Found: Mr Adam Price 1R 2007–0819 Nov 2007Content of Parliamentary Report inappropriate for a Communications

Found: t the position that has emerged during our Committee yesterday following correspondence from Adam Price

Found: Q162 Chair: I have a request from solicitors in England and Adam Price at the Senedd in Wales to look

Found: On 4 July 2022, First Minister Mark Drakeford and the leader of Plaid Cymru Adam Price set out the next

Found: See Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price declines invite to attend the King Charles coronation , WalesOnline

Found: Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Adam Price

Found: Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Adam Price

Found: SCM Direct - Non-financial professional and personal interests Steering group member for Dr Adam Price

Found: member Direct - Non-financial professional and personal interests Steering group member for Dr Adam Price

Found: member Direct - Non-financial professional and personal interests Steering group member for Dr Adam Price

Found: member Direct - Non-financial professional and personal interests Steering group member for Dr Adam Price

Found: member Direct - Non-financial professional and personal interests Steering group member for Dr Adam Price

Found: Parretti GP Direct non -financial, professional and personal Steering group member for Dr Adam Price

Found: SCM Direct - Non-financial professional and personal interests Steering group member for Dr Adam Price

Found: SCM Direct - Non-financial professional and personal interests Steering group member for Dr Adam Price

Found: Committee membership: Committee Chair: Mike Hedges MS Welsh Labour Alun Davies MS Welsh Labour Adam Price

Found: Adam Price 7 Page 28, after line 29, insert a new section— ‘[ ] Activities to improve accessibility

Found: Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Bill Julie James 1 Gyda chefnogaeth / Supported by: Adam Price

Found: Adam Price 28 Section 1, page 3, line 36, after ‘legislation’, insert ‘, or provision of subordinate

Found: Having considered all amendments tabled, I have determined that amendment 34, tabled by Adam Price

Found: Cyhoeddi a Diddymiadau) (Cymru) Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Bill Adam Price

Found: Adam Price MS was at the protest and gave an interview to S4C.

Question

Will the Commission provide the latest information on the form, timetable and remit of the review of the legal framework of the Welsh language in the Senedd for the future, following the commitments made in the debate on the annual report of the official language scheme on 9 July 2025?

Answered by Senedd Commission

Adam Price MS on behalf of the Senedd Commission:

Following consideration of the demands on Members' time and resources before the end of the Sixth Senedd, it was concluded that an e-mail survey would be the most suitable method of gathering feedback and opinions from Members and their support staff about the Official Languages Scheme. The intention is to conduct the survey during the second half of this term, in order to avoid conflicts with other surveys that are being carried out.

We will combine the consultation regarding the legal framework that underpins the current official languages regime with a survey of the Welsh language skills of the respondents. This will provide an illustration of the skills that exist among Members and their support staff. 

The survey will ask Members and their support staff about their satisfaction levels regarding the Official Languages Scheme, both as service users and in terms of the duties imposed on Members by the Scheme.

There will also be an opportunity to suggest any amendments that could be made to the current scheme. In addition, there will be an opportunity to express views on the suitability of the current legal framework, identifying any proposals for alternatives in terms of the accountability and scope of any future regime.

Once we have received responses from Members and their support staff, the Official Languages Team will look at ways of undertaking further consultation, including with Senedd Commission staff.

We will endeavour to incorporate any proposed changes into the legal framework shortly after the Seventh Senedd Commission has been established, and discuss the way forward.

Found: However, responses to written questions tabled by Darren Millar MS, Adam Price MS and Andrew RT Davies

<p>The point that the Member makes, I think, has some force, but it doesn't explain the entirety of the position. So, I think it is fair to say that, where people have been waiting longer, they're more likely to present to their GP for continued support. I think that that is a common-sense presumption. The evidence is a little variable, but it's a point that does have some strength clearly. I don't think that that's the entirety of the challenge. There are a range of issues that&nbsp;we need to be able to tackle and on much of them I have responded to Adam Price in his question.</p>
<p>So, we are working with the health board to make sure that their overall performance, obviously, is improving as part of the escalation arrangements. I've made the point in relation to the data behind their waiting list performance, which I know the Member has a keen interest in, in the written statement that I made last week. And we're providing further support to the health board at their request, putting in an improvement director—a woman called, Jane Farrell, who has previous extensive experience in the NHS in England. That will be about performance improvement overall, including in planned care, which the Member is referring to as part of his question, but&nbsp;also support in relation to emergency intensive care support, if I can put it like that. That's around how we support on an intensive basis an improvement in the performance of emergency departments in north Wales. But there are a range of things that we need to be doing. It isn't all about the consequence of the longer waits in north Wales. I hope that the answer I gave to Adam Price will have been helpful in his context as well.</p>

<p>I'd appreciate that too, because when you choose a school for your child, access to that school is very important, isn't it? If the school isn't close to your home, then you have no decision to make, essentially. So, I would like to continue with that discussion if we could, Cabinet Secretary.</p>
<p>But if I could move on now. I have great interest in the Arfor programme, because—. I agree with Adam Price. I like the structure and I like the framework. Now, you have decided to reflect on the success of Arfor at the moment, and I'd like your comments, if possible, on the success or otherwise of Arfor, if that's how you see it. I want to understand this, because for me, it is important that we support communities. Here, we are talking about Welsh-speaking communities, but you could say the same about Valleys communities. So, I'm thinking about the philosophy, if you like, underpinning the programme, and where you think Arfor has got to at present.</p>

<p>Thank you very much to Adam Price. Reform of the Barnett formula is not a bilateral matter between the Welsh and UK Governments. It can only be pursued through discussion and agreement between all four UK nations. The forum for doing so is therefore the Finance Interministerial Standing Committee.&nbsp;A paper on Barnett reform will be presented to its next meeting, scheduled to take place in Belfast in February.</p>

