Item 10 this afternoon is the legislative consent motion on the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill. I call on on the Minister for Economy to move the motion. Vaughan Gething.

Motion NDM8190 Vaughan Gething

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 29.6 agrees that provisions in the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill in so far as they fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion before us. I find it difficult in addressing, or disappointing in addressing, this motion, which relates to a Bill implementing the free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, that we are yet again having to discuss another case in which the UK Government is seeking consent from the Senedd to a Bill that contains concurrent powers for which the UK Government will not include equivalent powers for Welsh Ministers. We've tabled the motion to ensure the Senedd can explore the issues around the Bill and reach its decision on consent. Members will see, in the memorandum, that we recommend withholding consent. There are good legal and constitutional reasons for this.

Members will note the Welsh Government considers that clause 1 is central to the Bill and gives powers to all four Governments in the UK. To the extent that the power is given to Welsh Ministers, this Bill is within the Senedd's competence and comprises a devolved matter within the meaning of section 107(6) of the Government of Wales Act 2006. All other provisions within the Bill follow from the powers set out in clause 1, and, as such, almost all provisions of the Bill require consent.

The function of the Bill itself is fairly narrow and technical in nature in that it would allow the UK Government, as well as Welsh Ministers, the power to make changes to domestic legislation stemming from the UK Government's procurement obligations under the agreements with Australia and New Zealand. This Bill must be passed and receive Royal Assent before the agreements enter into force to ensure that the UK is not in breach of its obligations detailed in those agreements. However, this Bill will then be repealed by another Bill that is currently progressing through the UK Parliament—the Procurement Bill. This second Bill also requires the legislative consent of the Senedd. And a letter of consent memorandum to that Bill has already been laid with the Senedd and will of course be the subject of its own debate in due course. As I've said, despite the title, the function of the Bill is narrow.

The changes needed to our procurement system as a result of the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements are small and technical in nature and they were discussed fully with officials before they were tabled during negotiations. I know some Members have broader opinions on these trade deals, but with regards to the changes needed in respect of procurement I have no issues of concern. My concerns for this Bill lie solely in the nature of the powers it contains. Despite extensive discussions at both ministerial and official level, the UK Government has continued to resist our calls for equivalent powers to be included on the face of the Bill and is unwilling to grant equivalent or concurrent plus powers.

The UK Government has committed to consult with devolved Governments before using the powers, but, as the debate at the Second Reading of the House of Lords heard, devolved matters are not just matters for consultation. We believe that there is no reason why equivalent or concurrent plus powers, at the very least, could not have been included in this Bill. The current approach of the UK Government is not consistent with the principle of devolution, and, as the First Minister and the Counsel General have made clear, equivalent powers should be the default when issues affecting devolution arise.

Whilst I do have concerns around some of the content of these agreements, as we've discussed before, and its potential impact on some of the sectors, we have made it clear to the UK Government that we would not seek to hold up or impede the implementation of the negotiated trade agreements. The Welsh Government is fully committed to playing its part in complying with the obligations of such international agreements.

This is the second Bill introduced specifically to implement the UK Government's new trade policy following our departure from the EU. In the case of the original Trade Bill, we did recommend that Senedd consent be granted. However, that Bill related purely to the roll-over of existing trade deals that we were party to as a member of the EU. We were led to believe at the time by the UK Government that this would not set a precedent for future legislation. We do not wish for this perceived precedent continue in the case of this Bill. I know that this concern is shared by Legislation, Justice and Constitution committee. The committee wrote to me in July 2022 to outline their concerns that the approach taken to the use of concurrent powers in this Bill risks setting a precedent for future legislation and for trade agreements. I agree with their assessment. We do not expect there to be any amendments to the Bill that would include a change to the concurrent powers proposed. I'm grateful to the committee for their ongoing work scrutinising the LCM and the Bill and ask Members to support the Government recommendation and, on the vote, to withhold consent.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Huw Irranca Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. We laid our report on this LCM on 23 November 2022. We drew two conclusions and made three recommendations, and we’re very grateful to the Minister for his response to our report. As the Minister has said, the Bill amends procurement legislation to meet the requirements of the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand free trade agreements, but is to be repealed by the UK Government's Procurement Bill, should that Bill be enacted. 

