Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Prynhawn da, bawb. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the members of our committee. We have no apologies today. Does anyone wish to declare an interest? No. Thank you very much. I remind Members that the meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv, and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. I remind everyone that the Senedd operates through the medium of both the Welsh and English languages and that interpretation is available during today's meeting.

We move on to instruments that raise no reporting issues under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3. As usual, this is a standing agenda item and there are no instruments to consider under this item today.

Next, instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing order 21.2 or 21.3. The Council Tax (Discounts, Disregards and Exemptions) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. This starts at page 1 in your packs. We have the draft report and the Welsh Government response. A brief outline: these regulations amend the Council Tax (Discounts, Disregards and Exemptions) (Wales) Regulations 2026, which established a framework for council tax discounts, disregards and exemptions in Wales. These regulations amend regulation 29, which relates to classes of dwellings that are exempt from paying council tax. The Welsh Government considers the amendments to be technical in nature, to clarify the operation and intended effect of the regulations. Senedd lawyers have identified three reporting points—two technical and one merits. I would like Kate to clarify that for us in more detail.

Thank you. The first technical reporting point identifies potentially defective drafting under Standing Order 21.2(vi), because there is no express provision for the coming into force of regulation 2(1). In response, the Welsh Government notes the point, but states that it does not consider this to affect the operation of the instrument. In the absence of an express commencement provision, the Welsh Government's view is that regulation 2(1) comes into force, in accordance with the rules of statutory interpretation, on the day that the instrument was made. Members may want to note that, while the Welsh Government is correct about this rule of statutory interpretation, it would clearly have been preferable to make express provision aligning the commencement of the introductory provision, which sets out which piece of legislation is being amended, with the first of the substantive amending provisions that follows it. Relying on a mixture of express commencement and implied rules of statutory interpretation could cause confusion to readers of the legislation, who may not be aware of the rules of statutory interpretation.

Members may also want to note that adopting this interpretation means that one provision of these regulations was enforced before the regulations were laid before the Senedd. The regulations are subject to the annulment procedure and so, in accordance with section 37E of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019, if the instrument is not laid before the Senedd at least 21 days before it comes into force, then the Welsh Ministers must provide an explanation in writing to the Llywydd. This is known as the 21-day rule. The practical effect of regulation 2(1) coming into force in isolation is limited, because, as the Welsh Government have noted, it's an introductory provision. But as a point of principle, it's unfortunate that the solution to the drafting error appears to engage the 21-day rule in relation to these regulations, and so Members may want to write to the Welsh Government to ask whether an explanation will be sent to the Llywydd, as required by section 37E.

The second point seeks further explanation from the Welsh Government under Standing Order 21.2(v) as to how a 'fair market value' will be determined for the purposes of class A and class C exemptions. In response, the Welsh Government explains that the words are intended to have their ordinary meaning, and that what constitutes a fair market value is left to the discretion of the local authority to determine, having regard to the nature and circumstances of properties in its area.

And then finally, the merits point. This is raised under Standing Order 21.3(ii) as a matter of political or legal importance likely to be of interest to the Senedd. The point to note is that regulation 2(2)(c) inserts text into the 2026 regulations that was inadvertently omitted when the 2026 regulations were formatted for making. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the 2026 regulations, when they were laid in draft before the Senedd, noted that the draft had been prepared outside the Welsh Government's statutory instrument software and that minor formatting improvements might take place before the draft was finalised for signing by the Minister. The omission of a provision is not a minor formatting change, and so the report asked the Welsh Government to explain whether this omission has had any practical effect on the application of the relevant exemption. In response, the Welsh Government confirms it does not consider that the omission will have had any practical effect and the exemption will have been applied correctly.

Members may want to note that this reporting point is of importance because the omission of the relevant text from the 2026 regulations took place after the draft was approved by the Senedd, but before it was signed by the Minister. So, essentially, the version of the text that the Senedd approved is not the version that was signed into law, apparently as a result of software issues. Members may also wish to note that a number of statutory instruments were laid in draft before the Senedd around the same time as the 2026 regulations that also contained an explanatory memorandum stating that they'd been prepared outside the SI software. The committee may therefore wish to write to the Government to ask whether these instruments have been reviewed for any similar errors or omissions and just to seek assurances that no other legislative texts approved by the Senedd have been inadvertently changed before being signed into law. So, that's a summary of the report and the response, and some suggestions for you to write.

