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legislation to meet the requirements of the UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand free trade agreements, but is to be repealed by the UK Government's Procurement Bill, should that Bill be enacted.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.