Legislation Committee

Thank you very much, everyone. A warm welcome to this meeting of the Legislation Committee. It's good to be here with you this morning, and thank you, Clerk, for doing that piece of work at the start. A warm welcome to our Members.

Peter, I think you're by there.

So, just for you to bear in mind that this meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. Could I ask you all to turn your mobile devices to silent mode, please, and also for you to bear in mind that this meeting is bilingual? There is interpretation available from Welsh to English, if you need that. Thank you very much. So, we'll move on to the next item on our agenda today and ask whether anyone has any declarations of interest. No. Fine. We will move on. There we are.

So, item 3 this morning is the general scrutiny session with the Counsel General and the Cabinet Minister for Government Effectiveness and the Constitution. It's good to see you here. It's good to see that you found your way to this meeting room. It is nice to have you here. Would you be able to introduce yourselves and your staff and officials for the record, please? I will begin with Elfyn. Thank you.

I'm Elfyn Llwyd, Counsel General. To my right, I have Dylan Hughes, who is the First Legislative Counsel responsible for drafting on behalf of the Welsh Government. And to my left, we have Cara Thomas, who is a member of staff, who does a great deal of excellent work, and Sophie Brighouse, whom you'll know very well, I'm sure, as she's been here for a long time and is crucially important to everything that we do. And Dafydd Trystan.

I'm Dafydd Trystan Davies and I'm the Cabinet Minister for Government Effectiveness and the Constitution. So, as a Government legal team, we are very pleased to be here, Chair.

Thank you very much. therefore, we'll move on. We have questions to ask you this morning. We are going to pursue some specific areas during this discussion for about an hour and a half this morning.

We're going to start with the legislative programme, looking at the capacity, principles in terms of legislation, and then we'll look at the Sewel convention, the programme to improve the accessibility of Welsh law, consolidation and codification, and then statutory instruments to finish with. So, there's a lot to cover today. So, I would ask my fellow Members to be succinct with their questions and for us to have similarly succinct answers as well in order to get through the work we have to do today. So, I'm going to ask, first of all, for Kiera Marshall to start off with the questions. Thank you.

Good morning and thank you for being here.

I was wondering if you could provide the intended timeline for the introduction of legislation, if possible.

Shall I begin? What the First Minister has done in setting out the legislative programme is set out a first phase of legislation for this Government. We're anticipating that that first phase will last some 18 months, and we've been making—. Clearly, some of those pieces of legislation are closer to being introduced than others. We are making progress on that. I was in discussions over the last few days over the tax Bill, which is one of those Bills that we would anticipate being introduced in the next weeks to the Senedd, and I anticipate further Bills to be introduced over the autumn term.

Do you—? Sorry, go on.

Yes, we're in the process of developing the timetable, as the Cabinet Minister has outlined. There are lots of different parts to developing a timetable, I'm sure you'll appreciate. A big part of thinking is ensuring that proper scrutiny time is factored into those timetables, as well, and ensuring that committees don't become swamped, for example, with particular pieces of legislation. So, it's a bit of a 3D jigsaw puzzle, but we're working on that at the moment, and I'm sure, as it firms up, we'll be able to provide more information. As the Cabinet Minister says, we expect that a tax Bill will likely be one of the first runners. At the moment, nothing is absolutely finalised through the autumn term, but, once things do firm up, I'm sure we'll be able to share more.

In terms of the priorities that the First Minister laid out in these 18 months, how did you identify these pieces of legislation to come first and within the wider timeline as well?

I think there's always a balancing act in terms of developing a legislative programme, and what you've got here is a series of pieces of legislation. Some of those pieces of legislation have been a topic of some work already, and there have been discussions in the previous Senedd on some of these topics. There's also a recognition that—and this maybe comes on, in part, to our approach to legislating in certain areas—more focused, shorter Bills are of of clear benefit, and would allow prompt action in areas. So, for example, you will be familiar with the Plaid Cymru manifesto on a range of areas around housing and planning. There may well be the case that there would be further housing legislation during the four-year time, but we begin with a short, focused Bill around renting. So, that's the approach we're trying to take.

One Bill that I will be very interested in is the tribunals Bill, which has its genesis in the last Parliament, although work is now going ahead at pace. The purpose of the Bill will be to create a new structure for all six silos, if you will, six various tribunals in Wales, together with implementing an appeal mechanism within Wales as part of that. It's a big undertaking. It was initially introduced by the previous Government and is something we are keen to move forward with. It is almost directly opposite to what my colleague has said in terms of small, focused Bills, but there's room for both. That's the point.

And particularly when we're in the realm of consolidation and accessibility.

In terms of these first 18 months, have you identified any issues that may prevent all these Bills coming through in this timeline at all?

I think, as Sophie's already mentioned, what you have here is a programme that we've been working on with colleagues. There are issues around legislative capacity, there are issues around scrutiny, and, therefore, we're making sure that we timeline that in a sensible and coherent way, so we don't suddenly introduce a raft of legislation by the same Minister or in the same week. That could be rather challenging, I think, shall we say? So, that's the thought process going on there. So, we are working on it. Colleagues are working on very carefully timelining that with a view to the role of the Senedd, the role of Ministers and the role of those who will be supporting the drafting and the development of the legislation.

There was a review into the Welsh Government's capacity and capability to develop legislation around four years ago. Over the last few months, coming in as a new Government, is this largely where we're at, still? Is the review still accurate and these issues still occurring?

I've had discussions about this issue, quite clearly, over the past weeks and months. If I may ask my colleague Dylan Hughes if he will address this, because he's actually on the front line in this.

Diolch, Gwnsler Cyffredinol. Yes, the two things are related. There is a lot that we would like to do as a Government. Historically, successive Welsh Governments have made commitments to consolidate the law and to codify Welsh law. That's on top of the Government's legislative programme. In addition, commitments have been made to try to minimise the amount of legislation that is done in Westminster within devolved areas, so trying to adopt the principle that all legislation that relates to Wales is made in Wales. So, the demand is quite significant, and the capacity of the Government is not great. It's not a large organisation. I head up the Office of the Legislative Council, and we draft primary legislation. There are only 17 of us. So, although you may think of the Welsh Government administration as being this very large administration, there are actually only 17 of us. That means that there are bottlenecks and there is a real potential for difficulty in meeting ministerial priorities. So, that's the context.

Just on that point, it's 17 now. I know there are new Members around this table, so can you give us a sense of where it used to be and if there are any plans to change that?

