– in the Senedd at 4:58 pm on 13 March 2018.
The next item is the motion to approve the financial resolution in respect of the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.
Motion NDM6687 Julie James
To propose that the National Assembly for Wales, for the purposes of any provisions resulting from the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill, agrees to any increase in expenditure of a kind referred to in Standing Order 26.69, arising in consequence of the Bill.
Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Members will have noted from the regulatory impact assessment the current uncertainty regarding the administrative and other costs of the Bill. The Bill operates to preserve EU law by way of regulations made by Welsh Ministers. It is simply not possible, in the uncertain circumstances in which we find ourselves, to quantify accurately the volume of the secondary legislation required, the costs of the corrections of the deficiencies, and the nature and impact of new UK legislation and frameworks. We have therefore decided to follow the position on uncertainty regarding costs taken by the UK Government in relation to the EU withdrawal Bill and the Scottish Government in relation to its continuity Bill.
There will be administrative costs that fall to us, Llywydd, that arise irrespective of whether it is the EU withdrawal Bill or the LDEU Bill that delivers legal continuity in relation to Wales. These costs are an inevitable outcome of the decision to leave the European Union and I think we have no choice but to bear them, if that decision is to be implemented in an orderly way. I hope that Members will support the financial resolution this afternoon.
Will the Cabinet Secretary give way?
Yes, by all means.
That's very generous of you, Cabinet Secretary.
Thank you. It's just on this point: you've set out that these costs would happen whether we take the Westminster route or this route. There are administrative costs for the Welsh Government in preparing for what people have voted for, so that's fine, but have you been able to ascertain at all whether the option in this Bill is actually a more expensive option or a different costed option to that that would arise from the EU withdrawal Bill? And in terms of—I'm sure the Conservatives want to save public money, would it not be more appropriate, therefore, for the cheapest and most effective option using public resources to be followed in all cases?
I think that's a principle we'd be happy to endorse. Llywydd, the answer takes me back to a point that David Rees raised in his original contribution, which is that while this Bill allows us to transpose the whole of EU derived Welsh law through the vehicle of this Bill, it doesn't require us to do that. And if there were examples where it was more cost-effective to allow the UK to legislate on our behalf because it was uncontroversial and we had no difficulty with what was being proposed, I could imagine coming back to the floor of this Assembly to seek people's agreement to that. Where that is not possible, however, we would then have a vehicle that would allow us to do things, and we would do it in the most cost-effective way possible.
There are no other speakers. I take it that the Cabinet Secretary doesn't want to reply to himself. And as voting on the general principles of this Bill has been deferred until voting time, I will defer the vote also on the financial resolution until voting time.