Can I begin by stating clearly Plaid Cymru's strong opposition to the use of LCMs as a matter of principle? Decisions affecting devolved matters in Wales should always be made in this place. The increasing and worrying use of LCMs by the UK Government symbolises their disrespect for devolved administrations and signals their intent to plough on with the increasing centralisation of UK politics. 

As someone who was closely involved with social partnership and procurement legislation over the past few months, it's disappointing that the Welsh Government did not use the opportunity provided by that Bill to make stronger provisions on public procurement procedures. On behalf of my party, I tried on many occasions to establish principles and benchmarks in public procurement through Senedd legislation, rather than relying on a UK Government-driven Bill. Unfortunately, the Labour Government was not for turning. As a consequence of this decision, a vast and far-reaching range of provisions affecting Wales will be implemented with little actual oversight by the Senedd. It cannot be repeated enough times that scrutiny within the legislative consent process is a vastly inferior substitute to that which is afforded by a Senedd Bill. Not only is this approach a poor reflection on the Welsh Government's management of its legislative agenda, it also undermines the Senedd's credibility as a law-making body. The Welsh Government should give greater consideration in future of the democratic deficit caused by the LCM process. 

Turning to the specifics of the LCMs in question, a particular area of concern is the fact that the Minister has seemingly rowed back on previous Welsh Government objectives for amending the Bill. As noted by the recent Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report, an amendment to clause 123 of the Bill, which makes UK Ministers' commencement of devolved Welsh aspects of the Bill subject to the consent of Welsh Ministers, does not actually achieve the aim set out by the first memorandum to equip Welsh Ministers with the relevant commencement powers themselves. This means that Welsh Ministers continue to have no power to commence the Bill's provision in relation to Welsh contracting authorities. Could the Minister therefore explain why she is satisfied with the aforementioned amendment, despite achieving significantly less than the Welsh Government's initial ambition in this area?

The amendment in question also allows the UK Government to effectively carve out Wales-related provision from the Bill in the event that Welsh Ministers refuse consent, on the application of the aforementioned commencement powers. Could the Minister therefore confirm whether, under this scenario, the Welsh Government would need to introduce primary legislation to address the resulting gaps?

Finally, it's worth reflecting on the implications of the Bill in terms of reducing the accessibility of law, especially at a time when the Welsh Government is undertaking work to improve the accessibility of law in the areas of historic environment and planning. On this basis, will the Minister reverse her stance on undertaking an internal review of its approach to legislating on procurement law, in order to inform future practice, as recommended by the LJC's report on the first LCM? Diolch yn fawr.