National Assembly for Wales

Prynhawn da, good afternoon, and welcome to today's session of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. Just some opening remarks as normal to remind people that we're on Senedd.tv today and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. There's no fire alarm expected, but, if we do have a fire alarm here in the building, just follow the instructions from ushers and staff to where we gather. If we can all make sure that mobile devices are switched to silent, please. And as per normal, we are conducting business in both Welsh and English today. No need to operate your microphones, but you all know that already. So, we're going to go on to our first item of business today under item No. 2. We're fully quorate, with no apologies.

So, under item No. 2, we have instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3. The first of these is SL(6)316; it's a made negative resolution instrument, the Judicial Offices (Sitting in Retirement—Prescribed Offices and Descriptions) (Wales) Regulations 2023. These regulations prescribe the judicial offices that a person must hold or have held prior to their retirement to be eligible for appointment to a particular sitting in retirement office. Our lawyers have identified three technical reporting points and one merits reporting point, and a Welsh Government response has been received. Do you want to highlight anything on this, Kate?

Yes, thank you. It was the first two technical points that required a Welsh Government response. The first relates to defective drafting, noting that the heading in the Schedule refers to Part 5 of Schedule 3 of the Act, but the term 'the Act' is not defined anywhere in the regulations, so it's not clear which Act is being referred to. In response, Welsh Government acknowledges that this is an error but says that it does not propose to correct it, because in their view it will be clear enough that the reference is to the enabling Act. Then, the second technical point notes a number of inconsistencies between the Welsh and English texts. Again, Welsh Government agrees that these are errors but they do not propose to make corrections. Members may just wish to note that this is the second such response we've received from Welsh Government recently where they've said that they're not going to correct acknowledged errors. This is valid principle—the obvious error—but it's obviously undesirable to have a lot of errors remaining on the statute book indefinitely. So, it might be something that the committee wants to keep under review should we get further responses.

There we are. Members are signalling they would want to keep that under review. We have a point of disagreement there, where the Government sees something as self-evident and doesn't need correction, but we will keep this under review. So, thank you very much. We're happy to agree those reporting points.

So, we'll go on to item 2.2, regulations SL(6)317, amending the Care and Support (Charging) (Wales) Regulations 2015 and the Care and Support (Financial Assessment) (Wales) Regulations 2015, and we have a draft report in our papers as well. The overall stated purpose of these amending regulations is to effect a change to the existing regulations to apply an uplift to the minimum income amount in residential care charging and to reflect new pieces of legislation on financial support schemes. Our lawyers have identified one merits reporting point and we do not require a Welsh Government report on this.

Yes. So, the merits point is simply a matter to note. According to the regulatory impact assessment, local authority supported residents will retain around a third of the uplift in state pension and welfare benefits to spend on personal items, while local authorities will receive an increase in charge income of around £8.3 million per annum.

Thank you very much. Are we happy with that reporting point, happy to agree that? We are.

Item 2.3, then, is regulations under SL(6)320, the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2023. We have a draft report and a letter from the Minister for Health and Social Services to the Llywydd in your packs. These regulations provide that individuals who have a late application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom under the European settlement scheme, EUSS, but have not been granted EUSS pre-settled or settled status must not be charged for relevant healthcare services provided to them whilst their application is under consideration. Our lawyers have identified three merits reporting points to bring to our attention.

Again, these are matters to note. So, the first is the breach of the 21-day rule and the explanation provided by the Minister. The second to note is that there is an element of retrospectivity in the regulations, and this is justified in the explanatory memorandum, and then, finally, there's been no consultation in relation to the regulations. 

There we are. Are we happy to note those in a report on this? We are. Thank you very much. That brings us to our last item in this particular section, item 2.4; it's SL(6)319, the Non-Domestic Rating (Multiplier) (Wales) Regulations 2023, and we have a draft report in our papers. These regulations amend the basis on which the non-domestic rating multiplier is calculated. The regulations apply to the financial year beginning on 1 April 2023, and disapply the use of the consumer prices index for September 2022 when calculating the NDR multiplier. The effect of this is to freeze the NDR multiplier for 2023-24. And one of our colleagues here on this committee, who is the Chair of the Finance Committee, will be relishing getting his teeth into this one as well, I know. So, our lawyers have identified three merits reporting points.

Again, it's three points to note. The first is that the non-domestic rating revenue in Wales is pooled centrally and distributed to local authorities and police and crime commissioners, as part of the annual local government settlements, and that's why the multiplier needs to be determined before the annual settlements can be finalised. The second point draws Members' attention to the paragraphs of the explanatory memorandum highlighting that freezing the multiplier will result in lower bills for rate payers, but it will also reduce income into the non-domestic rating pool for 2023-24. However, this reduction will be fully funded by the Welsh Government, so that there should be no financial impact on local authority or police budgets. And then the final merits point just notes that there was no consultation. 