Yes. Diolch, Gadeirydd. There actually used to be four. So, it puts it into context quite well. So, during the initial period of the Measures from 2007 to 2011, there were only four. There weren't actually that many shortly after that—so, shortly after the referendum—and it was a significant issue for the Government at the time, because I think that, by that point, we were maybe five or six, and the other issue was that we were not very experienced. So, one thing I'd say about legislation, and I think most people would agree, is that it's complex and it's technically difficult and, as lawyers, there is a big difference between advising on the current state of the law and changing the law and taking responsibility for implementing policy and turning that into words on the page in relation to legislation. So, we've gradually increased the size of the office, and there is a proposal to continue that and to expand the office further.29

One thing I would say is that it's not as simple as just expanding the legislative drafting office. The Government as a whole contributes to the process. So, you have a number of people involved, ranging from the policy officials and economists looking at the financial issues, and lawyers obviously providing advice on the legal context and ensuring that what is done is done correctly within the legal framework. So, it's a multidisciplinary process. At the end of that process, we come along to actually draft the words on the page, but there is quite a bit more to it than that.

So is there a capacity issue on the other side as well as drafting?

I think there's a capacity issue across the board. There is a gap between what we would like to do and what we can do, there's no denying that, but I think that's true about most Governments. But I think in our particular case there is an infinite amount of work in codifying Welsh law. So, we set an ambition in 2012 or 2013, I think it was. We realised that the complexity of the UK statute book was one of the things that made legislation so difficult. So, we embarked on a process back then of trying to modernise the law, make it more straightforward, bring everything that was devolved into bilingual, modern, well-drafted legislation. But that's something that takes time. So, to put that in context, the planning legislation from the last Senedd term, that was the consolidation of the law of planning for Wales, and that was 400 pages of primary legislation, so 800 pages bilingually. That is a huge ask. So, we will never have enough people, if I can put it that way. But what we can do, and one of the purposes of the review that the Member has mentioned, is to try to work more effectively, more efficiently. And that's the process that we're trying to go through.

So, there are a few things that we're looking at. There's being more flexible, so having central resource being deployed where Ministers want people deployed, introducing more specialism as a principle. So, we specialise. I've been doing this job for 15 years and, naturally, if you're doing it for that long, you get better at it, if you're doing nothing else. So, we're looking to see how that principle can be adopted in other parts of the organisation. And there's a lot of potential with technology and the use of AI to try to make things happen more quickly, and perhaps to standardise certain processes. We're a long way, by the way, away from not needing us as legislative counsel, I'm fairly confident in saying, but at the same time we need to be open-minded and we need to look at how we can use technology to make things faster and better.

Kiera, did you want to—?

Yes. I've only got two more. I'm aware that, towards the end of the last Senedd, a lot of legislation came through in those last few months, over quite a short period. This obviously presents issues for Senedd scrutiny but also for officials as well, having to do so much in such a short space of time. So, I guess I'm wondering how this would be prevented from happening again at the end of this Senedd term and what lessons have been learned.

I think, fundamentally, it comes back to the answer I gave some moments ago—and Sophie—around that careful planning, timetabling, working through what needs to be done when, and, when legislation is introduced, what level of scrutiny will be required over a simple, straightforward, non-contentious Bill and over Bills that may be a little more contentious and complex. So, those are precisely the kind of things that we've—both the Counsel General and I—engaged with officials in discussions on, and I know there have been—. We met with the former Chair of this committee and discussed some of those matters too face to face. So, I think I'm relatively confident that those lessons have been heeded and that there will be better timetabling of legislation.

One other point I'd make is that there are certain things that are within our gift. The choice of the UK Government about when to produce legislation and how effectively they've co-operated with us in terms of their timetables is another matter, which I have little ability to influence wholly at the moment. Again, I have raised some of these issues with Hamish Falconer, my opposite number in the Cabinet Office in the UK Government, and there is at least an acknowledgement of the issues and a stated desire to work together. So, I hope that'll be reflected in practice too.

During our meeting with the previous Chair, it was raised very firmly that past experience has not been very good in terms of what you've just said about the backlog suddenly coming along and inundating the committee with work, which possibly couldn't be done. And so we are mindful of that and we are concentrating on the timing, as my colleague says. The timing is vitally important to us, but it's crucial for you if you're going to do your work properly, which you—. And if this committee is unable to scrutinise, then the whole thing falls down. So, we are mindful of what you say and we are mindful of the need not to overload this committee, but there is one caveat—and this is just repeating what my colleague said—and that is that we cannot control what comes from Westminster. With the best will in the world, that can't be done. But, other than that, all the other matters within our control, we will deal with in a manner compatible with the best interests of your committee.

It was like you read my mind then; I was going to ask how confident you are of the capacity to deal with legislative consent memorandums. But I'll just finish with if you're able to provide any expected balance between primary and secondary legislation over this term at all.

Well, it's something that we haven't actually addressed firmly yet; we've thought a fair bit about it. There is nowadays, of course, a tendency to use secondary legislation frequently in every legislature. That's just the way things are. As for the balance, well, secondary legislation is vital in order to get the nuts and bolts in place for things to work. And so we are mindful of the need, again, not to overload that particular sector so that it impinges upon your work. Having said that, it is a fact today that modern legislation means that there will be a considerable amount of statutory instruments and secondary legislation coming through, and that is something that one cannot prevent in a way; it's a necessity. I don't know if—.

One thing I'd say is that we are very mindful of what the committee and the Senedd generally have said over the years about this issue, so it's something that this Counsel General and former Counsels General will have been monitoring. There are principles that we adopt and, essentially, we always seek to make sure that all significant points of policy are dealt with on the face of the primary legislation. I think it's fair to say that the committee and the Government have not always agreed as to what amounts to a significant matter of policy, so I think that we've had to agree to disagree over the years. But one thing I'm very clear about is that, within the Government, we are very mindful of the issue and we do try to minimise the reliance that we put on subordinate legislation. As the Counsel General said, it is necessary at times. In my view, it is sensible not to have all of the detail in primary legislation. I think that it can actually make the primary legislation more difficult to understand if you are including too much detail. But there's a balance, obviously. And then there are occasions when one of the main reasons it's done is to enable some degree of flexibility in making changes of a relatively minor nature without having to come back with primary legislation.

Thank you. Adrian, was it on this point, as I was about to bring in—? On this point.

Yes.

Yes. Yes, certainly. I'll bring Huw in afterwards.

You say, Counsel General, that the use of secondary legislation is becoming more prominent, I suppose, as time goes by. Is that as a direct result, do you think, of, how can I put it, lazy drafting of legislation? It concerns me that a lot of power is given to Welsh Ministers, power that the Senedd is not responsible for after the event, as such. So, I just wondered what your view was on that.

