Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee

I can do it, Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. With me this afternoon is Anna Adams, who is deputy director for tax strategy and inter-governmental relations in the Welsh Government, and we have David Greenhough, who is head of visitor levy, and John O’Sullivan and Emma Anderson, who are lawyers with the Welsh Government and who have been working on the Bill.

Diolch yn fawr, Gweinidog. If I can start with the first question, are you satisfied the Bill is within the Senedd's legislative competence?

Chair, yes, I am. As you can imagine, whenever a Government has a thought of legislating on a topic, one of the very first things that has to be provided—advice and satisfaction—is that it's within the competence of the Senedd to legislate, and the Llywydd confirmed that at the end of her determination period in a letter to the First Minister and in her statement on legislative competence.

Diolch. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill does not discuss human rights. What account have you taken of human rights in preparing the Bill?

Well, again, it's one of the first and most basic considerations that a Minister has to be satisfied on—that the Bill, where it does engage human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, then that it does so in a way that is proportionate and doesn't cause the Bill to have any infractions of those obligations. The equality impact assessment that accompanies the Bill does deal with that issue. All the advice that I have—and, again, the Presiding Officer raised no issues in relation to compatibility with the human rights convention—is that the Bill is compliant.

Diolch. Laura Anne Jones.

Thank you, Chair, and may I just say it's a delight to be on this committee now? Bore da. May I just ask you—? The bill is, of course, in some respects, an enabling one. Why is it needed now?

Chair, Laura Anne Jones is right—of course, it is an enabling Bill. It provides a permissive power to local authorities, and it's for local authorities to decide whether or not to take up that permissive power.

I think it's worth me just briefly reminding the committee of the history of the Bill. So, the first time a visitor levy was proposed and discussed in Wales goes back as far as the Holtham commission report in 2009, where Gerry Holtham included it as an example of how a future Senedd might move to revenue raising. When the previous Conservative Government passed the Government of Wales Act 2017, it included a new power for the Senedd to draw down new forms of taxation in Wales, and the debate about that power included many suggestions from Welsh citizens that a visitor levy could be one of the things that the Government could do. We're not doing it using those powers, as it happens, but it was very much part of that debate. As a result, a commitment to introduce a visitor levy was included in the manifesto of my party going into the 2021 elections. It was confirmed as a commitment in the co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru. The Government confirmed our intention in a statement to the Senedd in February 2022. There was a consultation exercise between September and December 2022, and the results published in March of last year, and, alongside it, a series of research reports were commissioned and published by Bangor University, by Cardiff University and by Alma Economics. In many ways, Chair, I think the question that might be asked of the Government is not, ‘Why now?’ but, ‘Why so long?’ Why has it taken this long to bring this Bill in front of the Senedd? And that is because of the length of consultation and the attempt to work alongside the sector. It's here now because we're in the final stages of this Senedd term and the Government is keen to fulfil its commitment.

Diolch. Laura.

Diolch. We know the consultations that you spoke of just now took place in 2022, as you outlined, but what if any changes have you made to your proposal since the conclusion of those processes? Thank you.

Chair, I think the consultation was decisive in a number of ways, because a clear message that we received through the consultation exercise was that if a visitor levy in Wales were to go ahead, it needed to be as simple and clear as we could make it. There were concerns raised in consultation about offering too many powers for individual local authorities to shape the levy in the way they would want to, and the preference in consultation was for a national scheme capable of being applied locally. We took that very seriously. In the Bill there's only one power that local authorities have to depart from a national scheme that otherwise applies everywhere, in every part of Wales that decides to adopt it.

And there were some anxieties expressed in consultation that the Welsh Government was bringing forward a behavioural tax, that the purpose of the tax was to change the way in which people would behave, and I think we've tried to respond to that in the way the Bill is framed to make it clear this is not a behavioural tax, it is a revenue-raising tax in a modest way, designed to support the industry and local authorities in covering costs related to tourism and being able to invest in creating the conditions of future success.

Diolch. Laura.

Diolch. You initially said that you wanted to simplify the questions when consulting. Therefore, do you think now that there has been sufficient consultation on the proposals contained in the Bill in their current form? And why did you not consult on the draft version of the Bill? Thank you.