That's really helpful. Any comments on that? Are we happy to agree those points? We are. Thank you, Kate. 

So, that takes on to item No. 3, instruments that raise no reporting issues under Standing Order 21.7. We only have one item under this section today, and it's item 3.1, which is SL(6)318, the code of practice on the exercise of social services functions in relation to Part 4, direct payments and choice of accommodation, and Part 5, charging and financial assessment, of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. The revised code has been amended to reflect a number of new financial support schemes by making an addition to the list of forms of capital that should be fully disregarded in the financial assessment for charging for all forms of care and support. I don't know if there are any issues at all here that you want to flag. 

Nothing. Nothing to note. 

No. None. No reporting points on this. Are we happy with that, colleagues? We are. Thank you. So, we agree the reporting points there. 

That takes us to item No. 4, notifications and correspondence under the inter-institutional relations agreement, a regular part of our deliberations. Under item 4.1, we have correspondence from the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, and Trefnydd on the inter-ministerial group for environment, food and rural affairs, and we have a letter in our packs of 6 February there from the Minister. So, if I invite colleagues to note the correspondence from the Minister in relation to that inter-ministerial group meeting, held on 23 January, and the letter details for public interest topics of discussion, including the Retained EU Law (Reform and Revocation) Bill, and in particular the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' plans for managing the extensive amount of legislation in the portfolio. The Minister also notes that she requested an update on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and that she would be responding to a letter from Lord Beynon on the Animal (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill, and the next meeting will be on Monday 6 March. We might want to come back to this in private, but are we happy to note that for now? There we are. Okay. 

Item 4.2, then, in this section is correspondence from the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution in respect of the Interministerial Standing Committee, and that letter and the written statement by the Counsel General relate to the most recent meeting of that committee, which was held on 1 February. And again, we're grateful to him for sharing with us the details of the topics of discussion, which included the importance of the Sewel convention and concerns around the retained EU law Bill. The Counsel General also, within the letter, notes that he

'raised serious concerns over the suggestion that the UK Government might bring back the Bill of Rights, as well as concerns relating to the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill'

as well. So, they obviously had a full agenda there on that day. Again, we can return to these in private session if colleagues want to. 

Then we have item 4.3, a letter from the Minister for Health and Social Services in respect of the UK health Minister's inter-ministerial group, informing us of a meeting on 28 February of the UK Government's health Minister and health Ministers of the devolved Governments. They will be discussing, we are told,

'common pressures across the UK national health services and post winter planning and recovery'

and they will be issuing a communique after that meeting. And again, this is something that we can return to if we want to in private session.

Item 4.4, we have a letter from the Deputy Minister for Mental Health and Well-being and a statement as well relating to the Food Supplements and Food for Specific Groups (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2023. This informs us, from the Deputy Minister, about the need for an amending instrument in relation to the above regulations, and the Minister notes that the correcting instrument

'addresses an error in the commencement provision'

of the original regulations that had rendered them inoperable. The correcting instrument 

'also inserts transitional provisions into the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003, the Food Supplements (Scotland) Regulations 2003 and the Food Supplements (Wales) Regulations 2003',

and the Deputy Minister informs us that she

'gave consent to these amendments being undertaken by the Secretary of State as they are required due to oversights in relation to the Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations and they form part of the same policy objectives which those Regulations were made to achieve'.

So, if we're content to note that for now.

And then we go on to some papers to note. Now, I'm going to just run through these in order. By all means shout out if you want to raise anything in our public session on this; otherwise we can return to these again in private. So, the first item, under item 5.1, we have a letter from the Minister for Climate Change in relation to the committee's report on legislative consent memoranda No. 3 and No. 4 on the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. The next item, 5.2, we have correspondence from the Minister for Finance and Local Government in relation to supplementary legislative consent memoranda No. 3 and No. 4 on the Procurement Bill. And the Minister responds there to our letter of 26 January, where we asked for further clarity on matters related to the memoranda. And item 5.3, we have a letter from the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee to the Ministers in relation to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, and just to note within that that the ETRA committee has requested more information about the Welsh Government's assessment of the Bill's impact on a number of sectors—this is something that we've discussed in this committee as well—as well as requesting confirmation of what work is being done to prepare for the Bill.

