Item 6 on the agenda is a debate on the Finance Committee report of their inquiry into the financial estimates accompanying legislation. I call on the Chair of the committee to move that motion— Simon Thomas.

Motion NDM6632 Simon Thomas

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the report of the Finance Committee on the financial estimates accompanying legislation, which was laid in the Table Office on 25 October 2017.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I don’t think this will be the most exciting debate that we’ll hold at the Assembly today, or certainly over the term, but it is an important debate. It is important, and if I may say what the purpose of the inquiry by the Finance Committee is, perhaps some Members will see that it is important. 

What we did was look at four pieces of legislation that were passed by the previous Assembly to ensure that the method of assessing the financial cost of introducing legislation and turning it into an Act was sufficient and effective. What we’ve tried to do is look at whether the assessment of costs in introducing a Bill are correct, whether the methods used by the Government to assess the legislation hold water, and whether we could improve the processes so that we get better outcomes in the future. The purpose of that, very simply, was to safeguard the public purse and to ensure that public funds spent by the Government on legislation are assessed properly and spent properly. So, even though that description perhaps doesn’t make it more exciting, I hope it does explain why we held this inquiry. It was worth doing, I think, certainly for the members of the Finance Committee.

So, the situation is that every Bill that is introduced to the Assembly has to have an assessment that includes the best estimate of how much funding will be spent or saved—spent, usually—as a result of implementing the legislation. As a Finance Committee, we always report on the financial implications of Bills during the Stage 1 process. In the current financial context especially, the use of public funds needs to be scrutinised more than ever. Also, the costs associated with implementing legislation are an integral part of forming a view on whether it is reasonable to support a Bill. So, very often, one might see a Bill and say, 'Well, the Bill is a good idea, but if it costs too much then the value of the impact that you receive is lost.' So, it’s important that we do understand, at the beginning of the process, how much it’s going to cost.

We are, as a committee, careful that our scrutiny work happens early on in the legislative process to make it easier for Assembly Members to decide whether a Bill is worth supporting or not. We examine the financial estimates provided at the start of the process, but we don’t always have an opportunity to formally consider any changes that might result from updated impact assessments or amendments that might be made to a Bill during its passage through the Assembly. So, in other words, we look at the full cost of the Bill as it’s introduced. Some Members will know that Bills change significantly by the time they become an Act. We haven’t always had the opportunity to see whether that affects the costs and whether we should consider reassessing the value of the Bill because the costs have changed as the Bill has changed in its journey through the Assembly. So, this was an inquiry by the committee, and it was important for us to ensure that we had the tools for the remainder of this Assembly to do this work, and perhaps to change our minds on a Bill because the costs have changed.

Now, we made 16 recommendations in the report and I am pleased that the Government has accepted, or partly accepted, 15 of these, and I don’t want to go through them all in turn, but I’ll speak to some of the ones that are important to the committee and to the one that the Government didn’t accept. It’s important—and it’s important to us in the Finance Committee—to ensure that people can understand easily what the financial implications of Bills that come before the Assembly are. In the past, the Welsh Government has been criticised for not providing this information in a clear and consistent way, so we do welcome the steps taken by the Welsh Government recently to implement the recommendation made by the Auditor General for Wales that costs should be clearly presented in a summary table—not in the Bill, but in the explanatory memorandum, of course. We note, from scrutiny of Bills introduced during the fifth Assembly, that this has aided transparency, So, we are of the opinion that we have seen definite improvement in the way that the Government puts forward this information.

Now I’ll turn to one issue that leads many of us to question how these Bills are put together. It’s clear that any Bill that’s put forward includes several assessments. I think it’s up to 26 possible assessments that can be made on a Bill. So, one of the things that we did ask, in our inquiry, and we did ask the Government was, 'What’s the role of the well-being of future generations Act?—this is the first time that the Act has been mentioned today, but what’s the role of that Act in trying to co-ordinate the assessments that happen around a Bill, and to ensure that the assessments, with regard to the budget, are relevant to whether the numerous assessments done to accompany legislation can refer to a project that is an Act that the Welsh Government does want to use to shape policy in the future. So, we do look forward to seeing whether the Welsh Government can adapt the framework of the Act in order to co-ordinate—not cut down, as such, but to make more sense of, to rationalise, the different assessments. I understand that the Government is undertaking a piece of work to look into this, and I know that the public policy institute has done a piece of work on this, and we look forward, as a committee, to seeing how the Government can respond.

