Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We reported on this Bill on 16 December and, as well as making some general observations, we made three recommendations. We welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary’s letter earlier today has responded to those recommendations and, indeed, as he’s just reiterated, has accepted two of them. So, in the words of that great sage of legislative and constitutional affairs, Meatloaf, ‘Two out of three ain’t bad’.

This Bill covers very difficult and complex issues. So, we do welcome the approach that the Cabinet Secretary has adopted in drafting the Bill, both in the early involvement of practitioners and by seeking to provide clarity in the drafting of the Bill. In particular, we welcome the element of consolidation. This will help to improve the accessibility of this piece of law, and it’s an approach our predecessor committee championed in its inquiry called ‘making laws’. I hope that this positive approach towards consolidation is repeated and developed further with future Government Bills. We are, indeed, as the Cabinet Secretary has remarked, content with the balance that has been achieved between what is included on the face of the Bill and what is left to subordinate legislation.

We note that the Bill draws on existing primary legislation from Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. However, we did feel that the explanatory memorandum could have been used to provide some greater transparency to stakeholders on how the Bill had been developed from these pieces of legislation. The Bill introduced a new procedure for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation, designed to excite us on the committee—the provisional affirmative. We found this new procedure to be sensible in principle, particularly because the National Assembly has now taken on the responsibilities for taxation in this and some other areas. But, in addition, we also agreed with the consistent and carefully considered way in which this procedure was applied in the making of specific regulations under the Bill.

We made, as I mentioned, two recommendations, seeking clarification of the Cabinet Secretary’s approach in relation to certain aspects of regulations made under section 34 and section 76. I really welcome the positive response of the Cabinet Secretary in his letter responding to the committee’s report and in his subsequent remarks this afternoon.

Our final recommendation related to regulations to amend primary legislation using the negative procedure. In our report, we agreed, and we continue to agree with our predecessor committee, that any changes to primary legislation made by subordinate legislation should be achieved by the affirmative procedure. This, we believe, ensures that the rights of the National Assembly, in terms of its scrutiny role, are protected. And we made a recommendation to this effect in relation to regulations made in accordance with section 76(2). In doing so, we expressed disappointment that this Bill, the first Welsh Government Bill in the fifth Assembly, is seeking to apply the negative procedure to regulations that amend primary legislation. The use of these so-called Henry VIII powers, and the type of procedure attached to them, arose again in our scrutiny of the landfill disposals tax Bill yesterday, and, as I’m sure he would agree, we had a frank but friendly exchange of views with the Cabinet Secretary. So, I was not surprised—none of the committee members were surprised—to see and to hear the Cabinet Secretary’s response to this particular recommendation.

We, like many respected legal practitioners and commentators, see this issue as a matter of constitutional principle, and, for that reason, we will continue to monitor the Welsh Government’s use of secondary legislation to amend primary legislation and the procedure that applies throughout this fifth Assembly. But, in closing, let me say: whilst there might be issues of constitutional principle such as this on which there is disagreement, I do think it is appropriate to reflect the acknowledgement of the committee of the constructive way in which he and his officials have consistently sought to engage with and consider with respect and with due diligence the recommendations of the committee and our role in actually ensuring the constitutional and legislative propriety of such matters. This rigour of engagement between the executive and the legislature assists effective scrutiny, and we look forward very much to this continuing.