Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I so move. Amendments 14, 15, 16 and 17, in group 5, are amendments to clarify that the regulation-making powers in this Bill are to make consequential amendments only. Amendment 18 is a further amendment to ensure that the regulation-making powers shall lapse when the ONS confirms that RSLs have been reclassified.

The explanatory note to the Bill states that section 18 provides that the Welsh Ministers may make consequential amendments for the purpose of giving full effect to any provisions set out in the Bill. Section 18(1) of the Bill contains a Henry VIII power, where regulations are used to amend primary legislation, and provides that the Welsh Ministers may make such provision, amending, repealing or revoking any enactment they consider appropriate in consequence of any provision made by or under the Bill, or for the purpose of giving full effect to any provision made by or under the Bill. Section 18(4) provides that, where regulations are made under section 18(1), which amend or repeal an Act or Measure of the Assembly, or an Act of the UK Parliament—i.e. when exercising the Henry VIII power—the power under section 18(1) would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Section 18(5) provides that, where any other regulations are made under section 18(1) they will be subject to the negative procedure.

During the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee scrutiny we asked why the affirmative procedure does not apply to all regulations made under section 18, regardless of whether they amend primary legislation, and the Minister told us that this section provides the power to make essentially consequential amendments, and that the approach taken is in line with the Counsel General's guidance. This is another argument between the Executive and the legislature. Much as I rate the Counsel General and the previous holders of that report, and venerate, indeed, to some extent their guidance, it's what we want and what CLAC has been setting out as best practice that we should aspire to. Indeed, in the sector there was some concern expressed about the approach the Government had taken. I refer again to UK Finance, who did express their concern that the proposed power in section 18 was too wide. They may have recanted under the encouragement of the Welsh Government, but that was what they originally said, and they did make the point, as I made earlier, that it wasn't just what people that had a high degree of knowledge of the sector would interpret, but it was in that wider circle of funders who could see this as too wide and interfering a power, and potentially not as rigorous, therefore, as a narrower approach. 

In a response to this amendment at Stage 2, the Minister first argued that it would be helpful to amend the heading of section 18 to indicate more clearly the narrower scope of the power. However, in reality this makes no difference whatsoever, as headings in legislation are for guidance only. What we need to see here is an amendment that's a lot more restrictive, and which does address the concerns of how broad the current powers are. The amendment that I've proposed restricts the scope of the power and uses the wording from the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Act 2018. I have to say, I'm not a great fan of that Act, but in terms of the way it's dealt with the regulatory powers it's a better model than the one the Minister's come up with. I have to say, I think it's fairly concerning that there are any Henry VIII powers in the Bill given the unusual nature of this Bill, but also that it is responding to a very particular issue in terms of ONS reclassification. So, anyway, amendment 18 in this group specifically rectifies these concerns about the open-endedness of these powers by restricting them or ending them once reassessment has been confirmed by ONS.

So, I think it's important that we look at regulation-making powers—there aren't many in this Bill, it has to be said—and have the best system available to us. We shouldn't allow, through this particular avenue, greater scope than is absolutely necessary, because what the Government thinks is consequential and necessary is not always what we think, and therefore more restrictive powers, given the ability of the executive to get its business, have to be justified here when we're dealing with the actual primary principle of this legislation. I therefore move.