Diolch, Llywydd, I so move. The first two amendments in this group have arisen from the recommendations put forward by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's report—namely, recommendation 7. Amendments 5 and 13 put a requirement on Welsh Ministers to lay directions that are issued under section 5, those regarding constitutional and structural changes, and section 14, regarding certain disposals of land by RSLs, to put such directions before the Assembly within 14 days of that direction being given.

These first two amendments of group 2, in my view, Llywydd, are very significant. Under sections 5 and 14 of the Bill, as it currently stands, Welsh Ministers have the power to issue directions to RSLs regarding the technical and practical aspects of any notifications issued by the RSLs to the Welsh Ministers, in relation to constitutional or structural changes to RSLs, or in relation to disposal of land. Given the importance of the directions and these amendments, the failure to comply with them would result in possible enforcement or penalty notice. To aid transparency, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee agreed that it would be appropriate to see any such direction laid before the National Assembly within 14 days of that direction being given. At Stage 2, the Minister stated that the scope of the directions under these sections would be, and I quote:

'limited...administrative in nature and will not contain substantive provisions.'

And that she would be, and I quote:

'more than happy to give a commitment that directions given under the new provisions will be published on the Welsh Government’s website'.

Well, I have to say, Llywydd, that I think appearing on the Welsh Government's website is a marvellous thing, but I do think that it should be something that should be published or come to the Assembly as well, within two weeks. I do not think that is in any way an onerous obligation on the Government. In such a scheme of deregulation, necessary as it is, we should not get complacent. I don't think these are merely technical issues. When you look at issues like the disposal of land, if things go askew and off track, bad practices emerge, and it's going to be on something like that. However vigilant the Government intends to be, we need double assurance, and it's our job to scrutinise that. 

Llywydd, the final two amendments in this group put in place a requirement that the Assembly should conduct post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill within a two to four-year period after the day upon which the Bill would receive Royal Assent to become an Act. Specifically, amendment 19 provides that a committee of the Assembly would undertake a review of the Act's operation and, if appropriate, in consequence of its findings, make recommendations for the repeal or amendment of the Act and publish said findings and recommendations. Amendment 2 is a consequential amendment to amendment 19 and will entail the changing of the overview section of the Bill, should the amendment be agreed.

This amendment stems from a recommendation of the sub-committee that did the detailed scrutiny and the consultation, and issued the report, and then endorsed in full committee later when the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee received the sub-committee's report. During our deliberations within the sub-committee, we all concluded that post-legislative scrutiny was vital in this case, just because it is an act of deregulation in such an important area involving tenants—firstly, to ensure that the rights of tenants are safeguarded and, secondly, so that RSLs are not disposing of land and assets in a way unanticipated by Government. I think that's really important—how the new scheme operates and being able to reflect on how fit for purpose the legislation is in the light of actual practice, and that, therefore, would benefit from post-legislative scrutiny.

In the Minister's initial written response to the sub-committee's report, it was very welcome to hear that the Minister said, and I quote:

'I would welcome the opportunity for the Welsh Government to be involved in any post-legislative scrutiny process as appropriate.'

End quote. At this stage, we rub our hands and think, 'At last, we've made some progress; there's been a significant shift and, really, the point about this being seen as an act of deregulation is being grasped'. Alas, during Stage 2, we saw a complete volte-face on the part of the Minister, and she argued that, I quote:

'This amendment would restrict the ability of the Assembly to decide how it should prioritise its resources in the future, potentially into the next Assembly term.'

End quote. Llywydd, we are, of course, used to the Executive jealously guarding the privileges of the legislature, so I praise that type of mindset, but I do think it's misfired in this case, and, in fact, I think it's mere sophistry. Firstly, on the argument of tying a future Assembly, if this Bill is enacted soon, as is every expectation, we have three years in which to conduct that post-legislative scrutiny, and the window of two to four years would obviously be open to us, and we could complete this work ourselves. So, it would not be necessarily us binding anyone other than ourselves.

I have to say that the way legislatures operate is replete with obligations inevitably being created on the legislative arm of Government over significant areas—sunset clauses have the same effect in committing a legislature to future action, either to vote to maintain an Act or to end it—and that's an important principle. In fact, we place all sorts of duties on future Assemblies in the way they have to handle statutory instruments and introduce regulations that are agreed by the affirmative resolution procedure or the superaffirmative procedure, and this has, obviously, an impact on time, scale of work, et cetera. But, of course, in what we propose, a committee could be convened, do one session and decide, you know, that the Act is working magnificently, and nothing is therefore required. Given the weight of what could happen, and the importance of this Bill, I do not think that is in any way a burden—I think it is our bounden duty to ensure that what we put in place is going to be fully fit for purpose and we're crafting strong law.

Indeed, there is one actual example of a Welsh Act placing an obligation on a future Assembly, and that's the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2013, in respect of what type of employment future auditor generals can do, and publishing a list in relation to that.

Can I just say, the Law Commission themselves have stated, and I quote, that:

'Post-legislative scrutiny would translate into better regulation and into developing a more stringent focus on implementation'?

So, it clearly has that advantage. Can I also say, Llywydd, what an excellent piece of post-legislative scrutiny occurred on the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010? I regard that as a seminal piece of work, not least because it did pick up unanticipated consequences, which did need public policy to be adapted.

So, Llywydd, I think post-legislative scrutiny should be seen routinely in important areas of public policy as part of the legislative process. I think it's entirely appropriate, on occasion, to require either the current Assembly or a future Assembly to undertake that due diligence, and I therefore move the amendment.