Chair, I didn't think there was a strong case for a draft Bill, given that this is a matter that had been under consideration in the Senedd for over a decade, one way or another. There was nothing in the Bill that was likely to come as a surprise to the sector, given the nature of the consultation and the engagement that we'd had with it. So, I didn't feel that the case for a draft Bill was made in this case.

But the provisions in the Bill, I think, do respond very directly to the points that Laura-Anne Jones has made. The Bill is designed to have a simple, straightforward, easy to administer, low cost in terms of cost-efficiency measure that will allow those local authorities who wish to take up the offer to act within the framework that the Bill sets out. And that was very much what we learned from the consultation exercise.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. Has the Bill and the Welsh Government's overall policy approach been informed by the experiences of Scotland and the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024?

I thank the Member for that question. Certainly the Bill has been informed by the Scottish experience, and Welsh Government officials were able to meet with their counterparts in Scotland on a monthly basis during the passage of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act. A Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in May 2023 and became an Act on 5 July this year. I think you can see both similarities and differences between our approach and the approach in Scotland as a result of that engagement.

In terms of similarities, for example, it's a permissive power in Scotland as it is in Wales. It's just for those local authorities that want to take it up. There are consultation obligations for those local authorities to fulfil before they introduce a local tourism levy. And in Scotland, the Bill makes it clear that funds that are raised through the levy must be reinvested in local facilities and services used by visitors. That's the form of words used in the Scottish legislation, and that's paralleled in our obligation on local authorities to reinvest the money in destination management and the tourism experience.

But there are differences as well and, in many ways, the differences relate to the points I made a few moments ago, Chair. So, in Wales, the consultation, as I say, wanted there to be a national scheme, albeit locally delivered. In Scotland, there is simply a local scheme. It's for local authorities to administer, there's no central collection as there will be through the Welsh Revenue Authority in Wales. We set the rates on the face of the Bill. There are no rates in Scotland; it's for each local authority to determine its own rate, and it's not expressed in Scotland as a sum of money—it's expressed as a percentage of the bill that somebody would otherwise be paying.

And it has quite a complex set of possibilities. In Wales, a whole local authority has to opt in. In Scotland, you can opt in and then only parts of a local authority area will be covered by the levy. You can have different rates for different parts of the year. You can have different rates for different parts of a local authority. You can choose different rates for things like the Edinburgh festival if there's a particular event on. And all of this inevitably makes the levy more complex in Scotland, and would cut against the advice that we received in consultation.

Diolch, Gweinidog. Laura.

Thank you, Chair. Just really quickly, if I may just ask, you say that in Wales, like Scotland, any money raised has to go back into the tourism industry. Will you be producing guidelines on that or will local authorities make that definition of what constitutes the tourism industry? Because, as we know, local authorities are financially stretched to the max at the moment. You're categorically saying to us now that that money cannot be spent anywhere else apart from the tourism industry, but how are you going to define that? Is that going to be clear? Thank you.

Thanks to Laura Anne for that, Chair. So, there is a definition on the face of the Bill of the broad purposes for which any tax collected must be applied, and it is destination management of the tourism experience. It will be for local authorities within that umbrella to make their own spending decisions, but what the Bill envisages is a series of ways in which local businesses and local citizens can keep a direct eye on the way in which that local authority discharges those responsibilities. So, before a levy can be introduced, the local authority must consult with its residents and with its local businesses. Any money that it collects through the levy must be kept in a separate account, so you, as a local citizen, will see how much money has been raised. And then, the local authority has to report annually on how that money has been used.

So, the way in which I think anxieties which I've heard expressed as well, that cash-strapped local authorities might divert the money into more general purposes, the Bill sets the parameters but then transparency will keep that local authority in line with those obligations, because an individual citizen will know how much money was raised and what it's been spent on, and if it isn't being spent in the way that that person or that business thinks is consistent with the law, they will be able to challenge the local authority.

I think it's probably going to be good news for public toilets, actually.

Next, Adam Price.