Well, in a previous life, I was quite used to being on standing committees looking at secondary legislation, and I just confirm what Mr Hughes has just said: you cannot put everything that you want in primary legislation. It's simply not possible to do that, whereas it is vital to put the main elements in primary legislation, and then, of course, to deal with the granular aspect of the way in which that Bill will work, at the end of the day, in secondary.

Now, I am aware—and it's a natural reaction—that people may feel that there's too much secondary legislation. Well, that may be, and we are actually keeping an eye on that, to ensure that in no way do we in fact appear to be just running the show without reference to this committee and other committees. Now, it's one of those things which—. It is actually inevitable that there will be quite a bit of secondary legislation coming through. It's not about, with respect, lazy drafting, because if you are to build huge, Christmas tree legislation, people will (a) not understand it (b) get lost in it and (c) it will be ineffective. And to counter that, secondary legislation comes in. I take your point, I accept what you say, that there may be too much going through in terms of secondary legislation. So, the question then arises, I suppose: is there sufficient opportunity for committees to scrutinise secondary legislation? Is there a need for some reform in that area? I don't know. That is something that, procedurally, could be looked at. But it is what it is, and we will keep an eye on it; we will not overload the secondary legislation book, if you like. But it is, nonetheless, necessary.

I'll bring Huw in.

Thank you, Chair. This is probably a question for the Cabinet Minister. The First Minister has outlined his legislative programme for the next 18 months. The Government is a minority Government, of course. We've heard a great deal already this morning about capacity—capacity within the team, but also capacity in terms of time in the Senedd. Do you acknowledge the risk of spending a great deal of time and expending effort on legislation that will, ultimately, be at risk of not passing in the Senedd because of the electoral arithmetic? What will the Government be doing to ensure that that is avoided?

That is an excellent question, if I may say so, because, in a Parliament without a majority, it is inevitable that the Government has to consider whether it will be possible to try and get the agreement of the Senedd to new legislation. As we have heard, there is very significant work happening on legislation, and therefore it would be very unwise, and, if I may say, quite ineffective, to spend quite a bit of time on legislation when there is no hope of that legislation passing. So, we have been looking at the legislative programme through that lens.

We could look at different elements of that programme. There are Acts that make the statute book more clear—that is, that codify it and draw issues together. I would hope that the Senedd as a whole would look at such Acts, that don't change policy but rather draw stuff together in a way that is accessible and open. I would hope that the Senedd as a whole would look kindly on those kinds of Acts. There are very specific pieces of legislation. Possibly, we will come on to the proposed Act in a very specific sphere, the wildlife sphere, where again I would expect to achieve an element of consensus across the Senedd.

And then, there are other Acts, for example, around housing, on developing the renters' support programme. One might look across the Senedd and see that similar provisions were included in the manifestos of at least four parties, if not more than that. So, we are looking at these kinds of things. It is possible, as the collaboration develops in this place, that we will also see specific proposals being laid on the table by the opposition parties and that the Government might decide to work together on such issues. So, we are a Government that is open-minded and we are a Government that recognises and acknowledges very clearly the arithmetic of the Senedd. I think that's important, and it's important that this committee and the Senedd as a whole understand that.

May I add, Mr Thomas, that's a crucially important question? Where the Bill that I'm involved in is in question, it's my intention to ask the Bill team to connect appropriately and often with all the opposition parties, even before it's introduced, to set out, 'These are our intentions, this is what we think, this is what the third sector says about this and that, what are your views, will you look at it?' and so on, and to do so early on in the process, not later. Because the argument, very often—. It's possible to make changes after a Bill has been introduced to the Senedd, of course, but it's often better to have that conversation when there's less pressure on people during the creation of that Bill.

So, I've asked the Bill committee to be ready—and they've agreed—to go to speak to every party and, if I have the time, I will be participating too, on several occasions, I hope, in order to include everyone in the process. And that's how I see things working. As my colleague says, of course, there are some Bills that we're talking about now where, well, it's likely, I hope, that there would be consensus.

I hope there'll be consensus on the tribunals, but to arrive at that consensus, we need to have that relationship, the conversation and the discussion, and for that to be a meaningful discussion—not a tick-box exercise, but to ensure that we listen to what the parties are saying, and so, in my view, develop better legislation anyway.

Adrian, did you want to come in?

Sorry, Counsel General, but as one lawyer to another, I hear what you say, and from a purely legal point of view, what you say is admirable; it's fantastic, actually, that you would be collegiate and you would work with other parties before you start on the journey of legislation. The trouble is, though, your colleague next to you is a very political animal, and so are a lot of his party. And, in fact, would they be of that view, the same view as you and I would be, because politics can be a bit of a dirty game, can't it?

Well, Mr Mason, I'm not so much of a political animal anymore.

I know you aren't.

But the point is that the Counsel General is here to serve the Senedd, right? And, with respect to my friend, whatever the political view is, I think it makes good sense to liaise with all Members of the Senedd in order to take their views on board in early course, so that then we can look forward. And at the end of the day, experience shows me that if there are more people looking at it, it very often ends up being better legislation. I'm not just saying this in order to be popular before this committee; it's something I've been discussing with my officials already and something I will adhere to without fear or favour, or any political interference.

Huw.

I think that there'll be welcome for that commitment from both of you, so thank you for that. I'd perhaps suggest that the way that the First Minister set out the legislative programme didn't display the same principle, but there we are, that's a matter of opinion.

Moving on, if there's time, I'd like to come back to some of the points on specific legislation that you mentioned, Dafydd, but just a question, perhaps, for the Counsel General on the legislation passed during the sixth Senedd that has implications for the Welsh Government during the seventh Senedd, which would require further legislation if the Government didn't want to pursue those implications. For example, this is a possibility for the legislation passed with regard to council tax and the reforms that are to come in the legislation in 2028. Is that a conversation that the Government is having? What needs to change? Or are we to take it that anything that was passed by the previous Government is going to be carried forward and delivered by this Government?

Well—

Could I come in for a second, Counsel General?

Sure.

Just briefly on that, I think one of the things we've asked colleagues to do is to identify all the elements of legislation that are to be implemented across a very broad range of areas. And then we need to have a conversation: 'Okay, in that area there is legislation that has been passed, and therefore we need to set regulations to move that forward', or, 'We need to reconsider that', or, 'We need to look at the secondary legislation in this area.' There are a multitude, to be honest, of pieces of legislation that are in that category, and we've asked colleagues to assess all of that. We will be moving forward to make more announcements on that shortly.

