Can I start by welcoming the publication of this draft legislation Bill, and also the consultation document and the period that will now be given to that consultation of nearly three months? I do think that these are profound matters and they need extensive consultation. I know that the Government will be very interested in the range of opinions that it hopes to receive back in this process. On this side of the Assembly, we completely share the aspiration to make our law more accessible. I think it is of overriding public interest that we do this, and I can think of few better tasks in terms of what we need to do in the technicalities of our law making—but, as to a new institution, a new Parliament, to really set the highest standards for the rest of the UK, potentially, in the way that we do this.

Needless complexity, without any doubt, undermines democratic accountability. We are currently in a system where much of the statute book cannot be understood by quite gifted lawyers. You need to have real expertise in a particular area of law to be able to interpret it, and this can hardly be good, I think, for the public space in which we hope many people with various interests who need to access the law at any one time can do so. Consolidation of the law is also highly desirable. Again, as a new institution—in fact, we are only seven years old as a Parliament, really—we can aim to have a statute book that is in much more rational, consolidated shape. I ought to remark that we have not done brilliantly so far. That's because it's not easy to consolidate. I do accept that. But, I still think, on the major areas, we should make that investment. For instance, on planning, we're about to see, but, in other areas of major pieces of public law, I think we should start to work through them and consolidate them. As the Counsel General noted, in other jurisdictions, they have met these aspirations, often at a time when they have inherited a large body of law as new legislatures. So, I think that's what we should do. I'm really pleased to note what's in the draft at the moment about the ability of a range of materials to help people understand the law, and the references you made to the website and the national archive, I think, are very important. For the interested layman, that's where they are really going to be able to have some sort of understanding.

I do need to ask a couple of questions, so can I do this in the spirit of an early consultation response, almost? I would like some clarification on the interpretation Act side of it. You are quite right: the Learned Society, for instance, a couple of years ago endorsed the need for an interpretation Act, particularly over bilingual legislation, but it would also allow us to modernise the 1978 Act. But, I think we need to know how any new Act here that the Assembly passes will sit with the 1978 Interpretation Act, because that will still be drawn on, as far as I can work out. Is the Counsel General attempting to set up separate principles of interpretation that would apply in Wales but currently not inherent in the 1978 Act? Can I just say also, in terms of the scope of what you're trying to do—? I turn to Schedule 1. Very important concepts such as land and a person are contained there. I just wonder if things of that magnitude should actually be in an interpretation Act, which is generally about common and technical terms. Is it not the case that some very powerful concepts actually do need to be interpreted by each Act we pass, so that they can be very tight and specific? I know that there's a bit of a dilemma in all this, but I would ask him to reflect on those two particular examples that stand out to me.

In terms of accessibility, I think we need a vision for how all this is going to help the, and I quote, ‘impenetrable mess' that is Welsh law. Now, where does that quote come from? Well, a much better source than me: Lord Lloyd-Jones, the Supreme Court judge. And if a Supreme Court judge tells us that the law at the moment is an impenetrable mess, we obviously need to ensure that what we pass now as a legislature—I think you’re right that, at some point, it will be recognised as a jurisdiction, but that’s still a sensitive issue—is rational, accessible and clear.

I think we need also to have an idea of how the code is going to work, as you’ve referred to other jurisdictions that have used this approach. But, you know, in practical circumstances, would we have a social care code? Would we have a healthcare code? Or would you try to sort of link those? Similarly, would there be a planning code and a different environmental code? There’s a lot of nuance in how you approach these things, and I think some sort of idea of how many codes or how comprehensive they’re going to be would be useful. And would laws that are contained in certain codes be able to grow outside those codes? Because, again, they do interrelate very, very often.

And finally, can I just say, in section 20—and this is an appeal as a former chairman of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee—? Section 20 deals with directions. They are very difficult to keep track of, ministerial directions, and I wonder if he has considered a formal and structured approach to their publication, along the lines of the approach that we currently have for statutory instruments. I think that would add greatly to the accessibility of Welsh law. Thank you.