This allows us now to discuss item 13, which is the legislative consent motion on the Building Safety Bill, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Climate Change to move the motion. Lee Waters. 

Motion NNDM7973 Julie James

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

Motion moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Seventy-two people died in the Grenfell Tower fire. It was the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom for 30 years, and it exposed serious failings in the regulatory systems around building safety. Dame Judith Hackitt's review has sought to address these failings, and the recommendations of her report fell into two categories: the design and construction of buildings and then their occupation. This motion deals with the first of these and also addresses the rights of redress for house buyers, including those suffering the consequences of building defects.

The reforms in the Bill to the building control system represent the most comprehensive set of changes since the Building Act 1984. They're intended to prevent a Grenfell fire occurring in the future. In parallel, we are working to ensure fair treatment for those facing the remediation of the flats they live in. That's why we've announced the funding of surveys and building passports, which will inform the support needed. It's a fact that the criticism levelled at the system in England by Dame Judith may equally be levelled at Wales. For this reason, we've actively sought the inclusion of amendments to the UK Government Building Safety Bill to reflect the needs of Wales. I'd like to thank the committees for their consideration of the legislative consent memorandum, and I recognise the comments made that this should have been a Welsh Government Bill. However, this Bill provides a pragmatic opportunity to take earlier action in our efforts to respond to these issues.

The new regime will provide for more stringent regulation of higher risk buildings in Wales. I previously indicated that a higher risk building in Wales is a building with a floor of 18 m or more, or seven storeys. There will be powers to change this definition in the event of further evidence informing our view of risk and building characteristics. The Bill puts requirements in place that will ensure you can no longer choose your building control body for higher risk buildings. In Wales local authority building control will carry out this role as an extension to their current duties. Buildings will have a clear system of gateway stages, through design, construction, to initial occupation. Stop points at different stages will prevent work continuing without evidence that building safety is being appropriately addressed.

As well as the system itself, people are also critical to building safety. The Bill will put in place new duty holder requirements, for example on the clients, designers and contractors who plan, manage and undertake building work. They will take responsibility for identifying and mitigating building safety risks throughout. The Bill will also introduce new provisions to provide for the regulation of the building control profession and bodies who oversee building work. As well as a more robust enforcement system, the Bill helps improve rights of redress, including where it becomes evident that substandard work has been undertaken following occupation of a home.

Buying a home is one of the biggest financial commitments many people make in their lives, and for purchasers to still be waiting for issues to be addressed months after moving in, or for defects to render a home uninhabitable, is simply unacceptable. Whilst home owners should expect a home to be of good quality on the day they move in, having a clear process that requires developers to act quickly to rectify issues is important in protecting home owners. We've addressed this through the changes to the Defective Premises Act 1972, and the creation of a New Homes Ombudsman. The Defective Premises Act provisions will be extended from new dwellings only to cover refurbishment and extension works to existing dwellings carried out by a business. It'll also extend the limitation period for claims from six to 15 years prospectively, and from six to 30 years retrospectively.

The New Homes Ombudsman is being introduced as a result of criticism of the house-building industry, in its build quality and customer service record. The ombudsman will provide for dispute resolution and determine complaints made by those with a relevant interest in new-build homes against developers. A code of practice, detailing the standards of conduct and quality of work, is a feature of the ombudsman, to ensure that developers know what's expected of them, and homebuyers know what to expect. It's envisaged the house-building industry will meet the costs of the new ombudsman and, once established, the service will be free to complainants.

Llywydd, in summary, these reforms address some of the key issues raised by Dame Judith Hackitt, and create a new system of control for Wales that provides a clear, robust framework to ensure that the construction industry builds homes that are safe, and will provide an effective route to redress if things go wrong. Diolch.

