|
|
||
|
Cynulliad Cenedlaethol
Cymru
|
||
|
Y Pwyllgor Materion
Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol
|
||
|
Dydd Mercher, 29 Mehefin
2011
|
||
|
Cynnwys
3 Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan
Buddiannau
3 Rôl y Pwyllgor a’i Ddulliau Gweithredu yn ystod y Pedwerydd Cynulliad Role of the Committee and Working Methods during the Fourth Assembly
10 Offerynnau Nad Ydynt yn Codi Unrhyw Faterion i fod yn Destun Adroddiad o dan Reolau Sefydlog Rhif 21.2 neu 21.3 Instruments that Raise no Reporting Issues under Standing Order Nos. 21.2 or 21.3
11 Offerynnau sy’n Codi Materion a fydd yn Destun Adroddiad i’r Cynulliad o dan Reolau Sefydlog Rhif 21.2 neu 21.3 Instruments that Raise Issues to be Reported to the Assembly Under Standing Order Nos. 21.2 or 21.3
11 Dyddiad y Cyfarfod Nesaf Date of Next Meeting
|
||
|
Cofnodir y trafodion hyn yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir cyfieithiad Saesneg o gyfraniadau yn y Gymraeg.
These proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, an English translation of Welsh speeches is included.
|
||
|
Aelodau’r pwyllgor yn
bresennol
|
||
|
Peter Black |
Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru Welsh Liberal Democrats |
|
|
David Melding |
Ceidwadwyr Cymreig (Cadeirydd y
Pwyllgor) |
|
|
Antoinette Sandbach |
Ceidwadwyr Cymreig |
|
|
Simon Thomas |
Plaid Cymru
|
|
|
Swyddogion Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru yn
bresennol
|
||
|
Steve George |
Clerc |
|
|
Gwyn Griffiths |
Uwch-gynghorydd Cyfreithiol |
|
|
Olga Lewis |
Dirprwy Glerc |
|
|
Owain Roberts |
Y Gwasanaeth Ymchwil
|
|
|
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 9.00 a.m.
|
||
|
|
||
|
[1] David Melding: Good morning, and welcome to this meeting of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. I welcome in particular Antoinette Sandbach, who joins the committee this morning. We look forward to your contributions. This is the committee’s first meeting under its new name, denoting its wider remit—we only had one meeting of the previous committee.
|
||
|
[2] In an emergency, please follow the instructions of the ushers. We do not expect a routine test of the fire alarm or anything similar, so if you do hear it, it is for real. Headsets are available: you can get the translation on channel 1, and you can amplify the proceedings on channel 0. Please switch off all mobiles and other electronic devices.
|
||
|
[3] I have not received any apologies, but I know that Peter Black has a clash of committee meetings, and, depending on the length of this meeting, he may have to leave to attend the Finance Committee. We understand your predicament, Peter.
|
||
|
9.01 a.m.
|
||
|
|
||
|
[4] David Melding: We have a couple of papers for this item, one of which is on the remit of the committee. There was a paper last week from the research service on possible areas for us to look at with regard to inquiries. Shall we take the remit paper first? Do people have any points that they want to raise about the manner set out for how we should work? It thoroughly indicates the functions that we have, those that are discretionary, those that are not, and some of the challenges facing us, particularly in relation to the time that we would have to look at UK Bills and their implications. It also sets out how we are to handle some of the European legislation that we may have to look at. Clearly, most of it will be Bills, based on the good practice that was established in previous Assemblies.
|
||
|
[5] Antoinette Sandbach: What sort of feed-in mechanism is there for European legislation that might affect us? What kind of reporting mechanism is there from Europe to the Assembly, and how much of an opportunity do we get to influence that?
|
||
|
[6] David Melding: I shall turn to one of our legal advisers shortly, but I think that it is fairly recently that the issue of subsidiarity and keeping regional parliaments in the loop has been addressed systematically. That is what we are looking at, but it does create, as the paper points out, challenges in terms of timescales.