Thank you very much, Chair. Cabinet Secretary, a day or two after introducing the Bill you also wrote to this committee to share information about some additional provisions, and we're grateful for that transparency, but they related to the system of financial penalties for visitor accommodation providers who don't comply with the requirements in terms of registration. You explained to the Finance Committee that it wasn't possible to include those additional provisions when the Bill was introduced, so it had to be done after the fact. Why did you not delay the introduction of the Bill, therefore?

Well, I thank Adam Price for that question, Chair. So, there are two specific reasons why we didn't do that. As Adam Price will be aware, in the co-operation agreement there are two things that are connected. There's the Bill in front of the Senedd at the moment, but we'd promised to bring forward another Bill, a Bill that will create a licensing system—a licensing Bill. There is a connection between both Bills. It was important to me, when I came back to my ministerial responsibilities for finance, earlier in the autumn, to safeguard the second Bill. The best way to do that was to move the powers to create the register into the first Bill, to pave the way. Without having that register, I don't think that the second Bill could succeed. And I didn't want to wait until the second Bill, because we're in the final year now of this Senedd and there's a lot of legislation to come before the Senedd. So, to safeguard both things in the agreement, I wanted to include the register in the first Bill. It wasn't possible to complete all of the work before we sent the Bill to the Llywydd, but I didn't want to see more delays, because delays create problems for us in trying to get both Bills through the process that we have here the Senedd, in the time that we have left.

So, it was my decision to send the Bill to the Llywydd. Now, it's not unusual for the Government to lay amendments in front of the Senedd at Stage 2. But my thought process was that it was better, especially for the Finance Committee, to see what we had already prepared, and to place that information now in front of the committee and to say, 'This is what our intentions are as a Government, to be done in Stage 2.' That's why we published these things and did it in that way, without having more delay in the legislation process.

Thank you very much for that explanation. In terms of these new draft provisions, have they been through the same level, or the same kind of process, of assessment as they would have gone through had they been introduced as part of the original Bill?

Internally, we have gone through that process fully. That work wasn't reflected in the original explanatory memorandum, but the intention, Chair, as usual, is to republish that explanatory memorandum after Stage 2, and the new information that we already have will be in the explanatory memorandum after Stage 2.

Part of these new draft provisions is the new proposed power to make Henry VIII regulations in terms of the sums of the financial penalties and the procedures related to them. Could you tell us what scrutiny procedure you are going to recommend for these new powers?

I think if I remember correctly, there are 20 powers, as Adam Price has explained, on the face of the Bill, and for 17 of them, we will be using the draft affirmative. So, only three of the 20 will not be used in that way, and the three that aren't are things that are just for the administration of the Bill, not the purpose of the Bill.

In terms of the specific new power in the draft provisions with regard to sums of financial penalties and the related procedures, what process are you suggesting for that? Draft affirmative?

Yes, the draft affirmative. The same process.

You have written to the Finance Committee this month, outlining further amendments in relation to data sharing that you intend to work on ahead of Stage 2. Can you tell us why that additional power is needed, and once again tell us which one of the Senedd's procedures will be applied to them?

Thank you very much. One of the things that we hear all the time, and we heard the same thing in the consultation period, is that businesses and citizens—. What they don't want to do is to provide the same data time and time again. So, we are taking powers in the Bill to share data, where that is helpful to people who now come under this Act. If I could just give you one example.

I think the most obvious example is in the relationship between the register and the licensing scheme. Accommodation providers will register now as part of this Bill. You would not want businesses who have gone to the trouble of doing all of that to have to provide exactly the same information for the licensing Bill. So, this will allow the data that is collected for the purpose of this Bill, in those circumstances, to be shared for the other purpose, to avoid businesses having to simply duplicate the information they have provided already.

I wrote to the Chair of the Finance Committee back in December in order to explain further and to provide more details on what exactly we will be bringing to Stage 2 in order to set powers on the face of the Bill. And it will be the draft affirmative that we will be using, if we have powers of that kind.

Is information regarding people providing accommodation in their own homes—Airbnbs and so on—going to be noted in the public register?