I call first of all on the Chair of the Local Government and Housing Committee, John Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm speaking, yes, in my capacity as Chair of the Local Government and Housing Committee, and we laid our report on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum for the Building Safety Bill today. We previously reported on the initial LCM and supplementary LCM No. 2 at the end of last year in December. As mentioned in the report, regrettably, we did not have sufficient time to consider and report on the most recent supplementary LCM, No. 5, which was laid on 25 March.

Building safety has, in fact, been an area of priority for the committee, and indeed its predecessor committee in the fifth Senedd, since the tragedy, the terrible tragedy, of the Grenfell fire in 2017. In principle, we welcome the measures that the provisions in the supplementary memoranda will bring, including the establishment of a New Homes Ombudsman scheme, and we reiterate the view expressed in the first report, published in December of last year, that it would have been preferable if the provisions in the memoranda were brought forward in a Senedd Bill. This would have been better because it would have enabled more detailed committee scrutiny of the legislation, and Welsh stakeholders would have been able to share their views on the provisions.

The Minister told us in November last year that the rationale for using a UK Bill to legislate, rather than bringing forward a Senedd Bill, was one of expediency. We agreed that these important measures should be implemented as soon as possible. However, four months later, the Bill has not yet been agreed. Some members of the committee felt that, in a similar time frame to the one taken between laying the first LCM in July last year and the most recent one, a Senedd Bill could have been introduced and received full legislative scrutiny. Even were this not possible, procedures are available to expedite primary legislation through the Senedd. Some committee members also question whether the cross-border nature of the New Homes Ombudsman scheme provisions would be more valuable than a Wales-only scheme, as is asserted by the Welsh Government in supplementary LCM No. 3.

The committee would welcome assurances from the Minister today that, in future, committees will be given sufficient time to consider and report on LCMs and, indeed, supplementary LCMs. But Llywydd, despite the concerns I've just outlined, most members of the committee see the benefit of applying these reforms to Wales as soon as possible. But it must still be said that the absence of scrutiny means that we are unable to put these assertions to the test. Our committee is very frustrated that we were unable to scrutinise the provisions in the supplementary LCM No. 5 and report our views to the Senedd ahead of this debate. I would therefore ask the Welsh Government to ensure that committees have the necessary time and information to be able to play a meaningful role in the legislative consent process. Diolch yn fawr.

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

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you, Deputy Minister. We have produced two reports covering four consent memoranda that have been laid by the Minister for Climate Change on this Bill. The first was completed last December, and the second was laid earlier this month. We were grateful to the Minister for responding to both reports. Unfortunately,

however, memorandum No. 5 was only laid last Friday afternoon, meaning it has not been subject to scrutiny by any Senedd committee. This is clearly frustrating, as my colleague John Griffiths, Chair of my fellow committee, has mentioned, and it's regrettable.

While our two reports comment on specific provisions in the Bill, this afternoon I will focus on the extensive commentary in our reports on the overall Welsh Government’s approach to seeking to using a UK Government-proposed Bill passing through a different Parliament in a different place to legislate for Wales on wholly devolved matters—again, a matter referred to also in his remarks by my fellow Chair, John Griffiths, today. This is a familiar refrain, I know, to Welsh Government Ministers and to this Senedd, and in fact the Minister today said he recognised this in his opening remarks. I sometimes feel that secretly Ministers do agree with us in their quiet moments as they rest their heads on their pillow, and at some point they're going to move to explicitly saying that and acting in that way as well.

We're concerned with the cumulative constitutional implications of the Welsh Government’s approach, and it's not just because of the potential impact on devolution, regardless of issues over expediency and so on. But it's also in terms of the accessibility of law for our citizens. Now, I know that the Minister herself is unable to be with us this afternoon but, with regards to the Minister’s comments to us previously that many building control professionals work in both England and Wales and that there is therefore merit in similar provisions being applicable in both nations, we get that, but we do not see why commonality of law across England and Wales could not be achieved by a Senedd Bill, with the full scrutiny referred to by my fellow Chair. We're also unclear as to how requesting provisions for Wales in a UK Bill, as well as planning for a future Welsh Bill to deal with other matters relating to building safety, is in step with the Welsh Government’s own commitment to improve the quality and the accessibility of bilingual Welsh law. It's a principle the Government stands on. We want to see them standing by that.

