Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Adam Price has sent apologies, and Mabon ap Gwynfor is substituting. The meeting is being broadcast live on Senedd.tv, and the Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. Please can Members ensure that all mobile devices are switched to silent mode? Senedd Cymru operates through the medium of both the English and Welsh languages. Interpretation is available during today's meeting for those who need it.

The first item is the scrutiny session of the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs and the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery. Can I welcome the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery, Julie James, and the Deputy First Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies? Would you like to introduce your officials, or would they like to introduce themselves?

Yes. If I could turn to my left, first of all. Piers.

Piers Bisson, director of constitution and justice in Welsh Government.

I'm James Gerard. I'm the deputy director for justice.

And Charlie.

Charlie Thomas, deputy director for legislation.

Okay. Croeso. If I can start off with the first question, what progress have you made towards implementing the recommendations of the Thomas commission within the responsibility of the Welsh Government?

Within the responsibility of the Welsh Government we've managed to make some progress indeed, because there were a small number, Cadeirydd, that were within the responsibility of Welsh Government. So, one of those was the Law Council of Wales proposals. The Law Council of Wales is up and running. The Law Commission published its review of tribunals. So, we are working to prepare the legislation to reform the Welsh tribunals, so that's proceeding. The civil procedure rules was another area that fell within our competences, and the civil procedure rules have been amended so that challenges against public authorities in Wales must be issued and heard in Wales. We've also taken forward funding now for new apprenticeship offers for paralegals and advanced paralegals. A couple of other areas that we've worked forward, because, as I say, there was a small number within the areas of Welsh Government's competences—. So, the Welsh Government, in partnership with the Law Society, has facilitated a number of seminars on the use of legal technology. And, of course, we've also piloted a family drug and alcohol court in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. So, within our remit, Chair, we've taken forward quite a number now of the proposals.

Okay. Diolch. In December 2022, the former justice Minister, Lord Bellamy, told us that the Welsh and UK Governments were working together on 14 recommendations made by the commission. Any update on those 14 recommendations, the joint ones?

Yes, I mean, let's reflect on the progress that we've made within our areas. But it's probably fair to say, as has previously been described to this committee as well, that it's been somewhat slow and frustrating—certainly up until the change of Government, in particular. There were 45 recommendations that could be theoretically within the scope of discussions; only 14 were ever discussed as part of the process. There was a limited degree of agreement in principle on only five. And even on those five, ultimately, our assessment is that the limited progress that has been made was in the areas that the Ministry of Justice, at that period, in that previous Government, were already taking forward, irrespective of the Thomas commission.

It's probably worth reflecting on the changes since the UK Government has come in. I think it's fair to say to the committee that we recognise that the challenges that UK Government saw when it first came in, particularly within the justice sphere, and they focused very much, the Ministry of Justice, on the courts' backlogs, which is a significant issue, and the prisons issue as well, and the crisis in there with the capacity of the prisons. Those, almost from day one of the new UK Government, became the priority. What we've tended—. What we have done is we've prioritised our discussions on their manifesto commitments, so, on devolution, as well as working with them on those issues to do with the prison crisis and court backlogs. But there are other areas that we're keen to go forward on, and we have done work on.

So, one of those is something the committee has turned its attention to quite often, which is the issue of disaggregated data for Wales. So, we've been working on that, in a collaborative space, since the change in the new UK Government. We haven't completely got there yet, but it's been good and productive work. So, officials are meeting now on an ongoing basis to determine the key priority, as well as bringing forward improvements to the wider accessibility, and public accessibility as well, of disaggregated data. So, we're involved at a ministerial level with the UK Government on that, and with officials. But I think it's fair to reflect that, since the change of Government came in, it's not that we've suddenly had a leap ahead on the wider recommendations, because they were confronted with priorities that they had to deal with, and we do understand that.

I think we do as well. Minutes for meetings of the Cabinet sub-committee on justice have not been published since February 2024. Is it still active in meeting, and, if so, what role is it playing in the Welsh Government's work on justice policy? And if it is, when are they going to be published? 