No. It's a good question. The register will be a public document, but not everything will be included in it publicly. Especially when people provide accommodation for people in their own homes, I don't think that will be something that we'll want to make publicly available to everyone. So, the majority of the register will be public, and people will be able to see it, but for certain things that are more specific to individuals, we will have exemptions for those kinds of pieces of information. They won't be publicly available to everyone.

Just on that point, in terms of gaining a picture, for example, of the holiday accommodation sector and understanding what goes on in terms of the impact on the housing sector—. I understand the rationale that the Cabinet Secretary has given for exempting that information from the register, but in terms of the wider policy context, it would be useful to know, for example, how many homes, sometimes in relatively small areas, are being used as holiday accommodation—I'm using Airbnb as shorthand for that. So, is the information going to be available in a more pseudonymised way, without having to identify the individual property or home, so that we can see the percentages in specific categories on quite a micro level?

Thank you. I'm going to turn to Anna or David on this one, because I may have misremembered the details, but what I remember is that we can share data of that kind with local authorities, for example, without having that data available in a public register. So, for policy reasons, as Adam Price mentioned, when local authorities would like to look at whether they'd want to use powers in a certain area, for example, or if they want to provide more information on the nature of certain businesses in their areas, the information will be available to them for those purposes. But on the level of people running very small businesses in their homes, that won't be public information. But I'll just check if I have remembered that correctly.

In terms of the full data, part of the goal of the register is to have that data. That's one of the key aspects right now. I think we reference it quite a lot in the explanatory memorandum and regulatory impact assessment that the data isn't great about the accommodation sector, and the value added by the register is that we will have accurate data. But in terms of what components of that become public, we're really conscious of, obviously, not providing too much private information, and so there's going to be a fairly thoughtful way of making sure that we're not revealing too much private information, but at the same time being able to use that data for policy purposes is really important. So, we're trying to strike that balance.

Have you looked at the situation in some areas where there are problems in terms of overtourism—Barcelona is one example—where, in that situation, some members of the public would say, 'Well, I want to know whether a neighbour or somebody on the same street has registered', for perfectly valid reasons? There's a process, there's a framework, there is a cost for the neighbours in such areas. So, they might just want to check, for example, that somebody has complied with the system. And if they can't check that they are on the register, how would one do that, even though there is evidence that they are renting out their property? Do you acknowledge that that is a valid perspective also?

Yes, I do.

I don't mind coming in on this point. I think, as you mentioned before, a pseudonymised way, where you can provide a level of information, at postcode level, for example, may tell you rough details about the property but then hold back the details that relate to that provider, for example—so, the person's individual data. So, at that level, you've only got the premises information, which may be of more relevance to the person in that scenario that you mentioned.

When you mention postcode, do you mean the first two parts of the postcode, like SA6, or do you mean the whole postcode? If you have the whole postcode, it gets very close to identifying people.

Exactly. That's a really good point. So, yes, it depends at what level of information you start to identify someone. So, it would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, because you could have a property in the middle of nowhere that you could identify via a postcode, for example. So, yes, careful consideration would have to be given to what level of information is provided.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Mick is next.

Just a couple of questions with regard to the probity of the legislation. You've already referred to the fact, Cabinet Secretary, that there are considerable delegated powers within the legislation. One of the issues that's always of concern to any parliamentary body is the way in which delegated powers are given to Ministers. Quite considerable powers have been allocated to Ministers. I'm just wondering what consideration was given to that within the legislation, to the balance of that. Are there exceptional reasons for there being so many delegated powers, because of the very technical nature of this Bill? Really, just what your thoughts are and what consideration was given in the preparation of the legislation on this.

Thank you. I think there's a great deal of information on the face of this Bill—the register, the parameters of the Bill, the amount of money that can be charged and so on. All of that is on the face of the Bill. The secondary legislative powers, almost all of which are subject themselves to further Senedd scrutiny, are mostly in the area of futureproofing the Bill. They're there to make sure that, as we develop this policy, and that policy meets the dynamic nature of the industry, we don't have to revert to primary legislation every time we need to respond to that sort of development. So, the essential reason why there are ministerial regulation-making powers is to make sure that the Bill continues to be effective into the future while providing the Senedd itself, the legislature, with the ability to scrutinise and vote upon the use of those powers.