Now, the Minister did cite to us—our committee—capacity issues in Welsh Government as one reason for using UK Bills to legislate for Wales. But we just are not convinced by this argument to allocate resources to support the development and passage of the UK Bill through the UK Parliament rather than allocating those resources to bring forward a Welsh Bill, even simultaneously, though our Senedd. We find the reasoning and approach confusing, given that Welsh Government officials would have developed the policy instructions for the relevant bespoke clauses in the Bill, and subsequently commented on draft clauses prepared by the UK Government’s legal counsel anyway. Furthermore, it is clear that inter-governmental working has continued whilst the Bill is progressing through the UK Parliament, which will also, in itself, have had time and resource implications.

Now, the Welsh Government is aware that we remain deeply concerned about its capacity, if this is an issue, to bring forward primary legislation, and we are pursuing this issue across the Welsh Government as a whole. But we also have concerns that the Welsh Government may, in pursuing this approach, have missed another opportunity to utilise the justice system we already have in Wales to deal with, for example, such matters that may be dealt with by the New Homes Ombudsman scheme provisions, which are detailed in memorandum No. 3.

Let me turn now to the issue of what we see as an emerging democratic deficit caused by explicit Welsh Government legislative choices. In our second report we noted that a number of amendments have been made to the Bill that mean that the Welsh Ministers will now have a consultative role before certain regulation-making powers are exercised by the Secretary of State. As we've said in many other reports on Welsh Government legislative consent memoranda for UK Bills, a role for the Welsh Ministers, whether that be a consultative or a consenting role, before a UK Minister exercises a regulation-making power contained in a UK Bill, does not address the inherent democratic deficit that means that the Senedd is excluded from shaping and agreeing to law that will apply in Wales. We stand strongly by this.

Recommendation—. Llywydd, my apologies, I've gone slightly over; I'll draw my conclusions quickly here. Recommendation 1 in our first report asked the Minister to seek amendments to the Bill to ensure that the Welsh Ministers are given equivalent commencement powers relating to the provisions for Wales to those already given to the Secretary of State, so that Welsh Ministers are fully in control of when the provisions for Wales come into force. So, we are disappointed with the Minister's response to that recommendation that she doesn't consider this necessary and would not pursue such amendments. We just don't see that relinquishing this control is appropriate, and there is a contrast here with the approach taken by other Ministers in other Bills within this Senedd term. But, as we stated, we respectfully disagree with the overall decision to use a UK Bill to address building safety in Wales, regardless of expediency or resources, for the reasons we've given. Whatever assessments may have been undertaken as regards the practical benefits of seizing the opportunity shouldn't outweigh the democratic mandate of the Senedd and the consequential accountability of Welsh Government to this Senedd. So, we remain deeply concerned at that approach in many Bills.

Llywydd, our report on memorandums No. 3 and No. 4 for this Bill was the twenty-sixth report on legislative consent memoranda that our committee has laid in seven months. We're shortly due to lay our twenty-seventh. Now, these statistics, just to note, aren't particularly welcome, but they need to be highlighted, because the vast majority of legislation currently being made for Wales is not being made in Wales.

Aelodau o'r Senedd, Members of the Senedd, almost five years on from the Grenfell tragedy, it is absolutely unacceptable that there are residents living in fear in Wales within their own homes. In fact, the 'Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety' report was published on 17 May 2018. Well, I actually welcome the fact that the Bill under consideration implements the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt's review. The Bill is vitally important as it does make provision for the regulation of all construction products placed on the UK market, the design and construction phase for the building phase of higher-risk buildings, and the creation of a unified, professional and regulatory structure for building control.