Thank you for your question there, Chair. So, the justice sub-committee, in the form that this committee will remember it, existed under the previous First Minister, under First Minister Mark Drakeford. Now, we had, it's probably fair to say—. Turning to my right, to the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery, it was fair to say that the message went out very clearly, when the new First Minister came in, that we needed to keep the work going on justice, but we also needed to focus very much on delivery and outcomes. And there was a desire from the First Minister, which I think is right, to limit the number of formal sub-committees. There are a few people sitting around here who know those sub-committees can grow exponentially, and the question is what are you actually doing and getting on with. So, the approach we've changed to is actually an approach where we bring together those ministerial colleagues who have a portfolio interest in justice: so, my colleague to the right here, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, sometimes also the Minister for Finance and Welsh Language when we need to deal with issues of resources as well. But we meet regularly. We discuss the bigger constitutional issues on justice, but we also discuss operational matters, so the things that my colleague Jane Hutt deals with on a day-to-day basis, in what I have to say is the extensive engagement that she has had with her ministerial counterparts in the UK Government; similarly with the Counsel General as well. But it's convened now under a meeting that I chair on justice, and we bring the heads together, and it's fair to say that the focus on that is much more decisive and based on what are the outcomes we're trying to achieve, how do we all work together to do it. But the old—. The precedent of that, of the Cabinet sub-committee, doesn't any longer meet.

Okay. So, where would we look for the minutes of that?

They're not published in the way that a Cabinet sub-committee would do, because the discussions we have are—. They will be surfaced when we come forward, for example, on issues to do with progress that we might have made on devolution, or meetings that we're having through the inter-ministerial groups on that, or the operation of, for example, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, the meetings that she will be having with Lord Timpson and others, and then producing updates then for the Senedd as well, so we can see what's being discussed, what the outcomes are.

Okay. Thank you very much. Alun.

So, where are we on the devolution of justice, then? There seem to be quite a lot of conversations taking place, and I noticed that the First Minister has issued a written statement this morning, updating Members on the Council of the Nations and Regions. In that, she says she discussed with the Prime Minister devolution of youth justice and probation, and she didn't reference anything else; I presume for the reason you've just given us. But where are we on the devolution of justice and policing, and where are we on the devolution of youth justice and probation? And what are the structures in which conversations are taking place with the UK Government on those matters?

Thank you, Alun. Look, it's worth saying right at the outset that we have a long-held, well-established, evidence-based Welsh Government view on the entirety of the justice system, including policing, should actually be devolved. That's where we start; that's where we stand. To use the old Pontypool front row, 'We may go up, we may go down, but we never go backwards.' That's where we stand very firmly. However, we have to have a pragmatic approach to this, and part of that is not to do with the politics, but actually the pragmatism of saying we need to take a phased approach, because you could have some interesting unintended consequences if you launch at this. We find that the financial resourcing and other consequences land on us, as we've seen in other areas of policy over the years, or in other administrations north of Hadrian's Wall and so on, when they've taken on responsibilities and then go, 'Oh, my goodness, what have we taken on?'

So, the phased approach, I think, is important, and for us as well I think it's engaging on where the UK Government/UK Labour Party's manifesto landed, which did actually have scope in these areas for things such as probation and youth justice, and how that squares with our views. Now, we look, for example, at what's happening at the moment with the discussions with Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, in that wider England devolution context in probation, for example, and we think, 'Hey, that's not—. If it's on offer there, then, you know, we should certainly be saying to the UK Government that's where we need to be as a minimum.'

So, look, over the past couple of years, we have focused our efforts very much on working up that comprehensive, compelling case of the legislative and practical steps to devolve not only youth justice and probation, but also policing as well. We want to see progress made on this, Alun, decisively, in the months ahead. So, we've commissioned experts to undertake reviews in these areas. We've had support, as you know, by Dame Vera Baird KC as well in this. Last year, most of the preparatory work on this was concluded, so we had key publications from Chief Constable Carl Foulkes, the Wales justice academy advisory group and the Wales Centre for Public Policy. We've used this to refine our thinking, and this is now shaping, Alun, our discussions with the UK Government, and I will update the Senedd as we get progress on those discussions.