Item 5.4, we have to note correspondence—a briefing, sorry—from the House of Lords Second Reading on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which the Equality and Human Rights Commission has forwarded to us for information. Item 5.5, we have a letter from the Local Government and Housing Committee in which they draw our attention to the chapter in their report on the Welsh Government's draft budget 2023-24 on implementing and developing legislation, and they hope that this evidence will be useful as we continue to monitor Welsh Government's capacity to legislate. So, we thank that committee for sending that to us. 

Item 5.6, we have correspondence with the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution. The Counsel General has responded to our letter of 3 February in which we asked for updates and information on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. And again, all those items we can return to in private session, unless there's anything that Members want to raise now. No, okay. 

In which case we will now, then, defer discussion to the private session on those items we've been through, and we will move now to a short break before we consider going to consideration of the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill. So, we'll have a short break, and we'll return in about 10 minutes. 

Welcome back to this afternoon's session of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. We're going to turn our attention immediately now to item 6, which is the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill, consideration of amendments. The Senedd in its wisdom decided that this Bill will proceed on to committee, and that's the job in front of us here today. We welcome in front of us Mick Antoniw, Member of the Senedd for Pontypridd, Counsel General and Member in charge of the Bill, and also along with him James George, senior legislative counsel for the Welsh Government, and Bill Zajac—have I pronounced that correctly? Bill Zajac, legislation and policy officer for Cadw.

Colleagues, Members, you should have before you the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of the amendments for debate. The marshalled list of amendments is the list of all amendments tabled marshalled into the order of consideration that we agreed on 16 January. You'll see from the groupings list that amendments have been grouped to facilitate debate, but the order in which they are called and moved for a decision is dictated by the marshalled list. Members will need to follow the two papers, although I will advise Members when I call them whether they are being called to speak in the debate or to move their amendments for a decision. There will be one debate on each group of amendments, so Members who wish to speak in a particular group should indicate this in the usual way.

I will call the Counsel General to speak on each group, of course, and for the record, in accordance with the established convention, as Chair I will move amendments in the name of the Counsel General. For expediency, I will assume that the Counsel General wishes me to move all his amendments, and I will do so at the appropriate place in the marshalled list. I thank you for nodding your assent to that. Counsel General, if you don't want a particular amendment to be moved, if you change your mind, please indicate this to me at the relevant point in proceedings. Also in line with our usual practice, legal advisers to the committee and the Counsel General are not expected to provide advice on the record, so if Members want to seek legal advice during proceedings, please do so by passing a note to our legal adviser. 

We will proceed to the amendments in front of us today. The amendments in group 1 relate to the protection of sites of historic wrecks. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 49 in the name of James Evans. I call on James to move amendment 49 and to speak to the other amendments in this group. 

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to move the lead amendment 49 tabled in my name. Chair, this is an important opportunity to contribute to the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill, and I'll be speaking to our amendments 49 to 52. This group of amendments serves to ensure that historic wrecks and any other objects inside or surrounding them resting on the sea floor would continue to be protected with the consolidation of this Act into the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill. At the time of this meeting, there are currently six identified and recorded wrecks that fall within the Welsh scope of the existing Act. By including this amendment into the Historic Environment (Wales) Bill, it will ensure that the existing and any future potentially discovered wrecks will be covered by the Bill, as well as the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. These amendments will also update the language that is used in the existing legislation of 1973, which will continue the theme of consolidation in this Bill by making the legislation more accessible to the public. I'd be interested to hear from the Minister why this wasn't included originally, and it would be interesting to know whether the Minister would be willing to work with me in the future to bring back a further amendment at Stage 3. Thank you, Chair. 

Thank you, James. Before I call on the Counsel General, are there any other Members who wish to speak? No. Counsel General, I call on you now to address these amendments. 

Thank you, James, first of all, for bringing the amendment, because it does enable us to explore still further, I think, some of the comments I made last time with regard to this. Whilst I think it's recognised that there is a significant area of maritime law that needs reviewing, that needs assessing, I think the question was whether it was appropriate to consolidate it into this legislation. We decided that it wasn't, to keep the consolidated Bill effectively territorial, but that doesn't mean that this isn't an important area, and I think that was recognised by the committee in its own report.

One of the difficulties with the 1973 Act is that it is only a fragment of a number of bits of legislation that deal with the marine environment. It was legislation that was brought in on a sort of ad hoc basis to deal with a particular situation that had arisen. It is not comprehensive, and I think that the view we've taken is that, in order to consolidate, we needed to encompass the whole of the maritime area to do it properly, to bring it up to date, make sure it's human rights friendly as well. There are a number of items. We've got, as you mentioned, the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. Other relative bits of legislation that cover this area are the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. I think that I set details out about these in my letter of 28 October.