Now, we agreed with the Welsh Government's assessment that all the clauses and Schedules listed in the memorandum fall within a purpose within the legislative competence of the Senedd, as described in Standing Order 29. However, we also recommended that Senedd's consent should also be sought for clause 4 and paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. The Minister did not accept our view on clause 4, because he maintains it is a technical provision. However, just to point out, on that specific point, there is a consent memorandum currently laid before the Senedd for the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which does indeed list so-called technical clauses as clauses requiring the Senedd's consent. So, we remain of the view that consent for such clauses should be required. It's a point of disagreement.

In response to a question we raised, the Minister told us that he shared our concerns, as he’s just referred to in his comments, about the increased use of concurrent powers in UK Bills. He also told us that, at the very least, the Welsh Government would need concurrent plus powers being included in the TANZ Bill, as I'll refer to it, before we could recommend the Senedd gives its consent. Now, we believe the inclusion of powers for the Welsh Ministers in the TANZ Bill equivalent to those provided to the UK Ministers would indeed be the best available option. However, to overcome the issue of the inclusion of concurrent powers in the Bill, we did explore with the Minister why he could not bring forward a Bill equivalent to the UK Government's Bill before the Senedd. Further, given the Minister’s reasoning that the legislation was time critical—and we understand that—we asked what the barriers were to seeking to introduce an emergency Bill to this Senedd.

Now, given the deadline to which the UK Government is working, the Minister told us that he didn't believe that there was sufficient time available to bring forward an emergency Bill, or that this would be a proportionate approach given the scope of the provisions in this legislation. But it takes us to a matter of principle for our committee. We don't consider it appropriate for Welsh Government to use arguments—as it did indeed in this memorandum—relating to the Senedd's timetable for scrutiny, or the capacity, in order to justify using a UK Bill to legislate in a devolved area. This is a point we've made several times before. We stick by it. We reiterate that point today.

The Minister also told us that a Senedd Bill would not, of itself, overcome the inclusion of concurrent powers in the TANZ Bill, because a Senedd Bill could not prevent the TANZ Bill giving powers to UK Ministers to implement legislative changes in Wales. And the Minister told us this could therefore lead to concurrent powers, albeit contained in different Acts.

However, this leads me on to another really important point of principle, which I wish to highlight again, which this committee stands on. By pursuing a separate Welsh Bill, the Welsh Ministers, subject to the views of this Senedd, would have been able to create the powers it needs, rather than having to negotiate for their inclusion in the TANZ Bill. And whilst we do accept that a Welsh Bill could not prevent the TANZ Bill giving powers to UK Ministers to implement legislative changes in Wales, it would, however, change the nature of the conversation between Governments. In addition, and significantly, it would also change the nature of the question put to this Senedd on the matter of consent. Now, this issue may actually be of little consequence, given the intended repeal of the TANZ Bill should it be enacted, but, as a point of principle, it remains valid, so we draw it to the attention of the Senedd.

And, finally, on the third recommendation, we're really grateful for the response we received in December, noting that meetings were being held with the UK Government to ensure dialogue continued about the disagreements on the Bill. Now that we're at the point of the debate, though, we would have found it helpful—I don't know if the Minister can touch on this as a response—in advance of today's proceedings, to learn whether those issues he referred to about the concurrent powers had been resolved to the Minister's satisfaction. We hear today that this is not the case indeed.

So, Minister, just two questions I wonder if you could refer to in your remarks there. First of all, what are the implications today if the Senedd does refuse consent, and, has the Minister reflected at all on the decision not to bring forward his own Bill as an alternative route? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The Welsh Conservative group will be supporting the LCM today. I know that the Senedd has discussed the merits of the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreement on a number of occasions. And, as the Minister stated, the LCM relates to a Bill that ensures that relevant measures are introduced so that the trade agreement can be implemented. As I understand, Welsh Government officials have had discussions with UK Government officials around the changes required to the procurement chapters, which is to be welcomed, although I do note that they were not involved in the development of the Bill itself. As such, Deputy Presiding Officer, I would be interested to ask the Minister more broadly about what changes were required to Welsh procurement rules. And, how does the Minister envisage using the powers provided for within the Bill to the Welsh Government in future years?