Okay. So, when do you expect to see progress? Because I don't disagree with anything you've said, by the way, Deputy First Minister. I think you're absolutely right, and you know that I very much agree with this whole field of policy. But, you know, it's nearly 10 years since I published blueprints on youth justice and on the place of women in the criminal justice system. The place of women particularly in the criminal justice system remains a stain and an embarrassment for us and an absolute tragedy for many women in Wales today. That cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. People have the right to deserve social justice and fairness in the system, and we don't have that today. So, when can we expect to see real, measurable progress on this?

So, I think—. I'm going to bring in my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary, in a moment. But first of all to say we do understand, we genuinely get—

I know you do.

No, no. We've done the work, you're right. Absolutely, you and others have done the work over many, many years. This is not something that we're plucking out of the sky. We know that it can work, we know how to do it, and we've been engaging with the UK Government since they've come in.

But what I was going to say is that we do understand that they've had other priorities, including within this sphere, to deal with. However, the nature of our discussions with them, Alun, without breaking confidence, has been, 'We need to deliver on this sooner rather than later. We need to see clear steps of tangible progress on this.' I need to be able to come back to the Senedd and to you to say, 'We've got a way forward on this.' Now, I think that's the space that we're currently in with the UK Government, without getting into the finer detail of it.

The First Minister has discussed these with the Prime Minister. I've discussed this with the Secretary of State for Wales and with Pat McFadden, the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. The Counsel General has been meeting regularly with Lord Ponsonby and others, and we're speaking the same message. And we are in that space of saying we not only need to go forward, we need to be able to say, 'Right, here, as soon as possible.' I have got a meeting, Alun, next week, just to say also, with the Lord Chancellor—sorry, this week I think it is—where this will be on the agenda as well.

So, we can expect progress next week.

I hope to make progress at this meeting. If the Lord Chancellor is meeting—this is a long-awaited meeting, which has taken—

I'm looking for a date, quite honestly. 

—a long time to arrange—. And I think the message that we have given, if the Lord Chancellor is meeting, is that we want to make rapid progress so that we can say things clearly in the public domain. 

Okay, I won't push this too much further, but—

Sorry, can I just say, Alun, on the women's position in the criminal justice system, that I couldn't agree with you more? You know I’ve been on this bandwagon for 40-odd years.

You have, yes. 

But just to say that, as you know, the women’s residential centre in Swansea did get planning consent—

Yes, I know. 

—and planning consents don’t last forever. So, we have been pushing really hard that that is funded properly and goes ahead. That, as you know, is to divert women away from prison, and a system to keep their families with them—one of the great injustices of the western world.

I should declare an interest and say that I’m the constituency member for that area as well. It has widespread local political support as well. So, we have been making the point that the planning consent doesn’t last forever, and that people need to take advantage of it. So, just to make that point.

I have a meeting with Lord Ponsonby on Thursday—I think that's right. And our colleague Jane Hutt, you’ll be very well aware, has been pushing this agenda very vigorously as part of the sentencing review process; I think she’s met David Gauke and others on that. So, there are a number of fronts that we’re pushing on, but I haven’t got a date for you.

I make no criticism of the Welsh Government or any individual Minister; I know how deeply held your personal commitments are to this agenda. I make no criticism at all of any of that. But dissolution is going to take place next April, and at that point, we will all be writing and issuing manifestos. I want to know whether we should be writing a section on youth justice, on women in the criminal justice system, on policing, and on other matters in that, so that when the next Welsh Government is elected, it will have commitments in these fields. Because otherwise, these meetings can go on for another decade or so, with no appreciable progress for the people affected.

We entirely agree with you, but we can’t give you a specific date, because, as you know as a former Minister, these are subject to some real intense discussions with UK Ministers. Just to remind everybody and anybody listening in to the committee’s deliberations today, the UK Government manifesto contains two separate clear commitments on this, which is to consider the devolution of youth justice and to explore the devolution of services. So, I think we’re pushing at the right things here; it’s just how soon can we say something. But you’re right: we’ve got to deliver this before we get to dissolution—way before that.