I think that the view we take is that there is a need for reform, but there's a need for proper review of the legislation in these areas, to consider the full policy extent, the framework and the landscape of the maritime area, and to do it properly. I think that, if you just incorporate one bit of legislation into this, first, it wouldn't add anything that doesn't already exist under existing legislation, but secondly, I don't think it would do proper service to the need to look properly at the maritime framework. And that's an area where work does need to be carried out. It would come under another ministerial portfolio, I think, but we'd be keen to work to explore how that might be done. There isn't provision within the current legislative programme to do it, but I think that the work that needs to be done in terms of looking at the maritime framework is important work that would probably carry on towards looking, possibly, at legislation in the next Senedd, realistically, with all the things we know that are coming.

The committee, when it met, made a recommendation, I think, that I should review marine historic environment law as it applies to Wales, and seek the earliest opportunity to make required reforms. I'm keen that that work goes on—that work needs to be done. I think, if it was done, what you would have is another fairly substantial piece of legislation consolidation work that might also need reform. It might actually require reform legislation rather than just consolidation. But either way, even if it was just consolidation of all the pieces of legislation that exist—and there are some complex competence issues as well—they would need to be brought together, and I think that the time to do that—. It could well stand as almost an additional part to this, but I don't think that just incorporating that bit of the 1973 Act would do any favours to us in terms of accessibility or greater understanding of the law. For that reason, I think that we decided to keep that separate at this stage from this particular legislation. But you're absolutely right in terms of the need to have further review of the whole landscape of the maritime legislative framework and how that might change.

Thank you, Counsel General. Alun, before I go back to James to reply.

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for his very positive response on that amendment. It might be useful if the Counsel General could write to the committee, possibly, on this, to outline how he intends to take that process forward—I'm not entirely sure, as I understand it, whether it would be a reform Act, for example, or a further consolidation Act—and a potential time frame for this. I also assume that there will be some environmental legislation coming down the line, which will also be focused on the marine environment, and that could well have an impact on these different areas. So, it might be useful if the Government could write to the committee outlining how it intends to take this matter forward. If it could do that prior to Stage 3 proceedings, then it might mean that the Conservatives, or James, won't need to table a further amendment on this.

I'm happy to do that. Of course, you're right, there are a whole number of changes that are coming that we might need to think about, and one of them is the retained EU law. There are a number of things that would probably make it appropriate to actually park it now to gain an overview as to where we're going to be and what changes might be possible that we would want to see. It might just be consolidation, but there certainly would be a need for updating, and it might well be the case that once you start looking at the policy work on it, there would be a need for reform as well, which would take it out of the consolidation process.

Unless there are other colleagues, James, to you, to respond to what you've heard.

I'd like to thank the Minister for his explanation of why he doesn't support this amendment as it is currently. I think the suggestion put forward by my colleague Alun Davies is a good one, but at this precise moment in time, I do think we need something in this piece of legislation for the protection of sites of historic wrecks, so I will be moving this amendment, Chair. I hope Members will be supporting my amendment.

So, you wish to move this amendment.

I do.

We'll move to vote on this amendment. Just to clarify for colleagues, if amendment 49 is not agreed, then the consequential amendments 50, 51, 52, 46, 47 and 48 fall, because they're consequential on this amendment. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed. Does any Member object to amendment 49 being agreed? [Objection.] We move to a vote. I will therefore take a vote by a show of hands. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed. Those in favour of amendment 49, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. We have no abstentions. As there is a tied vote, I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii). Therefore, amendment 49 is not agreed.

We now move to group 2. Group 2 relates to monuments of special historic interest—key terms and schedule of monuments of national importance. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 1, in the name of the Counsel General. 

I call on the Counsel General to speak to this amendment and his other amendment in this group.

Thank you, Chair. These are two what I call minor amendments that propose to improve the consistency between provisions of the Bill. Most of the amendments I've tabled for discussion today are in fact, as you will have seen there, quite technical in nature. They will improve the presentation of the law and improve consistency within the drafting of the Bill, or, alternatively, clarify the application of the current law. So, they are relatively minor amendments. On a reform Bill, most of these would be dealt with in a single group, so I'm afraid much of what I'm saying is going to become repetetive during the course of our proceedings.

In that spirit, I'd like to speak to the first, amendment 1, which inserts the word 'under' into section 2(5) of the Bill. Generally, in Part 2 of the Bill, references to a monument include the land 'in, on or under' it is situated. If you look, for example, at sections 11(2)(c) and section 65(1), you'll see that is there. Therefore, it's desirable to introduce consistency with that in section 2(5) to remove any scope for uncertainty.