Deputy Presiding Officer, we know that the Minister is currently opposing consent due to the inclusion of concurrent powers in clause 1, as he's already explained. The Minister's letter to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, though, dated 14 December, states that he and his officials recently held a constructive meeting with Nigel Huddleston, the Minister for International Trade, and that it had been agreed that more meetings would be held about the Bill. Therefore, can I ask the Minister whether the issues around the use of concurrent powers were raised in that meeting, whether the Minister for International Trade provided any additional justification for its inclusion, and was the Minister more receptive to finding a solution that was acceptable to both Governments?

Well, this Senedd should not support this LCM in any way. Supporting this LCM would be a complete betrayal of Welsh farmers, and would leave our agricultural sector vulnerable to the risk of being undermined completely by red meat producers on the other side of the world. 

The Government has several progressive policies, such as ambitious environmental targets and local procurement policies, never mind legislation for future generations, to name a few. Enabling this LCM today would run counter to all of these policies. Speaking to butchers in Wales, there has been a significant increase in the lamb coming here from Aotearoa already, and the result of this is evident today, as we see that the price of lamb is significantly lower than it was a year ago. This agreement is about to lead to a significant fall in the GVA of Welsh agriculture—£50 million, according to the estimates of the Farmers Union of Wales, not to mention the millions that have been lost as the Westminster Government fail to keep their word about agricultural compensation following Brexit.

Indeed, the farmers that I speak to in Australia and Aotearoa can't believe their luck that the United Kingdom has agreed to a deal that is so one-sided in their favour. Our small farmers are the backbone of our rural economy in Wales—that's what Samuel Kurtz said last night. I agree with him completely. But more than that, they're essential to the continuity of the language and our culture. We can't turn our backs on them. We have to support the sector and ensure that small farms in Wales continue to punctuate our glorious landscapes in Wales as they protect and nurture our land. We can't betray our farmers by showing any kind of support for the agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia and Aotearoa. So, will the Government bring its own Bill forward? Thank you very much.

I welcome very much the Minister's speech this evening in asking and recommending that this Senedd does not give consent to this LCM. I think we should be doing that for two reasons: for the constitutional reasons, but also for policy reasons. I agree with my friend, the Chair of our committee. I keep forgetting the name of the committee, but it's a very good committee. [Laughter.] Legislation, justice and constitution. I do wish—. I'm far better with single words than acronyms, but it's a very good—[Interruption.] It might be my age. It's more likely to be other things, but we won't go there.

So, I'm very grateful to him, and I do agree with the points he makes about concurrent powers and the points he makes about the Welsh Government bringing forward its own legislation. But I think there's a more fundamental point at play with this LCM, and that is the nature of parliamentary scrutiny. The Parliaments, wherever you happen to be, in Westminster, here, Holyrood, or wherever, exist to scrutinise the actions of the Executive, and that is a key, fundamental part of our role. Last night in Westminster, legislation was passed that allows Ministers to legislate. That should never happen, and as a legislature, we should never allow that to happen. We should never allow Welsh Ministers the right to legislate in our name, and it shouldn't happen in Westminster either. But what this does is to enable Westminster Ministers to negotiate, without parliamentary scrutiny, trade deals that will have a profound effect on the livelihoods of people, wherever they happen to be in the United Kingdom. That should be subject to parliamentary control and parliamentary scrutiny before the negotiations start, and not simply a Bill that will be whipped through late at night, after the negotiations have concluded. We need to be able to say, very, very clearly, that all deals of this sort should be subject to clear parliamentary scrutiny at all stages, and we should all, on all sides of the Chamber, agree with that, because you on the Conservative benches insist on scrutinising Welsh Ministers. I welcome your scrutiny. I welcome that scrutiny. But I want to see the same scrutiny in London as we have here.