By supporting this LCM today, we would be backing commonsense changes, such as clause 31, providing a power for the Welsh Ministers in building regs to designate an alternative local authority to act as a building control authority where the local authority for the area proposes to carry out higher risk building work; clause 32, which enables the introduction of new procedures and requirements for any work, including new higher risk buildings as they are designed and built; and clause 37, which enables the building control authority to issue compliance or stop notices where there is, or is likely to be, a contravention of building regulations.

The proposed changes to the core primary legislation, the 1984 Act, that the Bill now proposes actually provide the necessary tools with which Welsh Ministers would be able to modernise and improve the system here in Wales. The proposals are not the application of UK proposals in Wales. The provisions in the Bill that fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd are largely bespoke amendments to the 1984 Act suited to the building safety issues in Wales. So, I believe that we should be voting in favour of this today.

Now, whilst I know that the Legislative, Justice and Constitution Committee disagree with an overall decision to use a UK Bill to address building safety in Wales, will you, Deputy Minister, for the benefit of the Senedd, reiterate the practical benefits of such an opportunity? I acknowledge that the committee is also deeply concerned about the Welsh Government's capacity to bring forward primary legislation. Whilst we will be backing this today, I would like to make an important general point: I think the time has come to see more private Member and Welsh Government Bills come forward.

In terms of action you are taking now, it is welcome news that digital surveys have been completed for the first 248 applications. I would be pleased, though, if you could clarify by when the intrusive surveys will be completed.

Finally, I note that you have withdrawn the statement due today on building safety. The Celestia action group have tweeted, expressing their concerns that you have not only cancelled the statement, but also cancelled meetings with victims. This has led them to feeling more worried, and they feel that they are literally being kept in the dark. The Senedd, and we as politicians, must all do better for residents trapped in flammable homes, so will you review the steps now being taken to engage with and keep residents updated on building safety in Wales? And I honestly would ask everybody to support this LCM today. Diolch. 

I welcome the comments made by the Deputy Minister, of course—I welcome any attempt to strengthen the rights of people who live in flats that are unsafe—but I don't accept the argument, Deputy Minister, that using the LCM process is swifter than having our own Act here in Wales. We've seen over the past two years that this place can pass legislation quickly when there is a need to do so. 

Members will have heard me several times before stressing my concerns about the way the LCM process is being used in this place. 

This process is doing nothing to simplify our devolved settlement or our legal system, a system and settlement that even the previous Lord Chief Justice Thomas of Cwmgïedd, one of the most talented legal minds of our age, said that even he found impossible to understand, not to mention members of the public. There is a specific example here of complicating our justice system further, with the Bill establishing the new housing ombudsman system in England, with the Minister in Wales asking us to be part of this new system for England. Another opportunity was lost here—and I'm looking at my colleague the Counsel General—to extend the boundaries of the devolution settlement and to use our Welsh tribunals. 

Instead of using an English ombudsman scheme, we should have used the already Welsh tribunals. The Welsh residential property tribunal could easily have been renamed the Welsh housing tribunal. Instead, though, of using an existing tribunal system, we set up another ombudsman scheme, complicating an already complex tapestry. The reasons given by the Minister to ask the UK Government to be included in the English property ombudsman sounds like a list of reasons I will hear from the benches opposite opposing the devolution of justice. In fact, you could hear a member of Abolish the Welsh Assembly putting these reasons forward, and these are the reasons: it will have more value if it's cross-border; it will ensure a standard approach; it will save money; and developers are likely to prefer one system. To decide to use a UK Bill based on the fact that developers are likely to prefer it is certainly not the proper and right way to legislate. We should not be using a UK Bill rather than our own Welsh Bill simply because large developers are likely to have a preference for that than using our own devolved system.

And the Minister goes on to say if the ombudsman scheme is not working for Wales, we could set up our own system then. But, she says that that would need the consent of a UK Minister and seeking such consent would negatively impact the Senedd competency. Well, Dirprwy Weinidog, we wouldn't be in that situation if we hadn't have asked to be part of the ombudsman scheme in the first place.