Amendment 2 inserts 'do one or more of the following' into section 17(2). Before determining a schedule monument consent application, the Welsh Ministers may cause a local inquiry to be held, give the applicant an opportunity to appear before an appointed person, or give the applicant an opportunity to make written representations. This amendment will make clear that the Welsh Ministers may elect to use one or more of these procedures before determining an application. This change would match the situation in section 10 of the Bill for reviews carried out under section 9.

Thank you, Counsel General. Are there any Members who wish to speak on this amendment and the related one? No, there aren't. Counsel General, you have no debate to reply to. You do wish to move to a vote on amendment 1. We'll put amendment 1 to the meeting. Those in favour, please raise your hands. There are no hands raised against, in which case, amendment 1 is agreed.

We now move to amendment 2 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 2 is agreed.

We therefore now move to group No. 3. The amendments in group No. 3 relate to the enforcement of controls related to scheduled monuments and listed buildings. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 3 in the name of the Counsel General. So, could I ask the Counsel General to speak to this amendment and the other amendments in this group?

Again, thank you, Chair. These are five amendments that, again, seek to ensure consistency of terminology within the Bill. They contain minor changes proposed to improve the consistency. Amendments 4, 5 and 21 are drafting corrections to provide consistency in reference to the service of copies of enforcement notices rather than the notices themselves. 

Amendments 3 and 20 seek to ensure consistency of wording within sections 34 and 120 respectively by referring to the position at the time, rather than on the day, a temporary stop notice takes effect. So, this clarifies the precise point in time that is relevant and whether a person can claim compensation for loss caused by the notice.

Thank you, Counsel General. Are you speaking to the other amendments here? No—just to amendment 3 at the moment. Amendment 3—is that correct? All amendments you want to speak to.

All amendments, Chair, yes. I refer to 4, 5, 21, and 3 and 20 as well.

Thank you very much. In which case, we'll first of all put the question—. We'll first ask: are there any other Members who wish to speak on these amendments? Okay. In which case, there's no debate to reply to here, Counsel General. We'll begin, then, by putting amendment 3 to the committee. Does any Member object to amendment 3? There are no objections. Amendment 3 is agreed.

Next, I move amendment 4 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 4 is therefore agreed. 

Next, I move amendment 5 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 5 is therefore agreed.

We now move, then, to group No. 4. The amendments in group 4 relate to end of interim protection for monuments and end of interim protection and temporary listing for buildings. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 32 in the name of the Counsel General. Counsel General, could I ask that you speak to this amendment and to other amendments in the group, please?

Thank you, Chair. So, this group of amendments clarify the operation of provisions within Schedules 1, 7 and 11 to the Bill. When interim protection or temporary listing comes to an end, or a change that affects whether conservation area consent is required, no liability for any offence that has already been committed under the Bill will be affected. So, in my view, this is just a clarification of how the current law already works. But, it is clarification that, basically, when an offence is committed, it is an offence. 

During the initial consideration of the Bill, I know that the committee identified an area in paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 that currently incorrectly states that the end of temporary listing or interim protection for a building does not affect any existing criminal liability under section 118 of the Bill. This is wrong, because section 118 does not apply during temporary listing or interim protection. So, we're grateful to the committee for the identification of that point. But, I committed, I think, earlier, that I would bring forward an amendment to remove that particular reference. So, in addition to achieving that, these amendments address a wider issue with these provisions. Having considered the provisions further, we do not think that they should refer to criminal liability under specific sections of the Bill. The general principle has to be that no criminal liability for an offence that has already been committed will be affected by subsequent changes. By referring to specific offences, the provisions in the Schedules may give a misleading impression about other offences that they do not mention. Such offences could be those in sections 91 and sections 155, for example, providing false certificates with applications and obstructing the exercise of powers of entry.

So, we consider that this unhelpful impression should be avoided, therefore amendments 32, 35 and 40 seek to amend paragraph 2 of each Schedule. And, as a result, when interim protection or temporary listing comes to an end or a change affects whether conservation area consent is required, no liability for any offence that has already been committed under the Bill will be affected. In my view, this is really just a clarification of how the law already works. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Counsel General. Do any other Members want to speak to this amendment and the others that flow from it? No, we don't. In which case, having taken the assent of the Counsel General, he does want to push these to votes as we come along to them. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 32. Does any Member object? The question is that amendment 32 be agreed? Does any Member object? No. Amendment 32 is therefore agreed.

We move now straight on to group No. 5. The amendments in group 5 relate to the use of the word 'appropriate' in the Bill, and the lead amendment in the group is amendment 33 in the name of the Counsel General. 

So, once again, I will move amendment 33 in the name of the Counsel General, but I call on him first to speak to this amendment and the other amendments in this group. 