|
||
|
[7] Simon Thomas: Thanks to the new treaties.
|
||
|
[8] David Melding: It might be appropriate for us to ask the secretariat to prepare a longer paper on this in terms of how we will handle it. There could be wider challenges, in that our remit runs to legislative and constitutional affairs generally, and the consequences of probably not having a European affairs committee mean that there could be some policy implications for what is done at European level that we could flag up with the relevant committee—we do not know how any work of that sort would be handled. It is probably an area that we need to give some fairly studied thought to. We do not necessarily have to do that this morning, but it is something that we need to flag up.
|
||
|
[9] Gwyn, do you have anything to add on this point?
|
||
|
[10] Mr Griffiths: Yes. Briefly, Chair, as you have noted, paragraph 35 of the paper contains the suggestion that we prepare a more detailed paper on this work. It is something that came fairly recently to the former European and External Affairs Committee. During the lifetime of that committee, we did not, in fact, come across anything that required us to submit an adverse report. However, there are issues from time to time that will need to be drawn to the committee’s attention, and we will prepare a paper for the committee on that.
|
||
|
[11] Standing Order No. 21.8 deals specifically with the question of subsidiarity, but there are other issues that may, from time to time, need to come before the committee. An issue that I am looking at at the moment relates to the use of languages in the European Court of Justice. Clearly, that is something that has to be done at European level, so there is not a question of subsidiarity.
|
||
|
[12] Nevertheless, there is an issue because of the limitation in one respect to official community languages and the fact that, elsewhere, there is reference to the language used in the referring court in the member state, which could be different. For example, if a case were dealt with in Wales in Welsh, that language is not one of the official community languages, and it is not clear how the rules would apply in those circumstances. So, we are looking at issues such as that, and I may submit a paper to the committee on that subject next week or the week after.
|
||
|
[13] Generally, on the question of subsidiarity, this is something that needs to be developed within the new committee arrangements. Under the previous system, we had the European and External Affairs Committee, and the Chair and clerk formed part of a network of Chairs and clerks of similar committees at Westminster and in the other devolved areas. Clearly, we will need to look into that with regard to how this committee operates. We have to feed our comments in through the committees at Westminster, which means that our timescale is short. Hence there is the question of delegating powers to the Chair during recess, because otherwise we might miss the boat.
|
||
|
[14] David Melding: I see that there are no further points on that. We will commission that paper and have a good look at it. Are there any general comments on the paper, especially with regard to the fact that it indicates that we are likely to deal with subordinate legislation? The meat of that is in paragraphs 10 to 16. You will notice that some powers are delegated to me during recess. That allows the system to keep working smoothly. Are Members happy with that?
|
||
|
[15] Peter Black: Whether we are happy or not, we cannot do anything about it; it is in the Standing Orders.
|
||
|
[16] David Melding: Well, I am being polite. You will be kept fully informed.
|
||
|
[17] Simon Thomas: That is what we are not happy about. [Laughter.]
|
||
|
[18] David Melding: I should start being rude, obviously. [Laughter.] I sense that we are fairly content with the paper. There is an issue regarding the scrutiny of subordinate legislation arising from Assembly and UK Bills—if we are very late in the day, I do not know whether it may relate to UK Acts also. Obviously, we want to influence Bills. The whole issue is how powers are given to Ministers and who controls that. As I understand it, at the moment, some powers over devolved functions can be given directly to Ministers by Westminster legislation, which is a bit of a flaw in the whole system, because it should be the Assembly that does that. I think that it would perhaps be appropriate for us to look at how these issues are now dealt with as our first focused inquiry. As far as the paper before us is concerned, I suspect that we will want to devote a lot of time to Assembly Bills and probably look at every one, even if we find that there is not a lot that causes concern. The UK legislation is likely to be a little more problematic as time commitments are likely to press. However, if we can improve the system by looking, by way of an inquiry, into how powers are delegated to Ministers and the need to channel that delegation through an Assembly process, that may be a way of dealing strategically with some of the issues, rather than trying to react piecemeal to what we suddenly discover some piece of UK legislation is proposing to do. Are Members content to do that? I see that you are.