Now, as I’ve already said, the Finance Committee doesn’t necessarily have the opportunity to re-examine the financial implications once it’s reported as part of the Stage 1 process. So, any updated regulatory impact assessment published at the end of Stage 2 may not reflect the same level of scrutiny work. Now, that’s not always important. Very often, there’s no change between Stage 1 or Stage 2, or very little change, but there are sometimes substantial differences—for example, with regard to the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill, which is no longer a Bill, as we heard today, but now an Act, having received Royal Assent. We had to, and we felt that there was a duty on us, as a committee, to reconsider very carefully the costs of that particular Bill, or the Act, as it is now, because the figures had changed so significantly. Indeed, they changed significantly in Stage 1 and Stage 2, so it was important that we did look at that Bill again. The response of the Government to our report with regard to that acknowledges that there is room for improvement on the current processes. So, I hope that we can learn from that process. So, the Welsh Government’s commitment to include a draft RIA as part of the consultation in putting forward a Bill should add to that process of understanding the costs of the Bill very early on.

I’ll now turn to the one recommendation that was not accepted by the Welsh Government. That stemmed from the fact, of course, that a number of the Bills that are put forward at the Assembly increase the financial pressures faced by those who have to implement the provisions, especially in local government. There’s no certainty every time with regard to how those costs are going to be met, whether it’s the Welsh Government that’s going to respond to those costs, or whether those costs are to be shouldered entirely either by local government or other bodies that are funded by the Government. Now, we were of the opinion that specific reference should be included in any RIA to how any costs should be paid for and by whom. The Welsh Government doesn’t accept that, depending on the wider context, I think, around legislation that any Bill should receive financial consent during the process, but it’s certainly an area that the Finance Committee will be keeping an eye on and will return to, in due course, I’m sure. 

If I can conclude by just drawing attention to the importance of reviewing legislation once it’s implemented, therefore, if we are going to learn how to make better legislation and to assess the costs better, sometimes we need to look back at a piece of legislation to see how it was implemented and how the real costs, or the real savings, correspond to the original estimates, but also to understand whether the methodologies and approaches used in preparing the RIA worked. This is an opportunity where the Cabinet Secretary has met with us and has understood that that is a worthwhile process for the Government, and for us as a Parliament that legislates, and it’s an area where the Welsh Government can make improvements. I am pleased that there has been that acknowledgement in the response by the Government to the report, and we look forward to seeing more appropriate assessments—not too many of them, but appropriate assessments—to see how the costs of Bills have turned out, ultimately.

And, if I may say so, to conclude on a very personal level, Deputy Presiding Officer, because I am taking a Bill through this place at present on behalf of the Finance Committee, I’m painfully aware that I’ve made a rod for my own back in putting forward such a comprehensive report on how to put forward a Bill. But I am willing to face that head on, if the Government is also willing to pay the price.

Thank you. Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd, and congratulations, or maybe not congratulations, to the Chair of the Finance Committee for having the onerous task of taking that Bill forward. We’ve had many discussions about that, and that does have the support of the committee.

I'm pleased to be here to debate today the Finance Committee's inquiry into the financial estimates accompanying legislation—probably not the talk of bars and pubs across the land, but nonetheless—[Interruption.] Well, maybe in your neck of the woods, Dai Lloyd. Nonetheless an important issue for us to discuss because it does go to the heart of what we do here in terms of forming legislation and ensuring that relevant costs are met. As the Chair said in opening, the aims of the report were to examine the costs of legislation with specific reference to the costs associated with a sample of selected Acts that we looked at. We also were charged with examining the current reporting and monitoring arrangements for legislative costs after implementation, and establishing the effectiveness and the quality of RIAs that have been produced, and how this informs monitoring. RIAs went to the heart of our inquiry. While progress has been made on regulatory impact assessments—and that's to be welcomed—the Finance Committee's report highlights that more work is clearly needed, such as ensuring a summary of financial information to be included in the RIAs for each of the Bills that are introduced.