But sorry, Counsel General, that was a question for you.

It was a question for me but answered by you. No, no, I don't want to be—.

I am aware that there are several pieces of legislation that have already been passed and we'll have to look on a case-by-case basis at each one of those and go through them. Of course, it isn't the kind of thing where you say, 'Well, the previous Government has said this; we therefore say something different.' Not at all. It's purely possible—. For example, the seed of the tribunal Bill was sown by the previous Government, and it's entirely acceptable to me and others, and I'm sure—hopefully—to the Senedd as a whole. By the same token, we will be looking on a case-by-case basis at every single one of them, and where it is current, where it does what we need it to do, we will accept it. Perhaps there'll be minor changes in regulations, I don't know. But as a whole, certainly, that's the way forward: to look first on a case-by-case basis.

So, within the current timetable, is there additional capacity to make changes where they are needed on a case-by-case basis?

Well, I think we'll have to find it, because it appears that there won't be major, wide-ranging changes because the legislation is there already. What we're talking about, more than likely, is secondary legislation, so there'll be some level of change, and I would greatly hope that we'll be able to find the capacity to do that. I see Dylan by my side here and I hope that he would agree with me on that, but for those things we will have to find some level of capacity to do that.

I'm going to ask this in English, if that's okay.

It's very simple. Does the new Welsh Government continue to accept the principle, where new duties have been created, be it on local government or the health service, that funding follows legislation? I'm thinking in particular about the right to adequate housing.

I think there's an enormous amount of work going into the development of the housing portfolio, of Bills and of policy in that area. The Member makes a very important point: that you can legislate as much as you like, but if you haven't got the financial resource around that legislation to make sure that it is effective, then it won't be effective legislation. So, those are discussions that are ongoing. I'm sure there'll be discussions across parties on a number of those issues as they develop, and there is considerable work to be done in the field of housing.

Some of that doesn't necessarily require resource, of course. Some of it requires structural changes to the legislation rather than necessarily resource.

But is that a ‘yes’, Minister? 'We accept the principle that legislation needs to be properly funded.'

I think there is a sound legislative principle that you need to consider the financial resource. As you well know from your time as a leader of a council, there are challenging financial circumstances that form the backdrop to everything we do. So, you have to have that very clearly in your mind when you are developing legislation and considering new duties, and whether that would be appropriate or not.

That's exactly why I'm asking the question. One of my critiques of this place, generally, has been that they've passed some very well-meaning legislation, but have not been able to put the resources behind it to effect the changes that they were looking to see, and I think that's one area that we need to continue to scrutinise.

My last question, and this picks up on the rural-proofing Bill, which, as I read it, at early days, seems to be a catch-all for quite a lot of different things that Welsh Government officials have been wanting to do for some time, and then the statutory duty around ensuring that rural needs are considered. Candidly, I'm also concerned about urban needs, and when I look at certain protected characteristics, I would probably argue that there are a higher proportion of people who have those characteristics living in urban areas as opposed to rural areas. So, I guess my question is: how can we avoid the danger that this legislation creates a two-tier system, where certain parts of Wales are given stronger rights than others?

This has been discussed at Cabinet level. We did not want to create any kind of a two-tier system, and a great deal of thought, now, is being put into urban deprivation, basically. And we know the context of rural-proofing, but there is also a duty to look at the urban context, and this is something that we are looking at, and we take the point the Member makes. It's a valid one, and it's one that we have recognised, identified, and we are addressing, as we speak.

Thank you very much.

Great. I'll bring in Peter.

Good morning—oh, good afternoon. We've heard a lot about capacity already, so I won't dwell too much on it, but it's fundamental for us to get underneath the capacity question, really. So, I would like to know how the Government is preparing to meet that capacity shortfall, if you like, because there seems to be a bit of ambiguity about capacity—we might have enough, we're going to look for more, you know. So, what firm steps are you taking to firm up capacity, and do you believe, then, that you will have the capacity to deliver against your key priorities that are coming forward in legislation?

We're actually building on the Noble report, and there is a central legislation specialist pool that we are developing, and there are two things about that. One, it enhances capacity, but it also gives us the ability to deploy that capacity to areas where it is needed. So, there is work ongoing there to develop capacity. The second element of Noble around being smaller, more focused legislation, that assists scrutiny, but it also has an impact on capacity in a positive way, because the legislation is clearer and simpler. There's also an interesting aspect, I would suggest, around the work that's being done to develop the accessibility of the Welsh statute book more generally, so that policy colleagues in the civil service develop their knowledge and understanding of the statute book.

So, taken together, I'm confident that this package of work will ensure that, over the next four years, we will be developing that capacity, and we will be in a position to deliver on our key priorities, as the legislative counsel has suggested. I mean, is it ideal? Is it a perfect situation? No, it is not, but very few things are in life, I tend to find.

I'm assuming that you're going to continue with the review that was taken on. I'm wondering, as part of that review, whether there has been a lot of movement in staff. Has there been redeployment to make sure that we are aligning your capacity to what you might be wanting to deliver, as a result of some of what was found in the review?

Sophie might speak to that.

I might need to pick that up. One of the recommendations of the review was to have stronger leadership around the legislative programme. So, whilst some functions were already being fulfilled at the time, a deputy director position, which is the role that I'm in now, was created to bring that management and coherence to the programme as a whole. I might add that that has brought a specific focus on making sure that when we think about the legislative programme, we're not just thinking about primary legislation, we're also thinking about the subordinate legislation, going to the Member's earlier question. There's finite resource, and that package really needs to be choreographed very carefully to make sure that it can all be delivered.

The Cabinet Minister mentioned the legislation pool as well. Just to give you a little bit more information around that, that's a pool of individuals who essentially belong in my division, but that I can deploy out to the Bill projects that need them the most. That not only gives us quite an agile way into some of these projects, perhaps more agile than previously, but it also brings expertise within a cohort—people who have managed a Bill before, people who have experience in that very difficult job of taking a policy idea and working with lawyers, stakeholders and economists to build it into instructions to legislative counsel that can work and can be delivered successfully and to time. I just think it's a good illustration of trying to build not just more capacity but more agility and more expertise into the system.

That's reassuring. I'm feeling positive about that. Counsel General, you said earlier about the willingness to embrace other parties and other thinking to help develop legislation. One bit that has been a shortcoming, I think, in this place, because I was part of that issue, is how are you going to encourage or take forward quality backbench legislation. How can we embrace that? In the past, I think Governments have talked positively about it, but getting backbench legislation through in this place is almost impossible, even though we've seen a couple of things that have come forward that are positive. So, again, is there some flexibility in the capacity to help bring forward backbench legislation as well?

