We reported on the Bill on 15 November. We made three recommendations. Our first recommendation relates to the definition of the 'duty of candour'. Part 3 of the Bill makes provision for and about a duty of candour in respect of health services. While the Bill sets out the procedures to be followed when the duty of candour is triggered, it does not define on the face of the Bill what the duty of candour means. As a consequence, we took the view that citizens unfamiliar with such terminology may not understand how the legislation would affect them, so we recommended that the Minister should use this debate to explain why the definition of 'duty of candour' does not appear on the face of the Bill, and, in its absence, where citizens could find information about its meaning. I very much welcome the comments that have been made by the Minister in respect of the face of the Bill and the introduction of a commitment to the issue of statutory guidance in this area.

Our other two recommendations concern section 26. It provides the Welsh Ministers with the power to make regulations to make supplementary, incidental or consequential provision, or transitory, transitional or saving provisions. We expressed concern at the breadth of powers being taken by the Welsh Ministers under section 26, particularly when such powers can be used to amend or repeal primary legislation, and there is no clarity about if or how they will be used. In such circumstances, applying the affirmative procedure to these powers does not validate their use. Regulations cannot be amended and we do not consider that regulations capable of wide yet unspecified changes to primary legislation should be subject to a 'yes' or 'no' decision to approve or reject them.

On that basis, our second recommendation was that the Minister should use this debate to set out clearly and in detail how he intends to use the powers contained in section 26, and I note the comments by the Minister that he has no intention to use these powers to amend primary legislation. However, whilst we ask for clarity on how the Minister intends to use the powers, there's one change we would also like to see made, and that is under 26(1), the power to make regulations can be exercised where the Welsh Ministers consider it expedient or necessary for the purpose of the Act. Now, we have, as a committee, repeatedly expressed concerns about the use of the term 'expedient' and the use of similar terms when applied to regulation-making powers, and we drew attention to some of our previous reports that had done so. It remains our position that Welsh Ministers should adopt a more targeted approach, rather than taking the widest powers available to them. So, we believe that a regulation-making power should be taken for a clear purpose; drawing powers too widely always runs the risk of them being used in the future in ways that were not originally intended or anticipated when the Bill was introduced. So, we recommended that the Minister should table an amendment to the Bill to delete the words 'or expedient' from section 26(1).

I note the intention of the Minister to bring forward a replacement to use the term 'appropriate'. Now, the term 'appropriate' appears to be 'expedient rather than appropriate', and therefore 'not appropriate', and is, in our view, superfluous, and that the appropriate means of proceeding would be to actually delete it completely so that the section just reads that the Ministers have the power to make regulations when they consider it necessary for the purposes of the Act. Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.