Well, let’s leave it at that. What I’ve taken from this exchange is the commitment of the Welsh Government to this agenda, and to delivering that. I very much welcome that.

I failed to get a date in that series of questions, but I’m going to try again. The draft Bill on tribunal reforms is due to be published. Do we have a date for that and a potential timescale for legislation on this matter?

You’ll know, Alun, that I made the legislative statement in the Senedd very recently, and, in that, I said that we weren’t going to be able to bring it forward in this Senedd term.

The draft Bill, sorry. 

The Bill itself. But I did say that we would publish the draft Bill, hopefully in both languages, before the end of the Senedd term. It is still our intention to do that. I’m not going to give you a date for that, but it is still our intention to do that.

I very much hope that that Bill is non-controversial. It’s certainly non-controversial across all of the parties currently represented in the Senedd. It is a very technical Bill around the organisation of tribunals. I would very much hope that it would be something that could be taken ahead in the first year of the next Senedd.

No doubt we’ll get on to the legislative programme later, but in a four-year Senedd, you need to use all four years to make legislation. So, having some technical Bills lined up for Ministers who perhaps have no previous experience of taking legislation through and so on, to cut their teeth on, and for the Senedd to have non-controversial things to do, I think will be very important.

I think publishing the draft Bill in a form that allows as many parties as possible to say in their manifesto that they will take it forward is where we’re at. I’ve spoken to the president of Welsh Tribunals, who was obviously disappointed we weren’t going to do it in this Senedd term but very appreciative of getting the draft Bill out as soon as we can.

Thank you. Just a reminder that policing has already been devolved to Scotland, Northern Ireland and some English mayors, and it was devolved to some English mayors with very little fanfare and at great speed. So, perhaps you could push them on that. Mabon.

Thanks, Mabon. The first thing to say is that this element is crucial, so the justice research programme will be looking at this as part of their first year work programme. We have previously, Chair, made estimates on this, on the resources and the capacity needed, as part of the Thomas commission, but I've got to say that that was on the basis of the whole of the justice system being devolved, and they were initial estimates of it, at that very early stage, whereas what we are looking at, Mabon, is more of a phased approach, as I've described earlier. So, if it's a phased approach, the resources will start smaller and then will build over time, but what we do need now is to progress those detailed discussions with the MoJ on those aspects we just touched on in response to Alun's question, so devolution of youth justice and probation for example, and the resource assessment has got to be a strong part of those discussions.

It may be helpful, Mabon, just to reflect on the fact that back in July we ordered a tender for a justice research programme and it went to a consortium, including Miller Consulting and academics from Cardiff Met University. There are also other members of that consortium. And what that programme will do, as part of the justice research programme, is it will give us a much better understanding of the operation of the justice system in Wales, including policy development but also, right at the front end, as I've mentioned, an assessment of the capacity, capability and preparedness within Wales for devolution, because we don't want to, as I say, leap forward and find we're not ready for it. We need to make sure that we know what the drawdowns on resources will be.

And the trade unions. 

Indeed, absolutely. The Counsel General has just reminded me as well that part of the engagement we do on this is the engagement with our trade union colleagues. 

Thank you so much for that question. It's probably worth saying that we can draw on our experience of the year that's gone by to reflect on how the good collaboration in these areas between the UK and Welsh Governments has been effective, even whilst recognising the incredible pressures on the system. Last year, for example, Mabon, in preparation for the first tranche of prisoner releases under SDS40, which was in September, HMPPS established the post-custody accommodation working group, but there was direct support in there from Welsh Government housing policy leads, so that we could understand better what the implications would be when people were released from custody, how were we ready to accommodate them—literally to accommodate them—across Wales.