|
||
|
[19] Moving on now to the paper from the research service, it seems that we could roll a few things into an inquiry on how some of the current procedures operate in that regard. There is reference in the paper to these issues in relation to the Public Bodies Bill. However, there is a general principle here that we need to look at, rather than a Bill-specific issue.
|
||
|
[20] On the devolutionary advice note—is that the right term?
|
||
|
[21] Mr Griffiths: It is the devolution guidance note.
|
||
|
[22] David Melding: I think that devolution guidance notes 9 and 16 have not been updated for a long time. Perhaps we ought to look at that with regard to how these matters are handled in general. We could look at the whole business of whether a more formal system, analogous to Sewel in Scotland, is likely to be of benefit. We could roll those into one fairly quick inquiry. There is a lot of evidence out there, and it is just a matter of collating it and then perhaps expanding on it in the inquiry.
|
||
|
[23] Peter Black: I have a couple of points. First, whenever a UK Bill is published, it would be useful to have a general overview so that we can see whether there is any impact on the powers of Welsh Ministers or the Assembly, or any potential, whereby we could make representations in terms of how we might benefit if the Bill was changed.
|
||
|
[24] Speaking from vague recollection, as I do not have my copy of Standing Orders with me, there is a provision in the Standing Orders that Ministers have to give notice if a Westminster Bill takes away or adds to the powers of the Welsh Government, and we would need to take account of that. It is not in the extract that we have here, but I remember from the Business Committee’s revision of Standing Orders that there was quite a lot of discussion about how that should be balanced. There is stuff in there which would clearly fall into the remit of this committee, and which we would need to address at some stage.
|
||
|
[25] David Melding: We can certainly look at that and how it will operate.
|
||
|
[26] Mr Griffiths: The normal practice has been that the research service would prepare a brief after each Queen’s Speech identifying Bills that might be relevant, so that more detailed work can be done on them as soon as they are published.
|
||
|
[27] David Melding: One of the issues here is that Bills change in all sorts of directions as they negotiate the parliamentary cycle, and we do not always know what some of those changes imply, which causes difficulty as well.
|
||
|
[28] Mr Griffiths: The new Standing Orders do provide for the Business Committee to refer legislative consent motions to committees. I do not know to what extent the Business Committee will refer them to this committee or to the relevant subject committee. However, we can look at that.
|
||
|
[29] David Melding: That is work that needs to be covered.
|
||
|
[30] Peter Black: I am moving slightly outside my comfort zone as I am speaking from recollection, but my recollection of Standing Orders is that there is some discretion for Ministers as to how and where they produce these reports in relation to powers, and it seems to me that a key role of this committee is to make sure that that discretion is used properly. |
||
|
[31] Simon Thomas: Yr oeddwn am godi’r perygl posibl o fewn y maes gwaith hwn, oherwydd, oni bai ein bod yn ofalus iawn, gallem gael ein sugno mewn i lawer o waith. Hynny yw, mae llawer o ddeddfwriaeth yn mynd drwy San Steffan sy’n effeithio ar Gymru neu sy’n gallu cael ei weld yn y cyd-destun hwnnw. Priod waith San Steffan ac Aelodau Seneddol o Gymru yw craffu ar hynny. Felly, byddwn yn cefnogi eich cynnig, Gadeirydd, ein bod yn edrych ar y broses er mwyn ei gwella. Er bod y maes gwaith yn rhoi caniatâd inni fynd mewn i’r maes hwn, priod waith y pwyllgor hwn yw edrych ar ddeddfwriaeth sydd yn dod gerbron gan y Cynulliad a chan Llywodraeth y Cynulliad. Felly, gair o rybudd yw hynny o’m rhan i. Yr wyf yn edrych ymlaen at waith y pwyllgor hwn, ond nid wyf eisiau dyblygu’r gwaith a ddylai gael ei wneud mewn lle arall. Mae sawl enghraifft wedi bod yn ystod y pedair blynedd diwethaf lle mae pwerau wedi cael eu rhoi yn uniongyrchol i Weinidogion fan hyn gan San Steffan, ac nid yw’r lle hwn wedi cael cyfle go iawn i edrych ar hynny. Byddai edrych mewn i hynny yn rhywbeth i’w groesawu.