We also felt that a distinction must be made as to whether costs are capital or revenue, and that was key to recommendation 1. If I can just turn to the issue of transparency, during the passage of the Welsh Government's most recent budget, the evidence several committees received showed the problems in scrutinising proposed changes to grants, changes to budget lines and different calculations included to underline its supposed increase in funding to schools and social care. Those were issues that I raised during the draft budget and the final budget debate, and I hope that the Welsh Government will take them on board to make sure this process is as transparent as possible.

In terms of stakeholders, there was a wider concern—or, I should say, the implications for stakeholders were of a particular concern. They've been hit by higher charges due to issues within regulatory impact assessments. For instance, the committee heard that Residential Landlords Association members were hit by higher charges under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 than those initially outlined by the regulatory impact assessment. These changes, the RLA claimed in evidence, were made without notification, and furthermore, in relation to costing the Rent Smart Wales scheme, Cardiff council, which operates the scheme on behalf of the 22 local authorities, created its own financial model showing that the Welsh Government's RIA had overestimated the total number of landlords in Wales. So, that was one issue that was highlighted by our inquiry. One of the recommendations regarding stakeholders is recommendation 5, and that's that the Welsh Government should thoroughly consider the financial implications for all stakeholders in RIAs, including ensuring that the financial implications for the private sector are fully considered. Not always straightforward but, we felt, very important.

I'm also disappointed—the Chair's already mentioned this—that the Welsh Government has rejected recommendation 10, recommending that summary information in RIAs contain explicit reference to how any costs identified in the assessment will be funded, and by whom. Whilst I see what the Welsh Government is getting at by stating that this is a wider use of the RIA than originally anticipated and that this could pose complexities, well, yes, it is, it may be, but at the end of the day, we felt that this is a good way of bolstering RIAs, making them more meaningful and presenting that information in terms of the finance and the Bills that we feel is essential—it's certainly going to be helpful—in deciding whether that legislation is going to achieve its goals or not.

Simon Thomas also referred to issues that we addressed within the future generations legislation. If Steffan Lewis were here today, I'm sure that he'd be bouncing up and down in his seat and commenting at this point. He had his concerns about that legislation, and those are well versed. I would say if we can't get this right when it comes to more straightforward, simpler legislation, then when it comes to legislation as complex as the future generations Act, then there are going to be serious problems for this Assembly. So, let's look at ways that we can improve this process for legislation across the board.

I think it's welcome, in concluding, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the Welsh Government believes that there is scope to improve processes so that any errors or gaps in analysis are identified before a Bill is laid in front of the Assembly. I think we're all singing from the same hymn sheet on that one. We all want to make this process better. We want it to be an exemplary process that we follow through in the Assembly here, and one that people across the rest of the UK, and indeed the world, can look at and say, 'That's how they do it. We think that's better than the way that we do it. We want to get this right'.

So, I hope that the Welsh Government does take on board the implications. I'm pleased that you've accepted a number of the recommendations that we put forward. I'm sorry that you rejected one of those recommendations in particular, but I hope that the Welsh Government does look at ways that this process can be improved so that we can have a far better way of legislating in future.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the Finance Committee's report entitled 'Inquiry into the financial estimates accompanying legislation'. This is a hugely important topic, because money spent in implementing new legislation is money not available for current services. We sometimes debate here as if there's some sort of new money coming from somewhere—perhaps Theresa May's money tree—for new legislation. It isn't. It's coming off existing services. So, it is very important that the cost of all legislation is calculated. I think Nick Ramsay is absolutely right about capital and revenue, but we also need set-up costs on the revenue side, because there'll be revenue costs that will fall in the first year for set-up that won't occur in future years. Something that's worthwhile at £1 million may quite often become unaffordable at £1 billion. I greatly believe in two things: looking at opportunity cost and looking at cost-benefit analysis. When you're spending money on one thing, you're losing the opportunity cost of spending it on something else.