Thank you. Do Members have any comments or observations?

Yes, I do. On the fair market value, I still think that's quite undefined, because if you think about it, there are 22 different local authorities in Wales, and in Wales there are very different council tax bands and very different values. From Monmouthshire to Merthyr, it's very different. Basically, that means that 22 local authorities are potentially reaching different conclusions on identical facts, which really does affect whether a household pays council tax. I appreciate this might be a policy point, but it feels that this could be tightened up.

I agree. 'Fair market value' remains undefined and it's not fair on the local authorities to tighten all the loose ends. So, yes, that's a good point. Are there any other observations?

While agreeing with that point on fair market value, I would also support writing a letter on the merits scrutiny points regarding the software. I thought the response from the Welsh Government was quite dismissive, actually, of what is a—. I think it's potentially a minor issue in this instance, but the wider issue of legislation being approved by the Senedd not then being enacted into law is quite problematic, and I'd have expected a more thorough engagement with the issue from the Welsh Government. So I think we should absolutely write.

Comments noted. Adrian.

I just wanted to bring attention to the unoccupied dwellings held for religious purposes. It's a bit ambiguous, isn't it?

Comments noted also. Pred.

I tend to agree with the points about writing to the Welsh Government on these issues, and we'll wait for the response from them. On the point about the software and the misalignment of wording, I think it's important that it is checked out against others written around the same time, just to make sure that that isn't something that's carried into things that might be more problematic than the technical nature of these SIs.

Of course. I agree with you.

I think this does raise concerns about how many others have been prepared in this way. If this has been done once, then, God knows, it could have been done many times. 

That's a fair point. Because my view is—. I'm not quoting exactly, but the Welsh Government said that they do not consider that the omission might have had any bearing on that particular element. But the point you're making—and I agree with you—is have any audits been undertaken to see if we've had this situation before or after and how do we mitigate a similar situation occurring in the future. I think that has to be sent back to the Welsh Government. Thank you.

Chair, if I may, I understand from that that Members wish to raise points that are specific to this instrument and also some points across a number of instruments that may or not be affected. So, could I advise that we send two pieces of correspondence—one to the relevant Minister in relation to these and one to the Counsel General in relation to the wider issue about errors?

Yes. Are we content to agree the course of action and move forward? Thank you.

Next, instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3, previously considered. Item 4 is a standing agenda item, but there are no instruments to consider under this item today.

Moving on to papers to note, we have outgoing correspondence first. I'm going to go through it first and then I'll come back to it point by point. It starts at page 5 in your pack. Item 5.1, a letter to the Counsel General, an invitation to attend a meeting of the Legislation Committee on the accessibility of Welsh law. It's a letter dated 7 October. Then we have a letter to the Llywydd, review of the legislative consent process. It's a letter dated 7 October. Another letter to the Llywydd, the Business Committee's consultation about business in the seventh Senedd. The letter is dated 7 October. And the last item is a letter to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Minister for Social Justice and Equality about the legislative consent memorandum on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. It's a letter dated 7 October. As you've noticed, all these letters were signed off by the committee last week. Members will be aware that the Counsel General has already accepted our invitation to attend our meeting on 7 December to discuss the accessibility programme and broader matters relating to law-making processes. Are Members content to note the outgoing correspondence? Are there any matters? Peter or Adrian?

Yes.

You're content to proceed.

There's just one point I'd like to make. The letter at item 5.5—. Oh, no. We'll move on, actually, to papers received now. We have a letter from the Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability about the draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It's in your pack, it starts at page 13. A letter from the Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability, the draft Mandatory Water Efficiency Labelling Regulations 2026. I'll go through them again. A letter from the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care, the legislative consent memorandum on the Health Bill. A letter from the Deputy Minister for Transport, the legislative consent memorandum on the Railways Bill. A letter from the Deputy Minister for Transport to the Chair of the Economy, Energy and Connectivity Committee on the legislative consent memorandum on the Railways Bill. And a letter from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Minister for Social Justice and Equality to the Chair of the Equality, Human Rights and Social Justice Committee on the legislative consent memorandum on the Armed Forces Bill.