Well, thank you, Chair, and this relates, of course, to amendments 33, 34 and 29. It would be remiss of me to not have a debate in the committee on the word 'appropriate' and where it is appropriate or inappropriate. Members will recall, though, from the initial consideration Stage 1, that I committed to reviewing the use of the word 'appropriate' within the Bill and return at this stage with any suitable amendments.

We have been through it and considered very carefully. So, the three amendments in this group propose to remove the word from three provisions in the Bill where we now consider the use to be unnecessary. I consider the remaining uses of the word 'appropriate' in the Bill should be retained because they aid comprehension. Members will recall that, in the evidence session of 14 November, examples were given setting out why the term needs to be used in certain provisions and, indeed, I think that this committee's report quoted that evidence in paragraph, I think, 332 of the report. So, as the three amendments before you this afternoon are delivering my commitment to review the Bill and remove unnecessary uses of the word 'appropriate', I hope that the Members will agree to them in due course.

Thank you, Counsel General. Can I ask are there other Members who wish to speak to this? No, there aren't. So, in which case, we move to the vote on amendment 33. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. In which case, amendment 33 is agreed.

I then move to amendment 34 in the name of the Counsel General. And again, the question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 34 is agreed.

We now move on to group 6, and the amendments in group 6 relate to listing buildings of special interest and control of works affecting listed buildings. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 6 in the name of the Counsel General. 

Once again, I will move amendment 6 in the name of the Counsel General, but first, I will call on the Counsel General to speak to this amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Thank you, Chair. There are a number, again, of fairly technical amendments. They all relate to provisions dealing with listed buildings. Amendments 6 and 7 amend the definition of listed buildings to incorporate case law. Amendment 8 clarifies the power to impose recording conditions when consent is granted for the demolition of a listed building. Amendment 9 clarifies that the regulations may include provision for the Welsh Ministers to extend the period for appeals. And the remainder of the amendments in this group simplify the wording of the provisions in sections 109 and 111, and Schedule 9 relating to purchase notices.

If I could just go back to the specific amendments themselves. Amendments 6, 7 and 8 have been informed by evidence that was provided to the committee by the Country Land and Business Association and the Association for Local Government Archaeological Officers. So, I can reiterate, perhaps, at this stage, my thanks to all the stakeholders who engaged with the committee's call for evidence and for the time and the consideration that they gave to their helpful responses.

Amendments 6 and 7 make changes to the definition of a listed building in section 76(5) of the Bill. Reflecting 35 years of case law, the amendments require that any structure or artificial object fixed to the building or in its curtilage must be ancillary to the building if it is to be included in the listing. A lodge in the grounds of a large country house used for staff accommodation, for example, could be considered ancillary and included in a listing.

Amendment 8 has been introduced to make it clear that planning authorities may impose whatever recording conditions they think appropriate to gather and to preserve information about listed buildings when they grant listed building consent. At present, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that demolition of a listed building is not authorised unless the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales has been given an opportunity to record the building. So, in section 97 of the Bill, the same practical effect is achieved by requiring consent for the demolition of a listed building to include a condition that the royal commission must be given an opportunity to make a record. The purpose of amendment 8 is to avoid any possible implication that the mandatory condition enabling the royal commission to record the building is the only type of recording condition that can be imposed. This will make it clear that authorities are still able to make other arrangements to secure a suitable record of a listed building before demolition in all cases.

Amendment 9 puts beyond doubt that regulations made under section 101 of the Bill may include provisions for the extension of the period to appeal against a planning authority’s decision or their failure to make a decision. This brings consistency with other provisions in the Bill and reflects the existing regulations for these appeals.

Fourteen of the amendments in this group—those are amendments 10 to 19 and amendments 36 to 39—propose to simplify the provisions relating to purchase notices in sections 109 and 111 and the associated Schedule 9. So, these provisions contain numerous references to whether a building is 'capable of reasonably beneficial use'. I'm sure that probably most of us would agree that substituting the word 'usable' for that cumbersome phrase improves the intelligibility and accessibility of those provisions.

Amendments 18 and 19 amend section 111 to spell out more clearly how a compulsory acquisition is started or discontinued by a planning authority or the Welsh Ministers, and to remove some of the unnecessary and unhelpful wording. So, although these amendments are very minor and technical in their nature, I trust that Members will agree that they ensure that the Bill reflects case law, is set out in as clear and accessible a manner as possible, and are appropriate, also, for the consolidation process. 

Thank you, Counsel General. Could I ask Members: does anybody want to speak to amendment 6 or the amendments that flow from it? No. In which case then, we will move to amendment 6 and we'll proceed to amendment 6. Can I ask, first of all, does any Member object to amendment 6? No objections. Amendment 6 is agreed.