The committee recommends that the Welsh Government should ensure that the RIAs are explicit in their division between cash costs and savings and monetised costs. This is important to distinguish between cash and non-cash savings. An example of where a Bill went wrong is the additional learning needs Bill, where the non-cash savings, in this case volunteer time, were counted as a cash saving. Whilst volunteer time may be used in the community for other community good, its cost cannot be taken into account when calculating the net cost of a Bill. This severely distorted the cost savings of the Bill. This affected the net cost of the Bill. The cost then had to be recalculated. The resultant cash costs were substantially higher. Also, it is important to identify who the costs are going to fall on, who is going to pay for it, and where the benefits will accrue. I think we really do need, when we're passing legislation—. And we pass legislation because it's good, but would we pass some legislation that is very good, but it's going to mean that something that we feel equally or more strongly about is not going to be able to be done because the money's just been spent on this?

The committee recommended that the Welsh Government thoroughly consider the financial implications for all stakeholders in regulatory impact assessments, including ensuring that the financial implications of the private sector are considered. We passed a piece of legislation in the last Assembly where the cost fell on the public sector and the benefits were in the private sector, but I think that it's important that we identify who are the winners and losers. There is always a danger in creating legislation that it will create additional demand for service, a sort of latent demand. In fact, just talking about it here, getting it on the BBC and in the Western Mail will create additional demand for services that people may not have known they were able to get.

I would like to highlight recommendation 7, where the committee recommended that where there are changes in the RIAs after Stage 2, the Member in charge should provide to the Finance Committee and the relevant scrutiny committee a summary of these changes, including the financial implications. This takes me back to the first point: there is a danger that, once a Bill has passed Stage 1, it has something called momentum, and it's going forward, and everybody's in favour of it. Because with most Bills here, there's a bit of an argument over them, but most people think the general thrust of them is a good idea and it's going to make things better. And it's considered value for money when it's costing £5 million or £10 million, but once the cost escalates at Stage 2, that momentum is driving it forward. Everybody's behind it, and even those people who are going to vote against it and are critical of it are critical of bits of it, but actually like the general idea of it. So, what would not have got through Stage 1 with the correct legislative costs now keeps going forward. The cost increases, but it becomes difficult to stop going forward with legislation. How much would legislation have to increase before we actually took a stand at Stage 2 to say the Government should withdraw it, or we as an Assembly say, 'Look, this is getting too expensive'? I think that is why it needs to go to a committee: for us to look at it dispassionately. There's a need to have people outside Government to re-examine, at both the subject committee and the Finance Committee.

I also accept that producing cost and cost saving for legislation is complicated, often needing a detailed understanding of the service and how it is funded and who uses it. Realistically, costs and savings will be in a range based upon assumptions that have been made. I have always believed—not that I've got much support among other people—that we should actually have a range of costs and a range of savings being published, and the mid point being used in calculations, because that's actually what people must be doing. They're making assumptions and they're saying, 'Well, we'll take 50 per cent of that, and 75 per cent of that'. This will allow those considering legislation a better insight into costs and benefits. Finally, stating the obvious, if costs are higher than expected and savings are less, other services, which many of us rely on, will have less money.

As one who isn’t a member of the Finance Committee, may I thank the committee and the Chair for their work? I think the Chair was a little hard on himself, suggesting that this isn’t the most exciting debate. Certainly, it won’t be the least exciting today. But I was excited by reading the report and looking at the recommendations, because of, as he’s mentioned, the experiences with the additional learning needs Bill, which is an Act now.

What’s summarised in the report and the recommendations that emerged from that report speak directly to some of the problems and frustrations that we as a Children, Young People and Education Committee had in scrutinising that particular Bill, particularly some of the recommendations around the regulatory impact assessments in terms of securing the quality of the assessment, that there should be a draft RIA as part of the consultation and the process of creating legislation, and this important role that stakeholders play, and that we need to improve the engagement of stakeholders in identifying the costs that may emerge as a result of legislation. That’s all important, and it’s all very pertinent to our practical experience of scrutinising this Bill.