The point is well made, because backbenchers have a right to legislate as well, and we need to observe that. The question is capacity. You have to consider in any 12-month period, first of all, or 24-month period, how many there will be of those backbench Bills. I would surmise there wouldn't be a huge number. Therefore, maybe the resource issue isn't quite as heavy as it might be. Can I put it this way? Our ambition to listen to all concerned is clear. We are going to listen to—. For example, there was a reference in my first oral questions to the possibility of legislating in terms of aftercare by the Member who used to chair this committee. My response was we had 75 different organisations signed up to this voluntary code. She was not happy with that and she's pressed on with it. The Government, before any change of political designation, had said, 'Right, we will look at that.' That is a case in point. We are now looking at the possibility of legislating in the way that that Member referenced. I stress that the discussion was held prior to any switch of allegiances.

That's positive. That's reassuring for all those aspiring legislators out there amongst us. Could you perhaps give us a flavour also—? To help you boost your capacity—I'm sure it will help us understand better—how is your digitally enabled Cabinet Office going to add to your capacity and flexibility around this?

The digitally enabled Cabinet Office is allowing us to track progress on various policy issues at the moment. If you are an aficionado of the Welsh Government website, you may have seen some digital dashboards that have been published recently, which will allow everyone to track that progress. I think that helps us to track progress on priorities. There isn't a dashboard on legislation, as you'll be very well aware.

My view, and colleagues more learned than me certainly might take a different view, is that the development around artificial intelligence—done well, used effectively, built through our training processes—does offer some opportunities to enhance the capacity and capability that we have within the system. I am slightly reticent, because there are clearly some horror stories around artificial intelligence and there are environmental concerns. There are a number of issues, but there is potential there to make some really effective use of digital and AI to enhance our capacity. So, I'm keen—and we've had conversations about this already—for that to be an element of the digital enablement of the civil service more generally, let alone legislation.

Peter, if I may—. On that point, are you looking at other parliaments across the world and other governments that are looking at and maybe leading more in this field—I'm thinking of places like Singapore and certain other parts of the world where they seem to be embracing this new technology, with caveats—and seeing what the opportunity is like for us to be able to adopt some of that?

The simple answer is 'yes'; the slightly more complex answer is that, within the Cabinet Office, there's a director of strategy and part of that role is to horizon scan and to learn from the best international examples, as any responsible Government should do. And we've already had a conversation about the Singaporean example. They're also a very effective Government at the development of public service leaders and public service directors. There are different contexts, obviously, but there are definitely things to learn.

The follow-on from that is: what conversations can we have as a committee and as a Senedd to make sure that we're keeping pace with whatever the Government is doing so that at least we can understand what's going on so that we can ask about and scrutinise the work that's being done so that we're not—

I'm aware, Chair, that Dylan Hughes has just been to Singapore. So over to you, Mr Hughes. [Laughter.]

Diolch. Yes, that was for a conference of the Commonwealth Association of—

It wasn't your summer holiday, then.

—Legislative Counsel. No. The Commonwealth Association of Legislative Counsel is quite an active group that is looking at lots of these issues. And I have to say that there were some quite impressive presentations on this issue that I'm intending to follow up. New Zealand are very progressive in this regard. We've discussed Singapore; I've also had discussions with Canadian colleagues. One thing to remember, of course, in particular in relation to the discussions I've had with Canada, is that producing things bilingually is not straightforward, and there's lots of scope for using the technology. We already are. In relation to using the technology to work bilingually, we are probably as far ahead as others, if not more, but I think that we can definitely learn from other governments and parliaments in relation to the use of AI more generally.

Thank you very much. Peter.

Just a couple more points. Policy development is absolutely fundamental, obviously, and the processes around that. Are you having to improve, or are you reviewing how the policy development processes are working so that you can get a stronger handle on that?

One of the things we've been discussing is how you effectively train policy development colleagues to be aware of the legislative context and how to engage most effectively with that. Much of this work is ongoing. I'm not suggesting that we are anywhere close to having resolved these issues, but it is one of those areas that is very much on our agenda and we're working towards it.

I think one thing to bear in mind, following on from the discussion we've already had about the central pool, is that in any Bill project, when we talk about policy development, it's not as straightforward as it might appear. You have the knowledge of the subject matter, and I'd say that we have a number of people across the organisation who have very specific experience and expertise in particular things. So, for example, wildlife: we have a team of people who have genuine expertise in the area. But in addition to that, you need to have expertise in turning ideas into law, and that is a different skill. What we're trying to do is bring those two things together by introducing a central pool of people who have that expertise, no matter what the subject matter, of turning ideas into legislation and working together with people who've got more specific subject expertise.

That's really interesting, and that's reassuring as well. A final question on capacity in this way of actually reviewing and measuring improvement. How are you planning to review or measure the impacts of what's flown from the review?

I think that's a good question. Are we in a position to answer that today? I'm not sure. Of the six key points of Noble, we're working through each of those. I was pondering to myself whether the most appropriate thing for us to do would be, in 12 months, to update the committee on the progress on each of those. Some of them are clearer than others in terms of how you might demonstrate and measure success.

I'm just thinking—I'm looking at time as well—maybe you could write back to us with some further detail on that. I'm going to go over to Huw now about principles on UK legislation.

I think there are just two questions from me on this.

First of all, just for clarity, could you outline the changes that the new Government has made to the principles of the previous Government, the rationale for these changes, and what, within the new principles, you would consider as exceptional circumstances?

Exceptional circumstances would mean, for example, where you have a UK Government suggesting something to Wales that is of value to us here in Wales and something that is 100 per cent in line with our aims and therefore we shouldn't have to legislate anew on that. That is a clear example. It seems like we should look at the most easy way of making changes. That is the main exception, if you like.

But there are other examples, of course, where you have cross-border England and Wales legislation, where it is convenient for you to accept that that is in operation on both sides and that it works for the Welsh Government's aims too. In other cases, it's where there are technical changes that don't cause any problems. But in the end, the main principle is what is the most convenient way, in line with our principles, to make the changes.

The principle, of course, is that we like to legislate in Wales for Wales on everything. Considering what has been said already, that isn't always possible; you know that yourself. But there are some exceptions on occasions where we can say, 'Yes, we'll accept that because it is 100 per cent in line with our principles', and for the various reasons that I've mentioned as exceptions. Is that clear?

Yes, it is clear. I welcome the approach of being open to that. It's possible that such exceptions won't be as exceptional, who knows?