<p>I thank Adam Price for that. It was a very interesting report. Of course, I see that the authors conclude that—. Far from replacing Barnett, their conclusion is the more Barnett the better, which I think casts quite a different light on some of the conversations that we've had here&nbsp;on the floor of the Senedd. The Welsh Government's position remains that we ought to have a replacement for the Barnett formula with a needs-based formula that reflects the needs of all parts of the United Kingdom. But that is very difficult indeed to bring about when other nations in the United Kingdom do rather well out of Barnett. But the report suggests that Wales has done well out of Barnett as well when it comes to devolved responsibilities, but not so well in non-devolved responsibilities, hence the 'more Barnett is better' slogan that the report uses.</p>
<p>Amongst the five points that the report makes, some of those are already the policy of the Government and are part of the conversation that we will have in Belfast in the new year, and that is the uprating of the current arrangements within the fiscal framework to bring them into line with today's costs, rather than those that pertained back in 2016. Others, I think, are more a matter for continued debate. I am myself very interested in the fifth recommendation, that final one, about instead of there being a capital borrowing limit that we agree and then is uprated with inflation, you tie it instead to the ability to service the debt that you would inevitably incur at 1 per cent of revenue. That would, as the Member said, give us a capital borrowing capacity in Wales of over £3 billion, which coincidentally is the limit already available to the Northern Ireland Executive, and very different to the £1 billion headline that we operate within currently.</p>
<p>One of the other proposals is full devolution of income tax. I was very interested—I am sure the Member will have been as well—to follow some of the debate in Scotland that followed when the Chancellor appeared to be about to raise income tax by 2p in the £1 in the budget we will see next week. That would have created some very difficult questions for the Scottish Government, and they were very well rehearsed in the Scottish press. So, on full devolution of income tax, the report makes a case for it. There are some potential difficulties with it as well, however, which I think will deserve further proper public debate.</p>

<p>That's exactly the course of action that I would like to pursue. I want to persuade our colleagues in London to do the modest things first, simply uprating the figures in the fiscal framework in line with inflation so that their real value in 2026 is the same as it was in 2016,&nbsp;and then for wider improvements to Barnett to be discussed as a second step. So, the strategy that the Member outlines is definitely the strategy that I think is the one that best protects us here in Wales. And as ever, in the way I was trying to suggest in my answer to Adam Price, you need always to be alert to the risks in courses of action as well as the rewards. A full-scale review of the fiscal framework, as has been carried out in Scotland already, led to some changes to the fiscal framework that were not to the advantage of the Scottish Government. So, I want to concentrate on the things that I think will work best for Wales in the first instance, and then see where that takes us in that wider pattern of reform.</p>

<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">is the same as it was in 2016,</span>&nbsp;and then for wider improvements to Barnett to be discussed as a second step. So, the strategy that the Member outlines is definitely the strategy that I think is the one that best protects us here in Wales. And, as ever, in the way I was trying to suggest in my answer to Adam Price, you need always to be alert to the risks in courses of action as well as the rewards. A full-scale review of the fiscal framework, as has been carried out in Scotland already, led to some changes to the fiscal framework that were not to the advantage of the Scottish Government. So, I want to concentrate on the things that I think will work best for Wales in the first instance, and then see where that takes us in that wider pattern of reform.</p>

<p>Well, Chair, there has been, I think, extensive contact with the accommodation providers, particularly because of the overlap between the&nbsp;visitor levy Bill and this Bill, because while I have not myself had a meeting specifically to deal with the costs in the RIA, whenever I've met the visitor economy forum—and I met them as long ago as 2022, alongside Adam Price when this was part of the co-operation agreement, and I met them again last month, and I’ve met them in between as well—costs are always part of what is discussed. So, at the ministerial level and certainly at the level of officials who've been more closely engaged than that, discussions about the costs have been part of that engagement.&nbsp;And, of course, I understand that the message you get from the sector is that they want the scheme to be as efficient as possible and as low cost as possible, and a licence will cost, we think, £75 a year—that's our current estimate. I'm sure that will be refined as the process goes on, but I hope that that is a demonstration that we have listened carefully and designed a scheme that could be low cost, as efficient, but still sufficiently robust to ensure the integrity of the scheme.</p>

<p>Thank you very much indeed. Adam Price.</p>

<p>Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.</p>

<p>Wel, diolch i Adam Price am y cwestiwn yna. Beth rydyn ni'n gwneud yn y Bil yn y maes yna yw beth rŷn ni'n ei wneud bob tro, dwi'n meddwl.&nbsp;Y Senedd sy'n gyfrifol am y Bil, am y system newydd. Dydy'r canllawiau stadudol ddim yn newid dim byd mae'r Senedd wedi penderfynu, maen nhw jest yn helpu pobl yn y maes i ddeall y cyfrifoldebau newydd a sut bydd y system yn gweithio ac yn y blaen.&nbsp;Mae dyletswydd ar Weinidogion Cymru i greu canllawiau statudol, ond dydyn nhw ddim yn creu dim byd newydd am y gyfraith ac yn y blaen; bydd y Senedd wedi penderfynu popeth fel yna yn barod. Dwi ddim yn meddwl bod achos cryf i'r Senedd drio cadw llygad ar y canllawiau hefyd, achos mae'r canllawiau jest yn dod yn syth mas o bopeth mae'r Senedd wedi penderfynu yn barod.</p>

<p>Diolch. Adam Price.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Thank you very much to Adam Price first of all for what he said about the co-operation agreement. As I said on the floor of the Senedd last week, I'm still grateful to Siân Gwenllian because she has remained interested in how the Bill's development after the agreement came to an end. Plaid Cymru's voice has been a significant one in the development of the Bill. So, thank you very much for that.</p>
<p>I do acknowledge the fact that the powers, where we use them through the Henry VIII process, are different to other processes. But, the fundamental thing is that, at the end of the day, it's in the Senedd's hands to agree whether those powers should be used.</p>

<p>Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the introduction of this Bill and look forward to scrutinising the legislation as a committee member. Democracy is vital for society. As you stated yesterday, in your written statement, the Bill will build much stronger foundations for our democracy. As Adam Price has already said, this is urgent in the current political climate.</p>
<p>Previously, the Standards of Conduct Committee recommended that the Welsh Government should consider introducing a legislative mechanism to enable Senedd Cymru to establish an appeals process. My view is that this is an appropriate legislative vehicle, and that it does provide the opportunity to introduce a mandatory appeals process.</p>
<p>I've heard what you've said to colleagues already about the Government—it's quite complex, isn't it—not being too prescriptive, because this is a matter for Parliament. But would you consider placing an appeals process on the face of the Bill, rather than it being a matter for the Senedd to introduce an appeals process in a more flexible way?</p>

<p>Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the introduction of this Bill and look forward to scrutinising the legislation as a committee member. Democracy is vital for society. As you stated yesterday in your written statement, the Bill will build much stronger foundations for our democracy. As Adam Price has already said, this is urgent in the current political climate.</p>
<p>Previously, the Standards of Conduct Committee recommended that the Welsh Government should consider introducing a legislative mechanism to enable Senedd Cymru to establish an appeals process. My view is that this is an appropriate legislative vehicle, and that it does provide the opportunity to introduce a mandatory appeal process.</p>
<p>I've heard what you've said to colleagues already about the Government. It's quite complex, isn't it: the Government not being too prescriptive, because this is a matter for Parliament.&nbsp;But would you consider placing an appeals process on the face of the Bill, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">rather than it being a matter</span>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Adam Price.</p>