Thank you for that. There's been, of course, considerable engagement with the Wales Tourism Alliance, and of course, one of the concerns they have raised is that there are quite important areas within this legislation that they don't think have been sufficiently considered. If I just quote them, they say that

'there are areas of importance where the consequences, let alone practical requirements, have not been sufficiently considered before publication of the Bill.'

I'd just like your comments on that. Is that a fair comment?

I don't believe it is, Chair. How do I put this in the most diplomatic way? Sometimes, Government can find ourselves in the crossfires of two sorts of criticism. There is the sort of criticism that Mick just reflected: the Bill isn't sufficiently definite, it doesn't nail down every detail. But the alternative criticism that is made is that Government doesn't listen enough to the sector, that the Government has made its mind up already. We have done our very best to make sure that we continue to work alongside those voices in the industry, and there have been many of them, who have been willing to help us to shape that legislation.

Sometimes, things are not nailed down in every particular, because you want to make sure that the industry has a continuing opportunity to help us to make sure that the Bill is as workable as possible, as simple and effective as possible. Sometimes, you need to wait to have those conversations, and to use the powers when they're mature. That's what I think we are trying to do here. So, I don't think it is a fair criticism, and I think if we'd done it the opposite way, you might have had a different criticism from the alliance that we'd gone ahead and legislated without taking into account their views.

Staying on the subject of the exercise of powers, section 7 of the Bill, of course, has extensive powers for Ministers in respect of the registration processes and so on, and that leads on to the issue of enforcement, and of course there will obviously be Stage 2 issues that might well arise. I'm just wondering if you'd be able to tell us a little bit about what consideration has already been given to what might be required in terms of either powers or changes to the legislation in readiness for Stage 2.

Thank you, Chair. So, as I rehearsed a little earlier with Adam Price, the Government has published, made available, clauses that we will intend to introduce as Stage 2 amendments. If those amendments succeed, then, instead of the regulation-making power that is currently in the Bill and is there, let's be frank, as a placeholder, because unless you have a reference to these matters on the face of the Bill, you've got nothing to amend—. But the Government's intention is to amend those powers to put these matters on the face of the Bill, rather than to deal with them by regulation.

I know that some of the concerns that have been raised are that, as the Bill currently is drafted, it might give Ministers the power by regulation to introduce criminal offences where the register requirements are not complied with. Just to be clear with the committee that the clauses that the Government intends to introduce at Stage 2 will not create criminal offences. My decision has been that you need to make the penalty proportionate to the nature of the harm, and that it is better that where these provisions are not complied with you must have a penalty, but it will be a civil penalty, it will be a monetary penalty and will not, if the Stage 2 amendments succeed, result in a criminal offence having been committed.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I don't have any further questions. Thank you for that helpful answer.

Thank you very much. Laura Anne.

Diolch, Chair. Thank you. Section 9(5) contains a Henry VIII regulation-making power for the Welsh Ministers to amend the circumstances in which an overnight stay in visitor accommodation takes place and whether the levy is payable. This could be fundamental, of course, to the operation of the levy. So, why is this power necessary and appropriate? Diolch.