It’s ironic that I’m raising these issues on the day that the Bill gets Royal Assent, but there we go. Because it’s only through Stage 1 scrutiny of that Bill that many of the weaknesses and the financial errors emerged, in terms of that particular piece of legislation. Originally, the Government had identified savings over four years of £4.8 million. Now, it became apparent, later on in the process, that there were no savings at all, but there were costs of almost £8 million, and that’s a difference of £12 million. Therefore, that actually lifted the curtain on some of the problems that are part of this process, and some of those problems that we need to guard against, in light of the recommendations made by the Finance Committee.

That also meant, of course, that we’d had to discuss and vote on Stage 1 of that Bill with the original RIA off the table, to all intents and purposes, as it was redrafted, and then we had to defer the financial decision, which was to take place after the vote on Stage 1. It wasn’t possible then to deal with Stage 2 amendments until those financial issues had been settled. And we did that just 24 hours before we sat down to vote on amendments at Stage 2, so it was a very confused process, and it didn’t provide the clarity that I would want to see and that we would all want to see in scrutinising legislation in this place, which would allow us all to be confident that the process was robust and engender confidence, not only here in the Chamber, but among the stakeholders and the wider public too.

You could argue that it’s not possible to guard against all possible scenarios. We’re all human of course, and mistakes will inevitably happen at times. You could also argue that the Children, Young People and Education Committee had done its job in scrutinising the Bill, and had highlighted some of these questions that led to the redrafting of the figures around that particular Bill. I, myself, would agree with that. It’s all valid and it’s all possible, but it’s also reasonable for us to all expect that everything possible should be done to avoid such a situation in the first place, and it’s also reasonable for us all to expect that lessons will be learned if these errors are made—that they should not be repeated in future.

That’s why I do welcome the Finance Committee’s report and the recommendations made in the report. I also welcome the fact that the Government has accepted most of the recommendations, although they have only accepted in principle the most relevant recommendation from my point of view, namely this issue of engagement with stakeholders in drawing up the costs. So, I thank the committee for casting light on the weaknesses of the process, and thank you for providing solutions, very specific solutions, to some of those problems. May I encourage the Government, as I’m sure they will, to respond positively and to accept all the recommendations, but certainly to learn the lessons from those recommendations?

Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance? Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very grateful to the committee for the report and for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. The Welsh Government acknowledges that we need an assessment of the financial implications and that that should be transparent and accessible so that the Assembly and stakeholders can effectively scrutinise new legislation.

As most Members who've taken part in the debate, Dirprwy Lywydd, have said, this is a relatively technical and specialist area, but genuinely important in making sure that we are able to provide the information that is necessary to allow Members of the National Assembly and those who take an interest in particular pieces of legislation to be able to understand the implications of the legislation that comes before this Chamber. 

The intention when developing a regulatory impact assessment is always to present as full and as detailed an assessment as is possible, given the available evidence. This includes consideration of the costs and benefits associated with cultural change and with the aspirations of legislation, although as was acknowledged during evidence sessions, it is not always necessarily straightforward to quantify those costs and benefits. In the future, we will seek a proper balance between the need to present a monetised assessment of costs and the risks of presenting incorrect or misleading figures.  

While the financial assessment will consider the impact on all groups, I want to reassure Assembly Members and the point raised by Mike Hedges that particular attention is paid to the potential impact of legislation on private businesses in Wales, and whether the proposals have a detrimental impact, potentially, on the competitiveness of Welsh firms. 