In responding to the committee's first report, and it's incredible that we've had five memoranda just on this one Bill—again, so complicated—it was very worrying to hear the Minister say that she saw no cumulative constitutional implications as a consequence of the Bill's provisions. Yet, this is another piece of UK legislation passed within the powers of our devolved settlement, in an area that is clearly within the Senedd's competence, and we don't have proper scrutiny on it. The Members opposite will agree to any LCM because they think anything coming down the road from London is great. We're not getting proper scrutiny within committees because we're not getting enough time, because of the back and forth, the ping-pong between both Governments. This term, my friend the Chair of the legislative committee, said we've had 27 reports from that committee—27 reports for 42 LCMs and supplementary LCMs. The constitutional implications of those 42 LCMs and supplementary LCMs should not be underestimated by us. Diolch yn fawr.

Members are being put in an appalling position this afternoon by the Government, and the Deputy Minister recognised that, I think, in the tone that he used and the words that he used in order to introduce this debate, because whenever we are asked to debate legislative consent motions, we do two things, don't we? Ministers focus on the content, on the legislation, and Members will then focus on the process, and that tension is inevitable, and it's a good thing that that sort of tension exists. In this case, we have had from Government a number of different reasons why a UK Bill is being used to address a serious issue that affects people in Wales, and each one of the reports from the legislation committee contains different rationale from the Government for doing so. We were told last summer, when this matter first came in front of us, that it was a matter of expediency and that this could reach the statute book in a way that would provide far earlier protection and far more protection for people living in Wales, and on that basis, although many of us were unhappy with the process, we were content to consent to it. Well, now, with Glamorgan starting the cricket season next week, we are still being told the same thing. Now, all of us who have been in this place for more than a few months will understand and know that there are numerous processes that the Government could have used in order to deliver legislation onto the statute book within the timescale that we've had available to us. We also know that policy development has been taking place throughout the whole process of this Bill going through Westminster, so what the Government was seeking to do back in July is not what the Government is asking us to agree to now at the end of March. So, there have been changes through that, and I'm content with that, as it happens, as long as we have the opportunity to scrutinise those changes, the reasons for them and what the Government wishes to put on the statute book. None of those things are happening today, and none of those things have happened over the last seven months. This is a bad way to legislate, Deputy Minister. This is a bad thing to do, and it is not good that you ask Members to vote for it in this way.

We've heard a speech from the official opposition that asks us to support this because of the importance of what the legislation contains. They haven't had an opportunity to read the Bill. They don't know what's in it. None of us do. We haven't had the opportunity to scrutinise it. We established a form of legislating in this place that's different from Westminster because of the importance of scrutiny and because of the importance of involving stakeholders and those affected by legislation, through the Stage 1 scrutiny, which is an important and integral part of how we understand the impact of legislation. None of that has happened. None of us have had the opportunity to study it. So, to listen to an opposition saying, 'We're happy with this legislation, let's put it straight on the statute book. Let's not bother with scrutiny, let's not bother with examination, let's not seek to amend it, send it straight to Windsor castle for Royal Assent' beggars belief. It's an extraordinary abrogation of the role of opposition in scrutinising legislation.

And that brings us back to where we are today. I'm going to vote for the LCM this afternoon because we are forced to do so. But, Minister, don't believe for one moment that I am convinced by your arguments, don't believe for moment that I accept the position that you've put forward, and don't believe for one moment that my vote in favour of this supports the way in which you—

Sorry, I am really interested in hearing what Alun Davies is building up to here, and I'm failing to because you're creating quite a stir in the Chamber, Alun. So, if I can have some silence in the Chamber, and Alun to finish his contribution. Diolch.

That's what I was building up to, fortunately, Presiding Officer. One of the difficulties, of course, of contributing from a remote location is that you can't see or hear what's going on in the Chamber, and I think that is something we need to consider.