If I turn to English, I guess one of the tensions—and it's contained in your answer—is between the principle of legislating what's devolved within Wales versus efficiency, for want of a better phrase. There have been examples over the years where there's been legislation passed in the UK Parliament that has implications for Wales, but, by the time a Welsh flavour is added to it, we are several years behind the curve. I'm thinking of city deals, free ports and, more recently, investment zones. I take it you acknowledge that tension, and I do wonder—and I don't think there's an easy answer to this—in those examples, what can be done differently so that Wales isn't always behind the curve in areas of new legislation where there are things, in economic development terms, for example—

I think the short answer to that, Mr Thomas, is this: we need better co-operation, and, in doing that, we need to engage thoroughly with our colleagues in London at an early stage. There have been unfortunate examples quite recently—they're truly unfortunate examples—the steel Bill being one, where matters went ahead without even referencing Wales, in effect. That's not good enough. But there are good examples as well. For example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are renowned for their co-operation. We need to build on that kind of co-operation, so that, early on, we will know whether or not we want to buy in, and, if so, how far and so on, and not have it given to us at the eleventh hour. And that's really been happening too often in the past, and it's happened once or twice in the last couple of months as well. It's not good enough. So, the answer is to spend time in developing good working relationships with our opposite numbers in London. I think that's the key to this.

And if I may—sorry—you are confident that you will put structures and measures in place to address that. And what's the phrase? It takes two to tango.

Yes. I think that was the point I was going to come back to, because we'd had some difficulties. I raised with Darren Jones, who was a one-time Cabinet Office Minister, matters of the lack of co-operation from UK Government Ministries with their counterparts in the Welsh Government, and some of the practical difficulties that had arisen because of that. He was clear that that wasn't the intention of the UK Government and sought to respond constructively and co-operatively to make sure that that didn't happen. We stand ready as a Government, as a responsible Government, to co-operate as and when necessary with the UK Government, particularly on their legislation. Where those matters are minor and technical provisions, I mean, where those matters are engaged by the principles, then let's co-operate. To do that effectively, we need to be there right at the beginning of the process, as we have been in some of the environmental regulations, and that's worked well. I mean, if it can work there, there's no reason for it not to work in other areas too.

I agree and acknowledge that. Perhaps you could write to us, just setting out how you will seek to replicate, maybe, good examples with DEFRA more widely across the Welsh Government, so that then this committee can understand what the Welsh Government have done to secure that. Then, if there is an issue, we can more appropriately understand whether it was UK Government lack of engagement or a lack of engagement on the Welsh Government side. Would that be okay?

Yes, I'd agree with that. The thing is, this Senedd has to give consent too; it's not just the Government. Obviously, the Government is a minority Government, therefore it's how we work collectively to get the voice of this place heard in those conversations, as well as making sure that the interests of this Senedd are heard. And it's the 'so what?' If this Senedd says 'no', what happens then, and how do you have those relationships and those mechanisms to be able to challenge and go back?

Well, I think the first thing to say, Chair, is this: there have been unfortunate examples of late where the information required has not come through to us and, therefore, we can't impart it to the Senedd, and, therefore, there are complaints that LCMs are late in being tabled—supplementary legislative consent memorandums, and so on, as well. What we need to do, it seems to me, is to get in early, speak clearly early with our colleagues in London so that we will then be able to give a proper, intelligible, intelligent steer, our view—it's up to the Senedd to decide 'yes' or 'no'—give a steer on the LCM. So, that seems to me to be a fairly obvious point, but it's something that needs to be done. It's time-consuming, but it needs to be done. Otherwise, there will be the possibility of an LCM being voted down when it was the Government view that it should not be, and you rightly identify that. But in order to counter that, we need to do the groundwork.

And I think the paperwork and the explanatory memorandums that we get as a committee, as well as the Senedd, need to be adequate and very well written. And we've seen examples in this Senedd where they haven't been well written and well explained, where our clerking team have then had to unpick it to be able to work out what on earth is going on. It shouldn't be down to our clerking team to do that. It should be the work of the Government to produce that information for us. And that's something that I'd like you to reflect on as, obviously, the timescale with an LCM is that it needs to be presented to the Senedd within two weeks. But, obviously, the documentation that goes hand in hand with that needs to be accurate and easy to understand for us to be able to do our scrutiny role properly. That's something that I hope you'll take away from this meeting—that it's something that we will look at, and, as part of our scrutiny of LCMs, is something that we will do.

So, my team is responsible for—. We see all the LCMs across various different Bills. We're not responsible for writing them, as such, but we have a kind of co-ordinating role in making sure that there is a consistent amount of information that goes into each LCM. We also have a very good relationship with the Table Office and their officials there to ensure that what we think is good enough is also good enough for admissibility purposes. So, we do all that background work before LCMs are formally laid. We seek to make sure that that is done across each LCM.

The two-week period is, obviously, very difficult. Sometimes that bottlenecks at the end, which is always unfortunate, but we do try and make sure that that does happen for each and every instance. The longer a UK legislative programme goes ahead—. The last one was incredibly long—I think we laid something like 78 or 79 LCMs and SLCMs. So, there might be some inconsistencies in quality when there are that many, but it is something that we are conscious of and that we do work on.

But, Chair, if I may, if there are particular examples when either the LCM is deficient in some way, or whether an explanatory memorandum hasn't reached a suitable level of detail and standard—. I would assume that officials would already be in touch with colleagues, but if they are not, please ensure that that happens, because that serves none of our interests.

One example is one that we're going to be looking at later—the Commercial Payments Bill SLCM. It's particularly—. We'll report on it, so you'll get to know about it, but certainly that's one example there. I'm speaking on behalf of myself: it wasn't acceptable what we received. Huw, did you have anything further?

I'm done. Diolch.

In that case, I'll bring Peter in. Diolch.

A couple of questions, one on Sewel. I wonder if you could give us any detail you can on discussions that you may have had with UK Government on the Sewel convention. Perhaps you could, in answering that, give us an indication of what progress has been made around agreeing a memorandum of understanding on the Sewel convention.

Well, it's one of our policy areas that we feel very strongly about, quite clearly. We would like to see a statutory basis for the Sewel convention, in a perfect world. Meantime, a well-worded, strong memorandum of understanding is required, in our view. I have not had discussions, but I know the First Minister has had discussions, and my colleagues had discussions, and it's something that we are raising even now. There's a discussion on the memorandum of understanding. It is, as the Member obviously recognises, vitally important. For far too long, it has been mistreated, or, should I say, disrespected, perhaps. It's something that is core to getting good government, and it's something that our colleagues in Scotland feel equally strongly about. I'm sure that my colleague can address that, because he's been in discussion there as well. So, to reassure the Member, there is an ongoing dialogue now about this issue. As I've said, we would like to see statutory underpinning, but, meantime, we would be in favour of a strongly worded, fully understood memorandum of understanding that is respected by all.