We move to amendment 7 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 7 is agreed.

I move amendment 8 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 8 is agreed.

I move amendment 9 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 9 is agreed.

Colleagues, I propose that amendments 10, 11 and 12  are disposed of en bloc. Does any Member object? Thank you very much.

In which case, the question is that amendments 10, 11 and 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 10, 11 and 12 are agreed.

Again, if Members are happy, then—sorry.

We will now move to amendment 13 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? No Members object. Amendment 13 is agreed.

I propose now that amendments 14, 15 and 16 are disposed of en bloc. Does any Member object to that? No.

In which case, I move amendments 14, 15 and 16 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendments 14, 15 and 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendments 14, 15 and 16 are agreed.

Next, I move amendment 17 in the name of the Counsel General. And the question is that amendment 17 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 17 is agreed.

I move amendment 18 in the name of the Counsel General. And the question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 18 is agreed.

I move amendment 19 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 19 is agreed.

We now move, colleagues, to dispose of amendments 20 and 21, which were debated in group 3.

So, I move amendment 20 in the name of the Counsel General, and the question is that amendment 20 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 20 is agreed.

I move amendment 21 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 21 is agreed.

We now move on to group No. 7, and the amendments in group 7 relate to provisions about buildings of special interest and conservation areas. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 22, in the name of the Counsel General.

So, I will move amendment 22 in the name of the Counsel General, but, first of all, I call on the Counsel General to speak to this amendment and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you, Chair, and it relates to amendment 22, the lead amendment, and 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31. This group comprises a variety of amendments that are essentially about clarifying the application or the effect of the law. A small number also correct a few minor errors that have been identified in the drafting of this very substantial Bill. So, a rather disparate group of amendments; all are rather minor and technical, but all ensure that, in one way or another, the Bill is an accurate restatement of the law.

Amendment 22 will ensure that regulations made under section 147 do not bind the Crown. This preserves the effect and the provision that section 147 is restating and corrects an omission from the Bill.

Amendments 23 to 28 make minor changes and corrections to ensure that the Bill accurately reflects the meaning of various provisions relating to listed buildings and conservation areas.

Amendment 31 simplifies the drafting of the Bill. It corrects a minor error that could have resulted in the powers to require information in the Bill being interpreted more narrowly than the existing powers.

I consider these are helpful improvements. They will ensure that the Bill is a satisfactory consolidation of the existing legislation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Counsel General. Are there any other Members who wish to speak? There aren't. In which case, we will move, then, to a vote on amendment 22. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 22 is agreed.

I move amendment 23 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 23 is agreed.

We now move to dispose of amendment 35, which was debated in group 4.

So, I move amendment 35 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections, so amendment 35 is agreed.

We now move to dispose of amendments 36, 37, 38 and 39, which we debated in group 6. I propose that amendments 36, 37 and 38 are disposed of en bloc. Does any Member object to that? No.

In which case, I move amendments 36, 37 and 38 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendments 36, 37 and 38 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendments 36, 37 and 38 are agreed.

Next I move amendment 39 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 39 is agreed.

We now move to dispose of amendment 24, which was debated in group 7.

I move amendment 24 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 24 is agreed.

We now move to dispose of amendment 40, which was debated in group 4.

I move amendment 40 in the name of the Counsel General, and the question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 40 is therefore agreed.

We now move to dispose of amendments 25, 26, 27 and 28, which were debated in group 7.

So, I move amendment 25 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 25 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 26 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 26 is agreed. 

I move amendment 27 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 27 is agreed. 

I move amendment 28 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 28 is agreed. 

We now move to dispose of amendment 29, which was debated in group 5.

So, I move amendment 29 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 29 is agreed. 

We now move on to group 8. The single amendment in group 8 relates to a provision in the Bill about historic parks and gardens. The only amendment in this group is amendment 30, in the name of the Counsel General again. 

I move amendment 30 in the name of the Counsel General, but I call, first, on the Counsel General to speak to this amendment. 

Thank you, Chair. This is, obviously, the smallest group in this afternoon's proceedings. It is a minor amendment to section 192 of the Bill to provide clarity that all planning authorities affected by registration of a historic park and garden must be notified. Amendment 30 makes a minor change to section 192 to ensure that, if Welsh Ministers amend the register to include adjoining land in a different local authority area, they must notify all planning authorities that are affected by the registration. This simply clarifies the effect of the law in cases where there is land in more than one planning authority’s area, Chair.