Now, the Welsh Government believes that the Treasury Green Book and Standing Order requirements provide a suitable framework for preparing RIAs. Here in Wales, however, we also deploy the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 in developing the policies we pursue and the policy options we consider. As a result, and as Simon Thomas noted, a project is under way within Welsh Government to develop an integrated approach to impact assessments, using the framework provided by the well-being of future generations Act. The purpose of that is not to reduce important assessments, but to try to make sure that the sum of them is more than just the component parts. While RIAs are not within the scope of that project, they will be informed by the results of the integrated impact assessment. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, at the end of the fourth Assembly and in response to the publication of the 'Making Laws in Wales' report and the previous Finance Committee's legacy inquiry, the Welsh Government committed to review the development and presentation of the financial impact, and there is a significant overlap between the committee's recommendations and the work undertaken and in progress within Welsh Government to strengthen RIAs as a result of those previous pieces of work. The latest version of the legislation handbook on Assembly Bills, which was published in August of last year, includes a chapter setting out revised guidance on developing a regulatory impact assessment. It includes a number of changes aimed at improving the clarity and accessibility of RIAs.

The Welsh Government economists have developed a standard summary table to be included at the start of each RIA, as Nick Ramsay suggested. That summary table, which has been used in the explanatory memorandum for each Bill introduced during the fifth Assembly, has been designed to present clearly all of the information required in Standing Orders. And in a point that Mike Hedges raised, the guidance has been revised in response to concerns that the presentation of monetised benefits alongside cash costs could be misleading. 

Finally, the guidance has been strengthened to make it clear that the RIA for a Bill should, as far as practicable, include a best estimate of the costs of any associated subordinate legislation. I was grateful to hear members of the Finance Committee, including its Chair, noting the evidence from stakeholders, reflected in the committee's own report, in acknowledging that as a result of that earlier work, presentation of RIAs has improved during the fifth Assembly. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm not going to be able to deal with all the recommendations in the Finance Committee's report either. I want to draw attention to a small number, if I could, dealing first of all with the issue of stakeholder engagement, which a number of Members have highlighted. The evidence given by stakeholders to the inquiry was clear that in the past there had not always been sufficient stakeholder engagement when developing an RIA, and where there had been engagement it had often come late in the process.

The Welsh Government recognises that stakeholder engagement is essential and the revised guidance sets out a more clearly defined, staged approach to the development of an RIA, one part of which is the inclusion of a draft RIA as part of the consultation exercise. And that is intended to respond to points that both Simon Thomas and Nick Ramsay have made this afternoon in providing an opportunity for stakeholders to engage in the process and to provide additional or alternative information before we get to that final analytical point. Linking the publication of a draft RIA to the consultation process is intended to ensure engagement takes place at the early stage of the policy-making process. The publication of a draft RIA is expected to become the norm in the future.

I turn to the issue of financial implications, and this is another issue that the report focuses upon in the inclusion of financial implications in the post-implementation review of legislation. I set out in the Government's response that the legislation handbook on Assembly Bills has been revised and now includes financial considerations as one of the issues to be considered in any post-implementation period. The shared view on how the financial estimates accompanying legislation can be strengthened and improved is reflected in our response to the committee's recommendations. I simply repeat what I said in that document that the one recommendation we felt unable to accept is the recommendation that RIAs be extended to consider how any costs identified in the analysis will be funded and by whom, and that's because the RIA is a value-for-money assessment and to consider how any cost will be funded goes beyond the purpose and design of that assessment. It's not to say that matters of funding and affordability are unimportant—far from it—it is simply that funding and affordability are considered during different parts of the development of legislation and are included as part of any financial resolution. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I wanted to end by providing—

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Yes, of course.

On that specific point—because I did mention the fact you'd rejected that recommendation. I do take the Welsh Government's point on why you didn't find that recommendation acceptable, but would you at least undertake to look at ways that the process can be bolstered so that those issues of funding and affordability, whilst I understand they're being looked at in other areas, are brought together somehow, so that it's not just left to different aspects of this process and that there is a concerted look? If the RIA is not going to give that focus to it then perhaps there are other ways it can be done. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm perfectly happy to look at that issue. As I said, the reason we didn't accept the recommendation is we didn't think the RIA was the best place to do that. It's not to say that we wouldn't be willing to look at other ways in which that issue could be pursued.