<p>Adam Price.</p>

<p>Okay. Adam Price.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Good morning. Welcome to this meeting of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. We have received apologies from Adam Price, and&nbsp;Siân Gwenllian will be substituting on his behalf for item 2.</p>

<p>Thank you. I did explain that you were attending in place of Adam Price. Welcome. Croeso.</p>

<p>Bore da. Croeso. Good morning and welcome to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee here in the Senedd. The meeting, as always, is bilingual. Headsets provide simultaneous translation on channel 1 and amplification on channel 2. Participants online can access translation by clicking on the globe icon on Zoom. We've received apologies from committee members Tom Giffard and Rhianon Passmore. We welcome Sam Kurtz, who's here in place of Tom. I also understand that Adam Price is unable to be with us and that we will be joined by Cefin Campbell, who will be taking his place today. Do Members present have any declarations of registrable interest they wish to share or otherwise want on the record? Thank you.</p>

<p>Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.</p>

<p>Like every Member of the Senedd, I'm sure, the lack of housing and long waiting lists for homes is one of the commonest issues that my constituents raise with me. And my fellow Plaid Cymru Member Adam Price recently asked you, First Minister, for your response to the dramatic decrease in house building in Wales, at a time when 94,000 households are on a waiting list for a home. Government figures show a fall of 26 per cent in the construction of new homes, and the level of construction is now a third lower than a decade ago. So, do you agree that it is unacceptable that the Welsh Government has made insufficient efforts to ensure that housing availability meets the demand, whilst other UK nations have delivered a small increase, which, albeit a minor improvement, is a step in the right direction? How do you intend to put more of a focus on this work, for the benefit of the residents I represent?</p>

<p>Diolch yn fawr, Adam. We do believe that the duties on the face of the Bill are reasonable and that they balance accountability and flexibility for listed public bodies, but of course the Bill has a duty to prescribe by regulations, and it's important that there's information for a listed public body that they must include in preparing and publishing their BSL plans, and those public bodies listed will be responsible for determining the contents of their own BSL plans. Many will already have existing plans and be guided by the BSL guidance, which a future incoming Government will lead, obviously, in terms of developing that national strategy.</p>
<p>But we do think that the bodies are best placed to understand their specific needs. I think that it's important that we also have the opportunity to see that we don't want to place more administrative burdens on public authorities. So, the Bill has been designed to have that flexibility. I don't know whether, perhaps, our senior lawyer, Ben, wants to come in to reflect on that point, just in terms of the balance and in terms of what's on the face of the Bill and what's coming through regulation, in the guidance, because the Member, obviously, Adam Price, has referred to the Welsh language Measure specifications.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Diolch, Cadeirydd. Bore da, Cabinet Secretary. I think, in some previous answers to Adam Price, you talked about some of the requirements in this legislation, particularly on BSL plans, go further than legislation elsewhere, but some stakeholders have suggested that requiring listed public bodies to provide explanations in their plans where they've decided not to follow guidance issued by the Welsh Ministers is a loophole. Does the Welsh Government have a view on that?</p>

<p>Back to me. I listened to the last answer you gave to Adam Price.&nbsp;Will there need to be a restatement of 'Planning Policy Wales'? Technical advice notes, of which we have an awful lot, that seem to be looked at more by people in terms of objections in planning than the planning regulations themselves, will these have to be rewritten, could they just be carried forward, or will it be a combination of the two?</p>

<p>Bore da, croeso. Good morning and welcome to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee in the Senedd, the Welsh Parliament. The meeting is bilingual; headsets&nbsp;provide simultaneous translation on channel 1 and sound amplification on channel 2. Participants joining online can access translation by clicking on the globe icon on Zoom. We've received apologies from Adam Price and from Rhianon Passmore, but I welcome Hannah Blythyn, who is joining us remotely in her place this morning.&nbsp;So, welcome and thank you, Hannah.&nbsp;Do Members have any declarations of registrable interests they wish to declare at this point? I see no indication, so that will not be the case.</p>

<p>Firstly, I'd like to thank the Chair of the committee, Andrew R.T. Davies, for opening the debate, previous Chair, Paul Davies, for stewarding our one-day inquiry, and to all those witnesses who gave evidence, be that written or oral. Let's be real. Everybody here in this Chamber, in this building using AI whether they know it or not, be that the subtitles on videos that we use on our social media, be that ChatGPT in helping us with speechwriting, and there's a lot of tells out there as well for those that know what to look out for, Dirprwy Lywydd, on whether someone is using ChatGPT. Too many hyphens; that's one of the things that ChatGPT tends to do is throw out a lot of hyphens in its text, so just something to bear in mind for those of you who just copy and paste without double checking.&nbsp;</p>
<p>But I see huge opportunity in AI, and leading on from what Adam Price has talked about on AI integrating into our economy and what we already do well in Wales, but how do we integrate AI into that to even more so maximise the benefits to our economy. Let's take a look at agriculture and the nitrate vulnerable zones and the water pollution regulations. The ability to integrate AI into the monitoring of nutrient levels in waterways, into when slurry should be spread or nitrate should be spread, that moves away from a farming-by-calendar approach. That's a technological answer to what currently is a very constrictive system and set of regulations.&nbsp;That's where I think AI has real uses in understanding the complexities of how the real world is, and giving that flexibility to it.</p>
<p>I always do believe that AI has to have human interaction at the beginning and at the end. It can't be left to its own devices. I believe that wholeheartedly. As someone who uses AI within my office, I always ensure that I'm at the beginning of the process and at the end of the process, and that humans are involved in that. I think that would solve many of the issues.&nbsp;</p>
<p>And around workforce and how the workforce will change because of AI, I think one of the key things is how the workforce then becomes trained to use AI themselves. So, the reskilling and upskilling of the workforce so that it's not doing away with jobs—it's changing the jobs themselves to a higher skillset. The prompts that are needed to use AI are really important. If you're looking to feed into a generative AI certain prompts, the more descriptive, the more prescriptive you can be in deciding what you want that AI to look at, the better the outcome will be. The more generic you are, the less skillset you have in prompting AI, then the weaker the answers are going to be. So, I think that's where there's a lot of strength to be garnered is how we upskill our workforce to be able to integrate AI, use AI as we go forward.&nbsp;</p>
<p>What I really like as well is credit to the Government for accepting or accepting in principle the eight recommendations of the committee. I think that's good. I hope that's not too high a number of committee recommendations&nbsp;after what the First Minister has said earlier this week; I think it's about the right level, there or thereabouts. We need to maximise the opportunity here, because so many countries are at the forefront of this. Everybody's scrambling around to try and be at the forefront. Adam was completely correct in saying this is our opportunity of looking at this, and other countries are going to be doing things specific to them. What's going to be specific to us in Wales with artificial intelligence? That's where I think there's an opportunity for Welsh Government, for a body. I think it is right that it should be Welsh Government leading where that is, working with the United Kingdom Government as well. I think there's a huge opportunity for us to strengthen our economy in Wales using artificial intelligence.</p>
<p>I'm pleased that our committee took time to look into this report, and I've used no notes in this in tribute to Hefin David, who is greatly missed. I would have liked to have heard his contribution on this. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.</p>