Thank you, Chair. In general, the answer is the answer I gave to Mick Antoniw, that you need to futureproof the operation of the Bill. There are two powers in the Bill that are closely related, but different. The power to which Laura Anne Jones refers is where you would want to make sure that where there is existing accommodation the people occupying it are not made subject to the visitor levy. So, if I could give you just one practical example with which I was very familiar, since Russia declared war on Ukraine, we have had thousands of people come to live here in Wales. It was the view of the Welsh Government, and, indeed, the view of the Senedd, that we should do everything we could to welcome those people to Wales and to create circumstances in which they could be resettled here in the most helpful way. One of the ways that we did that at the height of the numbers of people coming to Wales was to take over a number of holiday parks across Wales, holiday parks with self-contained accommodation, and to use that accommodation for the reception of people coming to Wales from Ukraine. Now, in the normal course of events, people staying in a holiday park, in a self-contained chalet, for example, will be subject to a visitor levy, but you wouldn't want people coming from elsewhere in the world for purposes of resettlement to be charged a visitor levy. So, what this power does is it would allow you to redesignate existing visitor accommodation as not being subject to the levy should you need it in those sorts of circumstances. So, it's a futureproofing part of the Bill, and it's designed to make sure that we can respond to changing uses of existing accommodation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. That's a very good example. Using it in that way, of course, I think everyone would deem as appropriate, but are there going to be things in place, because that's quite a significant power, to ensure that only in emergency situations such as that can that be used? I'd just like your reassurance on that, and also, in written evidence to the committee, the Wales Tourism Alliance suggests that the Welsh Government should not use proposed powers to change the rates of the levy for a set period to allow the system to bed in. Would you be willing to amend the Bill to give effect to that as well? Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I think I'll try and answer the two points separately, if I could. In relation to changing existing accommodation as far as the visitor levy is concerned, as I said, the power in the Bill is designed to take account of unforeseen circumstances, so, in that sense, I think I can give an assurance of the sort that Laura Anne Jones has asked for, that you'd only be using these powers when something had happened that you hadn't foreseen and that you needed to respond to reasonably quickly. The powers can only be exercised with the oversight of the Senedd; Ministers would have to come in front of the Senedd, make that case, and they would be voted on on the floor of the Senedd through the draft affirmative procedure. So, there would be the safeguards of that sort built in as well.

I think the second question that I was asked was to do with the rates at which the visitor levy is to be charged—

Sorry, yes. The higher and lower rates. Sorry, Cabinet Secretary.

Yes, the higher and the lower rate, and they're there on the face of the Bill at £1.25 and 75p. And I've seen the suggestions to which Laura Anne referred from some that we should have on the face of the Bill a period in which those rates could not be altered. Well, Chair, I'm willing to listen carefully to what the committee says on that. It's not the intention of the Government that those sums of money should be changed rapidly. There'll come a point, if you don't change them, when inflation will erode them and their real value will be reduced and you will need to uprate them in line with inflation. And inflation itself can happen more quickly than was anticipated. But if the committee feels that there is a strong case for a short set period in which those sums of money could not be changed, then I'm very happy to listen carefully to what the committee concludes.

Diolch.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. That is, of course, in section 12 and includes, again, that Henry VIII regulation-making power for the Welsh Ministers to amend the rates. You've outlined when—. I wanted to ask you when you envisage using that power. You mentioned inflation—would there be any other reason you'd do that?

No. The intention of the power, as drafted, is to allow us simply to keep the current levels, to sustain their real value, not in order to be able to increase them. If I can go back just very briefly to a point I think, Chair, you asked me in the very beginning, the rates we are introducing in this Bill are at the lower end of what you would see anywhere in the international comparisons, and that's because we want to keep it simple. We've got a broad tax base here, we're exempting very few people from paying the levy, and that allows us to keep the sum charged to any individual as low as we can make it, consistent with this being a revenue-raising Bill. But, because that's the approach we have taken, the Government doesn't envisage those rates being raised other than in order to sustain their real value.

Okay, thank you. Adam is next.

Thank you. Section 13 of the Bill includes a Henry VIII regulation-making power for the Welsh Ministers to vary the types of overnight stay that will attract the lower, higher or nil rate of the levy. Could you explain why these powers are necessary?

Well, Chair, section 13 is complex and there are many things included in it, so I'll ask the officials to help me with this question. But just one point for me to make: as I explained to Laura Anne Jones, there are powers in the Bill to deal with the accommodation that we already have, if we need to think about the way that that is used. Section 13 gives powers to Ministers to respond to the nature of the business when the nature of that business changes. So, for example, I'm sure all of us here now are familiar with the term 'glamping', but, a decade ago, almost nobody would have heard of that term. So, the nature of the industry changes, and we want to have powers in the Bill to respond to those things when there are new ways of providing accommodation to visitors that are developed in the sector. So, that's the purpose of that, and that's why section 13 is different to the section that Laura Anne Jones mentioned, because the section that she referred to looks at the things that we currently have, whereas section 13 looks to the future and gives powers to the Ministers to respond to the possibilities that new things will arise. But it's more than that, and, as I said, section 13 involves many things. So, I'll ask Anna or David to explain one or two other points in the same clause.

