Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. The committee, as you know, has considered all three memoranda for the Bill and has published two reports. The most recent was laid yesterday, and I'm sure that Members have had an opportunity, at short notice, to have a look at that. 

Before turning to the provisions that are of particular relevance to the committee's remit, and to the matter of consent, I'd like to say a few words about the scrutiny process. This will be familiar to a number of you, because the points I raise won't be new to Members, but it doesn't make them any less important in any way.

Memorandum No. 1 and memorandum No. 2, laid last summer, outline the Welsh Government's concerns regarding the Bill, and these are concerns shared by the committee, of course. At the time, the Minister provided assurances that she was discussing amendments to address those concerns, so we deferred a decision on the matter of consent.

Memorandum No. 3, referred to us shortly before the Christmas recess, provides details of the amendments negotiated between the Governments and subsequently agreed to. According to the Welsh Government, these amendments, as we have just heard, represent a reasonable comprise, so it's now asking the Senedd to give consent to the Bill. The fact that the amendments were made at such a late stage in the Bill's passage, of course, means two things: first of all, that the time available for us to report on the memorandum was limited, and, secondly, that the time available for Members then to consider our findings was also limited before being asked to form a view on consent. 

In addition to this, it's fair to say there is no hope of further amendments being made to the Bill to address our outstanding concerns as a committee—those concerns remain, of course. I'll come to these in just a moment, but, once again, this demonstrates, does it not, the inadequacy of the LCM process.

So, I’ll move on to the provisions of particular interest to us as a committee. One of the bank’s two statutory objectives is to help to tackle climate change. Now, we, of course, know that, if Wales is to become a net-zero nation by 2050, significant infrastructure investment from both the public and private sectors will be needed. The bank could potentially play an important role in scaling up and accelerating that investment. Given this, we support the creation of the bank in principle.

The bank’s objectives are laudable, but there is a glaring omission, namely tackling the nature emergency. Given the dangerous decline in nature, and with the ink barely dry on the UN biodiversity agreement arising from COP15, it’s therefore deeply disappointing the UK Government ruled out the inclusion of a nature objective specifically. The Minister has provided assurance that the Bill, as drafted, will enable investment in nature-based solutions and biodiversity. Encouraging though this may be, of course, it doesn’t equate to a statutory nature objective.  

In terms of our other outstanding concerns regarding the Bill, in earlier memoranda, the Minister said she was calling for the Bill to be amended

‘to enable the Senedd and the Welsh Ministers to take their appropriate role within [the bank’s] Governance structures to ensure proper democratic accountability.’

She said that the amendments would

‘provide the Welsh Government and the Senedd with roles equivalent to those of their UK counterparts.'

Now, we’ve had a taste from the Minister of some of the amendments that she was calling for in opening the debate, but, before that, of course, the Minister was previously unwilling to share details of the amendments she was calling for with Senedd committees. This was on the basis that inter-governmental negotiations were ongoing. Now, there we go; that again raises a question about our role as a Senedd in the context of this process.

Now, of course, there has to be consultation, as I understand it, with the Welsh Ministers before UK Ministers can exercise powers in relation to the bank’s objectives and activities, and strategic priorities and plans. Well, this, certainly, isn’t an equivalent role, such as we were seeking. And what of the Senedd’s role? Quite simply, the Bill doesn’t provide a role for the Senedd. Let’s be clear about what that then means—it means the UK Parliament, rather than Senedd Cymru, will scrutinise how powers in areas of devolved competence are being used, and they will be the ones who will oversee the bank’s effectiveness as far as it relates to Wales.

So, having considered the Bill, as amended, we still have concerns about the limited role of the Welsh Ministers in terms of the bank’s governance structures, and the lack, of course, of a role provided for the Senedd. So, Dirprwy Lywydd, with this in mind, the committee is not in a position to recommend that the Senedd gives consent to the Bill.

May I change hat now? Because I understand that I’ll only have one opportunity to contribute, may I speak as spokesperson for Plaid Cymru in one sentence? Yes. Just to say, of course, that, as usual, Plaid Cymru will be voting against consent, but a number of the concerns relating to what I’ve said in my other role in this debate are valid in that regard too. Thank you.