As the Counsel General has indicated, I raised it at the Interministerial Standing Committee, and I will be, hopefully, not making myself unpopular, but I will be raising it again until we make progress on that, at least on the memorandum of understanding. My understanding is that we are expecting the UK Government to bring forward proposals in a matter of months.

Right, okay.

What precisely that means, we're not entirely clear on yet, but I am hopeful that we will be able to make some progress on this, because we certainly don't want a position where Sewel is engaged and then the Senedd withholds consent and we're left with the Senedd being disregarded by the UK Government, which is clearly sub-optimal.

So, the UK Government are recognising there are frustrations around Sewel. Have they acknowledged that?

I think 'acknowledged' is probably the best term. Let's see how far we can progress those discussions now. But an acknowledgement is the beginning of a conversation, at least.

Absolutely. Thank you for that.

We covered LCMs quite a bit in the last session, and I think some of my questions have been answered there. Perhaps one, though, that would be helpful is to understand what the volume of forthcoming legislative consent memoranda in the autumn term might be, and how the Senedd will be informed about future memoranda.

It's an interesting one, given the extent of the King's Speech and the UK legislative programme. There are clearly a number of Bills in that announced programme where we're expecting further LCMs, and we've laid 11 already since the King's Speech. Now, let's acknowledge the timing of the King's Speech was particularly difficult, given the establishment of the Senedd and the new Government. So, I'm hoping to make better progress in meeting the fortnight deadline in the future. But I am expecting a number of SLCMs and LCMs over the autumn.

Beca, I'll bring you in here now. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I would like to pursue issues relating to the accessibility of the law and in relation to the Welsh language in particular. But, before that, I'd like to ask you, first of all, what the implementation priorities will be for the Government to improve accessibility in terms of the law. Also, would you be able to share with us whether you intend to share the latest information with us about the progress made over the past two years under the previous Government? So, what this Welsh Government intends to do in terms of accessibility and also what's been done previously is what I'd like to start with. Thank you.

Part of my duties is to ensure the accessibility of Welsh law, and the principles, of course, are that the law has to be clear, understandable and easy to access. Those are the three drivers. It certainly does touch on matters such as ensuring that legislating is as simple as possible—Bills, Measures, Acts, and so on—so that they're easily understood. And that's not being patronising, but legislation can be very complex. And I have to ensure that there is greater awareness of legislation in Wales, and greater awareness of the use of the Welsh language in Wales, because that, too, is part of the remit that I have. And then, it's very important that we take every opportunity to discuss and share information about the fact that we do aim to have understandable, accessible law that is as simple as possible, to ensure that the people of Wales are served in the right way by this process.

One of the things that has been problematic over the years is that the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth receives legislation too late in the day; the legislation has been in force for some time and doesn't reach the library in Aberystwyth until six or eight months hence, and that can't be right. That's something that we've looked at. I've written to the national library to give them an assurance that that isn't going to happen again. Also, we must be in contact with the King's Printer in Kew Gardens, and they've received the same message, now, that we're going to step up and ensure that that significant gap doesn't exist anymore. There's no reason, truth be told, or excuse that it has happened, but it has been happening. And, of course, it goes to the heart of the question of accessibility and availability of Welsh law.

Thank you very much for that answer. It's good to hear there that the Welsh language is one of your priorities. We have already touched on the need in terms of bilingual working, and my ears pricked up when I heard about Canada earlier—that was very interesting. So, what steps will the Government be taking in the programme to improve accessibility of the law in order to facilitate any use of the Welsh language in particular, then?

Well, we do legislate bilingually, of course, and the resources are available to ensure that people know that the Welsh language version is at the same level as the English version, and that they're available. Probably the most important thing is that we go public with all of this to ensure that people—. We don't have to spend a great deal of money to do it, but that we take every opportunity to say, 'Well, look, this legislation is bilingual. If you want to turn to the Welsh language, do so, you're more than welcome to do so; there's the same authority behind the Welsh version as the English version and they're equal.' That's an important message because even to this day, I know that people believe, for some reason, that there isn't the same authority behind the Welsh version as there is for the English version. It's hard to believe, but that's what people think. So, it's up to us, at every opportunity, to explain, 'Well, we are a bilingual legislature, the two languages have equal status and so, if you wish to use the Welsh language, please do so.' In the same way, the use of the Welsh language in the courts, that's part of my role as well. Sorry—

No, no, I was going to support the Counsel General. Also, when we talk about training future lawyers in our law schools, whether that's in Aberystwyth University or even in Cardiff University, there are opportunities, aren't there, to ensure that the Welsh language is an integral part of the law of Wales, that that is clear, and that students study the texts in Welsh and write their essays in Welsh on those issues. That is our world view and that is what we would like to see developing.

And, of course, what is mentioned now has changed in a revolutionary manner since the late Dr Robin Léwis prepared his textbooks. I remember a time when Welsh speakers never dared; lawyers, now, standing up in court to speak Welsh, not being used to it. After those volumes came through, it's as comfortable as any other language, and that's been a blessing, particularly in magistrates' courts across Wales. We have to emphasise, of course, that, as we know, every person appearing before a court has the right to use the language that they wish to use. That's a very important principle too.

Adrian wants to come in here, just on that point.

For the record, you mentioned Cardiff and Aberystwyth, don't forget Bangor University also studies—[Laughter.]

With apologies to my friends and colleagues. I was reminded by Professor Thomas Watkin, who is another man who made a significant contribution to the development of Welsh law, who has a great interest in these things, and made a significant contribution in Bangor University in the development of the school of law. So, my apologies to my friends and colleagues in Bangor University.

We have 10 minutes to go, so—

[Inaudible.]—of Aberystwyth University, I fully support what he said.

Back to Beca. Thank you.

Sorry.

Could I just make a technical point here, if I may?

Yes.

Just to give you some context, when we're talking about the statute book, it is important to bear in mind that the Senedd has inherited that law. So, when the Senedd was created and when decisions were made on what areas were within the Senedd's competence, when that happened, to all intents and purposes, the statute book in those areas was transferred to be your responsibility or ours. That is important to consider, because just a handful of Wales-only legislation existed. So, there's a very different history in Wales compared with Scotland, for example, where there was quite a bit more Scottish legislation that had been passed by the UK Parliament.