Thank you very much, Counsel General. Are there any other Members who want to speak to this amendment, No. 30? No, there aren't. In which case, then, we will move to putting amendment 30 to a vote. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. In which case, amendment 30 is agreed. 

We now move to dispose of amendment 31, which was debated in group 7.

I move amendment 31 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 31 is therefore agreed. 

So, we now move on to—. I'll just point out that as amendment 49, which we debated earlier, was not agreed, amendments 50, 51 and 52 have fallen. 

So, we now move to the final group, group 9. So, group 9, the final group of amendments, relates to minor and consequential amendments and repeals, and transitional and saving provisions. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 41 in the name of the Counsel General.

Counsel General, if you'd like to speak to this amendment. 

Thank you, Chair. This group contains miscellaneous consequential and transitional amendments, as you've already identified. They've been introduced to ensure, as far as possible, that the Bill interacts correctly with other legislation. They'll also provide for the smooth transition between existing historic environment legislation and the new Act. So, amendments 41 to 44 propose technical changes to paragraphs in Schedule 13, which makes consequential amendments to other legislation. They either improve consistency, rectify small mistakes or bring provisions up to date in light of recently enacted legislation. The remaining amendment, amendment 45, introduces additional transitional provisions to make clear whether the existing law or the new Act will apply to cases that are ongoing when the new Act comes into force. These are all purely technical changes to ensure that the law functions correctly, and I hope Members will support them. 

Can I just say, Chair, as this is the last group of amendments, I'd just like to make a couple of general remarks on that? Firstly, I'm grateful to Members for their continued interest and input into this Bill. Consolidation Bills are, by their very nature, very technical, but this is the first, I think, significant foray that we've made into the issue of improving the accessibility of Welsh law. On the amendments, most of them are very technical, so I'm grateful for the patience of everyone going through these today. The committee may resolve, under Standing Order 26C.37, that revisions to the Bill’s explanatory memorandum are not required in light of the amendments made to the Bill at this Stage. If it helps the committee’s deliberations with regard to that, I would like to remind Members that I have already given commitments to make some minor changes to the drafters' notes to the Bill, and my officials have been undertaking a thorough review of the explanatory notes to the Bill, and, in light of this work, I confirm that I will be tabling also a revised explanatory memorandum in due course. So, Chair, thank you for allowing me to make those comments, and, obviously, over to the committee now to make its final conclusions. 

Thank you. Are there any other Members who wish to speak on this particular group of amendments, led by amendment 41? There are not. In which case, we will dispose of these amendments. First of all, we will put amendment 41: the question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 41 is agreed.

Next, I move amendment 42 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 42 is agreed.

I then move amendment 43 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 43 is agreed.

I move amendment 44 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 44 is agreed.

I move amendment 45 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 45 is agreed.

So, as amendment 49 was not agreed, amendments 46, 47 and 48 have fallen.

So, that concludes the disposal of amendments today. So, this completes the detailed committee consideration of proceedings. Following the disposal of amendments, in accordance with Standing Order 26C.36, which the Counsel General has just referred to, the committee must report to the Senedd on the outcomes of our detailed consideration, and whether in our view the consolidation Bill should proceed to detailed Senedd consideration to the final stage. Counsel General, you've already informed us of work that you are taking forward in relation to this. Could I ask you just the direct question: do you consider that there is a need to bring forward further amendments to the Bill?

Chair, no, I don't.

Thank you. So, colleagues, in accordance with Standing Order 26C.37, if a consolidation Bill is amended at detailed committee consideration proceedings, then the Member in charge must prepare a revised explanatory memorandum, unless the committee resolves it's not required. The Counsel General has already informed us that it is his intention that a revised explanatory memorandum will be brought forward, so that can help inform our discussions subsequent to this session.

Counsel General, can I thank you and your officials for your attendance? We are very cognisant of the importance of this being the first of what you've suggested to us previously might be others of consolidation Bills going through, but, in doing this, I think we'd all want to record our thanks to you and your officials, both here today and others, who have been so open to us in our investigations on this Bill in order to get it right, and today here on committee as well. Delivering greater accessibility of Welsh legislation is a good principle, I think, to work on, so we thank you for being with us. We will of course send you a transcript of the meeting to check for factual accuracy, but, once again, thank you for your attendance and for this session on detailed consideration of the Bill today. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and thank you to the members of the committee and the officials.

Thank you. And just as the Counsel General and his team go, I'd just like to thank, on behalf of committee colleagues here, our team as well of clerks and researchers and legal drafters and so on, for your work on this as well.

We'll just give them a few moments to exit stage right.

In accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi), I invite the committee to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Do Members agree that we shall now move into private session? Thank you very much. We'll move into private session, please.