There are just a couple of things that I'd add, and then David can also add other things. I think part of it is, as the Cabinet Secretary mentioned—. The intention with the lower rate, for example, is to try and have the lower rate for those types of accommodation that are the lowest cost, and, in the future, there might be some other accommodation; we might get policy evidence that's coming through that there might be other accommodation that might fall into that category, and it might be an appropriate thing to include, therefore, that type of accommodation within that lower rate category. Or, for example, there might be situations where we're understanding about how, potentially, homeless people are housed in certain ways, and we want to make sure we're accommodating those within the nil rate category, where the intention is not for homeless people who are housed by local authorities in certain situations to be subject to the visitor levy. So, we want to allow for some flexibility to futureproof in those circumstances, and so that's what the intention is with that. It's also related to documentation that the Welsh Revenue Authority may need, and that's also included in this. So, there might be situations where the Welsh Revenue Authority may require different types of documentation, and that's also included in the regulations. But, David, did I miss anything that you wanted to add?

I think you covered most of it. I suppose it's the concept of visitor accommodation not being used as you would normally expect visitor accommodation to be used. So, the key nil rate we've got in the Bill at the moment relates to those homelessness-related stays, but, of course, in the future, there may be other uses that we simply can't account for at this moment in time where we would wish the legislation to reflect that.

And then there's another concept within here—another regulation power—that relates to exemption vouchers. Now, that is a manner in which a voucher can be provided via either the WRA or the council to an individual that would qualify them for a nil rate, without them having to disclose any particular sensitive information in that scenario. So, again, that just comes back to futureproofing. Should that need emerge, there is a power there to make sure that happens.

If I can just move on to section 14, therefore, section 14 permits a principal council to charge a premium on the rates of the levy and creates a power for the Welsh Ministers to specify the maximum amount of that premium. Why don't you intend to specify a maximum amount for that premium—a percentage above the higher levy rate, for example?

Well, at the heart of the Bill, Chair, is the relationship between this Government in Cardiff and local authorities, and the relationship that I want to see is one where there is a great deal of trust. In my view, we can depend on local authorities to use the powers that they have in a reasonable way. I don't want to use the Bill in a way that seeks to presume how they're going to use the powers. So, we have a fallback, we have the power if things don't turn out as we would have wished in that way. But I come from a local authority background—that’s where I met the Chair of the committee for the first time, decades ago now. In my view, it's much better for us to give the powers to the local authorities. They are accountable to local people and I think that we can be confident that they will use the powers that they have in a reasonable way. If that doesn't turn out to be the case, then Ministers will have the power to step in.

There's one thing that I have just thought about, Chair. I haven't seen the final advice yet, but it is something I have been thinking about. It is possible, with the Bill as it currently stands, that local authorities will be able to consult at the same time on the fact that they want to use the power and to increase the level. So, I want to consider an amendment at Stage 2 to be clear that that cannot happen.

They will be separate decisions for local authorities. You couldn't consult just once on whether to introduce and to change the level at the same time. You would have to consult as the Bill requires on whether or not you wish to introduce the levy, and you would separately and later need to consult on whether or not you wanted to have a premium rate.

Of course, we use premiums with council tax, and so on.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Just going back to the discussion we had earlier about potential complaints from local members of the public or a community council, for example, where they feel that someone hasn't been registered but they feel they should have been, there are no details of this in the Bill at present, or any information that I'm aware of that you've provided, about the complaints procedure. What powers and what procedures will the Welsh Revenue Authority follow if a complaint is made that someone is not on the register? Do you intend to share those draft procedures during the process? Will they be on the face of the Bill, because they're quite important, aren't they, for the effective implementation of the register?

Chair, the WRA isn't with me today. I'm happy to have those conversations with them and to write to the committee with the details about how we will go about this in the context that Adam Price has raised this afternoon.