<p>Yes. Thank you very much, Mick. It's an incredibly important moment, actually. I think we're all very proud to see the law introduced, and I also want to pay tribute to the families and the wider campaigners who've tirelessly pursued the Hillsborough law over many years of, frankly, vilification and victim blaming and all of the other things that we've seen so very unedifyingly in our newspapers—the very same newspapers currently screaming the place down about other appalling miscarriages of justice.</p>
<p>I also want to recognise, Mick, yourself and Jack Sargeant in particular who've both tirelessly campaigned, alongside other Members of this Senedd, for this law to be put in place. I know that you've both worked very, very hard indeed behind the scenes and in public and with the families to make sure that this happens.</p>
<p>I couldn't agree with you more about Orgreave. The point is that there is a whole series of these kinds of misuses of public state power, if you like, against people who have little power to fight back, and the ramifications of that for those families continue on into generations, actually. It scars entire families and communities into generations, and we've seen that many times.</p>
<p>We expect the impact to be far-reaching, quite rightly. We have to work through it to understand the provisions of the Bill in detail and to make sure that we have that analysis properly. But, just to say, candour is a fundamental thing that all Governments should adhere to. It's fundamental to good governance and to regulatory compliance. We have duties of candour in the NHS already in Wales, of course, and I don't think it's asking us to do anything that the best of us wouldn't already do fulsomely. It gives legal backing to who we should be, who we ought to be at our very best. The civil service code already calls for this. It enshrines it in law, as you know.</p>
<p>One of the things I was most pleased to see in this was the expansion of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests. That's really important, so that people do have the right support in what can be a pretty formidable experience, and a pretty emotionally damaging experience as well. So, I really was very, very pleased to see that. As you know, we're pursuing a Member accountability Bill—a working title—at the moment. I had&nbsp;the privilege of discussing with Adam Price and Jane Dodds earlier today whether we can import bits of this across, so that the language makes a coherent package and makes sense. So, we will certainly be looking to do that.</p>
<p>What this really is doing is saying to people, 'For goodness' sake, do the right thing. Do the thing you knew you should have done in the first place.' And it puts the power of the law behind it. So, we're delighted to see the Bill introduced, and we'll be following it closely.</p>
<p>One of the things I was most pleased to see in this was the expansion of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests. That's really important, so that people do have the right support in what can be a pretty formidable experience, and a pretty emotionally damaging experience as well. So, I really was very, very pleased to see that. As you know, we're pursuing a Member accountability Bill—a working title—at the moment. I had&nbsp;the privilege of discussing with Adam Price and Jane Dodds earlier today whether we can import bits of this across, so that the language makes a coherent package and makes sense. So, we will certainly be looking to do that.</p>
<p>What this really is doing is saying to people, 'For goodness' sake, do the right thing. Do the thing you knew you should have done in the first place.' And it puts the power of the law behind it. So, we're delighted to see the Bill introduced, and we'll be following it closely.</p>

<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">as you know.</span></p>
<p>One of the things I was most pleased to see on this is the expansion of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests. That's really important, actually, so that people do have the right support in what can be a pretty formidable experience, and a pretty emotionally damaging experience as well. So, I really was very, very pleased to see that. As you know, we're pursuing a Member accountability Bill—a working title—at the moment. I had&nbsp;the privilege of discussing with Adam Price and Jane Dodds earlier today whether we can import bits of this across so that the language makes a coherent package and makes sense. So, we will certainly be looking to do that.</p>
<p>What this really is doing is saying to people, 'For goodness sake, do the right thing. Do the thing you knew you should have done in the first place, actually'. And it puts the power of the law behind it. So, we're delighted to see the Bill introduced, and we'll be following it closely.</p>

<p>Thank you, Mike.&nbsp;No objection to that? Thank you. And are you otherwise content to note the letter? Thank you very much.</p>
<p>In that case, we move on to paper to note 2, a letter received from Manon Antoniazzi, the Chief Executive and Clerk of the Senedd, to the Chair, myself, providing an update on recommendations from the committee's report on the scrutiny of the Senedd Commission accounts 2023-24, and I note the interest declared by Adam Price in this context. The Chief Executive and Clerk of the Senedd has written to provide us with further updates, as agreed in her initial response letter of 17 February this year, to the recommendations from our report on the scrutiny of the Senedd accounts 2023-24. The letter contains some confidential annexes, which we can discuss in private later in today's meeting. I suggest we consider the letter as part of our scrutiny of the Senedd Commission accounts for 2024-25 later this term. Members, do you have any comments on the letter? And are you, therefore, content to note the letter? I take that as affirmation. So, yes, thank you.</p>
<p>The third paper to note is a letter received from Carolyn Thomas, Chair of the Petitions Committee, which was sent to the Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, and myself as Chair of this committee, regarding petition P-06-1506, which calls for an end to further public funding for cycle paths and cycle infrastructure in Wales. Carolyn has written to us regarding this petition, drawing our attention, given our current inquiry into active travel in Wales. The Petitions Committee have agreed that, given the level of detailed scrutiny in the Senedd and by Audit Wales of this matter, there was not much more that they could do. They also agreed to close the petition. This committee will be reporting on our inquiry in, quote, 'the near future'. Members, do you have any comments, or are you content to note the letter?</p>