Minister, you've put us in an impossible situation this afternoon. You've held a gun to our heads, and although you will have our support, don't believe for a moment that this support is for the way in which you've treated this Parliament; it's for the legislation. We're voting because of the situation that people find themselves in across the country. We're voting for them, Minister, this afternoon; we're not voting for you.

Good afternoon, Deputy Minister. I echo many of the statements that have been made around the process. We find ourselves on a hamster wheel around LCMs, and the timescale that we've been given—yet again—is absolutely abhorrent, and absolutely not what this Senedd should be about. Many of us, I know, and that would include the Ministers, find themselves in a really difficult position, and I do echo and thank the committee Chairs for the work that they do in drawing our attention to that.

On the specific issue, it is nearly five years since Grenfell, and I do welcome the announcements and the developments within this, although very late. I want to emphasise as well the importance of engaging and communicating and consulting with those victims, many of whom have suffered extreme mental health issues and financial instability as well.

Turning to what we have in front of us, I just really want to make one point in relation to clause 160, which provides that the measures come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I've had many people contact me, who, whilst welcoming that timescale, are concerned that they could begin to face escalating remediation bills should developers or management companies decide to levy funds from leaseholders before the provisions come into force. Related to those provisions, we see that, in England, those provisions have actually been introduced to protect those people affected from the significant financial burden of paying for the failures of developers—the so-called waterfall protections. Given that those protections, as I understand them, don't apply to Wales, I am concerned that those transitional arrangements could put an additional burden on leaseholders in the very short term.

So, just to turn to my question, if I may, Deputy Minister: what assurances can you give to leaseholders that they are not going to lose out financially, and can you assure us that the Welsh Government will communicate, talk with and engage with those victims who are affected? Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you to the Deputy Minister for introducing this item today. May I at the outset just note how entirely deplorable this process is in drawing up legislation in devolved areas? The committee, for example, hasn't had time to properly scrutinise, never mind the ability for the people of Wales to participate in this process.

The reason given why we should support these LCMs was because of the critical nature of the situation, as we have heard—it was an urgent issue. There are a number of LCMs that have been brought forward on this issue now, and we are 10 months into the sixth Senedd but we haven't seen any primary legislation brought forward yet. The Government here could have drafted its own Bill to tackle these grave problems faced by leaseholders and tenants, but we are still waiting.

Many of the clauses include devolved powers. The Secretary of State is responsible for most of these, and only one power is provided to Welsh Ministers. Are you content to transfer these powers to the Secretary of State? The Secretary of State will have the right to establish the new ombudsman's office, whose powers will extend across Wales. The Welsh Government will have a consultative role only in this. Are you, therefore, content with transferring these powers to Westminster, and are you content in trusting the Government there to make the best decisions on behalf of the people of Wales? And I will note here that I see the Conservatives opposing having more politicians for Wales—and the role of politicians, of course, is to scrutinise Bills in order to ensure that good law is made in Wales—but they don't oppose the role of new offices, such as ombudsmen, who find blame once things have gone wrong.

Likewise, the Secretary of State alone will have the power to publish and approve a code of conduct. The Welsh Ministers' role is consultative only before such regulations are made, and Welsh Ministers won't have any other rights—for example, the power of veto. Are you content, therefore, that the Westminster Government will act in accordance with the wishes of the people of Wales? Finally on this issue, the provisions of the New Homes Ombudsman scheme will come into force on a date set in regulations made by the Secretary of State. Do you think that this is appropriate, because, once again, we will see the Welsh voice being weakened?

In terms of the Bill going through Westminster at the moment, it is frustrating to see this Government happy to allow that dusty institution on the banks of the Thames to legislate on our behalf once again. But does this set a precedent? Does the Welsh Government intend to use UK Bills in order to make further changes to building safety here in Wales, or will any further changes be included in a safety Bill discussed on the floor of this Senedd?

