My thanks, at the opening, to my fellow committee members, and our clerking team as well, for their diligence and scrutiny. We may be few, but we are mighty in our deliberations.

Llywydd, the memorandum that was laid before the Senedd was, in our view, poorly drafted. The Bill that was originally introduced to the UK Parliament was indeed an England-only Bill, and the Minister petitioned the UK Government, we understand, and asked for the Bill's application to be extended to Wales. Now, for us, the key fact is that this is not included in the explanatory memorandum. The Minister told us that this was because it was background information and, by implication, did not need to be included, but as a committee, Minister, we respectfully but very strongly disagree, because in the interests of openness and transparency of Government decision making, particularly in aspects like this where we have England-and-Wales legislation, it is important. It's a pertinent issue to be drawn to the attention of the Senedd as part of its consideration on the matter of consent. And in such circumstances where the timescales may prevent effective scrutiny by Senedd committees, the Senedd would be asked to consider and vote without being in full receipt of all the facts. Such circumstances we do not think are acceptable, and we'd like to see improvement in this, so that the explanatory memorandum on this or on other LCMs brought forward are more fulsome and entire and complete.

We asked the Minister to explain to Senedd Members how, when, and why the request was put in that the England-only Bill was amended so that its application was extended to Wales. We note the explanation in the opening remarks, but again we just think there could be more clarity, a more fulsome explanation, so that Senedd Members here can consider this, not simply our committee.

Now, at this point I'd also like to highlight that the Minister has not formally responded to our report. We recognise that the Minister sent a letter out to all Members yesterday, which indeed addressed two specific recommendations in our report. However, Minister, our committee must offer a gentle reminder that a letter from the Minister is not a formal Welsh Government response to the report of a Senedd committee.

So, with regard to the Minister's reasons for making provision for Wales in the Bill, we've got two primary concerns. Firstly, the memorandum states that the Bill, and I quote,

'would ensure that the treatment of appeals in Wales aligns with that in England'.

In our view, as a committee, this reasoning may well imply that the position for England is the norm and the default position. We believe that the guiding principle should be a solution that meets the needs of those in Wales affected by the legislation, and we'd be happy to hear from the Minister that this is not the intention, whether implied or more explicit, of Welsh Government. Secondly, whilst we acknowledge the Minister's view that, by making provision for Wales in the Bill, in quotes,

'Welsh ratepayers would be treated in a consistent manner', it is unclear whether the Minister would, and should, make exactly the same provision for Welsh ratepayers through a Welsh Bill given that such provisions have not been tested with these stakeholders. 

I'd like to briefly discuss the regulations I mentioned at the start of my contribution, particularly as they are subject to the negative procedure and will not naturally find themselves before this Chamber. I'm grateful to the Minister for agreeing to our recommendation that these regulations were mentioned today. Although not mentioned in the memorandum, we were aware of a statement issued by the Minister in July in which she said that regulations would be forthcoming that will have a similar effect to the provisions to be included in the UK Bill until such time as the Bill becomes law. That's quite clear. On 19 October, we wrote to the Minister to ask about their whereabouts. Now, these regulations were eventually laid before the Senedd at 9.00 a.m. on 1 November and they came into force at 6.00 p.m. on the same day. Now, that is a somewhat extreme example of a breach of the 21-day rule, especially as the Welsh Government, we understand, knew that they wanted to make these regulations more than three months before.

We wrote separately to the Minister on these regulations, and the Minister did respond over the weekend, for which we are very grateful. However, Minister, I would simply say that the committee feels that noting our concerns is not a wholly satisfactory response; we would've liked a more fulsome explanation, which we think would have been more appropriate and helpful. The Minister's letter to us also highlights some other issues that we may pursue with her further.

Llywydd, my apologies for going slightly over, but finally, on inter-governmental working, the Minister told us that the Bill was introduced into the UK Parliament without prior discussion with the Welsh Government as to whether provisions for Wales should be included. This is very concerning in and of itself. It raises an important point. Given that the UK Government acknowledges that this matter is fully devolved, it is unclear whether the Minister is suggesting that the UK Government should now routinely consult the Welsh Government to see whether it wants legislative provisions in a UK Bill. Such a position would, in our committee's view, be unsatisfactory. Diolch, Llywydd.