So, the reason that I say this in terms of this question is because all of that legislation was in English, of course, and it's important to consider as well that the legislation that existed for Wales was also English law or was legislation that applied to the rest of the United Kingdom. So, every time we legislate, we have decisions to make on how we legislate, and going right back to when we started this work, I would say that it's easier, almost without exception, to amend the legislation that already exists—namely to do it in English. That is just easier, and that's the reality.

But we decided 15 years and more ago that we wouldn't do it like that, that we would try and restate as much as we could and create legislation for Wales in particular that was bilingual. Therefore, for example, going back to the law on consent for organ donation, that would have been quite a bit easier to do if we just changed the 2004 UK legislation, but we took out that subject in its entirety, 30 pages—. It was just one small change we were making, of course, just changing the consent, but we took all of that legislation on the subject, all 30 pages of it, and we restated it. I think it was only one page that changed the law, but we created it in the Welsh context and it was bilingual.

And that's what we do then by consolidating and codifying the law. Every time we do that, we increase the bilingual legislation that exists. So, it's just important to understand that context. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Well, there have been examples of errors in the Welsh language versions in the past, haven't there? So, how you will, as a Welsh Government, now seek to collaborate with Westminster to enable composite and joint statutory instruments to be drawn up in a bilingual format, to try to avoid those kinds of—

On that question of the errors, I know that Mr Fox raised this in the committee as well, and he was quite right to do so. It isn't a good story to tell. There have been errors made in the past, but we should also say that some of the differences relate to individual interpretation. But there were also straight errors. So, all I can say is that I and the team will be looking very, very carefully at things from now on to make sure that things like that don't happen again. You and Mr Fox are quite right to raise this point. It isn't good enough, and I don't think that anyone is going to sit here and say, 'It's all okay.' It's not. There have been errors made in the past. We have to deal with those now and we have to ensure that that doesn't happen in the future, because, at the end of the day, it affects the reputation of this place as a bilingual Parliament that is boasted about in Canada and a lot of other places, but failing to get consistency isn't good enough. So, it is an issue that we're looking at. Each week, going forwards, now, we will be looking at that and making sure, as best we can, that it doesn't happen to that extent ever again.

Thank you very much.

With five minutes to go, I just thought I'd bring Adrian in with some questions as well, just to finish off.

Last but not least. I'm going to ask you a general question. When the First Minister gave his inaugural speech—gosh, it seems like a long time ago now, but I think it was in May, wasn't it—he said that, 'Where possible, we won't legislate. Where it's possible, we will look at alternatives to legislation.' Now, the trouble is that we, as politicians, love to legislate, don't we? Whatever happens, we think, 'We can legislate. We'll fix it by legislation.' So, give me an assessment as to, potentially, at what sort of level or how in-depth would you follow the advice of your First Minister, whereby you as Welsh Ministers would look at alternatives before introducing further legislation? Because, after all, we have such a lot of legislation now. I know that consolidation is going to be an important part of the work of the Welsh Government. Essentially, I'm trying to get a feel for what your view is. You might have differing views, I don't know, but where you believe, where it's not necessary to legislate, you would not look at legislation.

I think that there are two comments that I would make to begin with. In the first instance, I think that, at times—and I tread carefully here as someone who was not a Member of previous Seneddau—there has been a tendency to make declaratory legislation, which says, 'We will be the best in the world at this, that or the other', and not necessarily to follow that up in detail, and therefore I think that there needs to be a close focus on the policy intent of legislation. And it goes to the comments made earlier by the Member for Caerdydd Penarth around the financing and such issues. I think that there needs to be that focus, and that does probably mean less declaratory legislation.

I'll give you one example where the Government is actively considering whether legislation is needed or not, which is the new development agency. There are mechanisms to establish the development agency on a non-legislative basis; there are mechanisms that would require legislation. That is an active conversation, and it's an example of one of those things where we've said that we would consider whether we do need legislation and we are actively looking and working through those issues with the expert panel, with business groups, to consider whether that is necessary or not. So, it's a healthy scepticism, I would suggest.

So, obviously, where you can save time, you can focus your attention on other areas, can't you?

Indeed.

Yes. It has been a live discussion and, obviously, given the pressures on the legislature in any event and on our counsel and legal services, if it's possible to do it without legislating, provided we take the Senedd with us and have the necessary discussions, and so on, then it's a way of dealing with matters within our current competence and ability to deliver.

Can I just unpack that slightly? Following what Adrian is suggesting and the conversation there, where does this committee—? Well, this is the Legislation Committee, so we would have no role, necessarily, in the scrutiny of that, but for the Senedd as a whole, how does the scrutiny of that decision making and making sure—? Obviously, if legislation is in front of us, we can scrutinise that legislation; if it's done through other mechanisms, do we need to look at how that scrutiny element is done?

Yes, I think that's the challenge. The downside to being effective, doing it and getting on with the job, is the potential lack of scrutiny. It comes back again to some of the points made here. You certainly shouldn't be rushing to do something that might not have earned majority support in the Senedd. So, there is a degree of care and nuance in these discussions, which I think we as a Government need to recognise, and that's appropriate for us to recognise.

I'm just conscious we've just hit the 1.30 p.m. mark—

May I make one comment?

Certainly. I've got one more question, that's all. You make your comment first.

I'm sorry to interrupt you in full flow.

That's okay—you carry on.

I don't want Mr Mason to leave feeling aggrieved; when the late Dr Robyn Léwis produced his volumes, he was awarded a PhD from the University of Bangor. So, that makes amends, I hope. [Laughter.]

Just one question from me, to finish off, and it's probably a 'yes' or a 'no', so it might make it easier for you. Are you planning on bringing forward any consolidation Bills within this Senedd term?

Yes.

Yes.

In what fields?

Wildlife.

Wildlife. There we are. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of this very interesting session. Thank you very much for your time this morning.

Thank you very much for coming. A transcript of the session will be available for you to check for any inconsistencies or errors. We will see you again.

Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix), I invite the committee to resolve to exclude the public from items 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of today's meeting. Is everybody in agreement? Yes. There we are. Diolch yn fawr.

Welcome back to this meeting of the Legislation Committee. We are moving on, and just to confirm that we are starting now.

Items 6, 7 and 8 are standing items on the agenda, but there are no instruments or Government responses to consider under those items today. So, I propose to note those items and to move on to item 9.

We have papers to note. Here we have outgoing correspondence and papers received. Any comments from anybody on those, or are we happy to note those? Content to note? Okay. That's great.

So, as we agreed under item 4 earlier today, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix), we will now exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Diolch yn fawr.