The feedback that we've had in response to that, Chair, has been that those services in the community were better able to manage the impact of those earlier releases—within the existing resources, I have to say; it wasn't that we were pumping loads more resources in—due to the strong collaborative working. That is helpful, because under high pressure within the system, the ability to actually engage intensely with the UK Government and say, 'Well, let me tell you: this is going to be the impact here in Wales, but we think we can help you work through it'—. So, there was a good example of this. But I think that's on the back of the work the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and her team of officials have been doing. They are working very closely with the UK Government, and our own local delivery partners here in Wales, to understand the various impacts of these changes, and then making sure that we can do the very best here on the ground.

It is probably worth reflecting, Mabon, as well that we have to accept that, within this, there has been a real pressure on particularly our local authorities, not just here in Wales but across the UK. I think we're very grateful to them as well for the work that they've done, particularly on those areas to avoid homelessness with those leaving the prison estate. We know that accommodation is scarce and we know that presentations for homelessness assistance remain very high, but actually the work that they've been doing on the ground and the collaboration between Governments has put us in a much better position. 

The other thing to say as well is that we very much welcome the approach taken with the independent sentencing review by David Gauke, because this goes with the grain of Welsh Government thinking over some time. We've been sceptical for a long, long time on multiple grounds about the value of short prison sentences. So, David Gauke's review, I think, was very welcome to us indeed and we're keen to work with that. 

Can I just add as well, Mabon, that you'll know that the homelessness Bill has just started its passage through the Senedd? Very much part of that Bill is a collaboration with public bodies, non-devolved and devolved—so prisons and the police—to make sure that there's a public sector duty, effectively, proposed in that Bill on all of those organisations to make sure that people are not discharged into homelessness. So, the post-custody accommodation working group, which has been a collaboration for a long time with the Welsh Government and local authorities where there's a big prison in the area, will be very much a part of the infrastructure that's embedded in law as part of the homelessness Bill, should it go through in its current form, which I very much hope it will. 

It may be slightly helpful for the committee to reflect on the earlier comments about, 'Well there isn't a Cabinet sub-committee, but we engage closely together'. Well, part of the flow from those meetings is that we have the regular updates from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice on the meetings that she has on an extremely regular basis, I have to say, with Lord Timpson to discuss these matters and others, and how that collaboration can better affect some difficult challenges that the UK Government has had. There have also been written submissions by the Welsh Government to David Gauke during his review of sentencing, and also several meetings with the sentencing Minister, Sir Nic Dakin. So, one of the things that I would welcome, actually, is the intensity. This is where good government should work: regular meetings, putting the shared agenda on the table and saying, 'Right, how do we help each other through what are some significant challenges?' And that's not to mention, actually, the intense work that's going on at official level as well.

It’s a good question, but it's worth coming back to this fact that this is not one Minister alone here, but a joined-up approach here from within the Welsh Government. We've got responsibility for justice across several portfolios, but several lead portfolios. So, together we have those meetings, but we also have then co-ordinated conversations with the UK Government on a range of matters relating to justice. 

If you'll allow me for a moment, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice leads on conversations with the UK Government on things such as existing justice activity—as we mentioned previously, the women's justice and youth justice blueprints, engagement on the sentencing review and other matters. The Counsel General can talk more about it. You meet regularly with Lord Ponsonby discussing things such as legal aid, civil justice, and so on. But we bring it together under that significant trilateral, where we meet quite regularly, where we share notes and say, ‘What do we need to push on? What do we need to do more on?’ And also, quite frankly, where Julie and Jane can say to me, ‘Can you push harder on areas as well?’

On my areas and the First Minister's areas, on devolution matters in particular, it's worth saying that both the First Minister and I have met with quite a number now of UK Government Ministers to discuss those commitments on devolution. The First Minister has spoken directly with the Prime Minister. I've met with the Secretary of State for Wales, with Pat McFadden as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice also raises devolution, as I know you do, when meeting with Lord Timpson, Nic Dakin, and Lord Ponsonby. So, we have, if you like, a quite well-defined shared agenda that we articulate at every meeting, even if we know that the meeting isn't specifically to do that.