<p>Thank you. You referred earlier to the importance of primary care data in the context of prevention, and again, in this session, in response to Adam Price, the key role that prevention must play and grow its role in playing in the future. And you mentioned local authorities. You mentioned health boards. Early in our evidence taking for this inquiry, we had a session with third sector providers, who play a key role in the delivery of prevention and intervention services, but also recovery and rehabilitation services, which, hopefully, prevent the likelihood of reoccurrence also, yet they expressed concern that there was insufficient engagement and co-delivery with them, that things used to be better; they're not now. To what extent do you acknowledge the concern they expressed, and, if you do, how do you believe this can be addressed?</p>

<p>Thank you. Over to Adam Price, please.</p>

<p>We do, however, have several concerns that these Orders have some serious practical shortcomings, as well as glaring omissions, and will be abstaining this afternoon. My colleague Adam Price will speak to the specific issue of deliberate deception, but we are disappointed that the Order does not guarantee that universal roll-out of automatic registration for the 2026 election, in line with prior commitments made by the Government. I also have concerns that have been raised by the LJC committee regarding the shortcomings of the checking process for these Orders.</p>
<p>It's quite damning that, on the eve of this debate, on a matter of such significance as the arrangements for our next set of national elections, we have a Senedd committee submitting written correspondence, expressing its view that the drafting of the Order has been badly mishandled despite repeated prior warnings. It speaks to an alarming failure of the most fundamental machinery of Government. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">So, why has this gone so badly wrong?</span></p>

<p>Thank&nbsp;you very much, Adam Price. Of course, you will know that it was in the UK Government's manifesto. Now, we're a year on from the new Government coming into force in terms of youth justice. We've had several positive conversations with the UK Government on taking forward their manifesto commitments. It clearly was in our manifesto commitment as a Welsh Labour Government.</p>
<p>Our Deputy First Minister met the Lord Chancellor only last month. I met Sir Nic Dakin yesterday, and I discussed the devolution of youth justice, and we agreed that I would now engage with him—we're going to meet shortly—about the way forward. Because so much work has been done, it's not about making the case, it's preparing for the devolution of youth justice. We've now got a youth justice research programme, building on what we already know in terms of youth justice, the devolution of youth justice. So, I'm confident that we're going to see that this is going to be taken forward by the UK Government.</p>

<p>Bore da. Croeso. Good morning and welcome to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee here in the Senedd, the Welsh Parliament. As always, the meeting will be conducted bilingually, with headsets providing simultaneous translation on channel 1 and sound amplification on channel 2. Participants joining online can access translation by clicking on the globe icon on Zoom. We've had apologies from Rhianon Passmore and we understand the remaining committee member, Adam Price, will be joining us later. Do Members present have any declarations of registrable interest they wish to declare? I see no indications. Thank you very much indeed.</p>

<p>We have a series of papers to note, as normal. The first being a letter from&nbsp;Sioned Evans, chief operating officer, Welsh Government, to myself as Chair regarding the recommendations made in our report, 'Scrutiny of Accounts:<br>Amgueddfa Cymru 2021-22'. She's written to us to provide an update on their roll-out of a self-assessment model for reviewing arm's-length bodies. This is in response to recommendation 10 of our report on Amgueddfa Cymru's accounts for 2021-22. The letter received includes the model and guidance that was issued to all arm's-length bodies in May 2025. She explains that the model was piloted in late 2024, continuing into early this year, involving a small number of partnership teams and bodies. She describes the response as being generally positive, with some changes made as a result of feedback. The revised model shared will now be in use for this year, 2025-26. The majority of bodies that have not been reviewed since 2021 have been asked to carry out a self-assessment, with outcomes to be reported by 31 March 2026. The letter explains that any issues identified as part of this process could lead to further revisions to the model. The letter also refers to other opportunities for a review, explaining, and I quote,</p>
<p>'there are a number of review methods available. These include a focus on key issues identified through the assessment, a Critical Friend Review or similar tool from the Welsh Government Policy Gateway and Integrated Assurance Hub, or an internally led Rapid Review.'</p>
<p>Our committee will be making reference to the Welsh Government's risk assessment of its arm's-length bodies in its forthcoming report on the scrutiny of accounts, Welsh Government, 2023-24. Members therefore may wish to reflect on the contents of this letter in that report. The clerking team can help prepare draft revisions to the report for our consideration.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Members, do you have any comments on this letter? May I welcome Adam Price? We're still on paper to note 1, Adam. Members, do you have any comments on the letter received or are you content to note the letter? I think content to note the letter.</p>
<p>So,&nbsp;we shall move on to our second paper to note: public appointments—consideration of Welsh Government's response. We've received a response from the Welsh Government to our report, which will need to be considered in further detail. It is deeply regrettable that the Welsh Government has failed to indicate in their response whether recommendations have been accepted, rejected or even accepted in principle or in part. Indeed, the committee has previously raised concerns with the Welsh Government about recommendations being accepted only in principle, given that the previous&nbsp;Permanent Secretary indicated to our predecessor committee that this practice would be discontinued back in 2018, seven years ago. This further step to not respond in line with existing convention inhibits this committee's ability to scrutinise implementation, and it's therefore of serious concern to myself in role as Chair. I suspect this practice would also be of concern to other committees, Chairs and their members.</p>
<p>This report was prepared on the basis of several in-depth evidence sessions, as you know, and any recommendations were made with a genuine intention to make improvements and to respond to concerns raised with us. Whilst we accept that not all recommendations will be accepted—they rarely are—this is a troubling development, and we will be pursuing this further with the Welsh Government as a matter of priority. In instances where recommendations are rejected, we would expect, in the interest of accountability, for this rejection to be clearly flagged in the Welsh Government's response, and a full explanation of the reasons for rejection to be provided. There will be a committee debate on the contents of the report on 25 June, providing an opportunity to reflect on the Welsh Government's response, as part of that session. Members, at this stage—we will be revisiting this later in private—do you have any comments, or are you content to note? Adam, I think you may have a comment.</p>

