That allows us to move on to item 8, which is the legislative consent motion on the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill. I call on the Minister to move the motion—Vaughan Gething.

Motion NNDM7948 Vaughan Gething 

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

Motion moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move the motion before us, and I'm recommending to Members of the Senedd that we consent to the legislative consent motion on the Bill. As Members will be aware, I did not recommend the Senedd should consent to the Bill as introduced in the legislative consent memorandum laid on 3 December last year. However, following extensive engagement with the UK Government, they have shifted their original position to one that brings this Bill to a point where I am able to recommend consent.

Crucially, the UK Government has tabled a set of amendments that provide that they must seek the consent of Welsh Ministers both to extend the moratorium period for Welsh business tenancies for the purposes of devolved provisions and to reapply devolved provisions in the Bill for Welsh business tenancies in relation to further periods of coronavirus-related business closures. Obviously, I hope that those further periods of coronavirus business closures would not be needed, but, should they be, then there are provisions now for the consent of Welsh Ministers being required. The amendments tabled by the UK Government also provide that the Welsh Ministers are able to exercise certain powers concurrently with the Secretary of State.

Because of these significant changes that we have negotiated, it's my view that the current draft Bill better respects the devolution settlement. I am grateful to the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their reports on the LCM on the Bill. I thank them for their comments and have written to both committees in response. A supplementary LCM was laid on 3 March, clarifying our position on the clauses that the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee noted, and I see the Chair sat behind me. 

While I regret the time it has taken to secure these genuinely hard-won concessions from the UK Government, it has meant that there was no time available to refer the supplementary LCM. I hope that, despite this, members of both committees and Members of the Senedd will share my judgment that what we've achieved is significant and allows us to move forward. The Bill will help business tenants and their landlords by giving them the clarity they need to plan ahead. It will ring-fence certain rent debts accrued by businesses that have been required to close during a period of the pandemic, it will provide protections for businesses, and it will also establish a system of binding arbitration, which a business tenant in the scope of the Bill or their landlord may refer to in the event that they're unable to agree a way forward in respect of certain rent debt. It's anticipated that an estimated 7,500 businesses across the UK were referred to the arbitration scheme, and I believe it is important that businesses in Wales should be able to benefit from the arbitration regime and the protections envisaged by the Bill. On that basis, with the progress made, I ask Members to give their consent to the motion on the Bill.

The Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Thanks again, Llywydd. We reported on the original legislative consent memorandum for this Bill last month. With memorandum No. 2 only being laid late last week, my committee was only in a position to note its arrival yesterday, but no more than that. 

Llywydd, with your invitation, I've spoken as Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee in debates on legislative consent motions in each of the past four weeks. People are getting tired of hearing from me now. Indeed, since the start of the new term in January, I've spoken on such motions during six of the eight Tuesday sittings. The reason I mention that I'm here on behalf of the committee and this Senedd on a weekly basis is because this is somewhat unprecedented. Perhaps we'll need to get used to this intensity of UK Bills for the foreseeable future. In which case, I do apologise to Members for my legislative ubiquity. I don't expect the Minister, necessarily, to address the issue of the volume of LCMs that we're approaching, but it is worth noting.

Our report on the original memorandum was short, and my comments this afternoon will also be quite succinct. The single recommendation in the report that we brought forward relates to good law making. This is where I want to test the Minister a little bit more this afternoon. In the original memorandum for this Bill, the Minister told the Senedd that

'there is little evidence to suggest whether or not unpaid rent debt from business tenancies is a large scale issue in Wales'.

That was quite clear. While it's not our committee's role to necessarily comment on the policy objectives behind legislative proposals, we had to ask, for from our perspective, the question: why then pursue executive powers for Welsh Ministers in a UK Bill when there is no clear evidence that new powers are needed here in Wales? It's the basis of good law making. So, Minister, whilst I welcome, indeed, you responding to our report at the end of last week, I note that the estimated figure you've provided to us as regards to the number of commercial rent cases that may go through the arbitration scheme is actually a UK-wide figure. It may be, in your interpretation, that there's a proportional element of those that will fall within Wales. In which case, on the basis that a principle of good law—and I'm not a lawyer; the Minister has more legal training than me—is that you can demonstrate the need for that law, a few words more of explanation today on the record as to the justification and the rationale for taking these powers may be of help to the Senedd.

