I rise to advise this Chamber to oppose this legislative consent motion, and I do not do that lightly. We do appreciate the urgency of the situation, and I think it's absolutely appropriate to acknowledge that the Minister has made some real progress in improving what was initially, but we believe still continues to be, a bad and dangerous piece of legislation.

I want to turn briefly, to start my contribution, to why we don't feel that the amendments set out in the Minister's letter yesterday fully address the concerns, though they do address some important concerns. They don't go far enough. The Government amendment to remove the power of the UK Government to repeal or revoke primary Welsh legislation is welcome, and so is the sunset clause, but the sunset clause in itself does not address the very wide scope of the power in clause 2, and a UK Government that was disposed to do so could do a considerable amount of damage in five years if they put their minds to it.

The Minister will be aware of the views of the House of Lords's Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the powers given to Ministers in this legislation—UK Ministers, that is—are excessive and out of proportion with the stated outcomes. I'll just remind the Chamber of some of the examples of that: there is no limit to the amount of payments that can be made; there is no limit on who can be funded worldwide; there is no limit on the type of healthcare that can be funded; regulations can confer functions to anyone anywhere—and I could continue. The Minister will be very well aware of these concerns.

We've raised concerns about the breadth of these powers and the powers that this Bill could give to UK Ministers to, for example, provide full market access to healthcare service companies from all over the world. Again, I'll quote from the House of Lords debate, where a Member raises concerns that the Minister's assurances missed the point that was made, and then asked again for clarification that the Minister needs to address.

'The scope and powers of this Bill enable the Secretary of State to arrange contracts with providers to our NHS from anywhere.'

Now, we cannot see what is in the new set of amendments that would protect Wales automatically from those potential uses of powers by the UK Government.

We welcome the amendments that the Minister has secured, but I want to specifically ask him if he's prepared to look at some of the other amendments that I understand have been tabled as backbench amendments. I'm advised that there are some backbench amendments tabled that could deal with this issue of that very broad scope of powers, effectively granting UK Ministers just the power to replicate existing EU arrangements. Surely that would be preferable to this very wide-ranging scope of powers, which the House of Lords's committee has stated, and we believe, goes beyond the stated aim of the Bill. I would urge the Minister to take a look at these and see if there's any capacity, even at this late stage, to further negotiate with the UK Government to get them to accept some of those amendments, so we bring this Bill back within the scope for which it was originally intended.

I briefly want to turn, before I close my remarks, to the issue of memorandums of understanding. So, for example, the memorandum of understanding shared with the health committee on 28 February—and, again, I'm grateful to the Minister for doing that—and annex 2, section c, paragraph 19:

'UK Government will make every effort'— who defines what 'every effort' might be?—

'in the making of regulations to which Section 5 of HIA Act applies to proceed on the basis of consensus'— well, I should jolly well hope so, too—

'and will not normally make regulations that have not been agreed with Ministers from the devolved administrations.'

Now, the Minister may be able to reassure me today that the amendments proposed will deal with that. I don't think that they fully do. I just would like us, Llywydd, to look at the word 'normal'. I mean, whatever these are, they are not normal times. Ministers in this place frequently tell us how shocking and dreadful the Conservative Government is, how they can't be relied on to do anything very much, and yet, in the next breath, they're saying that they believe on a case-by-case basis that they have achieved agreements with these shocking individuals that they feel they can rely on. Both things cannot be true. It cannot be possible that these people are badly disposed and are likely to behave improperly and that their memorandums of understanding can be trusted. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and perhaps the Minister can provide us with further assurance about that process. [Interruption.] I'd be very happy to take an intervention if the Minister wishes to make one. Or, indeed, if anybody on her backbenches would like to make that in her place. 

But I do think we have to ask about what 'normally' means. Can we rely on memorandums of understanding that can be changed? I appreciate what the Minister said in the previous debate about the normal procedures around what is said in the Chamber of the House of Commons needing to stand, but I think we all know, as I say, that these times are not normal.

Now, obviously, most of us wish that we weren't in this position. Most of us wish that the Minister wasn't in the position of having to proceed as quickly with what is an important matter, and I would agree with him, of course, that we don't want to find ourselves in a situation where those reciprocal arrangements are not available. We do appreciate the urgency, and we also appreciate that there has been some movement in the right direction. I, for one, don't put much faith in memorandums of understanding. I prefer to put my faith in legally binding laws. These are very difficult circumstances, but difficult circumstances are not an excuse for making potentially bad law, and I urge the Chamber to reject.