Diolch, Lywydd. Well, can I first of all commend the very constructive and engaging way that both the Minister and his team have worked with us on the scrutiny of this Bill? We reported on the Bill on 10 March, we made 12 recommendations, and it is pleasing that, in his speech today and in a letter to the committee, the Cabinet Secretary has accepted 10 recommendations. So, we note the Cabinet Secretary’s comments that he’s sought to put more information on the face of the Bill than exists in current UK legislation, and we welcome that approach, but we do remain concerned in principle about the volume of Henry VIII powers that the Welsh Government is seeking to take in this Bill.

Our first recommendation asks for greater clarity about why it was necessary to take such extensive powers, and we do note the Cabinet Secretary’s comments and reasoning today, and in his letter. But, in our view, increasing the amount of detail on the face of the Bill shouldn’t be seen as a licence for the use of extensive Henry VIII powers to change primary legislation using subordinate legislation, because it carries the risk of parliamentary scrutiny being limited. And we do note that whatever assurances the current Cabinet Secretary, who has engaged so well with this committee, is able to provide to the National Assembly about his intentions in using Henry VIII powers, they are of course not binding on his successors.

We do recognise that this tension between the rights of the legislature and the wishes of the Executive is not new and not limited to this parliamentary institution, but it is our duty to continue to raise these concerns as part of the scrutiny process, and we will do so throughout the fifth Assembly. We do therefore welcome however today the Cabinet Secretary’s acceptance of recommendation 2 and for setting out the justification for the use of each Henry VIII power in the Bill. It will assist our scrutiny of the regulations that arise from these powers.

The Wales Act 2017 now provides powers that will permit the Welsh Government to bring forward an annual finance Bill in future. We agree with the Finance Committee that an annual finance Bill would make for a more transparent and more accessible way to change laws involving tax. Whilst we note the Minister’s argument for not doing so now, in his letter, we do hope the Cabinet Secretary will give further thought to the use of an annual finance Bill in future.

We welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s decision to accept a recommendation in principle to place a list of qualifying material on the face of the Bill at section 15, subject to discussion with stakeholders. Now, as an important matter of principle, we continue to believe that regulations that amend primary legislation should always be subject to the affirmative procedure. Our consistent views are on record. We made three sets of recommendations to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations to be made under sections 40, 59 and 90 of the Bill that amend primary legislation. Whilst we welcome his decision to accept the recommendation in respect of section 59, we regret he was not persuaded to accept the recommendations in relation to sections 40 and 90.

In closing, I turn to section 90, which concerns regulations that may make such incidental, consequential, supplemental, transitional, transitory or saving provision in relation to the Bill. Because of how broadly these powers could be used, we made recommendations seeking clarification about why the Cabinet Secretary needs these powers and how he intends to use them. I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for the information he provided in his letter, which will be helpful to the committee.

But, as I’ve already said, we also recommended tabling an amendment to the Bill such that regulations under section 90 that amend primary legislation are subject to the affirmative procedure. In his response, the Cabinet Secretary noted that the approach follows that taken in the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill. Of course, our report on that Bill also advocated the use of the affirmative procedure, but that recommendation was also rejected. However, of particular note and interest is that equivalent provisions contained in other Welsh Government Bills, such as, for example, the public health Bill and the additional learning needs Bill, are in line with this committee’s views and those recommendations. So, I would be grateful if, in the answers, the Cabinet Secretary could explain this seeming inconsistency of approach within the Welsh Government on this important point of principle.

But in closing, can I thank him and his team again for very constructive engagement with our committee’s scrutiny? I look forward to his response.