<p>Well, I can start at the end and say 'yes' to that; we absolutely do think the Barnett formula should be reviewed. We've made that very plain indeed. We think there are a number of stages before you get there, but we have made that very plain. So, I can start by completely agreeing with you on that.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, I need to get into a bit more of the nitty-gritty about the rail funding, and it can be quite complex. So, until now, East West Rail has been identified as comparable in the statement of funding policy. The UK Government is now saying it will be delivered via the Network Rail England and Wales rail infrastructure enhancement programme, which is not comparable, and this has all emerged over the period since 2 June. We understand, following recent discussions at official level, that HM Treasury has initially identified the previous classification as a potential mistake, and they're in discussion with the Department of Transport on this matter. HMT are now considering how all of this impacts on overall comparability, but have confirmed that we have the same comparability factors as were used in the autumn budget in the spending review last week. This example perfectly illustrates what's wrong with the Barnett formula. So, going to your end question, it's a very good example of what's wrong with it, but, as I said in answer to Adam, from a legal point of view, it's very clear that heavy rail is not devolved to Wales, that it's an England and Wales, therefore, function. I don't think that it would best serve the Welsh public to spend resources on arguing with HMT about whether that's a mistake, or the classification—. I don't think that would get us anywhere. I don't think that we would have a decent legal argument to put up that it wasn't a mistake, and I think that we would ultimately fail.</p>
<p>Therefore, as I said in response to Adam Price, we've concentrated our efforts on making sure that the England-and-Wales pipeline has a Wales bit of it, and that that pipeline is fit for purpose. We have a three-year spending review for the pipeline now that's been announced, and we're very pleased about that, and we continue to make the case for that pipeline to be extended. We would then, eventually, be making the case that the Network Rail area should be Wales only, so that you have much more transparency in terms of the investment decisions. But, in terms of the legal case, I don't think that that legal case would be a good one, and I think we would be spending a lot of money not to get very far.</p>

<p>First Minister, I am grateful for your response to Adam Price. Of course, getting infrastructure right is crucial to boosting the Welsh economy—stimulating growth, creating jobs and supporting communities, in particular in my region in north Wales.&nbsp;You will know, with the Act, that the new infrastructure consent will be required for power stations in Wales between 50 MW and 350 MW, which, of course, would be the region in which you would have small modular reactors, around 300 MW, for the nuclear sector, which is a potential area of huge growth in my region of north Wales. It has the potential to boost the Welsh economy by creating those much needed high-quality jobs, and, of course, for nuclear sites, such as Trawsfynydd and Wylfa, there is significant infrastructure already in place to support development there as well. So, I wonder what support will be given to the nuclear sector through the implementation of this Act and the ongoing work that the Welsh Government are providing, to avoid any pitfalls in the planning and consenting process, specifically in terms of guidance for developers who want to invest in north Wales. Thank you.</p>

<p>Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Bore da a chroeso. Good morning and welcome to this morning's meeting of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee in the Senedd, the Welsh Parliament. The meeting will be held bilingually. Headsets provide simultaneous translation on channel 1 and sound amplification on channel 2 and those participants joining online, including my fellow Members, can access translation by clicking on the globe icon on Zoom.</p>
<p>Welcome, Tom Giffard and Mike Hedges. I understand that neither Adam Price nor Rhianon Passmore are able to join us this morning. Do those Members attending have any declarations of registrable interest that they wish to declare that are not otherwise recorded on the public record? No indications. That's fine, thank you.</p>

<p>The next questions will be those to the Cabinet Secretary for Education. The first question will be answered by the Minister for Further and Higher Education, and will be asked by Adam Price.</p>

<p>Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Before we have a break, can I report that we've got apologies from Adam Price?</p>

<p>Can I thank Adam Price for that, and for highlighting the other investment into sports museums across the country? I very much recognise the importance of the culture and the history of rugby to communities right across Wales. I was very pleased to see, just yesterday when I was doing a bit of research in response to this question, the work of Carmarthen Athletic Rugby Football Club and their hosting of an online museum, and the project that they undertook with local schoolchildren to showcase all of the memorabilia they have, not just in rugby but also in other sports as well. I think Pele's boots are even on the online museum, which is really, really great.</p>
<p>As I said, my officials have not been approached about this particular project, but if the Member wished to talk with stakeholders that he is aware of about this project, then I would be happy for my officials to have a further conversation around this particular project and be able to advise project leaders, particularly around it becoming an accredited museum. If they were to seek Welsh Government funding, Presiding Officer, then of course, we would expect an economic assessment to be undertaken to develop that business case. So, if the Member wants to write to me on the issue, I'd be happy to set that conversation up with my officials, so that they can provide advice to him.</p>
<p>I think the Member is absolutely right to point to Carmarthen as an area where rugby started. They have a proud history, don't they, in rugby, as do other parts of the country. I think Carmarthen Athletic, the club I referenced earlier, Presiding Officer, the father of a famous rugby player, Ken Owens, played for them, and then Ken, obviously, played for the other team in Carmarthen. So, he's absolutely right to point to the history that is there, and I look forward to having that discussion with him.</p>

<p>Diolch, Adam Price, for the question. The Welsh Government has not been approached to discuss this project. As such, to date, no evaluation of its economic regeneration potential has been made.</p>

<p>Okay. Thank you very much indeed. Adam Price.</p>

<p>Diolch yn fawr, Adam Price. I'm really very grateful for that question, because that's precisely what I'm already seeking to do—to reach out to those who are already approaching the Welsh Government, asking if they can consult, they can talk to us. I’m talking to organisations who were, for example, advising us in the development of our groundbreaking LGBTQ+ action plan, but also organisations, for example, like the Women’s Equality Network, who represent a wide range of women’s organisations in Wales as well—so, reaching out to all of the equality organisations. And as you say, our understanding is—and we are due to meet with the Equality and Human Rights Commission—that they are looking towards a statutory code of guidance.</p>
<p>At this present point in time, it’s really important to understand that the interim guidance last week was in fact only an update, and we have got to use this time—and we started, obviously, as soon as the judgment came through—in reaching out and consulting, and receiving all the views. And, of course, today is part of that, with questions, obviously, scrutiny, and my written statement yesterday. So, thank you for that. That is certainly what we are seeking to do.</p>

<p>Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.</p>

<p>Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr, Adam Price. I would very much like to follow up how we can engage with the democratic innovation advisory group in this way. I think you will have seen in my written statement that I concluded the statement by saying that we do acknowledge the fear and uncertainty that trans people, particularly across Wales, may be experiencing and feeling, assuring that the Welsh Government will value respect, compassion and kindness in all its interactions with trans people and communities. But I think your wider point about how we can build an understanding and consensus is really important, and I would hope that would embrace views that are expressed here in this Chamber, which might be uncomfortable and challenging. I hope that I've been able to at least reach out and reassure you and Members about the way in which we want to move this forward as much as possible in the spirit of what Lord Hodge said, that we should not be seeing this as a triumph of one or more groups in society at the expense of another.</p>
<p>Just one final point, Dirprwy Lywydd, if I may, on this is that we are seeking an update on the UK Government proposal to equalise hate crime protections in law. That's something that we've called for since the Law Commission's 2021 recommendation. It hasn't been commenced yet, but we know that there is hate crime in this whole arena of policy, and we want to counteract that. We want to have equal rights in terms of human rights in how people treat each other, and I'm grateful for your questions this afternoon.</p>