And just one additional question, therefore. The 31 nights rule—forgive me if I've misunderstood—is some kind of threshold. If you're on 32 days, you won't need to register. So, to give some scenarios, for example, if you were renting something out for 32 days or more from time to time, but you were also renting out for 28 days, do you still come under that requirement to register, because for some of the time you are under the threshold. And with a situation where someone may be renting out in sets of 31 days—say, as a series, for example—does that mean—? I know this is quite hypothetical, but do they therefore have to pay the levy at all? Do they have to register at all in that situation?

I can try to respond in general terms on the purpose of what is behind the Bill, and I'll ask David and Anna to help me too.

The reason why we have this provision in the Bill, Chair, is to distinguish between people who are visitors from people who are more long-term users. So, Cardiff is the best example of this. Cardiff has a significant population—no doubt, there will be some Members of the Senedd amongst them—who stay here during the week for work purposes and then return to where they live at the weekend. Now, they're not visitors in the sense captured in the Bill, so how do you distinguish between people who are here for those longer term work-related purposes who you don't want to capture. That's where the 31 days comes. That's how you distinguish between people who are visitors for the Bill's purpose and people who are renting places and staying in visitor accommodation but for a different purpose, and one that we weren't looking to capture in the Bill. So, that's the general purpose behind it. I'll see if David wants to respond to some of the more detailed questions Adam was asking.

Yes, sure, of course. So, yes, it's essentially as you describe the threshold. So, after that 31 nights is hit, there's no levy payable past that point. So, for any stay where the contract determines that the stay is longer than those 31 nights, there will be no levy payable. In terms of the registration scenario, again, there's the concept in there of the short-term stays. For those stays that are longer than that 31-night period, again, they don't have to register, but if they are providing any stays under those 31 nights, then it's registrable accommodation.

Okay. Thank you.

Diolch. Of course, in Pembrokeshire they've got people doing it the other way round, haven't they, leaving Pembrokeshire on a Sunday evening or Monday morning and coming back on a Friday afternoon? They won't be picked up by it either, will they?

No, not in those circumstances.

Fine. Section 17(3)(a) contains a Henry VIII regulation-making power for the Welsh Ministers to amend section 17 in relation to annual return threshold amounts. It is subject to the negative Senedd procedure. Why did the Government conclude that this is the appropriate procedure for the use of this power?

Because I think it is entirely operational, Chair. So, the Bill provides that if you collect less than £1,000 in the visitor levy, you are able to provide an annual return or a quarterly return. Just as we were talking earlier about needing to sustain the real value of that £1,000 threshold, at some point in the future we will need to come forward with a new threshold. I did not myself think that it was necessary to have a debate and a vote on the floor of the Senedd to keep the real value of the £1,000 threshold every time you move it to £1,050, and so on. So, I think, in that sense, it is just a power to keep what's in the Bill real for the future.

Thank you. Section 24(4) contains a further Henry VIII regulation-making power subject to the negative Senedd procedure. This power concerns reporting by principal councils on the use of the levy. Why was the negative procedure chosen?

Chair, essentially, the negative procedure is chosen here because the use of this power that we envisage is if a local authority needs a brief extension of a week or so in order to comply with the timetables that the Bill sets out, and I wasn't sure that the Senedd would expect to hear that and to vote upon whether or not to allow that to happen. This clause, though, does go beyond that and would allow changes to the way in which local authorities report on the levy that is raised. And, again, I'm very willing to think carefully about points that the committee might want to make. I would need a lot of persuasion that section 17(3)(a) and 17(3)(b) would need to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. I think there is a more closely balanced argument in relation to section 24(4) and I look forward reading what the committee concludes on that.

We've had lots of questions there. We've got nowhere near the number that we had intended. I normally ask at this stage if you could stay for an extra five minutes or so, but as we've only got two thirds of the way through the questions, that's not possible. Will you be prepared to answer in writing the questions we didn't get to today, because there's an awful lot of them?

But of course, yes, Chair, by all means.

Thank you very much. Can I suggest we break for five minutes?

Thank you very much.

I forgot to tell you that, as you know, the transcript is coming. I have to say that every time, and I'm telling people who know it's coming.

Thank you. We'll look forward to that.