Dirprwy Lywydd, if you'd allow me, I'll just end by just setting out for Members some of the ways in which we plan to take these recommendations further forward. Officials are revising the RIA guidance as a result of the committee's report and will be amending it accordingly. I know that they have already been discussing the report with policy teams working on current legislative proposals. My officials will also be looking at the quality assurance processes currently employed by policy departments and the way in which the costs of legislation are recorded and monitored to see where the process can be improved.

I intend to write to my Cabinet colleagues to ensure that they are fully aware of the issues raised in the report as they take forward pieces of legislation for which they are responsible. I will also be writing to the First Minister to ask that the recommendations in the report are considered in the state of readiness discussion held before each Bill is laid and in a committee that the First Minister himself chairs.

I hope, Dirprwy Lywydd, Members will see that the Government has wanted to respond very positively to the report, thinks that it has made a very useful contribution to thinking on this issue, and that we will be looking for practical ways in which we can take advantage of the advice that it has provided.

Thank you. I call on the Chair of the committee, Simon Thomas, to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to everyone who contributed to the debate. I think even though it's a very technical debate, the fact that we have brought it to the floor of the Chamber is important because it deals with the Bills that all of us are involved in. I'm particularly pleased that it's given Llyr Gruffydd an opportunity to express his experience from another perspective, from another committee, and I think there are a number of things that Llyr spoke about that underline why we need this kind of report on some of the recommendations that we've made.

I won't repeat too much of the debate. I simply want to pick up a couple of themes that I think were quite important and to thank Nick Ramsay and Mike Hedges also for participating in the debate. I think what we really want to see, at least conceive of, is that it would be possible for a Bill to be supported at Stage 1 here—for all parties to support it, potentially—but by the time it got to Stage 2, by the time we've gone through this process, by the time amendments have been made and changes have been made and more understanding has been gained, it would be conceivable not to proceed with that Bill because the cost-benefit analysis had changed. I think we need to at least provide Assembly Members with enough tools and information to allow them to make that judgment. We should at all stages of the—this is why we have stages, if I may say so, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is possible not to proceed with a Bill after certain stages. Once it goes past Stage 1, it doesn't mean it's on some kind of rollercoaster and must go to the end. It is possible, because we have these stages, to reconsider the nature of a Bill. That would clearly—well, probably—be a Bill that hadn't gone through the right process at some stage, but we must at least make sure that our processes are robust enough to allow that to happen, and indeed to allow new facts to emerge that change the way we look at the Bill.

The Additional Learning Needs and Educational Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018, as it is now, is a very good example of where that could have happened. It didn't in the end because, I think, to be frank, the other issue that the Government does not accept as part of the RIA—and I see where the Government is coming from, but of course in the case of that Bill, as it was then, the Government had made a financial commitment, not in the RIA but a general policy financial commitment, which overcame any doubts that people had around the details of the financial detail of the Bill.

The second theme that I think is important to remember is that, although this is a Finance Committee report and recommendation and a Finance Committee debate with a little additional input, it really underlines how important stakeholder involvement is in preparing our Bills. [Inaudible.]—says a tap on the back; I was saying we had a rod for my own back earlier on, but a tap on the back now. Having been elsewhere and looked at Bills, we do things better here. Bills that begin in the Assembly have more information around them, more impact analysis, more understanding of the financial impact than a Bill that would go through Westminster, for example. So, we are able to use that in a way that enriches our stakeholder consultation, the way they come in—and other committees as well, as with Llyr's example. Other committees are feeding in; it's not just the Finance Committee that should be looking at that aspect of the Bill.

Can I just conclude by thanking the Cabinet Secretary, certainly for accepting just about every one of the recommendations? I understand why he's not persuaded of the one, although that's something to keep under review in terms of understanding who picks up the costs, but I particularly want to thank him for setting out today how he's taken these recommendations through the process, the internal process, of Welsh Government. A state of readiness sounds like an appropriate way to think of any Bill that's presented to this Assembly, and I hope that this report has helped inform and ensure that any Bill presented is in a state of readiness and is ready to be debated by the whole legislature.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.