|
Simon Thomas: I wish to raise the potential risk within this area of work, because, if we are not very careful, we could be sucked into a lot of work. That is, a lot of legislation goes through Westminster that affects Wales or could be seen in that context. The main role of Westminster and Welsh Members of Parliament is to scrutinise that. So, I would support your proposal, Chair, that we look at the process in order to improve it. Although the area of work allows us to go into this area, the main role of this committee is to look at legislation that comes before us from the Assembly and the Assembly Government. So, I am sounding a note of caution. I am looking forward to this committee’s work, but I do not wish to duplicate the work that should be done in another place. There have been a number of examples over the past four years where powers have been given directly to Ministers here by Westminster, but this place has not had a proper opportunity to look at that. Looking into that would be something to welcome. |
|
|
[32] David Melding: I absolutely concur, as we want a robust structure. If there is a robust structure, it means that we do not have to do the fire-control last-minute scrutiny
|
||
|
[33] Mr Griffiths: I ymateb yn gyflym i un pwynt a wnaeth Simon, un o’r pethau oedd o bryder i’r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol oedd bod Biliau yn mynd drwy San Steffan lle nad oedd unrhyw Aelod o Gymru ar y pwyllgor oedd yn ystyried y Bil. Y gwacter hwnnw ym mhroses graffu San Steffan oedd un o’r pryderon yr oedd y pwyllgor am ystyried, ac yr oedd yn un o’r rhesymau dros edrych ar rai o’r Biliau. |
Mr Griffiths: To respond quickly to one point that Simon made, one of the Constitutional Affairs Committee’s concerns was that Bills were going through Westminster where no Welsh Member was on the committee considering the Bill. That void in Westminster’s scrutiny process was one of the concerns that the committee wished to consider, and it was one of the reasons for looking at some of the Bills.
|
|
|
[34] David Melding: Is there anything further on that? I think that you have got enough for you to go away and look at some draft terms of reference for a fairly short and sharp inquiry. I do not think that we need lots of witnesses, because most of the issues have been identified. However, I would be grateful if you could come back with that.
|
||
|
9.15 a.m.
|
||
|
[35] I am keen for us to think about another inquiry that will open up new ground and take longer, one that we could see running through the autumn. There are some ideas in the paper that the research service has prepared for us, but I am keen to hear what Members think could be priorities or interesting topics for inquiry.
|
||
|
[36] Simon Thomas: Mae’r papur yn un da iawn sy’n amlinellu lle y gallwn fynd, ond mae sawl peth yn fwy perthnasol i’r tymor hir, yn enwedig pethau fel newid ffiniau etholiadol. Fodd bynnag, mae dau beth yn sefyll allan yn syth yn y papur. Y cyntaf yw ystadau’r Goron, gan ei fod yn fater cyfansoddiadol sydd yn cael ei drafod ar hyn o bryd, yn enwedig yng nghyd-destun yr Alban. Yr ydym yn gwybod eisoes y bydd prosesau yn yr Alban yn effeithio arnom ni, gan fod drws wedi cael ei agor gan Calman ac ati. Mae’r broses honno yn rhedeg yn ei blaen.