Finally, many stakeholders, leaseholders, have been in contact with me recently, and they're extremely concerned about the significant costs that they are facing now. What assurances can you give to these people that they won't have to pay any more than they already have paid for remedial work, be that external or internal? Thank you.

I call on the Deputy Minister to reply to the debate. Lee Waters.

Diolch. And thank you for all the contributions. I must say, Llywydd, this is the second time today I've been told off by Janet Finch-Saunders for not paying enough attention to Twitter, but I should inform Members that I'm having a little break from Twitter, which, clearly, some of my colleagues welcome, and I can assure you that the Government press office are delighted by. [Laughter.] So, I'm afraid I didn't see those conversations. But, look, there does seem to be support in the Senedd for the principle of what we're trying to do and the policy intent. There is clear unease about the mechanism by which we are doing it, and I recognise the concerns and I understand the frustrations.

Huw Irranca-Davies conjured up an image of me at night with my head on the pillow, being worried about various things, and secretly agreeing with the points he made. And, of course, I'm a former member of his committee and I completely understand the concerns that Members have. And there is a tension, as Alun Davies rightly identified, between the legislature and the Executive at all times, and that's how it should be. We face pragmatic judgments. Of course we could have brought forward our separate legislation on this, but then we wouldn't have been able to do it in the same timescale. And given the gravity of the issues being faced here, our judgment was it was better to get something that was fit for purpose on the statutory book as soon as we possibly could, to protect the people who are most vulnerable, rather than to wait to get a Welsh Bill. Had we had a Welsh Bill—. It's been noted already by the committee that we have a full legislative programme, so if we were to have a separate Bill on this, that would be at the expense of something else. And as we've just been discussing in the Senedd this afternoon, our legal capacity is still tied up with coronavirus regulations and with the Brexit legacy, and there is a limited amount both our policy officials and legal officials are able to do. So, we have a full and bold legislative programme, and when there are opportunities to use UK legislation to advance our policy aims, we do take a pragmatic view that it is right to do that. 

I have an indication of an intervention from Alun Davies. Are you willing to take the intervention?

I think I understand the full force of his argument, Llywydd, so I'd rather—. Well, let him be brief and let me hear the blast of his argument one more time. [Laughter.]

Alun Davies.

It's quite something to be told to be brief by Lee Waters, isn't it? You say that you needed to get this onto the statute book as quickly as possible, but that, I'm afraid, Minister, simply is not true. There are procedures in place in the Senedd to enable the Government to get its business through more quickly when that is required, and the Senedd has always taken a very pragmatic approach to that. We also know that the Government has continued its policy development work during the period of this Bill going through Westminster. So, what we were told last summer isn't what we're being asked to support today. So, we know that the Government were continuing to work on this and could have delivered a Bill to this place in the time that it's taken to reach this point today. So, that argument doesn't stand up to examination, I'm afraid.

Well, with respect to Alun Davies, it's not just a case of having Senedd time, is it? It's about having the capacity within the Government to take a whole Bill through, and those are different things. So, I respectfully disagree with him about the pragmatic judgments that we have faced.

And I just would stress to Members that this is primary legislation. The substance of the enactment will be in secondary legislation, which will all be bilingual, which will be scrutinised and consulted upon, with a role for this Senedd, and the Bill will have the majority of its provisions commenced by Welsh Ministers. So, I think there is a balance to strike. We think we've got the balance right, but I completely understand the unease with this approach. But I'm afraid that Government Ministers, collectively, have to take difficult decisions sometimes on the balance of these things, and notwithstanding the concerns of Members, we think, on this occasion, given the gravity of the issue at hand, we have made the right one, but that's not to say that we disregard or take lightly the concerns raised. But I would urge Members to support the LCM. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No, there is no objection, therefore, the—[Interruption.] No, it's not too late. I did hear it just before I finished my sentence. [Objection.] I did hear an objection, therefore, we will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.