<p>I thank Mick Antoniw very much for that and echoing some of the points that Adam Price made earlier. I think the Gordon Brown report has a three-stranded answer to the Member's question. It does refer to the need for a fair funding formula, and we've rehearsed that extensively this afternoon, but beyond the formula itself, you need to have that formula entrenched in two ways. First of all, it needs parliamentary oversight, both at the UK Parliament but in the other Parliaments of the United Kingdom. And then, it needs a way of being justiciable. The problem with a formula and a convention is that when attempts were made to go to the Supreme Court to have the Sewel convention looked at, the courts concluded that there was nothing that the courts could do, because this was merely a convention despite the fact that it had been honoured for 20 years. So, what Gordon Brown says in his report is: reform of the formula, proper parliamentary oversight of it and a legally binding part of it, which means that if you believe that things have not been done properly, you have recourse to independent redress, rather than it simply being in the hands of the people who made the decision in the first place.</p>

<p>Croeso, bawb, i'r cyfarfod hwn o'r&nbsp;Pwyllgor Diwylliant, Cyfathrebu, y Gymraeg, Chwaraeon a Chysylltiadau Rhyngwladol. Dŷn ni hefyd yn estyn croeso i Hannah Blythyn, o Bwyllgor yr Economi, Masnach a Materion Gwledig, i Mike Hedges ac Adam Price, o'r&nbsp;Pwyllgor Deddfwriaeth, Cyfiawnder a'r Cyfansoddiad, ac i Llyr Huws Gruffydd, o'r Pwyllgor Newid Hinsawdd, yr Amgylchedd a Seilwaith. Mae croeso mawr i chi gyd. Dŷn ni wedi derbyn ymddiheuriadau gan Andrew R.T. Davies a Lee Waters, a bydd Mick Antoniw yn ymuno gyda ni nes ymlaen.</p>

<p>Okay. Could I check finally—? I'll bring Adam in, actually. Adam Price.</p>

<p>Thank you to Adam Price for a number of important points there. The proposals that we put forward in 'Reforming our Union' would not only have created a new rules-based system, with the transparency that that would bring, but also would have created a new independent oversight body, because we cannot, I believe, go on indefinitely having the Treasury the judge, the jury and, occasionally, the executioner, when it comes to the Barnett formula. We saw that in the £1 billion bung, as it was called, that went in order to secure the support of the DUP&nbsp;&nbsp;to the minority administration led by Theresa May. Neither England, Scotland nor Wales had anything the equivalent, as the Barnett formula itself would have otherwise required. So, we do need something that is a good deal more transparent, rules based and independent than we have now.</p>
<p>I’m told by our colleagues in the Treasury that they do hope to publish a block grant transparency report before too long. And I should say that, in the FISC meeting, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did offer to codify some of the improvements that we’ve seen in the way that the Treasury has behaved in relation to the devolved Governments since July of last year. We’ve had earlier information, we’ve had better information, and the Chief Secretary has offered to make that a permanent part of the way that he conducts his office. So, I’m pleased about that.</p>
<p>As far as invoking the disputes mechanism is concerned, it has been invoked by the Northern Ireland Executive, not on this matter, but on another matter. And, just at the moment, I am watching how that dispute is being taken through the disputes mechanism, and I’ll watch that carefully to see whether that provides a route that we might wish to follow in those places where we think Wales has not been properly served by current arrangements. But I’m not at that point just yet.</p>

<p>That takes us on to item 2, the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Bill, Stage 2.&nbsp;Our first substantive item today is Stage 2 proceedings on the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Bill.&nbsp;I welcome&nbsp;Julie James MS, Counsel General and Member in charge of the Bill, and&nbsp;Claire Fife, policy adviser to the Counsel General and head of the legislative codes office, Welsh Government.&nbsp;In relation to this item, Members should have before them the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments for debate. We also have correspondence from Adam Price MS and from the Open Spaces Society included within our papers.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The marshalled list of amendments is the list of all amendments that have been tabled, marshalled into the order of consideration we agreed on 17 March.&nbsp;You will see from the groupings list that amendments have been grouped to facilitate debate, but the order in which they are called and moved for a decision is dictated by the marshalled list.&nbsp;Members will need to follow the two papers, although I will advise Members, when I call them, whether they are being called to speak in the debate or to move their amendments for a decision.&nbsp;There will be one debate on each group of amendments.&nbsp;Members who wish to speak in a particular group should indicate this in the usual way.&nbsp;I will call the Counsel General to speak on each group. In accordance with the established convention, as Chair, I will move amendments in the name of the Counsel General. For expediency, I will assume that the Counsel General wishes me to move all her amendments and I will do so at the appropriate place in the marshalled list. I see a 'yes' from the Counsel General there. Counsel General, if you do not want a particular amendment to be moved, please indicate this at the relevant point in proceedings.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Amendment 1, in group 8, has been tabled by Paul Davies. I understand that Laura Anne Jones will move and speak to this amendment. In line with our usual practice, legal advisers to the committee and the Counsel General are not expected to provide advice on the record. If Members wish to seek legal advice during proceedings, please do so by passing a note to the legal adviser.</p>

<p>That takes us on to group 1,&nbsp;approval of draft Welsh statutory instruments subject to specified amendments—amendment 23. The first group of amendments relates to the approval of draft Welsh statutory instruments subject to specified amendments.&nbsp;The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 23. I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the amendment.</p>

<p>Amendment 23 (Adam Price) moved.</p>

<p>Yes. I'm grateful to Adam Price for the way he's introduced this amendment and the way in which he's approached the amendments in his name in this process. I think it's a very useful exercise to have this conversation, and it's a conversation the committee has already started, of course. I think, in principle, I have no issue with the points that Adam makes. I think we need to look towards a much wider view of how we legislate at the moment. We've seen a number of different themes emerge, if you like, during this current Senedd. We've seen Bills that are, by their nature, more framework Bills than perhaps we would have anticipated, and we've seen far more statutory instruments coming forward as a consequence of that. Now, I have no view on whether that's a good or a bad thing, but we do need to look at how we conduct the legislative process in Wales. This committee, or a previous committee, undertook a review—I think it was about a decade&nbsp;or so ago now—with Daniel Greenberg as a special adviser, I remember, and it seems to me that the committee, or perhaps the equivalent committee in the next Senedd, should make a review of our legislative process a priority, with a view on the amendment of statutory instruments as a key part of that. I understand that the Business Committee is looking into these matters at the moment, and I understand that the Government is reticent to accept these amendments at this point in time. But I also appreciate—and I think the Counsel General said this in further evidence—that there is no principled opposition here from the Welsh Government, but we're looking at how there is an agreed process to take these matters forward. So, I look forward to the comments from the Counsel General to this, but I think the lesson, if you like, is that the Government and the Senedd need to take a wider look at how we legislate, the legislative process in its totality, and then I'm sure the Government, or perhaps the next Government, of whatever colour that might be, would be prepared to bring forward legislation to give life to the conclusions of that review.</p>