|
Simon Thomas: The paper is a very good one, which outlines the direction that we can take, but several issues are more for the long term, especially issues such as changing electoral boundaries. However, two issues immediately stand out from the paper. The first is that of Crown estates, because it is a constitutional matter that is being discussed presently, especially in the Scottish context. We already know that processes in Scotland will affect us, because a door has been opened by Calman and so forth. That process is ongoing. |
|
|
[37] Yr ail beth yw awdurdodaeth Gymreig, neu’r cysyniad o endid deddfu ar wahân i Gymru a hefyd—gellir rhoi’r ddau beth hyn at ei gilydd—cydgrynhoi. Codwyd y syniad eto yr wythnos diwethaf, gan y barnwr a oedd yn agor y ganolfan yn Abertawe, o edrych ar awdurdodaeth Cymru fel endid a symud y broses honno yn ei blaen. Mae peryglon yn hynny, achos gallech gael proses ar hap yn hytrach na phroses y rhoddwyd ystyriaeth iddi ac sy’n meddu ar bwrpas. Gall y pwyllgor hwn wneud cyfraniad sylweddol at y broses honno ac at ystadau’r Goron—unwaith eto, mae pobl yn ceisio gwneud hyn a’r llall ar hynny, ond byddai persbectif eang ar hynny o ddefnydd i bawb.
|
The second thing is a Welsh jurisdiction, or the idea of a separate legislative entity for Wales and also—these two things can be brought together—consolidation. The idea was raised again last week, by the judge who was opening the centre in Swansea, of treating a Welsh jurisdiction as a separate entity and moving that process forward. There are dangers to that, because you could have a random process rather than a process that has been thought through and is purposeful. This committee can make a significant contribution to that process and to the Crown estates—again, people are trying to do various things on that and a broad prospective would be of use to everyone. |
|
|
[38] Antoinette Sandbach: I was particularly interested in the idea of looking at Welsh Government structures. Now that the Assembly has legislative powers, it is extremely important for the general public to know what accountability and structures are in place. Transparency has, perhaps, not been a hallmark of the Assembly to the general public. It is not clear how that transparency is in place. I would particularly like to see some sort of inquiry into that.
|
||
|
[39] While I understand what Simon is saying in respect of the separate Welsh jurisdiction point, that will be a hugely wide-ranging subject with massive constitutional implications in England as well as in Wales. For example, what would happen to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales or the House of Lords? I would be a little concerned about that aspect. We have not started passing legislation yet, and our priority should be what is happening now rather than what might happen in the future. While I understand that this may be relevant in the longer term, it is important that we look at transparency and accountability in Government structures, because that will be happening here and now with legislation going through the Assembly. I would hope that the committee would consider that as a priority, because of the very real shift into the legislative process.
|
||
|
[40] David Melding: I accept that point on Government structures. We could do part of that immediately, or start to do some of that work, by looking at the devolution guidance notes. We then need to look at other issues if we are concerned about transparency and how the system operates. That takes us on to the point about the asymmetry of UK devolution, which creates a lot of this, does it not? Peter, do you want to come in on this?
|
||
|
[41] Peter Black: To be honest, I am happy with what has already been said. It would be useful to look at the separate Welsh jurisdiction, as highlighted by Judge Judge.
|
||
|
[42] David Melding: Wonderfully named.
|
||
|
[43] Peter Black: That is quite important. I am also keen that we do not lose sight of what is happening in Whitehall and Westminster, because even with the new powers—and clearly, our first priority is to scrutinise Welsh Bills—there will still be quite a lot that impacts on Wales, and we need to keep a watching brief on that.
|
||
|
[44] Simon Thomas: It is possible that we could take some action now on Antoinette’s point on the Welsh Government structures. It was the UK Government that published the draft manual, was it not? We could urge the Welsh Government to do the same now. If it says ‘yes’, that is an early hit, and if it says ‘no’, perhaps we could have a quick examination of that process, and ask why the Welsh Government has not done that. That could feed into the inquiry that you mentioned, Chair, about looking at devolution guidance notes.
