Item 8 is next, and this is a legislative consent motion on the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualifications (Dissolved Companies) Bill. I call on the Minister for finance to move the motion—Rebecca Evans. 

Motion NDM7837 Rebecca Evans

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 29.6, agrees that provisions in the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill, in so far as they fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion. I am very grateful to both the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee for considering and reporting on the memorandum. Neither committee identified an impediment to the Senedd agreeing to the legislative consent motion. I note the helpful points raised by both committees, and I've written to Members prior to today's debate providing clarification on the matters that were raised. 

The UK Government introduced the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualifications (Dissolved Companies) Bill on 12 May to provide that matters attributable to COVID-19 could not be considered for the purpose of non-domestic rates appeals citing a material change of circumstances. Provisions in the Bill applying to Wales will prevent such appeals, both prospectively and retrospectively, with immediate effect from the date of Royal Assent. On 1 November, I laid the Valuation for Rating (Wales) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021, which commenced later that day. Those regulations have the effect of prospectively preventing material change of circumstances appeals citing COVID-19 related matters. The Bill acts as a suitable vehicle to prevent such appeals, both prospectively and retrospectively. The provisions in the Bill supersede the regulations, and I intend to revoke the regulations, following the passage of the Bill, to ensure legislative clarity. The primary reason for limiting appeals of this kind is that the wider economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will be considered as part of the next non-domestic rates revaluation in April 2023. In the interim, the Welsh Government has provided an extensive package of support to businesses and other rate payers to help them through the pandemic.

The Bill also provides clarity for rate payers in Wales during these uncertain times. I believe these provisions fall within the legislative competence of this Senedd. However, I am content that these provisions should be made in a UK Bill. There is an imminent risk to public finances that requires expedient action to clarify the situation. This could not be effected through primary legislation in this Senedd within the required timescale. This is a short Bill to effect a change that provides certainty within the non-domestic rating appeal system and for local government funding in Wales, and I ask the Senedd to approve this legislative consent motion.

I now call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. 

We reported on the memorandum last week. We also reported on the Valuation for Rating (Wales) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2021, which are also relevant to this afternoon’s debate.

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.

May I start by saying that I agree entirely with the comments made by the committee Chair? And I thank him and the clerking team for all the work that they do. May I also say that this is a concern not only for your department, Minister, but for many other departments within Government? And I and other members of the committee have huge concerns about the LCM process as it undermines us as an institution here in the Senedd. May I also start by echoing the comments made by the Chair that it's disappointing that we haven't received a formal response to the committee's report? This should have happened before today, and I do very much hope that we will receive a formal response in due time.

But, as so many LCMs appear before the sixth Senedd, not responding formally does nothing to promote real scrutiny in this place. I am truly concerned that there are too many LCMs being passed without sufficient scrutiny of the impact that they will have on the devolution settlement, and through that, on this institution itself. Certainly, we shouldn't expect Members to vote on LCMs without one of the committees scrutinising the Bill receiving a full response to its report.

The committee has asked a series of important questions, not to be awkward, Minister, not to ask questions for the sake of asking questions, but because that is the role of the committee, and it's the duty of the Minister to answer those questions, especially when using the LCM system that bypasses the full scrutiny of the Senedd.

The history of the Bill, as mentioned by the Chairman of the committee, is interesting to say the least. When the Bill was first introduced, it extended to England only. The Minister asked the UK Government to extend the Bill to Wales—a fact, as the Chairman said, not drawn attention to in the memorandum. Now, the UK Government acknowledged that this matter is fully devolved. But, the Welsh Government says, as a criticism, that the UK Government didn't consult with them before introducing the Bill. I'm sure you don't mean this, but this, Minister, seems to suggest that the UK Government should routinely ask the Welsh Government before introducing a Bill that extends only to England that is within the devolved Welsh powers. This approach is completely inconsistent with what the Counsel General has given us—the guidance as to when the LCM should be used. Really, it is completely inconsistent with devolution itself.

Why is the UK Government expected to consult with the Welsh Government in introducing a Bill that relates to England only, in an area that is devolved to Wales? It's the role of the Welsh Parliament to pass legislation in devolved areas. It's not the role of the Westminster Government to consult with the Welsh Government as to whether they want to include something in a Westminster Bill.