And the other thing worth flagging is, again, that I have the meeting—which will be an important meeting—with the Lord Chancellor later this week to discuss areas of agreement that we can find. So, Mabon, my engagement with MOJ directly will happen from time to time, but actually, the lead people in that are the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice as needed, and also the Counsel General as well.

The Secretary of State for Justice, no, not on a systematic basis, but I would, if there was a feeling from my colleagues that there was a necessity for me to meet with them, then I would. So, it's not that I don't; it's just that my focus is on the constitutional matters, Mabon, rather than those operational matters or legal matters.

We also have quite a lot of officials meeting regularly, Mabon, so it might not be at ministerial level, but there'll be operational issues being discussed at official level. So, just to give you an off-the-cuff example: we've been discussing the Civil Justice Centre in Cardiff and the parlous condition it's in. If you've visited it recently, you'd know you need to put an umbrella up indoors. I mean, that's not devolved, but obviously, it's an issue for the people of Wales that that is in such poor condition. So, there have been a number of official meetings, and I've met with the Lady Chief Justice, for example, and so on on that. So, there are other activities ongoing around what I'd characterise as operational matters as well.

Before you carry on, Mabon, Alun wants to come in on that point.

There seem to be an awful lot of biscuits consumed in this system, with an awful lot of meetings taking place, and it might be useful for the committee if the Deputy First Minister could write to us to outline that structure of meetings, and also meetings that take place between Ministers and, say, policing leads, chief constables and the criminal justice, prisons and probation service, so that committee can have an understanding of that structure and mapping, if you like, so that when we come back to these matters, we will have a greater idea of how these structures are supposed to work.

And just to add to that, Alun, then: so, obviously, we discuss things that are not devolved at all.

Yes, I accept that.

So, we discuss legal aid, for example, and so on, because they impact on various services that we have. So, there's a quite extensive list of things that are not necessarily about devolution journeys.

It's a great suggestion, really keen to do that.

Thank you. Back to you, Mabon. 

Thanks, Mabon. So, we are hopeful that there will be a meeting soon on that. Sorry, I've managed to mess up my iPad now in talking to you. So, we're hopeful that there will be a meeting before the summer recess of the formal group, but as you've just heard, there are a large number of other meetings that go on all the time. There's been a little bit of a discussion about what the remit of the group might be, given where we are. It's generally to discuss wider issues not around devolution, but around the wider functioning of the civil and criminal justice systems. But, yes, we're hopeful that that will be up and running before the beginning of the summer recess. 

You have mentioned the Welsh justice research programme. Will the outcomes be published? 

Yes, they will. As we bring forward the results of that, then we'll look for the opportunity then to surface that publicly as well.

Okay, thank you. Sam.

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. Good morning, panel, forgive me that I can't—. Good afternoon, rather. Forgive me that I can't join you in person, but looking at inter-governmental relations, fewer meetings within formal inter-governmental structures appear to have taken place since the UK Government came into office. Can you expand on why this would be?

I think it's probably fair to reflect that, certainly, our experience would be that we are having more of those more formal, more systematic meetings on a more regular basis as part of the inter-governmental machinery than previously. Although I've got to say, Sam, I would acknowledge it's not universal. So, there are some areas where it's not flowing quite as easily as others sometimes. There are reasons why this happens. But actually, we do—

Could you give—? Sorry to cut across, Deputy First Minister, but could you give some examples as to those particular areas and the reasons why, for the committee?

One of the things that we need in good mature government is a regular—somebody else used this phrase before, I think—a regular reliable rhythm of meetings, and we are seeing those more. So, since September, there have been 28 formal meetings, we're expecting around five or six more now before we get to summer recess. That's not taking into account the numerous bilateral meetings that have also taken place. There are more portfolio-level inter-ministerial groups that have taken place over the last few months. Others are being scheduled as well. Amongst these, for example, some of the illustrations are, the Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Governments Council has met twice now since the current UK Government came into office. It only met once under the previous UK Government entirely. The Interministerial Group for Health and Social Care, it's met twice, but didn't meet properly at all under the previous Government whatsoever. And the Interministerial Group for Business and Industry, it's met twice in 2025; the last meeting under the previous Government was back in 2023, at the beginning of the year.

