

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.

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.

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.