The Minister's comments about the Bill aligning with England further undermine devolution by suggesting, as the Chair mentioned, that following England is the norm. With the Westminster Government flexing its muscular unionism, with us here hearing, quite correctly, time after time, from Welsh Ministers of the impact that the Westminster Government is having on the devolution settlement, I cannot fathom that approach by the Welsh Government. This Government, the Welsh Government, won a Senedd election by showing the Welsh public that following England was not the norm, and that by doing things differently in Wales, things can be done better.   

Welsh provisions have been added to this Bill without any opportunity for real scrutiny in this place. This also means that the Bill will not be bilingual, that it will not form a part of Welsh law—and in that regard, it is less accessible and confuses the devolved settlement further. It's also contrary to the Government's own principles.

In addition, the stopgap regulation laid on 1 November coming to force that very same day—. As the Chair said, we all appreciate that there need to be breaches of the 21-day rule. But, there are breaches and there are breaches—laid at 9 a.m. and enforced by 6 p.m. This was made over seven months after the regulation was introduced in England. This is not good law making, Minister. We can do better here in Wales. We must do better here in Wales.

In promoting the development of this institution in taking on more powers, one of the strongest arguments that we can make is that we can do things better here in Wales than is done in Westminster. This is not good practice in drafting law in Wales. And for those reasons, we, as Plaid Cymru, will not be voting in favour of this LCM. Thank you. 

The Minister to reply to the debate—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. I would just like to begin by correcting the Chair and the member of the committee. I did respond to the committee's correspondence, dated 16 November, with a letter on 20 November. We did have confirmation of receipt from the committee as well, so I'm not sure how that has not reached members of the committee.FootnoteLink 

But, just for clarity, I did say in writing that, although non-domestic rates policy is devolved, there are elements of the rating system that, in practice, operate across Wales and England. Valuation and, in turn, the initial processing of appeals, falls under this categorisation, and the Valuation Office Agency is the body responsible for those matters across Wales and England.

The Welsh Government's intention in addressing this matter was to achieve a collaborative approach with that of the UK Government. We have made frequent calls for communication and co-operation in reaching a consensus on a suitable approach. Unfortunately, this cohesive approach has not proven possible, and the Welsh Government wasn't sighted—as we've discussed—on the UK Government's intentions until announcements had been made. In addition, the sharing of relevant data from the VOA has been limited, adversely impacting appropriate and timely policy development for Wales.

Welsh policy on devolved matters is set in Wales, although it is also recognised that the interconnected nature of certain policy and operational matters across Wales and England means that, for the sake of certainty, it is sometimes better to adopt an aligned approach, and, in this instance, given the impact on businesses and other ratepayers in both Wales and England, and the fact that subsequent business support is linked to the passing of the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill, an aligned approach better enables the use of financial levers that are, to a lesser extent, within the Welsh Government’s devolved arsenal. So, that summarises what I said to the committee over the weekend, which did respond to the concerns of the committee, so perhaps that should be better taken up with the clerk of the committee.

But I just would finish by saying that the non-domestic rates system provides vital revenue for funding local government services, and clarity over the appeal system ensures certainly for public finances and for ratepayers. And we've sought to offset the negative impacts of the pandemic through our package of business support, and market conditions relating to these appeals will be considered as part—

Correction from the Minister for Finance and Local Government

Will you take an intervention, Minister, from Huw Irranca-Davies?

Yes, I will.

—as part of the 2023 revaluation.

Llywydd, thank you very much. A brief intervention, Minister. We will check the records of correspondence and whether the questions have been answered or not, and we’ll get back to you. If it’s an error on our part, we’ll take that on the chin, but we want to check that and come back so that the record is accurate. But we take the points made by the Minister, and, Llywydd, for accuracy of the record in this Senedd Chamber, we’ll come back if we need to correct anything.

Okay. Minister to continue.

So, I would just conclude, Llywydd, by committing to continue to update Members on our ongoing work looking at the reforming of the non-domestic rates system here in Wales. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. A slightly late objection, but it did arrive just in time. So, I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.