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 However, this Bill will then be repealed by another Bill that is currently progressing through the UK Parliament—the Procurement Bill.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.