The second issue is that of policy, and the points that have already been made are very true and fair. What really worries me about this legislation is that it demonstrates that the UK Government are turning their backs on the farming community and embracing the money people in the City of London. This might be free trade, but it's not fair trade, and what we need are trade treaties that are hard-wired with our values. A few years ago, I met in Brussels the New Zealand ambassador to the EU and to Brussels. We had a long conversation about the nature of trade agreements, and he was very clear: trade agreements are not simply about trade. They're about who we are and what our contribution to the world is going to be. He spoke at length about New Zealand's values—the values of the Government of New Zealand—informing what they wanted to do and what sort of deals they were searching for when they were negotiating. And what we've got here is a UK Government that doesn't seem to have any values except making money for their friends in the City of London, and it doesn't matter who suffers as a consequence of that. And the sheep farmers of Wales deserve better than that. They deserve better than that, because they have farmed these hills and mountains for generations. It's one of the toughest jobs in this country today, and they deserve the support of people who say they speak on their behalf. And in this treaty, they've been let down and let down badly, and backs have been turned by a Government more interested in simply placating Tory donors. [Interruption.] I've said enough about you, so I should take an intervention.

I'm grateful to you for taking the intervention. Look, whenever a trade deal is negotiated, there are always going to be competing interests within each nation that is doing the negotiations, both pros and cons. What the UK Government has to do is to try to get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom as a whole, as I would expect the Welsh Government would try to do if it was having to negotiate—it would try to get the best deal for Wales as a whole, and that may be of advantage to some parts to Wales and a disadvantage to others. I think the reality is that this is a trade deal that is a good trade deal, which we should all be supporting in the interests of the whole of the UK. And of course it is part and parcel—[Interruption.] 

Oh, come on, he's trying to defend the UK Government; give him a chance. [Laughter.]

Just one further point, if I may, because I think this is an interesting discussion. This is part and parcel of unlocking opportunities into wider trade partnerships with blocs in the Asia-Pacific area. 

Well, you've certainly made my case about the need for parliamentary scrutiny, if nothing else. And I don't disagree with you, as it happens, Darren. It's right and proper that government is about choosing and making choices, and the point that I make is that the UK Government has chosen the money-makers in the City of London over the farmers of Wales, and that is exactly the point I'm making. And, in doing so, they've spoken more about themselves than the values of people, whether those people and those farmers are in Wales, England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. And for that reason, this Parliament, and as people who seek to represent the people of Wales, we should say 'no'.

I call on the Minister for Economy to reply.

I thank Members for all of the various comments and questions that have been raised in the debate.

On the policy through the different trade deals, our disagreement with the UK Government is clear. And I respect and understand why both Mabon ap Gwynfor and Alun Davies made comments about that; that's not really the point in the sense of the vote today on the LCM, but we have not resiled from our disagreements on the policies struck by the UK Government. We were clear about that at the time. George Eustice, once he'd left the Government, was also remarkably clear about the drivers for getting this particular deal over the line and the impact that it would have. We understood those tendencies existed within the UK Government, but he did say that in very, very clear terms.

What Members are really being asked to do, as the Conservatives want us to, is to agree that elected Members in this Senedd should vote for powers to be taken away from Welsh Ministers to be put in UK Government hands so that they can simply act for us, and indeed what that does to the scrutiny of this Senedd. And Alun Davies is right about that. I just don't see how Members here could say that this is the right course of action for the UK Government to take in the Bill that it proposes. And it shouldn't be a party-political perspective. It shouldn't be about loyalty to the UK Conservatives, saying that we would celebrate and ask others to do that here.

And the challenge is—and I understand the point made by the LJC committee—alternative powers in different legislation on the same subject, if we were to take an alternative Bill, and we would be into potential ping-pong between different Governments on the same subject. And actually, this Bill should have a relatively short lifespan. We are genuinely concerned, and it's a regular point of conversation with the Counsel General, about how to address the issue. And I'd remind Members of what the First Minister said last week: once Sewel is breached, the next time it becomes easier, and as it carries on and on it is no longer extraordinary. And the concern is that the choice to override devolution, the powers of Welsh Ministers and this Senedd is becoming more normalised and not accidental within this Government. [Interruption.]

The Minister is outside his time.

We have constructive conversations with UK Ministers. We don't always end up agreeing and we've not reached agreement on this point. I reiterate, and to conclude: we cannot support consent for this Bill. I therefore ask Members to withhold consent for this Bill and vote against the motion.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. Therefore, I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

Rydym wedi cyrraedd yr amser hwnnw nawr. Oni bai bod tri Aelod yn dymuno i mi ganu cloch, symudaf yn syth i'r cyfnod pleidleisio.