Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to open my contribution this afternoon by thanking the committee members and our clerking team, but also by emphasising that one of the key questions my committee considers is whether a Bill is fit for purpose as a piece of law. As a general rule, we don't comment on the merits of the policy it contains.

The Minister told us that the Bill is a framework Bill, with the aim of being in place for several decades. As a result, the Minister emphasised the need for futureproofing and flexibility. But it is because the Bill is a framework or enabling Bill that our report contains so many recommendations—there are 44 in total. It's a reflection in part of our concern about the amount of power it provides to Welsh Ministers at the expense of this legislature. Our report demonstrates that it isn't just our committee that has concerns about the use of framework Bills—our predecessor committees and long-established committees in the House of Lords express the same concerns.

Of most importance when a legislature is asked to delegate powers to the executive is consideration as to how those powers could be used in the future, rather than how the current Minister intends to use them at the time they are taken. So, it's regardless of words on record and intent of this Minister. If passed, the Bill will delegate broad powers to any future Government in Wales. The powers could be used to develop significant policy on agriculture, with very limited democratic input and decision making by the Senedd as the legislature. That's what this Bill as currently written does; it can be amended. Future Welsh Ministers will be able to avoid detailed scrutiny by the Senedd of what could be substantive and significant policy decisions on agriculture, potentially for, and I repeat it, decades.

We believe that the Welsh Government has had the opportunity to draft a Bill that could have included more detail on its face. The detail would have included the relevant purposes, the principles and the criteria underpinning agricultural policy in Wales that will replace the provisions and powers being returned from the European Union, not least since the decision to leave the EU was taken by the electorate in 2016. In an attempt to improve the Bill, therefore, 11 of our recommendations require more information to be placed on its face, particularly on policy detail and matters relating to the exercise of regulation-making powers. In addition, a further 15 recommendations seek explanations for the approach adopted in the Bill. They genuinely are seeking to improve the Bill.

In the absence of any sunset provision—I draw particular reference to that—to ensure transition to a new system of agricultural support, changes could be made, as it's currently fashioned in this Bill, on an indefinite basis to the existing system, which gives certainty to no-one. We accept that it is this Minister’s stated intention to transition to the sustainable farming scheme and a new system of support. But, as currently drafted, the Bill places no obligation on this or any future Government to actually do so by any certain date. We have therefore recommended that it would be appropriate to include a sunset provision in the Bill to provide that certainty—an end date for transition away from the basic payment scheme and the common agricultural policy. If provision is included to allow an end date to be amended by regulations, such regulations then should be of course subject to the affirmative procedure.

We note that the Welsh Government has not replicated limitations on the exercise of some regulation-making powers—so, for example, under sections 15, 16 and 22 of the Bill—that were included in the UK Agriculture Act 2020. This means that, as it currently stands, the 2020 Act—legislation by the UK Government—provides more control for this Senedd over the exercise of Welsh Ministers' powers than the Bill before us today. So, nine of our recommendations were aimed at addressing this specific issue. We think that these are sensible.

Five of our recommendations relate to the procedures attached to the making of regulations, and a further four recommendations call for amendments to 12 sections in the Bill to include a duty on the Welsh Ministers to consult before making regulations, because this is such a framework Bill. This is important because, in a recent set of, for example, student loans regulations, the Welsh Government did not consult before making the regulations because there was no statutory requirement to do so. It may have been good or bad policy, but there was no duty to consult.

I would like to cover now two brief specific recommendations before closing. We recommended that the Bill should be amended to include a definition of 'sustainable land management'. In the committee's view, it is not appropriate to try and define a term adequately by a set of objectives, which may or may not be achieved and which can be balanced across and traded against each other. It does not provide the certainty needed in good law.

Section 50 of the Bill permits the Welsh Ministers to amend the definitions of agriculture and ancillary activities—definitions that go to the very heart of the Bill. This is an exceptionally broad power that could fundamentally change the nature and the reach of this Bill. So, as well as seeking clarity on why this power is being taken, we recommended that, if the Minister retains section 50, a superaffirmative procedure should apply to the regulation power.

So, just in conclusion, Llywydd, we concluded that the Bill, as currently framed, in this broad framework that it has, doesn't actually provide a sensible and constitutionally appropriate approach to legislation and has some significant shortcomings. But these can be improved in the passage of the Bill, so, in the interests of sound law making, we hope that the Minister, who's offered to write to us in detail on our recommendations, does listen to those concerns, which are sensible recommendations, and can address this positively as the Bill proceeds. Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr iawn.