Before closing, I would draw the Senedd's attention to conclusion 1 in our report. Yet again, we have concerns that the Welsh Government's preferred way in dealing with its concerns regarding clause 9 of this Bill is to seek an amendment to require consultation with and the consent of Welsh Ministers before the Secretary of State exercises the clause 9 regulation-making power. The Minister has made clear that is a gain in terms of Welsh Ministers and Welsh Government. Indeed it is. That's unarguable, and there's undoubtedly a lot of work gone behind the scenes there, constructively, to get that. So, a consenting role for Welsh Ministers has now been incorporated into the Bill. However, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, this does risk bypassing the Senedd's role in terms of scrutiny here as the legislature in Wales. So, again, just to test this a bit further, Minister, in your closing response, it would be helpful to put on record why it's deemed appropriate and proportionate to take these particular powers to Welsh Ministers as an executive function, rather than allow the Senedd to express more fully and automatically its voice on subsequent regulations. Minister, you may have very good reasons to do so, but it would therefore be useful to have them on record today. Thanks as always, Llywydd, to my committee colleagues and the expert clerking team for their diligent analysis, and to the Senedd and Minister as we shine a spotlight on these detailed matters. Diolch yn fawr.

I have no other speakers, therefore the Minister to reply. 

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to Huw Irranca-Davies, acting as the Chair of the Legislation and Justice Committee. I should say that I'm quite happy to hear the gentle and calming tones of Mr Irranca-Davies on many occasions in this Chamber, and there are likely to be many more, given that there is likely to be more legislation that will require Welsh Ministers to consider whether or not we are or are not content to have UK-wide Bills or England-and-Wales Bills addressing functions that are devolved. Some of that has been a necessary response to the pandemic. It's also, though, a reality that, in some of these areas, there is a difference in approach in the UK Government. Some parts of UK Government are rather more content and positive about working with devolved responsibilities, and others take a different approach.

I don't think we need to have a debate about muscular unionism today, but we're likely to have more legislation where there will be a need to come to the Senedd. I hope that, in the future, we won't come up to this point where it really is a last-minute series of changes that have been agreed, because I would like the Senedd to have the opportunity to properly exercise scrutiny functions. I do remember what it was like being a backbencher and seeing things happen at short notice, and the frustration, even if there are matters that you agree with, at not having the time to properly consider them.

If I deal with the powers point first, and why they're ministerial powers, well, in a whole range of legislation Ministers take powers to exercise in secondary legislation, as you'll be familiar with in another Parliament, and in other roles that you have had within your own life as a Minister as well. In this particular issue, it's not unusual. And it isn't just that it's unusual; actually, if we needed to extend these powers, we'd probably need to move relatively quickly, and as everyone will know, there are differing levels of scrutiny, rather than no scrutiny, when Ministers are exercising regulatory powers. So, even with the negative procedure there are opportunities for scrutiny and essentially for Members to call in choices that are being made.

The consent provisions are important, because otherwise what would have happened is we would either have had Wales kept out of the Bill, or we would have had provisions where UK Ministers would have acted in our place. It goes to your point about good law. Whilst it's not a large-scale issue, there are still potentially hundreds of Welsh businesses that could be affected, from the 7,500 across the UK. We don't anticipate the situation being any different in Wales in the sense of there being challenges that landlords and tenants in a business relationship may need to resolve, and part of our challenge is those issues have not crystallised as yet.

We aren't likely to have landlords and businesses volunteering that they're in this position to us, so the choice is: do we have an issue that we think exists? The answer is 'yes'. Do we think it's likely to affect Welsh businesses? Yes. Whilst it isn't a large-scale issue, if there's a single issue—say, for example, in the Member's constituency or another—and we don't have the powers to address the issue, it will understandably cause concern, and genuine concern, about why we haven't taken the opportunity to be able to regularise the position. I think it is the right thing not to leave a gap for Wales, not to leave us in a position where UK Ministers are acting in devolved areas, but to have proper consent provisions where Welsh Ministers can act as I believe this institution would wish us to, and then to be accountable for our choices back to this place as well. 

I hope that answers the questions, and I hope Members will now feel able to support the motion before us. 

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We will therefore defer voting until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.