|
||
|
[45] David Melding: I mentioned a short, sharp focus on the current structures and powers passed to Ministers, but it may be that we want to go slightly broader than that—we could perhaps do the inquiry in two parts, could we not? We could look at the issue of UK Bills, and what is likely to happen to the Assembly, and then we could take that further by looking at devolution guidance notes and general issues around the structures and the challenges of asymmetry, marking up some of the major issues that are likely to come up in this fourth Assembly. A draft Cabinet manual in Wales may be exactly the sort of thing that we would want to recommend, I guess. Are you satisfied with all that? Do you think that you can draw up terms of reference with the relevant focus?
|
||
|
[46] Mr Griffiths: In terms of structures, one of the new issues that the Assembly has to consider is the role of the Counsel General, because we now have a Counsel General who is not an Assembly Member. The committee might consider accountability around the responsibilities of the Counsel General. That is one particular legal aspect that you might look at.
|
||
|
[47] Peter Black: Do we get to scrutinise him in the same way that other committees scrutinise Welsh Ministers?
|
||
|
[48] David Melding: I am hoping to invite him in to have a session with the committee. That would be useful. I will ask the secretariat to provide us with a note on what is appropriate. He is likely to be a fairly regular witness, but I do not think that it is our job to scrutinise him in the sense of having that responsibility set out in Standing Orders.
|
||
|
[49] Peter Black: If it is not us, it will not be anyone else.
|
||
|
[50] David Melding: Yes, but if that started to happen we would point out that the system was not working perfectly. Okay, so that is agreed. We should get a paper on the scope of that inquiry by 14 July.
|
||
|
[51] I do not see a problem in identifying a couple of other areas for the forward work plan, for the autumn. It seems to me that the Crown estate is a good one to get to work on straight away, because it is an important issue on which I do not think that a lot of work has been done in the past. It has been actively considered in Scotland, but is of great relevance to us in Wales, so I am quite keen that we also have a paper scoping how that might start. I envisage that we would have to invite a number of witnesses in and do some legwork.
|
||
|
[52] Peter Black: It is particularly important in terms of the coast.
|
||
|
[53] David Melding: Absolutely, in terms of renewable energy and so on. Perhaps we need to mark out the emergence of a Welsh jurisdiction, which functionally is happening, as an issue that we intend to look at—we could perhaps move towards that in the late autumn or early spring.
|
||
|
[54] On the point that Antoinette raises, I do not think that there is a sense that we should have an inquiry to urge the establishment of a Welsh jurisdiction; it is just that we need to catch up with what is happening and what people are saying out there—the Lord Chief Justice has made some of these remarks. That is what we want to look at in the early stages—what is happening and whether we are aware of it. It would be possible to shape some of these forces in the early stages to great benefit in the longer term for the legal system. Much of the legal system will continue to operate on an England and Wales basis, but some of it will be on a Wales basis, and some of it, by implication, will be on an England basis. That is the nature of it, rather than a more political approach. That should be included in the work plan. We can think of how we would look at that, although a paper on possible terms of reference could wait until a meeting in the first half of the autumn term. There will be enough to get on with.
|
||
|
[55] That is very helpful; we have set the basis of a good work plan. If Members do not have any other issues, I suggest that we move on.
|
||
|
9.26 a.m.
|
||
|
|
||
|
[56] David Melding: We have negative and affirmative instruments here. Do Members have any general comments? I see that they do not. I know that Gwyn wants to say a word about one of the affirmative resolution instruments—the Right of a Child to Make a Disability Discrimination Claim (Schools) (Wales) Order 2011, which is CLA5.
