Group 5, therefore, is the next group of amendments, which relate to the power by regulations to make consequential amendments. Amendment 10 is the lead and only amendment in this group, and I call on David Melding to move and speak to the amendment. David Melding.

Amendment 10 (David Melding) moved.

Llywydd, I move amendment 10. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee noted their concern that section 9, as drafted, gave very wide powers to make consequential amendments. This amendment narrows that power by deleting the words 'or expedient'. As part of the CLAC committee—and I'm sure that I have a certain reputation for these issues and their importance, even if they're not always widely shared—I share the concerns of other committee members on the CLAC committee about the broad nature of the regulation-making powers that are prescribed in section 9 of the Bill.

It was an agreed and consistent view that the Welsh Ministers should adopt a more targeted approach, rather than taking the widest possible powers available to them. At Stage 2, the Cabinet Secretary stated that he would wish to ensure that 'or expedient' remains within the Bill in order to give Welsh Ministers the flexibility that they need. However, this amendment would still leave the Welsh Ministers with powers to, by regulation, make any supplemental, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provision they considered necessary, in consequence of, or for the purpose of giving full effect to, any provisions of this Act, or any provisions made under this Act.

I don't know how much more flexibility they need than those powers, but 'or expedient' is not a welcome addition and therefore I hope Members will support this amendment.

I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration, Rebecca Evans.

As we've heard, amendment 10 seeks to leave out the words 'or expedient' from section 9, which provides for the power to make consequential amendments.

Section 9 confers powers on the Welsh Ministers to make consequential provision if they consider it necessary or expedient to do so, in consequence of a provision made by the Bill, or made under it.

The word 'expedient' has its own meaning in law and allows for amendments that may be desirable, useful or have a practical benefit, but which may fail a strict necessity test.

It must also be remembered that the scope of this power is limited, as any consequential amendments made under this power must be closely connected to the provisions made by the Bill. Therefore, I consider it to be important that the word 'expedient' remains, in order to allow appropriate flexibility to implement the Bill in the most effective way. 

I'm aware that Carl Sargeant had correspondence with CLAC and he gave an example as to where the word 'expedient' might be necessary, and he said, for instance, if the power to make consequential amendments was used to streamline an administrative procedure that was proving difficult to apply or impractical for tenants to deal with, it might be arguable that this did not meet the necessity test, in that the tenants could simply live with the difficulty, undesirable though this might be. This approach, he said, would be unduly inflexible and restrictive and could prevent beneficial changes being made.

So, I ask Members, therefore, to reject amendment 10 as it could result in the section 9 provisions being unduly restrictive and prevent beneficial changes from being made.

Llywydd, the weakness of the example reflects the weakness of the Government's position. I urge Members to support my amendment.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions and 34 against. Therefore, amendment 10 is not agreed.

Amendment 10: For: 16, Against: 34, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected