National Assembly for Wales

We move on now to our substantive item today and the thing that we need to do today, which is the Stage 2 and the consideration of amendments on the Visitor Accommodation (Registration and Levy) Etc (Wales) Bill. We've got in attendance here Mark Drakeford, the Cabinet Secretary, Anna Adams, the deputy director for tax strategy and inter-governmental relations in Welsh Government—croeso—Richard Jarvis, a lawyer for the Welsh Government, and Andrew Rees, a lawyer for the Welsh Government as well. And, as I said previously, Luke Fletcher, has joined us as the Plaid Cymru spokesperson on the economy and energy as well. 

We have two supporting papers, which are the marshalled list of the amendments and the groupings list. So, for the purposes of the meeting, it's time to take Stage 2 proceedings on the Visitor Accommodation (Registration and Levy) Etc (Wales) Bill. In relation to the items, as I said, Members should have before them the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings list of amendments for debate. The marshalled list of amendments is the list of amendments tabled, marshalled into an order in which the sections appear in the Bill. So, for this meeting, the order in which we consider amendments will be Sections 1 to 21, Schedule 1, Section 22 to 45, and then the long title to finish. You'll 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. 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. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. Members who wish to speak in a particular group should indicate this in the usual way. I will call the Cabinet Secretary to speak on each group.

For the record, in accordance with the convention agreed by the Business Committee, I, as Chair, will move amendments in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and also in the name of Luke Fletcher. For expediency, I will assume that the Cabinet Secretary and Luke wish me to move all their amendments, and I will do so at the appropriate time and place in the marshalled list. If you do not want a particular amendment to be moved, please indicate this at the relevant point in proceedings.

In line with our usual practice, legal advisers to the committee and the Cabinet Secretary 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 or requesting a short break in proceedings to take legal advice.

Right, let's start. The first group of amendments relates to the register of visitor accommodation providers. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 53.

I move amendment 53 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group. Diolch. 

Chair, group 1 contains a major set of amendments. They're provided to fulfil the commitment made by the Government to place a comprehensive scheme of registration on the face of the Bill. As Members know, the Bill as originally published provided an outline approach and then more detailed information was provided to the committee on 26 November and 1 April, and the amendments in front of the committee today in this group complete that journey.

I apologise in advance, Chair, for the level of detail that I'll need to provide this morning in this group and one or two other groups. In this group, the level of detail reflects the significance of the register to the Bill. So, the lead amendment is amendment 53. This amendment provides clarity that it will be the Welsh Revenue Authority that will be responsible for the registration system. The Government has selected the WRA because of its expertise in designing and delivering services with users at the heart of that process. The WRA also has excellent compliance rates, which I think is a testament to the approach it has taken with taxpayers.

Amendment 62 replaces section 4 as originally included, and it is the section that requires the WRA to establish and maintain the registration system. It sets out what the WRA must, may and may not publish from the register of visitor accommodation providers. The register will be an important foundation stone primarily to support the collection and management of the visitor levy, but also to support wider decision making through the provision of better data. Importantly, the register takes us a step further towards licensing proposals, which the Government intends to bring forward in a separate Bill.

Now, it is the Government's intention that the register will be a public document and that it will provide a significant amount of information to the public. But there are some limited circumstances where the names of providers would not necessarily be published; for example, when the individual provider of visitor accommodation provides that accommodation at the address where they themselves live. In those circumstances, we will still provide information relating to the premises, but, mindful of data protection legislation and taking a data-minimisation approach where individuals are concerned, the Bill does not require publication of the provider's own name in those circumstances. Where a business address is also the place at which visitor accommodation is provided, that address will be published, but where business addresses are essentially corresponding addresses only, and therefore not of general interest to users of the public register, they too can be published, but only with the consent of the visitor accommodation provider.

Amendment 141 inserts a new Schedule setting out the information to be included in the register of visitor accommodation providers. The registration needs to contain essential information about providers and their premises without becoming unwieldy, where providers would have to make constant changes to avoid inaccuracy penalties. Amendment 141 seeks to strike a balance as to the level of information provided.

Amendments 63 and 64 are consequential amendments to amendment 62, while amendments 65, 66 and 67 change the reference to 'visitor accommodation provider’ to ‘person’, and that's to ensure the correct effect of the legislation and in consequence of other amendments to Part 2 of the Bill. Amendment 68 replaces reference to 'visitor accommodation provider provides’ to ‘person provides’ for the same reason.

Amendment 69 narrows the ability of regulations made under subsection (2) to amend Part 2 only—that's to say, the registration aspects—of the Bill. Amendment 70 ensures the correct application of the legislation. A person who is exempt from the requirement to register should not be subject to penalties for failing to register or be unilaterally registered by the Welsh Revenue Authority. Amendment 71 establishes how an application for registration must be made and what information an application must contain, including those who intend to provide visitor accommodation, who must apply for registration before commencing operations. Through this amendment, the WRA will be provided powers to operationalise the registration system. These provisions are similar to those provided in other registration schemes.

Amendment 72 sets out the penalties for failing to register. This amendment aims to provide a proportionate but fair penalty system, recognising feedback from some that earlier draft penalties needed to be reduced. The revised approach ensures that there are opportunities for providers to get their affairs in order without excessive penalties accruing, while also ensuring that there is a sufficient deterrent in the system for those who seek to avoid their responsibilities. This approach requires the Welsh Revenue Authority to issue an initial penalty before that penalty can escalate. That's to ensure that providers have a sufficient opportunity to rectify any failures before a penalty begins to increase. So, in summary, the initial penalty would be for £100. The person then has up 30 days to pay that penalty, and, if they do so, that is the end of the penalty process. If, at the end of the 30 days, the original £100 has not been paid, then, for the next 30 days, the penalty increases by £10 for every day. So, at a 60-day horizon, the penalties would now amount to £400. If the person still has not attended to the penalty notices, then, on day 61, an additional £1,000 penalty becomes due. So, at that point, the total liability would be £1,400. But if a person responds to the original penalty notice the maximum of their liability would be £100. So, that's the balance we're trying to strike between a reasonable initial penalty and time for people to pay it, but, if people ignore their responsibilities, then the level of penalties will increase to reflect that failure.

Chair, amendment 73 provides the WRA with proportionate powers to register a person where no application has been made. This is an important power, because it helps to protect the integrity and quality of the data on the register. There will be circumstances in the future where the WRA might become aware that a provider should be included on the register, for example, because of information provided by members of the public, or because, cross-checking data in the exercise of their functions, the WRA becomes aware of the fact that a premises ought to have been registered. Now, the process that follows requires the WRA to take steps to notify a person of that before it exercises the powers in this amendment, and that will give a person who ought to have registered, but has not, sufficient opportunity to engage with the WRA and to discharge their responsibilities. Should the WRA exercise this power, it would not excuse providers from their obligations, and they would remain liable to penalties until they take action.

Amendment 74 sets out the duties on visitor accommodation providers to register and keep their registration up to date. Our anticipation is that the WRA would issue regular reminders to support providers to fulfil their duties. In the end, however, it is the responsibility of the providers, as they are best placed to notify the WRA of changes and to keep their information up to date.

Amendment 75 sets out the penalties for which a visitor accommodation provider will be liable if they fail to take the required steps to maintain the accuracy of their registration. Entry and the penalties form an identical pattern to that which I outlined in relation to amendment 72.

Amendment 76 provides powers to the WRA to amend a visitor accommodation provider's entry on the register when no notice has been provided to the WRA, and the WRA will have to follow a defined process to exercise this power, and, once again, that process will make sure that the provider has plenty of opportunity to rectify their entry before the WRA acts. If that does not take place, then the pattern of obligation and consequences where obligations are not discharged follows the pattern that I've already outlined.

Amendment 77 provides powers to the WRA to require certain persons to provide the WRA with information that is relevant to the exercise of the authority's registration functions. That's because it's important to have available to the WRA the necessary powers of enforcement to safeguard the integrity and value of the register, but the authority will exercise these powers in a reasonable manner, as they do their existing information and investigative powers. The information powers provided through this amendment are standard provisions, and they support compliance and enforcement efforts.

Amendment 78 provides for the standard pattern of penalties for those who fail to comply with an information notice issued by the WRA under the section inserted by amendment 77.

Amendment 79 sets out the duties on visitor accommodation providers to remove themselves from the register should they no longer be operating, and sets out what the WRA must do when a compliant application to be removed from the register is received. These provisions ensure that the data on the register is accurate and up to date. It's very important that the register contains only those who are providing or offering to provide visitor accommodation. There is a risk that, unless we have a robust system for providers to be removed from the register when they no longer are providing accommodation, the register will become bloated, with lots of people on the register who are not providing accommodation. That's why it's important that there's an obligation on them to remove themselves from the register.

Amendment 80 sets out that a person will be subject to penalties if they fail to apply for removal from the register when that was required, and the penalties are those that I set out in amendment 72 and subsequent amendments with penalty powers within them.

Amendment 81 provides powers for the WRA to remove a person from the register when the WRA considers a person is no longer a visitor accommodation provider. The amendment sets out the removal process and it provides sufficient power for the authority to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the data. Again, within the process, providers will have ample opportunity to respond and act before the WRA itself has to take action to remove them from the register.

Amendment 82 provides that if a person satisfies the WRA or the first-tier tribunal—and I'll be coming to that in a moment, Chair—that they have a reasonable excuse for a failure to comply with requirements they will not be liable for the relevant penalty.

Amendment 83 provides that the WRA may reduce the penalty if special circumstances justify that reduction, but the ability to pay is not a special circumstance.

Amendment 84 places a duty on the WRA to assess penalties and issue penalty notices within specific time frames. The amendment sets out the information to be included in the penalty notice. This is to ensure that from the point of view of the user, the system is efficient, timely and fair. 

Amendments 85, 86 and 87 are standard provision. They provide consistency with existing penalty systems that the WRA operates. Amendment 86 makes it clear that a person is not liable to a penalty if they have already been convicted of an offence in relation to the Act. In other words, you can't be penalised twice. It's a double jeopardy amendment.

Amendment 88 amends the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016 to provide for a system of reviews and appeals of the WRA's decisions made in the course of their registration functions. I referred earlier to the fact that appeals are to be made to the first-tier tribunal, and a review must be first requested and completed by the WRA before an appeal can proceed. That's important because a review provides an opportunity for genuine administrative efforts to be rectified without needing an escalation to the full first-tier appeals tribunal.

Amendment 89 is technical and definitional. Amendment 90 includes powers to make further or different provisions in relation to registration. These are important regulation-making powers. They're standard in their nature. They're consistent with other Acts of the Senedd, but it means that the registration system can be kept up to date, can continue to meet policy aims in the future. It will enable any changes to be made following any review of the legislation or lessons learnt following implementation of the Act. These regulation-making powers, the amendment makes clear, are to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, guaranteeing that there will be direct scrutiny of the use of them by the Senedd.

Amendment 91 introduces a new Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the Bill. Part 1 deals with amendments to the TCMA that relate to registration. Part 2 of Schedule 2 covers amendments to the TCMA relating to the levy. Amendment 111 is minor and technical in nature.

Amendment 142 inserts a new Part 1 that, as I say, amends the TCMA of 2016, but also the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2013 and the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019. It provides the WRA with two additional information-sharing gateways—or permitted disclosures, as they are more formally known—which permit the sharing of information from the register with principal councils and Welsh Ministers. This was an issue, Chair, you will remember was explored during Stage 1 of scrutiny. These amendments make it clear that the WRA may share information from the register with Welsh Ministers, but specifically in connection with Welsh Ministers' functions under Section 2 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, and also that information shared from the register with principal councils must be in respect of the relevant functions of those councils.

Amendments 118 to 127 apply the provisions on special cases to the register. These special cases are matters such as sale or transfer of a business, death or incapacity. The amendments remove sections 29 to 34 from Part 2 of the existing Bill and reproduce them in Part 4. They're technical provisions. They ensure that liability is correctly ascertained in those special circumstances. They ensure the correct application of the legislation for both the levy and the register, and ensure consistency of approach. The amendments do not change the policy. The policy remains as it was in the original Bill, but they ensure that the policy is correct and fair in its application.

Amendment 129 makes the power to make further provision about the registration system subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring that the Senedd will have the opportunity to debate, scrutinise and vote on any regulations. Chair, that concludes what I have to say on the Government amendments in this group, but there are a number of non-Government amendments, and I shall deal with them now.

The first non-Government amendment in the name of Sam Rowlands is amendment 2. The amendment does not work, the Government believes, in a practical sense, and the review it proposes is broader in scope than the Bill itself. The Government agrees that reviewing the Act is sensible and necessary, but we believe that this needs to take place at a point in time where there is the most benefit to be derived from a review. Three years, as proposed in amendment 2, is too short a period, we believe, to gather enough data and insight, and similar provisions in other Acts of the Senedd provide a minimum of five years before an analogous review would be undertaken.

In the view of the Government, it simply would not be practical to produce a combined impact assessment taking into account factors well beyond the Bill, because of the difficulty of disaggregating the impact of those different factors on the operation of the tourism industry. However, Chair, in Stage 3, the Government does intend to table an amendment to undertake a review of the Act, and we'll return to that in group 10 and amendment 35.

What I do want to make clear this morning is that I'm very happy to continue to have conversations with the Member about that Government amendment, which I think will attend to the basic thrust of his amendments today, but doing so in a way that the Government believes to be practical and workable.

I can also not agree and cannot support amendment 36. It's entirely reasonable for Welsh Ministers to make different provisions for different areas for commencement of these provisions. There's no case that I can see for fettering the implementation of the legislation in the way that amendment 36 proposes. This is the first of many amendments that seek to remove decision making from principal councils. The Government simply disagrees with that approach. The same objections, therefore, lead the Government to reject amendment 38.

Amendments 40, 41 and 42 also seek to limit principal councils in their decision-making processes by delaying Part 3 of the Bill from coming into force. The levy itself, based on the current proposal, would not come into effect until April 2027 at the very earliest. The proposed approach in amendments 40, 41 and 42 would set that date back by many years and seems to me to be designed, essentially, to avoid the introduction of the levy at all.

Maybe at this point, Chair, I would just make just one general observation, because I think there are two classes of amendments put forward by the Welsh Conservatives today. There are a number of amendments that seek to improve the operation of the legislation, and even when I don't agree with the proposals, I certainly take them seriously and will want to engage with them this morning.

There are other amendments that seem to me to be designed to frustrate the intentions of the Bill, to prevent the Bill from ever coming into being. These amendments, I think, fly in the face of the decision of the Senedd to support the general principles of the Bill at the conclusion of Stage 1. Where amendments undermine the whole purpose and intention of the Bill, then of course the Government will reject them. The proposals in this group have been in development for a long time. There has been a whole raft of engagement and consultation, and the processes we have set out aim to ensure there is effective decision making with proper notification periods.

For that reason, I reject amendment 43. The type of provision that amendment 43 seeks to overturn is entirely normal and precedented. There are good reasons why a government may wish to phase in the registration requirements by area, and there's no case, I believe, for removing this flexibility. In summary, therefore, Chair—and thank you for your patience—I call on Members to support amendments 53, 62, 141, 63 to 91, 111, 142, 118 to 127, and 129, and to reject amendments 2, 36, 38 and 40 to 43, all of which appear in group 1.

Diolch yn fawr. I now call on Sam Rowlands to speak to his amendments in this group. 

Thank you, Chair. I'm grateful to be able to be in this position today to move the amendments that are in my name representing the Welsh Conservatives.

Firstly, I'd like to be able to, before I dive into some of the detail in group 1, just reiterate my group's position on the Bill. We have been opposed to the principle of the visitor levy. We believe the Welsh Government should be doing all it can be doing to encourage tourism to Wales and within Wales. We want to see visitors spending their money in our local businesses, in our communities, supporting those communities and businesses, especially in our rural parts of the world.

We want people to enjoy all our country has to offer from far and near. I'm worried, and the tourism sector has fed back their concern, that this visitor levy will do the opposite. They believe it will put up barriers to tourism and drive people away at a time when the sector is in desperate need of support. I'm grateful for the evidence they provided to this committee to express that as clearly as possible.

I do, though, recognise that we are where we are, and in this context I have laid a number of amendments before us today. I appreciate the Cabinet Secretary's been mildly cynical of some of the amendments that have been laid, but I genuinely hope that a number of the amendments can be taken in the spirit in which they were intended, to be constructive, to get to a place where we all want to be, which is to support the tourism sector, the large number of jobs in Wales that are reliant on it, and to support our communities as a result of that.

For this particular group, I don't intend to go through each of the amendments I've laid one by one, but I'd like to speak to the issue that I was hoping to try and deal with as a result of how I see the legislation has been laid at the moment. My concern is with the way in which the registration is being phased or done on an area basis. My concern is that that would create a fragmented approach across Wales. I've tried to put amendments in place that, in my view, provide a more logical order and logical approach to registration for the purpose of this legislation.

I'm not, and my group is not, opposed to the general principle of registration whatsoever. I believe it's a good thing and a right thing to do for visitor accommodation across Wales. But we believe that, and I believe that, the registration should take place on an all-Wales basis in the first instance. Part of the reason for that is that it's been recognised in the evidence we've received, in the Government's evidence and evidence we've received as a committee, that data for the visitor economy is very poor, fragmented at best. Registration at an all-Wales level would provide a new set of data, a new set of understanding of what visitor accommodation looks like across Wales as a whole. That's why I've laid amendments to that effect.

The further amendments from 38 through to 43 are particularly done to provide a logical order with registration information to hand. That's why the amendment is in place to review the data once that all-Wales registration has taken place.

Then, for me, it makes sense to have a superaffirmative procedure to implement Part 3 of this legislation, which is essentially the visitor levy itself, because I don't believe the Senedd can make a fully informed decision on the visitor levy without understanding the number of businesses and the number of visitor accommodation providers it would affect. Currently, the Senedd is proceeding with, I’d say, limited data, and very limited understanding as to the impact of this legislation. If full, all-Wales registration took place, if that data was properly understood and analysed, that, in my view, would provide a more informed decision by the Senedd to then make a decision on whether a visitor levy should proceed or not.

I appreciate the Cabinet Secretary felt as though some of these amendments were put in place to frustrate the process and delay the process, and I understand that that may be a side effect of these amendments, but these amendments, I think, are more logical, provide a more informed basis for the Members of this Senedd to make a decision. It’s been highlighted time and time again in this committee that the data is not good enough, it’s unreliable, and the range of impacts that have been shared with the committee are significant, because of the lack of understanding, the lack of data that currently exists. Full registration would provide much more informed decision making, and, as legislators, I believe—and I’m sure we would all believe—that we should be making decisions on legislation based on best informed information, best informed data, full registration, reviewing that data, and then a vote based on that to implement Part 3, which, in my view, would provide a more robust basis for this legislation to proceed.

In terms of the Government amendments that have been laid in group 1, Chair, I’ll be broadly supportive of the vast majority of those. I do have some concerns on the penalty regime, but I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for talking us through that a little more this morning. So, I’ll be looking to support a number of those here today as well.

The amendments that I won’t be able to support today are those amendments that refer to the powers given to the Welsh Revenue Authority to amend entries themselves. I believe that we should be reliant on the visitor accommodation providers to provide that information, and penalties should be enough of an incentive to ensure that that information is correct and accurate. But, as I say, the vast majority of amendments by the Government, I’ll be happy to support, because we believe registration is important, it provides robust data, and provides a good basis for understanding the tourism sector in Wales. Thank you very much.

Diolch, Sam. Two other Members have indicated they want to speak, so I'll ask Luke Fletcher to speak now. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. And, just from the outset, Plaid Cymru has long been supportive of the general principles of a visitor levy. And, on this particular group, when it comes to the register, I think we can find some agreement across parties that, actually, this is really important for getting the data that we need to be able to make decisions within the sector. Data across Wales, in different aspects of the economy, is poor. Any attempt to improve the data available to us is to be welcomed. Particularly myself, and some of my colleagues, are grateful for the conversations that we’ve had with the Government around how we could be using some of this data gathered to capture information around short-term holiday lets, and how, then, we can use that data to secure local housing stock, and look at what could be housing, ensuring, then, that that stock is kept local and secured in that local housing market.

What I would just like to ask generally about this group to the Cabinet Secretary is: as the Bill is currently drafted, with the amendments that have been put forward, does the Cabinet Secretary believe that that grants sufficient flexibility to capture all the information that is required for the register, and then for the operation of the visitor levy? And, if not, of course we’d be incredibly keen to work with him in Stage 3 to get that flexibility into the Bill.

And if I could just speak to amendment 83, I’m happy to support this particular element, but would like to emphasise to the Cabinet Secretary that we’d again be keen to work with him in Stage 3, specifically on establishing guidelines as to the definition of ‘special circumstances’, just to ensure that we have some consistency, and that we are replicating good practice across the board.

Diolch, Luke. I'll bring Mike Hedges in now. Diolch.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I listened to Sam Rowlands very carefully. If we were the first country in the world to be doing it, a lot of his arguments would hold a lot of sway, but we know France have done it for over 100 years; we know that the rest of the world does it. I can't remember the last time I went on holiday in Europe when I didn't pay a visitor levy. So, I think, really, we're just playing catch-up. The biggest criticism is: why has it taken so long?

The other thing is—and can I just speak up on behalf of council tax payers—the cost of events, and Cardiff council tax payers pay the bulk of it. We have major events in Cardiff. I'm not going to talk about Taylor Swift today, I'm going to talk about Oasis. When Oasis come to Cardiff, there are going to be substantial street cleaning costs. There are going to be substantial costs for providing additional toilets. There are going to be lots of costs falling on Cardiff Council. Now, who should pay them? I'm very much in favour of the tourism levy for that reason, rather than the council tax payers in Cardiff who would be paying it, many of whom, or most of whom, will not even be going anywhere near the event, and probably avoiding the city centre because of it.

Diolch yn fawr, Mike. I'll call on the Cabinet Secretary now to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Well, Sam Rowlands began by setting out the opposition of the Conservative Party to the principles of the Bill, and I think Mike very successfully answered those issues of principle. And in any case, as far as today is concerned, they were resolved by the Senedd in giving its consent to move beyond Stage 1. So, I won't engage in that this morning, Chair.

I'm going to turn, though, to the specifics of Sam Rowlands's amendments. I want to acknowledge, as I tried to do in my opening remarks, that there are a series of amendments put forward by the Conservative Party that aim to improve the Bill, and I want to engage seriously with those. I don't agree, though, that the Bill should be amended to prevent registration proceeding on an area basis. The Bill doesn't require that; it just allows it as an option at the point when the WRA is still working on its approach to registration.

There are two points here, really, Chair. One is that I would not be keen for early movers in this space—remember, this is a permissive power; it's only for local authorities who want it—I wouldn't want early movers to be held back because they can't move ahead until the whole of Wales has been registered. But the good news is, from my discussions with the WRA, the more detailed work they have done on the register, the more confident they are becoming that this is something that can be done more quickly than originally anticipated. So, while I don't want to remove the flexibility to allow an area-based approach, I think if the object of Sam Rowlands's amendments is to see Wales-wide coverage, actually I think that will be achieved more quickly than we originally anticipated. WRA expect that registration will be started and completed within 15 minutes. That's how quickly they expect registration to take place for any individual. So, it may be that we'll arrive where Sam's amendments want us to get to in that way, even though I don't want to amend the Bill in the way that he suggests.

The powers to allow the WRA to amend entries for themselves, I think, are important. They're there partly to respond to some of the information provided during Stage 1 by individual members of the public concerned that premises are being used for visitor accommodation without that being declared by the landlord. And then when nuisance occurs and difficulties happen, there's no recourse for them because the use of the premises in that way is being disguised. Now, registration by the WRA is a last resort, not a first resort. The first resort is for the accommodation provider to register, and if evidence emerges that they should be on the register, the first thing that the Bill provides is for a dialogue with the WRA for the person to put that right. But if people persistently decline to do the right thing and continue to operate without registration, I think that, in the end, it is important that the WRA has that power to put that premises on the register, so that if you are a neighbour living in that locality, you can see it on the register and you can use that fact to enable you to seek some form of redress, if you think that your life is being badly affected by the way in which unregistered accommodation is being managed. So, that's why I think that, in the end, while they are last resort not first-resort powers, they belong in the Bill.

And then turning to Luke Fletcher's points, I hope that amendment 90 in this group does provide the flexibility that Luke Fletcher was asking for. Circumstances will change in this industry. The register will need to continue to reflect the dynamic nature of the industry, and you don't want the Senedd to have to pass primary legislation every time. The regulation-making power of amendment 90 allows the Senedd to keep up to date. It provides for the affirmative procedure, so it has to be done in the full light of scrutiny, but it is there.

And I’m very happy to give an assurance that we are happy to work between now and Stage 3 on the issue of guidance for special circumstances. It’s inherently tricky because these are special circumstances, and therefore capturing them in guidance isn't completely straightforward, but we will want to make sure that the WRA does have that guidance, and I’m happy to continue a dialogue as to how that can be brought about.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 53 is agreed according to Standing Order 17.34(i).

So, we'll now move on to group 2, and group 2 is the power to extend the Act to berths and moorings. There are three amendments within this group. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 1, and I call on Sam Rowlands to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Diolch, Sam.

Thank you, Chair. Members will see that there are three fairly straightforward amendments from me in this group, on the power to extend the Act to berths and moorings, essentially looking to remove berths and moorings from having the visitor levy applied in the future. I think the Act applying here would be unnecessarily complicated and burdensome, it would put a strain on people using those berths and moorings. To be clear, those that provide berths and moorings are not providing visitor accommodation in any real sense. By their nature, those vessels are designed to move around, not remain static. They do not enter into visitor accommodation contracts, but their contracts are for a mooring or berth or other marine services. Recreational boating is essentially a leisure or a sporting activity. The people in those vessels aren’t using local services in the same way that people staying at overnight accommodation would be. Of course, the stated intent of this Bill is to support communities and councils on its impact on local services. It’s quite clear that boaters have a minimal, if any impact on local services because they are self-contained and within the berth or mooring area. So, I will be moving the amendments as laid out here, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mike has indicated that he wishes to speak, so I'll call on Mike to speak on this amendment. 

Early notice that I'll be objecting to amendment 1. I live in Swansea, as I tell people quite regularly. We've got a marina there, and I can tell you now that, when people come by boat into that marina, they don't stay in the marina, they get off the marina, they go into the city centre and they use the services there and they go further afield. We think that it's quite good that they go around Swansea, it's to the benefit of Swansea, but they do incur costs. And, again, the council tax payer of Swansea is covering those costs. My only criticism of the Welsh Government is that this should have been in the legislation, but adding it now, I think, is the best we can do, but really, I think it should have been dealt with at the beginning.

Thank you very much. Are there any other Members who wish to speak? No. I will therefore bring in the Cabinet Secretary to speak to this group.

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. So, as you know, the Bill, as the Government presents it, doesn't have a worked-up scheme for berths and moorings, as Mike Hedges would have wished. But the complexity of it is real and it was beyond our ability to resolve all that complexity in the Bill itself. So, what the Bill provides is a power to be able to return to this issue in future, when some of those practical challenges can have been more fully discussed with the sector and a way of resolving some of those practicalities has been agreed.

I am clear that, from a point of principle, it is right that a yacht arriving at Swansea or Cardiff marina, the yacht owner should pay the levy. Just as somebody staying in a nearby hotel or in the Cardiff Council campsite in Pontcanna will be paying the visitor levy, I see no case in principle why those visiting in boats and yachts should find themselves not captured by the levy.

This is a debate that goes on elsewhere. Chair, I was lucky enough to be in Edinburgh just a couple of weeks ago. I was able to make a visit to Edinburgh City Council to hear from them about their implementation of the visitor levy, and I met the Cabinet Secretary responsible for this in Scotland and heard from them about the new powers that they are pursuing to charge cruise ships a levy when visitors arrive in that way too.

So, in the way that Mike Hedges said in relation to group 1, this is not a new debate in other parts of the world. We are becoming involved in it in Wales on the path that others have already trodden. So, I ask colleagues to reject amendments 1, 34 and 37 to allow the Bill to continue to have that power, to recognise that work is needed before it can be made practical and effective, but that allows the Senedd to do that in future.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I'll call on Sam Rowlands to respond to this debate.

Yes, thanks, Chair. I'm grateful to committee colleagues and the Cabinet Secretary for their contributions on these amendments. I think that those contributions do reconfirm my position in terms of the amendments as laid out. It does feel like an afterthought—it hasn't been thought through properly. I appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary will argue that that is part of the reason why the power to extend has been put in there, but for me, without the proper revision and understanding of this in the first instance, it shouldn't be in here at all. So, I'll continue to move my amendments. Thank you.

There we are, so the amendment has been moved in Sam's name. So, the question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, there's been an objection, so we will put the question: the question is that the amendment be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. No abstentions. Therefore, in relation to amendment 1, there is one vote in favour, three against, therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

So, we'll now move on to group 3, and the third group of amendments relates to miscellaneous—catchy title, but the group is miscellaneous. There we are. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 54.

I move amendment 54 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group.

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. Because it is a miscellaneous group of amendments, I thought I would just set out how I intend to address them. I'm going to deal, first, with three amendments that are concerned with the policy intent of the legislation. I'll then turn to two amendments that adjust the scrutiny process. And then I'll finally deal, and I hope reasonably rapidly, with quite a long series of technical amendments.

So, I want to begin with those amendments that are of a policy significance, and the first of those is amendment 115. That amendment provides a six-month window from the point a council notifies its decision to introduce a visitor levy before advance bookings become leviable. This means that there will be additional time over and above that allowed in the original Bill for the sector to prepare their systems for advance bookings, recognising the feedback that most providers are likely to pass the charge on to visitors. Amendment 116 ensures that that six-month window cannot be unfairly taken advantage of, or altered to avoid levy liability. So, they are a pair of amendments: one makes sure that there is a proper period of time in which advance bookings do not become subject to the levy, but it makes it clear that that is a six-month period, and you can't try to avoid paying the levy beyond that.

Amendment 96 changes the tax point from on arrival to on departure. I think this is quite an important change, Chair, and we have responded to evidence that charging people on arrival could have a potentially unfair outcome. So, if someone were to, for example, book visitor accommodation to stay for five nights, but then for reasons beyond their control had to leave after three nights and did that in agreement with the provider, issued with a refund for the cost of the accommodation, but if you charge the visitor levy at the opening point, you would still have to charge them for five nights of visitor levy, even though they weren't staying for five nights, and that had been an agreed outcome with the provider. By ensuring that the tax point is on departure, there's a more accurate levy liability that would be calculated for every stay, and that results in a fairer system. So, those are the three amendments that have a policy connotation.

There are two amendments, 134 and 135, that provide that regulations made under sections 17(3) and 24(4) of the Bill, respectively, will be subject to the draft affirmative scrutiny process. This responds directly to recommendation 10 made by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, that regulations made in relation to filing annual or quarterly returns should be made subject to the draft affirmative procedure, and those amendments secure that.

After that, Chair, there is a series of clarifying Government amendments, and I'm happy, of course, to go into more detail about them, should Members require that. But briefly, amendments 55, 56, 57 and 59 replace reference to 'made available' with the term 'offered', and that is to increase consistency across the Bill.

Amendment 61 makes provision about the kinds of actions that amount to offering accommodation. The amendment ensures that the extent of the legislation is clear and that there is no ambiguity about whether something is being offered or not. And there's a second strand in that amendment that clarifies that references to a 'visitor accommodation provider' include a person registered under Part 2 of the Act.

Amendment 58 is a clarifying amendment to ensure that a pitch or an area for a residential mobile home are not captured by the registration because these are places where people live. And amendment 54 removes the words 'campsite' and 'caravan site' from section 2, because, again, we want to make sure that accommodations such as residential caravan sites are not inadvertently captured by the legislation.

Amendment 60 is a clarifying amendment, ensuring that the extent of the power in section 2 of the Bill is clear. Amendment 92 puts it beyond any doubt that a stay in visitor accommodation outside Wales does not amount to an overnight stay in 'visitor accommodation' for the purposes of this Bill. Amendment 94 amends section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Bill to reflect the fact that accommodation provided by the Secretary of State is not 'visitor accommodation'. Amendment 114 replaces references to 'hyrwyddo' with 'hwyluso' in the Welsh version, to ensure consistency throughout the Bill.

The remaining Government amendments are all technical in nature and simply ensure that the legislation has the intended effect. Those are amendments 117, 128, 130, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139 and 140. Of all of those, the only one that has, in any way, an impact beyond simple technical clarification is amendment 138, which is an amendment to section 44 and clarifies that Part 2 of Schedule 1 will come into force on the day after the day the Act receives Royal Assent.

Diolch yn fawr, Cabinet Secretary. Are there any other Members that wish to speak to this group? No. Do you wish to say anything further?

Thank you very much. We'll proceed, then. Therefore, the question is that amendment 54 be agreed. Does any Member object? No, I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 54 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34(i).

I then move on. I move now to amendment 55.

I move amendment 55 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. So, amendment 55 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 56 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Amendment 56 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 57 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Amendment 57 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I move now amendment 58 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 58 is agreed to according to Standing Order 17.34.

I move now amendment 59 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 59 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 60 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 60 is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

So, I now move amendment 61 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 61 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34(i).

I now move amendment 62 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 62 is agreed to in accordance with the same Standing Order.

I move now to amendment 141 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 141 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 141 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34(i).

I now move amendment 63 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 63 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 64 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Amendment 64 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34(i).

I now move amendment 65 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 65 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 65 is agreed to according to Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 66 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 66 is agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 66 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 67 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 67 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 68 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 68 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 69 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections, so amendment 69 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

We now move to—. I move amendment 70 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 70 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 71 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Does any Member object? No. Then, amendment 71 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 72 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Any objections? No. Amendment 72 is therefore agreed under the same Standing Order.

I move amendment 73 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Any objections? [Objection.] Object. Okay. We have an objection. Therefore, the question is that amendment 73 be agreed to. Those in favour, please raise your hands. And those against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 73, the result is three in favour, one against and therefore the amendment is agreed.

I move now to amendment 74 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections, therefore amendment 74 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 75 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection, therefore amendment 75 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 76 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 76 is agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Objection. Okay. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Those in favour, please raise your hands. And those against. In relation to amendment 76, the votes are three in favour, one against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

I now move amendment 77 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see any objections. Therefore, amendment 77 is agreed to according to Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 78 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 78 is agreed to according to Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 79 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed to. Any Member objecting? No. Amendment 79 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 80 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't see or hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 80 is agreed to according to Standing Order 17.34. 

I move to amendment 81 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections, so amendment 81 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 82 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 82 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

I now move to amendment 83 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections, so amendment 83 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

I now move amendment 84 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 84 is agreed to according to Standing Order 17.34. 

I now move amendment 85 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 85 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

I now move amendment 86 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 86 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

I move amendment 87 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 87 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

I move amendment 88 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 88 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

I move amendment 89 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections, so amendment 89 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

I now move amendment 90 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 90 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

I move amendment 91 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 91 is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

I now ask Sam: do you wish to move amendment 2? 

Yes. 

Sam is moving amendment 2. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. Therefore, the question is that amendment 2 is agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. 

Do I need to? 

Yes, agree. Those against. And those abstaining—we have no abstentions. So, in relation to amendment 2, as there is a tied vote—. No, sorry, in relation to amendment 2, there voted two in favour and two against. Therefore, there is a tied vote, so I use my casting vote in the negative, that is, against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii). Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

Right, we'll now move on to group 4. And group 4 talks about—. The fourth group of amendments relates to the levy rates and exceptions. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 47, so I now call on Sam Rowlands to move that amendment and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in that group—Sam.

Diolch, Chair, and I do move amendment 47, and I'll speak to the substantive amendments in group 4, levy rates and exemptions. Firstly, then, amendment 47 and its linked amendments 146 and 52 seek to provide the ability to local authorities, or principal councils, as referred, to introduce one or both of the higher or the lower rate of the levy. Currently, a principal council can either introduce a visitor levy or not introduce a visitor levy—it cannot choose to introduce the elements of the levy.

In the spirit of giving that flexibility to those principal councils, I think it would be a positive addition to enable local authorities to choose to introduce either of the higher or the lower rate of the levy, both levies together, or none of the levy. I think that this enables local authorities, principal councils, to have that greater flexibility to reflect the needs and the issues of the areas. We're often referred to the visitor levy taking place in Manchester, for example. That, as we know, is just relevant to hotels in that area, or similar accommodation. If a local authority wanted to only introduce a visitor levy to hotel accommodation in their area, they cannot do that under the current way the legislation is drafted. I think this is a helpful amendment to give greater flexibility to local authorities.

Amendment 3 seeks to put a cap on the number of nights that can be used—that somebody can be liable for paying the levy—and that seeks to put that to 10 nights. This is to encourage longer stays from visitors who may be considering the effect of the levy as a barrier to their staying longer. I think it would encourage and give an incentive to people seeking to stay longer here in Wales.

Amendment 143 and its associated amendments 144, 145, 147 and others seek to adjust the way in which the levy is charged, and I will speak on this amendment for a few moments. As we know, the way in which the levy is currently charged is on a per person, per night basis. I think there are a number of issues with that. A percentage charge is, by its very nature, proportional, whereas the argument for a fixed rate being proportional between a lower and a higher rate only goes so far; it's actually very limited in its proportionality. A percentage charge is exactly as it is—is proportional and, I think, fairer to visitors staying overnight.

There are also added benefits of a percentage charge. It deals with seasonality, which a fixed charge does not. It deals with some of the issues that Mike Hedges has raised around where there are peak times, such as concerts, when hotel prices, for example, spike up significantly. A percentage charge would take that into account, whereas the fixed amount does not do that.

The fixed amount also is not able to deal with inflation and, of course, would have to be reviewed from time to time, with inflation eroding the value of the visitor levy as it's currently drafted. The value of the visitor levy will be eroded every single year, but, of course, a percentage charge will actually move in line with the inflationary changes of overnight accommodation, and therefore would avoid what may be a fairly regular lively debate, either in this place or somewhere else, on what that charge should be. Once a percentage is set, then that is set for a longer period of time, you would expect.

There have been arguments about a percentage being potentially more complex for visitor providers. I would refute that argument. A percentage is a very simple calculation to make, and many of our visitor providers will already be including a percentage calculation in their tax returns through the VAT that they've already made and would already be paying. So, I think there is significant benefit to moving to a percentage charge rather than a fixed charge per person per night, and I would be interested to hear the Cabinet Secretary's view on that, and whether that is something he would be willing to accommodate—that's a good word, isn't it, for this—in his thinking in the future as well.

Amendment 4 seeks to remove the visitor levy liability for anybody under the age of 18. I'm grateful that the Cabinet Secretary has already made some movements on this. I don't think they go far enough, though. I don't think children should be charged for the visitor levy. I think it places an unnecessary burden on families in particular who want to have a welcome break at some point in the year. I think there is a lack of understanding on the pressures on families, whereas, for some people, what we may consider a relatively small amount to the overall cost of a holiday can be the tipping point on whether some families go away on holiday or not. I think children should not, therefore, be included within this levy.

I move to amendment 48, which links to amendment 49. This may be one of the more cynical amendments that the Cabinet Secretary may have been referring to earlier on. This is really just to make the point that I and my group do not believe that the visitor levy is something that should be in place. If something has to be in place, it should be to the absolute minimum level possible.

I move to amendment 6, which seeks to adjust where—. I'll read it as I've written it down, rather than try and do it off the top of my head. This amendment adds 'a pitch or area provided' for a mobile home that is not permanently or semi-permanently situated in one place to the list of visitor accommodation, to section 13.1, to which the lower rate of the levy applies. So, rather than that type of accommodation being charged as they would in the initial legislation, the £1.25 per person per night, they would be liable for the £0.75, as initially laid out in the legislation, per person per night. I think that's reflective of the usual type of accommodation that's categorised in that, aligning with the type of accommodation that has been sought to be charged at the lower rate of the levy.

Amendment 7 and the subsequent amendments—so, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14—are a group of amendments that seek to recognise the different types of accommodation providers that could, I think, unintentionally be caught up in this levy, and types of organisations that could be caught up in this levy, which, in my view, did not fit within the spirit in which this legislation has initially been drafted. In particular, amendment 7 seeks to make an exemption for organisations like the Scouts and Girls Guides associations, and amendment 8 seeks to make exemptions for charitable and voluntary organisations. Those particular types of organisations in particular, we know, as the name suggests, are often run on a voluntary basis. I think there is a risk that there’s an added and unnecessary burden for those organisations to have to deal with, and it would be a risk and a liability that, for some, will be a step too far, and they may well stop providing this important overnight accommodation. I recognise that some of the amendments that the Cabinet Secretary has put in would mitigate some of that in particular for younger people staying in tent-type accommodation, but I think there's a general principle here that, in line with the non-domestic rates, which recognise the important role that charities and voluntary organisations play in our communities, that could and should be followed on the visitor levy.

The other amendments within that group seek to identify individuals who I believe deserve to be recognised as being exempt from this levy. That includes people who are members or former members of the armed forces and people who attend accommodation for the purpose of an educational trip. Members will be aware of my personal passion for ensuring that children are able to take up those educational trips. I recognise that that will be mitigated through some of the amendments from the Government, but I think there's a risk that people unnecessarily will be caught up in this, which again is not in the spirit in which the visitor levy, from what I understand, was intended.

Amendment 50 seeks to encourage repeat stays into Wales. The previous amendments, which were similar, were about the consecutive number of stays. This amendment is for any calendar year in which someone stays more than 14 nights, which should be exempt. I think, again, this will encourage longer stays and encourage repeat visits to Wales, which is only a good thing for our economy and our visitor accommodation providers.

The rest of the amendments in there are consequential to the substantive amendments that I've spoken to already, Chair, and I look forward to other colleagues' comments on the back of those amendments. Thank you.

Diolch, Sam. I, therefore, call on Luke Fletcher now to speak to his amendments in this group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. If I could start with amendment 97, tabled in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, we agree in principle with this amendment, but we believe it needs to go a bit further, and that's why we looked to table amendment 44 in my name, which would exempt those under the age of 16, for many of the reasons, actually, highlighted by Sam Rowlands already, around affordability for larger families who are looking to holiday in Wales. The additional point I would make is that we talk a lot about those international comparisons. With this amendment, we would be brought in line, then, with some of those international comparative countries who have a tourism levy, such as Belgium and France. So, that, I believe, allows us to get to what we actually want to achieve here and brings us in line with those international comparisons.

Speaking to amendment 11 in the name of Sam Rowlands, I also submitted an amendment with this goal as well, so we'd be happy to support that amendment. I don't think it was in the spirit of the levy to negatively impact on educational visits in Wales, whether that is for young people or even whether that's for those who are going away on some of the intensive Welsh language courses to improve their Welsh language skills. The majority of those tend to be adults.

Finally, Chair, just speaking to amendment 45 tabled in my name, I appreciate the conversations that I've had with the Cabinet Secretary on this particular amendment. I think we are both in agreement that it's important that we get this particular element of this right, and there are complications with however we approach this. Looking at, firstly, the time that is given for people to be able to claim a refund under this particular part of the Bill, I think it's fair to say that 30 days might be too short a time. I would hope that, within Stage 3, the conversations could happen between me and the Cabinet Secretary around whether or not we could extend that timeline, as well as make it easier for people to claim a refund, whether that is, of course, through a third party or organisation. So, I would hope the Cabinet Secretary could commit to some conversations around that. As I mentioned, it's important we get this particular part right. I don't think we want to put anybody who is already in a terrible situation under any further strain or stress. Again, I recognise that there is a negative impact to the amendment that I've tabled, as it currently stands, where there is a need for somebody who would need to claim a refund to essentially out themselves and give a reason as to why they need to claim that refund. So, again, it's important we don't have any unintended consequences here. So, I'll be looking for, in the Cabinet Secretary's response, a commitment in Stage 3 to work out some of the kinks in this particular element of the Bill, and, if those assurances are given, I'd be happy for us not to move that amendment, Chair.

Diolch, Luke. I now call on the Cabinet Secretary to talk to these group of amendments.

I'm going to deal, if I could, with the Government amendments in this group first, Chair. I'll look, to begin with, at some amendments that are designed to improve the operation of the legislation, and then turn to the more substantive policy matters in this group. As far as improvements to the Bill are concerned, amendment 100 removes the concept of the nil rate, and amendments 102 to 105 are consequential to that amendment. The removal of nil rates as a concept in the Bill reflects the fact that overnight stays that are subject to the nil rate would have the same effect as those that are exempt under section 9(2)(B), and we've therefore moved the existing and only current nil rate, for homelessness stays, to the list of exemptions. It comes to the same thing, but it just makes the Bill clearer.

Amendment 93 adds stays in visitor accommodation arranged by or provided on behalf of a principal council acting as a local housing authority under Part 2 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 to the list of exempted stays under Section 9(2)(B), given that the concept of nil rates has been removed by amendment 100. None of that changes the policy outcomes, but it makes the Bill, as I say, I believe, clearer and easier to bring into operation.

Amendment 131 provides that the regulation-making power under Section 9(6), as inserted by amendment 95, is subject to the affirmative procedure, as was the power in Section 13(5) which has been removed now by amendment 105. Similarly, amendment 132 provides that the regulation-making power in Section 11(6), which is inserted by amendment 97, is subject to the affirmative procedure.

I'm going to turn now to the issue of children, which we've already heard about. I announced in the Plenary debate on 1 April that the Government intended to remove children and young people—that's to say persons under the age of 18—from the lower rate of the levy, and that is what amendment 97 achieved. This provides a targeted amendment, and our evidence tells us that it removes a large portion of educational types of stays and stays arranged by youth organisations. It will also benefit families accessing these more affordable accommodation types, and, in that way, this is a more progressive approach compared to a complete exemption from the levy for children and young people. There's a regulation-making power inserted by amendment 97 that provides additional flexibility in the future to remove other groups from the levy, allowing the Welsh Government to respond to any emerging evidence.

The Bill, as colleagues here know, is predicated on the basis of having a broad tax base with a relatively modest levy. If you're going to narrow the base, the only way to compensate in terms of revenue raised is by raising the levy charge on those who remain within the scope of the Bill. That is why, to take account of the exemption of children and young people from the lower rated stays, amendment 98 increases the lower rate of the levy by 5p to 80p, and amendment 99 increases the higher rate of the levy by 5p to £1.30. This ensures that the visitor levy provides a sufficient return for those councils who seek to implement it.

We know, and the evidence that was received in Stage 1 showed, that councils are looking very carefully at the amount that the levy might raise within their area in comparison with the costs that will be incurred in raising that levy. And if we alter that ratio so that it is less advantageous, there will come a point in which local authorities will think this is not a power worth drawing down. So, it is very important that we sustain the take from the levy, otherwise it becomes an inhibition to the levy at all.

It's partly for those reasons that I am unable to support amendment 44 that Luke Fletcher has talked to this morning. The Government's position is consistent with the the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011, which codifies the UNCRC, and that convention on the rights of the child defines a child as an individual under the age of 18, not 16. Of course, we have considered an exemption for children and young people across all stay types, but that would undoubtedly lead us to have to increase more substantially the rates for those who remain within the scope of the levy, and we will reach a point where that basic principle of a low unit cost will begin to be compromised.

It's for the same reason that I cannot support amendment 4 in the name of Sam Rowlands. The amendment takes no account of the fact that rates would need to rise significantly to justify such a broad exemption. And the amendment lacks detail as to what point an age becomes determinative for the purpose of the levy. As I say, the broad base with low rates is a key policy design of the visitor levy. For that reason, I have to reject amendment 3. It's fair, it seems to me, that those who can afford to stay longer contribute more via the levy. The amendment would erode that principle of contributing a modest amount for each night of a visitor stay.

I want to turn now to amendments 45 and 46. I'm grateful to Luke for putting these amendments for debate today, because this is another substantive policy matter, and considerable thought has been given to it. The amendments bring to the surface an important debate where arguments are finely balanced. A case could certainly be made to accept these amendments to prevent someone from having to claim back money that they have already paid. But on weighing it all up, I've continued to come to the conclusion that not having to disclose the reasons why emergency accommodation is needed at the point where it is needed goes further to retain the confidentiality of the those who are involved.

I don't think that it's helpful to require providers to have to check whether a visitor is staying due to homelessness, health, safety, or welfare concerns, because not only would the visitor have to declare sensitive information at that point, but the provider would be obliged to verify it. You wouldn't simply be able to take it at face value because there are statutory obligations on providers to verify and maintain records of those stays.

I recognise that the approach in the Bill is itself not without challenges, but on the whole, and on balance, I conclude that it better protects the interests of individuals who need protection, and recognises the significant administrative and potential GDPR challenges that will be involved with placing this obligation on providers. The WRA will process refunds as soon as practicable, ensuring no undue delay for those seeking a refund. I'm very happy to continue to work and to share information with the Member about the guidance that we will provide to the WRA to make it clear that a claim can be made on behalf of someone, for example by an organisation with whom they are already working. I plan to do that before Stage 3 so that Members know how that guidance will be provided.

I want to return now to some of the remaining amendments in the group. There are amendments 6 to 14 tabled by Sam Rowlands. I can't support them. The approach in amendment 6 is inconsistent with the policy rationale for the lower rate. The lower rate essentially refers to accommodation where there is a shared element in that accommodation. Caravans these days do not fall within such a definition. Indeed, the last caravan that I was in had underfloor heating alongside its many other attributes, and it certainly wouldn't fall within the definition that we have used for the lower rate.

I think amendment 7 is unfair. There are plenty of other groups that could similarly argue that they should be exempted from the levy entirely and we could end up with a longer list than the Bill itself. The Government has made a significant change in removing children and young people under the age of 18 from the lower rate. There is no definition in this amendment of 'the Scout Association' or 'the Guide Association'. It may simply be unworkable on that basis.

Amendment 8 seeks to subject overnight stays with charities and voluntary organisations to the nil rate. That falls foul of the principle I have already outlined in this group of a broad tax base with minimal but targeted exemptions.

Amendment 9 places a significant burden of proof on carers and providers, and there is already provision in the Bill for a repayment mechanism for stays where a person in receipt of disability benefit is accompanied by a person providing care, support or assistance to them, that is to say amendment 107.

I don't accept the policy rationale for the proposed exemption under amendment 10. There are many reasons why, in the provision of public services, particular priority is accorded to members or former members of the armed services, but I don't think that that extends to going on holiday. Members of the armed forces going on holiday are ordinary citizens like any citizen engaged in any form of employment. They pay taxes like any other member of society. They can be visitors like anyone else. Where those individuals had fallen into difficulty—and we know that former members of the armed forces do face some difficulties, including homelessness on a larger scale than others—then they will be captured by the provisions of the Bill that provide for people in those circumstances.

On amendment 11, which proposes the nil rate for a person for the purposes of an educational trip, we believe that the significant majority of educational trips are now covered by the Government's amendment to remove persons under the age of 18 from the lower rate of the levy. Amendment 13 provides a definition for 'armed forces', and I've already dealt with that.

I don't agree with amendment 47, with which Sam Rowlands began. Allowing local authorities to introduce either the higher or the lower rate, I think, will cause operational challenges. I think it will provide not an incentive, but the opposite of that for local authorities thinking of instituting the levy. And, of course, Sam Rowlands was quite right that amendments 48 and 49, which lower the visitor levy to 1p per night in both categories, are simply designed to frustrate the Bill. Of course, we must reject that.

I was simply puzzled by the amendment that Sam Rowlands put forward as to linking visits to Wales over a 12-month period, because I just cannot imagine how a visitor accommodation provider would know the previous history of someone else coming to visit Wales. How would you be able to track somebody over the 12-month period to know whether they have exceeded the number of nights that Sam Rowlands's amendment lays down? I think it's simply inoperable, and I also think it's undesirable. But even if it was desirable, I don't think you could make it happen.

As to amendment 52, local authorities are able already to publish the information alongside their notice, and, in any case, the rates are set on the face of the Bill.

Chair, I listened carefully to the case that Sam Rowlands made in amendments 143 to 149 as to how the levy is calculated. He made, if I could say it, a very cogent case for why a percentage rate has more advantages than a flat rate, and those are genuine arguments and we thought very carefully about them. In the end, though, where I think I don't agree with the case that Sam made is he said that a percentage rate is straightforward and easy to calculate. Actually, I don't think it is, in practice, because you have to disaggregate from the bill to begin with those parts of charges made to visitors that are liable for the levy. If you're in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the breakfast doesn't count for the purpose of the levy, only the cost of the overnight stay.

We have done our best to recognise that much visitor accommodation in Wales is a cottage industry. It's provided by people who literally have a room in their own house where somebody stays for bed and breakfast. Asking people to enter into complex calculations around percentages, I think, places an additional burden on them, despite the advantages, and I concede and recognise that there are advantages to a percentage rate. This was extensively rehearsed with me when I was in Scotland, Chair, because there is a very active campaign by the association of Scottish self-caterers for them to revert to the Welsh position in their legislation of the flat rate, because providers of accommodation are making a significant argument that the complexity of the percentage rates used in Scotland is placing an unfair burden on them.

So, while I concede that the case that Sam Rowlands made is a real one, and that there would be advantages to move to a percentage rate, I think they are, in the end, outweighed by our basic principle of having a Bill that is as easy as possible to understand and for the burden on providers to be kept to the minimum. For those reasons, I think I have to reject the amendments, despite the case that Sam Rowlands has made for them this morning.

Diolch yn fawr. I will now call on Sam to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Chair. I'm grateful to Members and the Cabinet Secretary for their contributions in group 4 on the levy rates and exemptions. I'm grateful to Luke Fletcher for suggesting support for amendment 11, as I’ve laid out, and also recognise his point, which is in line with mine, around the principle of children not being liable for this levy. So, I’ll be supporting his amendment, which seeks to deal with that as well, which is slightly different to mine, but the same principle is trying to be achieved there.

The Cabinet Secretary laid out his reasons for rejecting the amendments that I’ve laid out here. I respect those views. I, as you’d expect, disagree, certainly with the issues around the ability of local authorities to apply or disapply the higher and/or lower rates of the levy. I don’t agree with the analysis that that will create issues. I think it provides the flexibility that has been advocated for, time and time again, for local authorities. Indeed, when we debated issues around registration, the Cabinet Secretary was very keen to ensure that principal councils had an ability to manage that as closely as possible to them, rather than being dictated to by a central place. So, that seems to contradict arguments that have previously been presented.

In relation to the percentage levy, I accept that there are pros and cons on both sides of that argument. I still think that, whilst recognising, to a certain extent, that there may be some levels of complication with percentage, I don’t think it’s beyond the wit of our accommodation providers to manage that, and I think the benefits that a percentage provides—. In particular, my concern being having to come back to this on a fairly timely basis to ensure that the value provided by the levy is not eroded to the extent that I know the Cabinet Secretary was concerned about—that’s why he was seeking to increase the 75p to 80p—and to make it a viable piece of legislation that local authorities can use. I think a percentage is much better in the long run for the implementation of the legislation and the principles that it is trying to deal with. Maybe it’s because I have those mild PTSD moments of debating council tax in the chamber, which is a fixed amount, of course, which needs to be adjusted year on year, rather than a percentage, which is much easier to manage.

In final response, Chair, to some of the amendments that the Cabinet Secretary has put forward in terms of increasing the levy rates by 5p on both the lower and the higher rate, I would disagree with the argument that the Cabinet Secretary makes that there have to be rises in the rates. That is a choice; they do not have to do any of that whatsoever. I recognise that there needs to be a point at which it becomes viable, but I wouldn’t accept that those levels have to be increased as outlined in amendments 98 and 99. So, I will be voting against those particular amendments, but seeking to support the vast majority of the amendments that are in there anyway. Thanks, Chair.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. The question, therefore, is that amendment 47 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there is objection. So, the question is that amendment 47 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. In relation to amendment 47, there are one in favour, three against, and, therefore, the amendment is not agreed. 

I now move the amendment in the name of the Cabinet Secretary—amendment 92. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objection, so amendment 92 is agreed, in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 93 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 93 is agreed to. Does any Member object? I have no objections. Therefore, amendment 93 is agreed, in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 94 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 94 is agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objection, so amendment 94 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 95 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 95 is therefore agreed, because there was no objection, and that's in line with Standing Order 17.34.

The next amendment is amendment 96. I move amendment 96 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't have any objections. Therefore, amendment 96 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 3?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? If amendment 3 is agreed to, amendments 97, 143, 4 and 44 will fall. [Objection.] Object. Okay. So, the question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. And those against, please raise your hands. Therefore, in relation to amendment 3, there is one in favour, three against, and the amendment is therefore not agreed.

We now move on to amendment 97. Amendment 97 is in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, so I move it in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Does any Member object? If amendment 97 is agreed to, amendments 143, 4 and 44 will fall. Any objections? No objections. Therefore, amendment 97 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. Therefore, amendments 143, 4 and 44 will fall.

Therefore, the next one is amendment 144. Sam, do you wish to move amendment 144? 

Yes, Chair.

Yes, thank you. The question is that amendment 144 be agreed to. If amendment 144 is agreed to, amendments 98, 48, 99, 49 and 100 will fall. Does any Member object—? The question is that amendment 144 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] An objection. Thank you. Therefore, the question is that amendment 144 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. Therefore, in relation to amendment 144, one in favour, three against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Therefore, amendment—. Where are we? This one. No, here. So, we move then on to amendment 98. 

Amendment 98 is in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, so I move it in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Does any Member object? If amendment 98 is agreed to, amendment 48 will fall. [Objection.] Objection. Okay. Therefore, the question is that amendment 98 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. Those abstaining. Therefore, in relation to amendment 98, two in favour, two against and therefore there is a tied vote. I use my casting vote in the negative, that is, against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii). Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 48?

Move.

The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, object. So, the question is that amendment 48 be agreed, does any Member—? We've had the objection, so—. Where are we? Amendment 48. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against, please raise your hands. Therefore, in relation to amendment 48, one in favour, three against, and therefore the amendment is not agreed. 

I move amendment 99 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 99 is agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, the question is that amendment 99 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 99, there were three in favour, one against. Therefore, amendment 99 is agreed. 

Now, as amendment 99 has been agreed, therefore 49 will go too. 

So, we now go to amendment 100.

Amendment 100 is in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 100 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Therefore, amendment 100 is agreed to, in accordance with Standing Order 17.34(i).

Great. I now propose that we take a short break, and we'll resume at 11:40. Diolch yn fawr. 

Welcome back—croeso nôl.

We'll move on to group 5. The fifth group of amendments relates to the additional charge, the premium. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 5. I call on Sam Rowlands to move that and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group.

Thank you, Chair, and I move amendment 5 as outlined here. Amendment 5—. And there are a number of consequential amendments off the back of it, and then the other substantial amendment from me within this group is amendment 16, which I'll speak to in a moment as well.

So, amendment 5 seeks to remove references to a premium throughout the Bill. The premium, I think there was very limited, if any, consultation on this as a concept before it arrived in the legislation as drafted. So, I don't believe that we've had a thorough enough understanding before the legislation was drafted of the impact of a premium being applied. I think it risks creating an inconsistent picture across Wales of what a visitor levy may be or what it may look like. And I actually would be tempted to support a premium if there was an ability for seasonality to be reflected as a result of the premium to perhaps incentivise people to visit Wales in that shoulder season, which is at times much less busy than the peak season, but that doesn't seem to be a consideration within this. So, I'm seeking to remove the option of a premium being applied for, as I say, the reasons of the inconsistency it will create across Wales, an added complication for visitors to understand and appreciate, and, as I say, not within the initial thinking when legislation was drafted.

The second substantive amendment within this group is amendment 16, which recognises I am likely to, first of all, lose my amendment to remove the premium and therefore would seek to have an amendment in place introducing a cap on the amount that can be added to the levy as a premium. I know there are concerns from the sector, in particular, that that power may be abused or misused in terms of adding a significant premium in some parts of Wales, and, whilst recognising there is a choice to be made by local authorities, I believe there should be guardrails in place to ensure that this really important sector of our economy is not being mistreated when it comes to the risks to the sustainability of those businesses if there are excessive premiums being applied to those overnight accommodation properties. Thanks, Chair.

Diolch, Sam. I now call on Luke Fletcher to speak to his amendment in this group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I am speaking to amendment 159. This is primarily a probing amendment, so what I am seeking here is just an understanding from the Cabinet Secretary as to how we might be able to use the levy system to encourage people coming to Wales to opt for a smaller or local or Welsh hospitality provider when they come to Wales, and is there a way of using the levy system to incentivise that, understanding, of course, the desire of the Government to keep this as simple as possible. I fully accept that this might add some complications to the legislation, but I would be grateful just for an understanding from the Cabinet Secretary as to whether or not that is possible and whether that is something that he would be at least willing to explore.

Yes. I have been indicated that Mike wants to speak in this group.

Accommodation providers themselves charge a premium. I won’t mention Taylor Swift, like I did during the debate on this, but Oasis—try booking a hotel or Airbnb in Cardiff when Oasis is here, or when the Champions League comes here. There is a huge premium being charged by accommodation providers at peak times, and I think, as such, this is only moving in the same direction. I talk about Cardiff Council, and they have their costs, but, when they have a major event, Newport, Swansea and the valleys surrounding Cardiff will also have the same thing. I remember when, going back to Taylor Swift, Taylor Swift came, hotels in Swansea and accommodation in Swansea were full of people who’d come to see Taylor Swift, and they were using Swansea as where they were staying, and coming back and fore, and I expect exactly the same thing with Oasis, and I know the same thing happened, certainly around Newport, with the Champions League final.

So, I think the premium is already being charged by the provider. I think that the local authority should be able to charge a premium as well to help pay for the huge costs they have in clear-up. It’s the clear-up after events, and anybody who has wandered around the centre of either Swansea or Cardiff after major events will see an awful lot of things that should not be on the floor there.

Also, the importance of—. I’m getting boring; the other thing I get boring on is toilets. There is a need to provide substantial toilet facilities, unless you want more antisocial behaviour, when you have a large numbers of people coming out of an event where they’ve been eating and drinking.

Thank you, Mike. I'll now invite the Cabinet Secretary to contribute to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I’ll begin by addressing the lead amendment in this group, amendment 5. It takes us back to the heart of the design of the levy as a permissive power for local authorities. We’ve tried to design it in a way in which there is a clear national framework, but then the ability on top of that for local authorities to be able to reflect local needs and circumstances. It's a balance always, isn't it? I heard Sam refer to inconsistency between different parts of Wales, but one person's inconsistency is another person's local flexibility, and we're trying to provide a balance between a national framework and then some local ability to reflect those needs. The Finance Committee quite certainly heard representations directly from councils who made strong arguments for some additional flexibilities when using the levy. I think we do need to preserve that in this system, and that's why we reject amendment 5. It's the same reason why we reject the other amendments that Sam Rowlands has put forward in this group, all of which reduce the ability of local decision making to be applied.

In relation to the cap on the premium, I believe that, at the end of Stage 2, we will have introduced some additional guardrails. I don't want to anticipate later groups, but there are proposals for a forum to be made part of the system, in which local authorities will have to meet directly with business providers. I think that will be a guardrail, and I'd rather have that as my guardrail than a cap on local decision making.

Although I'm not able to support Sam Rowlands's amendments, Chair, I want to be clear that the Government has been following the debate about premiums closely. There are Government amendments in this group that amend the position that we started off with. As you'll remember, in the original Bill, a local authority could have introduced a visitor levy and a premium on the same day from the start. I've been persuaded by the arguments that I've heard during Stage 1, and again today, that we need a gap between the decision to introduce the levy, and its introduction, and a decision to introduce a premium, and its introduction.

Amendment 113, if it is passed, will mean that a principal council wishing to add an additional amount to the rates of the levy will only able to take steps to do so 12 months after the initial levy came into effect in that area. That does partly respond to some of the points Sam Rowlands has made about some of the uncertainties about a new policy initiative of this sort, and we want councils to have the time needed to understand the impact of the initial roll-out of the visitor levy in their area. They'll have 12 months of experience now as a minimum before they can then make the case for introducing a further amount. I think 12 months will provide the amount of time to effectively roll out and learn from the initial lessons that a local authority will glean from having a visitor levy introduced.

Importantly, Chair, because, again, I'm listening carefully to some of the cases made this morning, those 12 months would provide the Senedd with time to develop and pass the enabling regulations allowing principal councils to introduce that additional amount. Now, the current proposal is that that will be a simple system, again, in line with the simplicity of the Bill. You'd simply be able to introduce an additional amount. It will be the same all year round, and it would cover the whole of the local authority area. But I'm keen to remain engaged in debates as to whether or not some additional flexibility in relation to premiums would be useful.

In the Scottish case, as you know, local authorities can introduce an additional amount at certain times of the year, or around particular events, or in some parts of their area and not others. The 12 months that we are introducing here will give us time to continue to explore those issues and see whether in regulations we will want to fine-tune the approach that we have developed up until now. That's why I hope colleagues will support that amendment 113.

Amendment 106 replaces the entire section 14 of the Bill with a new regulation-making power, enabling Welsh Ministers to permit principal councils to add an additional amount to the levy. That regulation-making power will ensure that we can provide greater flexibility to principal councils in the future, but not earlier than 12 months after the levy is first introduced. 

Amendment 101 is a clarifying amendment related to amendment 106 and ensures consistency in the terminology used in the Bill. It replaces reference to 'the introduction of a premium' with the term 'any additional amount that may be added' by a principal council. We believe that the revised terminology better reflects the intended power.

Amendment 112 is a consequential amendment, consequential to the changes under amendment 106. Instead of a general reference to premiums, the change in amendment 112 sets out precisely what changing the levy means.

I can't support amendment 159 tabled by Luke Fletcher today, but I am happy to commit to discussions between now and Stage 3 to see if there is an amendment that could be crafted that would have the intention he set out this morning. I can't guarantee that that would be possible, but I am absolutely open to having those discussions.

Finally, Chair, and on a more consensual note, amendment 39 in the name of Sam Rowlands removes 'premium' from the definitions and interpretations for terms in the Bill. This amendment is an exact replica of an amendment that the Government would have moved at 136, but I'm now happy to withdraw that Government amendment and instead to support amendment 39 in the name of Sam Rowlands.

Diolch yn fawr. I will now call on Sam to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Chair. 'Take the wins where you can get them' comes to mind as a phrase, so I'm grateful for the Cabinet Secretary's final words there, supporting an amendment that I have laid before us.

I am grateful also to colleagues for their contributions through this. I don't think I need to speak much further on what has already been shared. I think that much of the discussion we have heard on this particular group—. I don't mean to harp on about a previous amendment I tried to encourage Members to agree with on the percentage, but I think much of what was trying to be addressed through a premium would have been addressed if we were willing to proceed with a percentage charge rather than a fixed charge.

I think what we risk doing is overcomplicating something that could be dealt with naturally, to address Mike Hedges's valid points that, understandably, perhaps, a premium could or should be applied at those peak times, and of course, that would naturally happen through a percentage charge rather than a fixed charge. My concern is that, with trying to move in and out of a premium, it overcomplicates things and creates an inconsistency. But I accept, to a certain extent, arguments that have been made by colleagues and would be happy to move to the vote on these items, Chair.

Diolch yn fawr, Sam. Therefore, the question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, the question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 5, there is one in favour, three against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

I now move amendment 101 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 101 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, the question is that amendment 101 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 101, there are three in favour and one against. Therefore, amendment 101 is agreed. 

I now move to amendment 145. Sam, do you wish to move 145?

Can I withdraw amendment 145?

If you don't move it, then—.

I don't move it. Thank you.

Okay. Do you want to move 146?

No.

Do you want to move amendment 6?

Yes, please.

Amendment 6 has been moved. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore, the question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. Therefore, in relation to amendment 6, there is one in favour and three against. Therefore, amendment 6 is not agreed. 

We move now to amendment 102 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 102 is agreed, in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 103 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, 103 is agreed, in accordance with Standing Order 17.34. 

As amendment 103 has been agreed, amendments 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 45 and 50 will fall.

We'll now move to amendment 104. I move 104 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 104 is agreed according to Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 105 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 105 is agreed to, in accordance with the Standing Order. 

As amendment 105 was agreed, amendment 147 will fall.

Now we move to amendment 12. Sam, do you wish to move amendment 12?

No.

No, okay.

Amendment 13.

No.

Amendment 14.

No, thank you.

I now move amendment 106 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 106 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] The question is that amendment 106 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. Therefore, we have three in favour and one against. Therefore, amendment 106 is agreed. 

Because amendment 106 is agreed, amendments 15, 148, 16 and 149 will fall.

Therefore, we now go to amendment 159 in the name of Luke Fletcher, which I will move. Amendment 159—no, you wanted to withdraw this, Luke, so I won't be moving 159. 

Therefore, we'll move on to group 6.

The next group is group 6. The sixth group of amendments relates to repayments. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 107. 

I move that amendment in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'll by asking colleagues to support amendments 107, 108 and 109 in relation to repayments.

Amendment 107 has two key purposes. It extends the period for claiming a repayment to three months after the end of a stay, and it clarifies that the policy intent in relation to refunds for carers is that the refund is in respect of the levy paid for the person providing care, assistance or support. Chair, I'd like to explain that. Amendment 107—I'm going to ask colleagues to support that and reject amendment 17 in the name of Sam Rowlands. I'm going to do that because 107 does more than change the time a person has to apply for a refund from 30 days to 90 days. But I do intend, at Stage 3, either myself or in conversations with Sam Rowlands, to bring forward a proposal that reflects amendment 17.

At the moment, 107 uses three months, but I am persuaded that 90 days is a better formulation. I can't do that today, but I can do it at Stage 3, and I'm happy to do it in consultation with the Member. So, I will ask people today to support amendment 107, because it's more extensive than just that matter, but I am persuaded that amendment 17 is a better formulation in terms of the number of days people will have to claim a repayment.

Amendment 108 is a consequential amendment. It ensures that subsection 15(5) contains the right reference. Amendment 109 is a clarifying amendment. It reflects the changes made under amendment 107.

Chair, I can't recommend accepting amendment 51. The Government's intentions in relation to making provision for the reclaiming of payments for someone accompanying someone who has a disability is to avoid indirect discrimination. If we did not have this provision, an individual who requires accompanying care would have to pay more than a person staying in overnight accommodation who does not need that support. The Government amendment to section 15 reflects this policy intent in that the application for a repayment of the levy is in respect of the person providing care, assistance or support.

I don't think there is any difference in policy intention between myself and Sam Rowlands in this matter. The Government believes that amendment 107 captures that policy intent more effectively than amendment 51, but it's not a matter of policy difference, it's just about making sure that we do it in a way that is as effective as possible. I will be asking colleagues, therefore, to support amendment 107 and not to support amendment 51.

Diolch yn fawr. Does anybody else wish to speak? Sorry—over to you, Sam. I'm getting ahead of myself.

Thank you, Chair. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to be able to move the amendments as I've laid out, but I accept and support the Cabinet Secretary's view of the amendments that I've laid within group 6 on repayments. I would be seeking to withdraw these, if that's the necessary procedure. I do note that, if amendment 107 is agreed, then my amendments fall anyway. That's just a procedural thing, I guess.

I'm also grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for laying out amendment 107, and I confirm my support for that, recognising that the policy intent as he described is in line with what I was seeking. I certainly look forward to the adjustments to 107 in relation to the 90 days, to bring that clarity to repayments of the levy. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you. Luke has indicated that he wishes to speak, so I'll bring Luke in.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Just to say I want to reiterate what Sam Rowlands has already said, and it links back to amendment 45 in group 4, which is ensuring that we have the right amount of time in place for people to be able to get a refund or otherwise on that front. So, we would be very interested in being involved in those conversations around what is the exact time that we want to set out for people.

Thank you. I'll now bring in the Cabinet Secretary to respond to the group.

I'm just grateful for Sam Rowlands's indications and very happy to continue to have cross-party discussions on that length-of-time issue. The Government's current intention would be to mirror amendment 17 at Stage 3—in other words, to have a 90-day period available for the reclaiming of payments made.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Therefore, the question is that amendment 107 be agreed. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections, so amendment 107 is agreed according to Standing Order 17.34.

So, as 107 is agreed, amendments 46, 51 and 17 will fall.

That takes us on to amendment 108.

I move that amendment in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 108 be agreed. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 108 is agreed according to Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 109 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 109 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 109 is agreed to, according to the Standing Order.

We now move on to group 7, which is a group of amendments related to returns. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 18. I call on Sam Rowlands to move and speak to that lead amendment and to the other amendments in the group. 

Thank you, Chair. As you indicated, these amendments are in relation to returns and when they should be filed, in particular the length of time given to accommodation providers to provide those returns, and making relevant payments in relation to those returns. We are seeking to extend those from the existing proposal of one month and moving that to three months. I think this is fairer on those visitor accommodation providers, particularly, as has been reflected in discussion so far here today, recognising that many of these providers will be small or micro businesses with limited resources to undertake some of this work. One month is quite a tight timescale for many of these providers, and I think giving an extended timescale would alleviate some of the pressure on those businesses. I think three months is a fairly reasonable timescale to work to.

I recognise that amendments 18 and 19, and also the Cabinet Secretary's amendment, are playing around with an issue we just discussed a moment ago, to a certain extent, which is replacing or not the word ‘month’ and being more specific with ‘days’. I will be seeking to support the Cabinet Secretary's amendment to provide that clarity, as discussed on the previous group of amendments, but I would ask the Cabinet Secretary to consider certainly 30 days not being sufficient. Whilst in my amendments here I have described it as ‘three months’, my intention would be at Stage 3 to adjust that to 90 days to have some consistency in the way this is described. But the principle remains the same: I think there should be a more extended period of time rather than just the 30 days or one month that's been proposed for accommodation providers to return the relevant information and payment as required. Thanks.

Diolch, Sam. Any other Members wishing to speak? No. I will therefore call on the Cabinet Secretary to talk to this group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, and thank you to Sam Rowlands for indicating support for amendment 110. It is a clarifying amendment. It replaces 'one month' with '30 days'. Some months have more than 30 days. It is important to be clear as to when obligations kick in because a failure to meet the obligation can result in penalty. So, we must be as clear as we can—'30 days' is clearer than 'one month'. That's why we've put in this amendment. All the information I have is that 30 days is a very standard pattern in businesses for returns to be made. It's what the industry is used to. Small businesses will only be making an annual return and, to make that within the timescales that businesses normally operate within, it doesn't seem unreasonable to apply those same standards to this area as well. The Government doesn't, therefore, support amendments 18 and 19, but I heard what Sam Rowlands said about returning with amendments at Stage 3. The Government will continue to think carefully about the points the Member has made.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. I'll invite Sam to respond.

Thank you. I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for his contribution on those points. I would sustain my argument that 30 days is a limited, pressurised length of time. I heard the point being described as a standard practice. That is not the case for an end-of-year financial return for tax purposes for businesses up and down Wales. It is much more extended than just a 30-day return period. There are practices, certainly, I accept in some instances where that is a standard amount. For usual tax return purposes, which, essentially, this could be viewed as such, it is beyond a 30-day period. That's why I am proposing 90 days. At this point, I'm proposing three months, but 90 days would be really good. Thanks.