In relation to the first item, the letter from the Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability about the draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2026, dated 5 October, the letter notifies us that the Cabinet Minister intends to consent to the UK Government making regulations that will amend the existing persistent organic pollutants regulations by updating concentration limits for the existing persistent organic pollutants, introducing new entries of POPs and setting staged concentration limits for specific applications. Members are aware that this letter arrived on Monday 5 October and requested the response by Friday that week, which was not possible, given the cycle of our committee meetings.

In relation to the next letter from the same Cabinet Minister on the draft Mandatory Water Efficiency Labelling Regulations 2026, dated 5 October, the document notifies us that the Cabinet Minister intends to consent to the UK Government making regulations that will establish a mandatory scheme requiring water-using appliances to display a label showing the product's water use and overall water efficiency rating relative to comparable products. Members will have seen that the UK Government has committed to publishing a Welsh language version of these regulations, and the committee may wish to follow this up in correspondence with the Cabinet Minister. Any comments? Yes, Pred.

I think it's important to note that this is a good, positive step forward, but it does raise questions about how the Welsh language version is scrutinised, because it's not the law—the law is in English, but this is a Welsh version of it. So, whilst I'm cautiously optimistic that we're moving in that sense, that we're able to have a Welsh language version of it, it just raises some of those questions, and it might be something that we want to write back to the Cabinet Secretary about, but maybe also in the letter that we're sending to the Counsel General, on a point of principle, and to say, whilst we welcome the moving forward with accessibility of the law, especially in the Welsh language, that we ask his opinion as to how best this development is scrutinised, to make sure that Welsh language users of the law don't maybe fall foul of discrepancies between two versions. So, I think that's an important thing to note.

Thank you.

Just to note, if I recall last week, one of the reasons that the letter regarding the organic pollutants was late was because of the committee—I may be wrong here—not sitting, or problems with that committee, and I note that that committee hasn't met, from what I can see, since 30 September. So, that might be something to be aware of, going forward. That was just a logistical point.

Thank you.

Can I just ask the committee, in relation to the current correspondence about the POPs, does the committee wish to write to raise concern about the reporting, the amount of time that it had to respond—

Yes.

—in light of when the committee is meeting?

Yes, absolutely. Yes, we need to. Point noted, but we—

We just need to build in some more time if that committee isn't meeting as often as it did—to build a bit more time in.

Yes. Fine.

It's for both ends. And in relation to your point, Pred, yes, we'll include that in the letter, because this particular scenario puts the Welsh language at a disadvantage. Any other comments? Thank you.

Next are the letters on the legislative consent memorandum on the Health Bill and the legislative consent memorandum on the Railways Bill. Both come in response to letters sent by the committee to the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care regarding the legislative consent memorandum on the Health Bill, and to the Deputy Minister for Transport regarding the legislative consent memorandum on the Railways Bill. These letters raise interesting points that the committee will address in its report on the memoranda, both of which we'll consider next week. Thank you.

The last two letters in the packare regarding the legislative consent memorandum on the Railways Bill and one from the Deputy First Minister on the legislative consent memorandum on the Armed Forces Bill. These are the letters from the Cabinet Ministers to the other Senedd committees regarding legislative consent memoranda on the Railways Bill and the Armed Forces Bill, which have been copied to us for information. Do Members have any comments?

What just struck me on the Railways Bill was the reliance on the memorandum of understanding to such a high extent. Obviously, I understand that Mark is working within constraints that are difficult and it is difficult to have something set in stone. That's just a generalised comment. That's what I would say.

Thank you.

Could I just add to that, Sarah? An MOU doesn't have a statutory footing, of course. Is it an effective basis for inter-governmental communication, I wonder.

We can make all this clear.

Yes. A draft report on the memorandum and on this response will come next week, so Members will be able to consider that, amongst the other issues, in detail then.

Thank you. Are Members content to note the correspondence? Thank you.

In accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ix), I invite the committee to resolve to exclude the public from the rest of today's meeting. Do Members agree? Thank you.