|
||
|
[57] Mr Griffiths: Mae’r adroddiad sydd wedi’i baratoi hyd yn hyn yn adroddiad clir. Nid oes unrhyw bwynt technegol yn codi mewn perthynas â’r Gorchymyn hwn. Fodd bynnag, mae’n Orchymyn unigryw, yn yr ystyr ei fod yn newid Mesur y Cynulliad—Mesur Addysg (Cymru) 2009—drwy osod darpariaethau newydd i ddisodli darpariaethau’r hen ddeddfwriaeth. Mae hyn yn ymwneud â gwahaniaethu ar sail anabledd, ac oherwydd bod Deddf Gwahaniaethu ar Sail Anabledd 1995 wedi’i disodli gan Ddeddf Cydraddoldeb 2010, mae’r ffordd mae’r broses yn gweithio a’r union hawliau sy’n berthnasol wedi newid.
|
Mr Griffiths: The report that has been prepared to date is clear. There are no technical points arising in relation to this Order. However, it is a unique Order, in the sense that it changes an Assembly Measure—the Education (Wales) Measure 2009—by placing new provisions to replace provisions under the previous legislation. This relates to disability discrimination, and as a result of replacing the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 with the Equalities Act 2010, there has been a change in how the process works and in the relevant rights. |
|
|
[58] Yr oedd y Cynulliad wedi rhagweld hynny drwy roi’r pŵer hwn i Weinidogion ym Mesur 2009, ac mae’r Gorchymyn hwn yn rhoi darpariaethau cyfatebol yn y Mesur i ddiwygio’r Ddeddf Cydraddoldeb i roi’r hawl hwn i blant. Nid yw wedi’i nodi fel rhywbeth mae angen rhoi adroddiad i’r Cynulliad llawn arno, ond credaf ei fod yn rhywbeth unigryw y dylwn dynnu sylw’r pwyllgor ato. Os y dymunwch, gallwn baratoi adroddiad byr i’r Cynulliad llawn yn nodi’r pwynt hwnnw. |
The Assembly foresaw this by providing the power to Ministers in the 2009 Measure, and this Order inserts associated provisions in the Measure to amend the Equalities Act to provide this right to children. It is not noted as something that needs to be reported to the Assembly as a whole, but I think that it is unique and something that I should draw to the committee’s attention. If you wish, I could prepare a brief report to the whole Assembly to note that point.
|
|
|
[59] David Melding: Do Members have any views on that? I think that your suggestion is appropriate, Gwyn, and that we should prepare a brief report to be noted and laid.
|
||
|
[60] Simon Thomas: It is part of the development of legislative competence.
|
||
|
[61] David Melding: If there are no other issues—
|
||
|
[62] Antoinette Sandbach: I have a question that I would like to ask in relation to item 1. What would count as a declaration of interest?
|
||
|
[63] David Melding: I will ask the clerk to have a word with you. Obviously, it needs to be taken seriously, but some people get overly cautious about what needs to be declared. We do not want to be encumbered by lots of things that clutter up and deflect from what really is, in terms of Standing Orders, a matter that absolutely does need to be declared. I do not think that there is anything else to add on that.
|
||
|
9.30 a.m.
|
||
|
[64] David Melding: There are no instruments to be noted under this item. However, I will just spell out that CLA(5), the Right of a Child to Make a Disability Discrimination Claim (Schools) (Wales) Order 2011, now becomes one of those. According to the papers for today’s meeting, we did not have an instrument before us that raised issues under Standing Order Nos. 21.2 or 21.3. However, we now have the one that we have just declared.
|
||
|
9.30 a.m.
|
||
|
Dyddiad y Cyfarfod Nesaf
|
||
|
[65] David Melding: The date of the next meeting is 7 July. In brackets, I am told that it is a tentative date. I do not quite know what that means; it probably means that we should keep an eye on our e-mail just in case things change. Thank you very much for your attention. That concludes this morning’s meeting.
|
||
|
Daeth y cyfarfod i ben am 9.31 a.m.
|
||