Thank you, Sam. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Objection. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. Therefore, one in favour, three against. Therefore, amendment 18 is not agreed.

I move amendment 110 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 110 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 110 is agreed in accordance with the Standing Order, and because amendment 110 is agreed, amendment 19 will fall. 

We'll now move on to group 8. The first and only amendment in this group is amendment 20. The eighth group is related to duty to provide information on the levy. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 20, as I said. I call on Sam Rowlands to move this amendment and to speak to it. Diolch.

Thank you, Chair. As you described, this group of amendments is about quality, not necessarily quantity. The purpose of amendment 20 is to provide clarity on the visitor levy for people who would, essentially, be paying the levy as they leave the accommodation. The visitor accommodation provider in question, as a result of this amendment, must include information about the amount of levy payable in invoice receipts or other documents. I think this would help people to understand what they are being charged for and why they are paying it. I think, around this table, we'd all agree that transparency is an important factor when it comes to paying any type of tax, and I think this would provide transparency to those making use of that visitor accommodation. I will move the amendment when possible, Chair. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other Members wishing to speak? No. I'll bring in the Cabinet Secretary on this group, then.

Well, Chair, I agree with the points that Sam Rowlands made about transparency. I think that is important, but every indication that we have from the industry is that the industry intends to do exactly what this amendment would require. Therefore, we think it is an unnecessary amendment at this time. There is a fallback power in the Bill, in section 37, should it turn out that the industry doesn't record the levy in the transparent way that Sam Rowlands has described. If that turns out to be the case, then the Bill would allow that to become an obligation, as the amendment suggests. But given that everything that we are hearing, and everything that we see elsewhere, where there are visitor levies, is that providers are very keen to make it clear that that part of the Bill is there not because they wanted it there, but because somebody else required them to do it, we think this is going to happen in any case. We'd rather allow that to happen and have that fallback power available, should it turn out not to be so.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. Sam to respond.

Thank you, Chair.  I heard the Cabinet Secretary's response, and I certainly note it from my side. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, the question is that amendment 20 be agreed. Those in favour. Those against. Therefore, one in favour, three against. Therefore, amendment 20 is not agreed. 

So, we now move to amendment 111 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. I move that amendment. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. So, amendment 111 is agreed.

I move now to amendment 142 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 142 be agreed. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 142 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

That now brings us to our penultimate group, which is group 9. The ninth group of amendments relates to the levy partnership forum. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 150. I call on Sam Rowlands to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group. Over to you, Sam.

Thank you, Chair. I look to move amendment 150, but I will be speaking to this group of amendments in the levy partnership forum as a whole here this afternoon. To be clear, I'm grateful to colleagues around the table, including the Cabinet Secretary, for cross-party support on the drafting of these amendments, and it's positive to see us working together to bring something together on a levy partnership forum. Making it mandatory for principal councils to establish a levy partnership forum is an important way of engaging relevant local individuals and groups. This is for a number of reasons that I'm sure we'd all support, including ensuring the voice of the tourism sector is heard clearly, and the forum will be an important arena for giving information and advice on how the proceeds of the levy can be used in terms of destination management, which I know is one of the stated intentions of the visitor levy from the Welsh Government.

It's been raised with me—and I know it's been raised with colleagues around the table—that one of the concerns of accommodation providers in the first instance would be the levy, but, in accepting the levy is likely to come through the next stage, it's how that money could or should be spent to support the local community. They were, and are, very keen to have a voice that is listened to in the local authority area as a result of this legislation, so I'm pleased that an amendment has been put in place that would seek to accommodate that. The amendments in particular would make sure that principal councils take reasonable steps to ensure that it establishes the levy partnership forum within three months of the levy coming into effect in a particular council area, and that those meetings of the forum should take place at least once each financial year. I think it's important to reiterate that it's at least once each financial year. That's not necessarily a target to be once a year, but I would expect, and I'm sure colleagues would expect, that any council worth its salt will be taking these forums very seriously and will be seeking advice and support from them in relation to the levy.

Bringing together organisations that represent local tourism businesses and associated groups I think is crucial to fostering collaboration in order to ensure a joined-up approach in the years ahead, and I would move the amendment as outlined at 150 and subsequent amendments related to this. Thanks, Chair.

Diolch, Sam. Any other Member wishing to speak? No. Before I call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak, I'd like to state for the record my support for this amendment, or these sets of amendments, which I'm pleased have been developed in response to the committee's recommendations following Stage 1 scrutiny, and show how committee scrutiny can change Bills. But over to yourself, Cabinet Secretary, to speak to this group.

Well, thank you, Chair. As you say, it was a very clear recommendation of the Finance Committee that an amendment should be brought forward at Stage 2 to require principal councils wishing to introduce the levy to establish a forum. Thank you for your continuing interest in the development of the amendments, which have responded to that recommendation. And particular thanks to Sam Rowlands for his close co-operation in the development, and occasionally his patience as well, in making sure that we've arrived with this group in good order, which I now believe it is, for the reasons that Sam has already outlined. We have a forum that will be established; it will fulfil a useful purpose. The amendments provide for it to be conducted in an orderly fashion. The Government is pleased to support every amendment in this group.

Diolch yn fawr, Cabinet Secretary. Sam to respond.

No great response from myself, but I appreciate the continued support from the committee on the amendments as laid out. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. So, the question is that amendment 150 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I'm quite glad now, after what everybody said there. So, that's good.

Sam, do you want to move 151?

Yes, move that, Chair.

Yes. The question is that amendment 151 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. That's fine. So, that amendment, 151, is agreed to, according to Standing Order 17.34.

Do you wish to move amendment 152, Sam?

Yes.

Thank you. So, the question is that amendment 152 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections, so amendment 152 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 153?

Yes.

The question is that amendment 153 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 153 is agreed to in accordance to Standing Order 17.34.

Sam, do you want to move amendment 22?

No, Chair.

No. Okay.

So, Sam, do you wish to move amendment 23?

No.

Okay.

I move now amendment 112 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed. Does anybody object? [Objection.] Object. Okay. Therefore, the question is that amendment 112 be agreed. Those in favour. And those against. Therefore, three in favour, one against. Therefore, amendment 112 is agreed. 

I'll now move amendment 113 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Therefore, amendment 113 is agreed in accordance with the Standing Order.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 24?

No, Chair.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 154?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 154 be agreed. Does any Member object? There's no objection. Therefore, amendment 154 is agreed to in accordance with the Standing Order.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 25?

No, thank you.

Okay.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 155?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 155 be agreed. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections, so amendment 155 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 156?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 156 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Therefore, amendment 156 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 114 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 114 is agreed to in accordance with the Standing Order.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 157?

Yes, move, Chair.

The question is that amendment 157 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections, so amendment 157 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Sam, do you wish to move 158?

Yes, move, Chair.

The question is that amendment 158 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 158 is agreed to in accordance with the Standing Order.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 27?

No, thanks.

Okay.

Do you wish to move amendment 28?

No, thank you.

Do you wish to move amendment 52?

No, thank you.

Okay.

Do you wish to move amendment 29?

No, thank you.

Do you wish to move amendment 30?

No, thank you.

Do you wish to move amendment 31?

No, thank you.

I move amendment 115 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 115 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Nobody objecting, so amendment 115 is agreed to according to the Standing Order.

I move amendment 116 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 116 is agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't have any objections, so amendment 116 is agreed to according to the Standing Order.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 32?

Could I actually ask a question, Chair, for clarity?

You may.

The Cabinet Secretary indicated earlier, I believe, to support amendment 39. Was that correct? In relation to the removal of the word 'premium'.

Yes, it was.

That's right. I'll remove—. What we are on, 32, Chair?

Yes, that's it. Okay. Okay, so you're not moving 32.

No.

Right, I therefore move amendment 117 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, 117 is agreed according to the Standing Order.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 33?

No.

I move amendment 118 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't hear any objections. Therefore, amendment 118 is agreed to according to Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 119 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Therefore, amendment 119 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I now move amendment 120 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 120 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 120 is therefore agreed according to the Standing Order.

I move amendment 121 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 121 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Therefore, amendment 121 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 122 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Therefore, 122 is agreed to, in accordance with the Standing Order.

I move amendment 123 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 123 is agreed to. Any Member object? No objections. Therefore, amendment 123 is agreed to in accordance with the Standing Order. 

I now move amendment 124 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 124 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Therefore, amendment 124 is agreed to in accordance with the Standing Order.

I now move amendment 125 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't have any objections. Therefore, amendment 125 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 126 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 126 is agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Therefore, amendment 126 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

I move amendment 127 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 127 is agreed to. Does any Member object? I don't have any objections. Therefore, 127 is agreed to in accordance with the Standing Order.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 34?

Yes, move it, Chair. 

The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. Therefore, the question is that amendment 34 is agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Those against. Therefore, one in favour, three against. Therefore, amendment 34 is not agreed. 

So, we now come to our final group, and there's one amendment within this group, the tenth group of amendments, related to the review of the Act. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 35. I call on Sam Rowlands to move and speak to the amendment. Sam.

Thank you, Chair. This amendment is a fairly standard amendment, I would suggest, requiring Welsh Ministers to review the operation and effect of the Act, and publish the conclusions of that review within four years of the date from which Part 2 comes into force. It also ensures that the Senedd will be consulted by the Welsh Ministers as part of the review process. I think this is good practice, to ensure that it's still appropriate and to understand where there may be improvements to be made. So, I move amendment 35, Chair. Thanks. 

Diolch yn fawr. Any other Members wish to speak? No. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to speak. 

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Well, I agree with what Sam Rowlands said, that it is good practice to review the effect of the policy and the legislation, and that always would have been the Government’s intention. But I recognise that having a statutory requirement to do so provides certainty for stakeholders. I indicated earlier in today’s proceedings that the Government would look to bring forward an amendment at Stage 3 to provide for those effective statutory review provisions. I therefore ask colleagues not to agree amendment 35 today. I’m happy to have further discussions, as I indicated earlier, to see whether we can arrive at an agreed amendment at Stage 3, but, even if we don’t reach that point, certainly to involve others in the discussions that lead to a Government amendment at Stage 3.

Okay, thank you very much. I'll bring in Sam in to respond. 

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I’m grateful for the Cabinet Secretary’s broadly positive response to the intention of amendment 35, and recognise that the Government will want to bring something through at Stage 3, which may broadly be in line with this and strengthen this. I’d still like to proceed with a vote on this particular amendment here today, but I’d be happy to work with the Cabinet Secretary and the team to see where I can provide any input to support their work on this as well.

I expect, Chair, that this is the last time I’ll be speaking at this stage of proceedings today, so I just want to put on record my thanks for the support received in bringing this work together here today, and to you, Chair, for your work getting us through the amendments so far as well. So, thank you.