<p>I now take us on to group 2. The second group of amendments relates to the partial annulment of subordinate legislation made by Welsh statutory instrument. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 24. I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the lead amendment, and all his other amendments in this group. Adam.</p>

<p>Amendment 24 (Adam Price) moved.</p>

<p>We now move on to group 3, amendments relating to the administrative correction of minor errors in Welsh statutory instruments. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 33. I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the amendment.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Amendment 33 (Adam Price) moved.</p>

<p>I'd be interested to hear the Government's argument on this, because it seems to me there is no argument from the Government on this point of view. The Government does not support the amendment, but has said, and I think the Counsel General has made clear, that there is no practical difference between the situation that has been described by Adam Price and the situation as described in the current Bill. So, if there is no practical difference, there can be no administrative or cost difference either, and there can be no political or legal reason&nbsp;why Wales shouldn't exist on the same basis in these terms as Scotland and Northern Ireland. It appears to me that the Government's position on this is quite difficult, to say the least.</p>

<p>The fifth group relates to the King’s Printer for Wales.&nbsp;The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 34. I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the amendment.</p>

<p>Amendment 34 (Adam Price) moved.</p>

<p>That takes us on to group 7.&nbsp;The seventh group of amendments relates to reporting on the correction of Welsh statutory instruments.&nbsp;The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 35. I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the amendment.</p>

<p>Amendment 35 (Adam Price) moved.</p>

<p>Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'm grateful to both Laura Anne Jones and Adam Price for setting out the intentions behind the respective amendments. It's clear that both Members are seeking to ensure that the purpose of the Bill or the amendments it makes to the 2019 Act are working in practice as intended. I absolutely agree&nbsp;it's important that when legislation is made that its value and effect are kept under review, and given that one of the things this Bill does is repeal provisions that are no longer of practical utility or benefit, it's no surprise that that's what I think, I think.</p>
<p>I'll turn to Adam's amendment in a moment, but I understand from the points made by Laura Anne that the intention is that a review would consider how Parts 2A and 2B in particular are working. And whilst I acknowledge that builds on my response to recommendation 2 of the committee report, the amendment itself doesn't quite achieve that. The amendment would require another full review of the whole 2019 Act, and I'm afraid I don't see the value in that, but the amendment also seeks the review of the format of Welsh statutory instruments. The format of those is not set by either this Bill or the 2019 Act, as it will be amended.</p>
<p>But I can update Members that a decision on the format of the Welsh statutory instruments needs to be taken in the next month or so, and that's necessary to enable the National Archives to deal with the move to a single-column print publication, alongside the other changes they need to make for the coming into force of Parts 2A and 2B on 1 January 2026. And it will also form part of their work to move drafters of Welsh subordinate legislation onto new drafting software. So, making the change now will minimise the cost of changing the registration and publication systems within the National Archives and for the publication concessionaire, but also potentially for the Welsh Government, and longer term should result in important cost savings for the Government and the King's Printer and his teams. So, my officials are already in discussion with the National Archives about this and are approaching the Welsh Language Commissioner for a meeting, if she would wish to be involved. And I note this amendment seeks consultation on the wider review with the commissioner, but I think the intention is that, really, that consultation is about the format of instruments. So, I hope my commitment to engage with the commissioner satisfies that element.</p>
<p>Looking at Adam's amendment, I explained at Stage 1 that this Bill is merely a vehicle to amend other legislation. So, once the Act makes those amendments, it's finished. Its purpose is done. So, I think a review of this Bill doesn't deliver anything, and we don't need to wait a year to be able to say, 'It's done', because it will be done as it's passed. But I think what we're really looking at is how the 2019 Act as amended works. I think I'm right in saying that.</p>
<p>So, I think post-legislative review is an important part of the process, and I hope the future larger Senedd will look at a number of things that could improve scrutiny. I think routine post-legislative review is absolutely one, and we should think that—. I think we should look at what the New Zealand Parliament, as a unicameral legislature, does to bring in independent expert views on the technical aspects of legislation. They have a standing technical group that looks at all of those things as well, and I think that's something I'm really interested in exploring. I think that would really help, particularly given the lack of commentariat in Wales. We don't have a standard one, so we sort of need to invent it for ourselves, and that's very much what New Zealand has done, and I'm very interested in that.</p>
<p>So, I'd really like to work with both Adam and you, Laura, in Paul's name, to enable a suitable amendment to the Bill to be brought forward. I think it's very important that we establish whether the codification and modernisation of Senedd procedures has worked as we anticipate, and given what has been discussed today regarding the King's Printer, I think we should ensure the review includes the new Part 2B. So, on that basis, the Government would look to work with both Members on a new amendment to be considered at Stage 3. So, I hope that that means we're not looking at amendments 1 and 36, but even if we are, I would want to bring forward a new one.</p>
<p>And as this is my last opportunity to speak in today's proceedings, Chair, I'd just like to cover a few other matters, with your indulgence. Under Standing Orders, as the Bill has been amended at this Stage, a revised explanatory memorandum will be prepared, reflecting the changes. I wanted the committee to be aware that we will also take the opportunity to update the detail on expenditure on statutory instruments to include the financial year 2024-25. It doesn't change the basis on which the regulatory impact assessment is prepared, but it will ensure the most up-to-date information is available to the Senedd and in the public domain.</p>
<p>I really wanted to give my heartfelt thanks to all Members for their careful and detailed deliberations, in particular the time and effort Adam has given to bringing forward the amendments. I think we can all agree it prompted us to consider new, better ways to make and scrutinise legislation. I think we're all dedicated to improving the accessibility of Welsh law, and it's a long-term ongoing endeavour, and this ensures that progress continues to be made, and we continue to move towards a statute book that is fit for the people of Wales. Diolch.</p>

<p>Amendment 36 (Adam Price) not moved.</p>

<p>Okay. Adam Price, can I bring you back in on spending?</p>

<p>I'm glad you're getting there. I was doing that with my staff 30 years ago. Adam Price.</p>