But having said all of that, and there is much more of a rhythm, it's not just about the number of meetings taking place. It is about those shared agenda things. It's getting the Governments together where we can actually discuss the right things at the right moment in time, and not having one individual Government controlling the agenda or the outcomes of that. We do continue to believe and we've strongly said that it's the review of the inter-governmental relations that can actually provide that machinery and improve it as time goes by. So, I think we have started to see a bit of a reset, but it's not comprehensive, Sam. There are some gaps where you may go for a couple of months without meetings happening, but most of them are happening really well.

Those gaps are what I was alluding to in my previous question, Deputy First Minister. For the benefit of the committee, you used the terminology 'it wasn't the right flow', I believe—I will look back at the transcript—but could you give some examples of in which departments specifically and some of the reasons as to why? You gave some, but you didn't give any examples.

It's because, amongst those 28 meetings that we have had, there have been glitches or the odd gap here and there, and they do vary in the reasons why. But I'm more than happy, Sam, if it would be helpful, to drop a note to give that flavour of where it's flowing well, and where sometimes, for good reason, it hasn't quite happened. What we want to happen is to have that flow happening regularly all the time. But we do appreciate that sometimes diaries get messed up, it's as simple as that, or other things—events happen. But it's certainly true to reflect to the committee that in the regularity and the rhythmic process of this, as well as the meaningful engagement, there has been a marked improvement, but it's not universal. Sam, if you're happy, I'll take that away and come back to you with some idea of where, perhaps, we'd like to see it work better.

Just to add as well, Sam—

Yes, that would be very helpful. Sorry, go ahead, Minister.

—it's not just about the meetings themselves, it's about who attends them. So, in the previous UK Government, the meetings were regular, but they were attended by very junior Ministers who couldn't decide anything. And so, query, what's the point? So, I personally—it's my own personal view—would much rather have less frequent meetings with Ministers who can make a decision than a whole series of meetings with Ministers who actually can't, so that it looks good in a diary. So, just to say, part of this is about the substance of the meetings, not just the regular flow.

Yes. And Sam, one of the illustrations of that is right at the highest level of this, so the Prime Minister's meeting at the Council of Nations and Regions. This is not something that we're now having, with an agenda being set by the UK Government saying, 'This is what you're coming to discuss and nothing else; everything is off the table.' Actually, what we're having is really purposeful; some of the things that have arisen in the public domain as well, they're on the table, they're frank discussions. 

I mean, I should say as well, from my experience with the IMGs in my own portfolio area, they have been frank around the table. There have been devolved Governments, now, who are not only helping to set the agenda, but are not shy in speaking up on behalf of their devolved interests. One of the interesting ones recently on this, Sam—and I think we dropped a line to the committee probably in the last few days on this—is with the engagement that I've had, not on an IMG quad basis, but actually the discussions that I've been having, both on a quad basis, but also with Hilary Benn on the fraught issue of the labelling of goods. The labelling of goods is a very difficult area, because when we're looking to actually sustain the viability of the Windsor framework and to actually make sure that all that infrastructure with Northern Ireland is still standing, we also need to make sure that there's a flow of goods and the right labelling.

Being able to have those frank, grown-up discussions with trusted colleagues across different Governments to say, 'We have a Wales perspective on this, but we recognise the UK imperative here to keep the Windsor framework functioning as we negotiate SPS and EU agreements going forward.' We understand that. So, sometimes, there are really difficult discussions to be had, but it's working now more than it ever did. And that's good to see. It doesn't mean it's easy, because sometimes we will have disagreements. We will.

So, to come to that point, then, Deputy First Minister, the First Minister herself has been quite public in some realms around dissatisfaction, shall we say, with the UK Government. How has that public intervention changed at all the inter-governmental relationship?

I think it has. And I think some of this comes down to individual First Ministers, but it does also come down to the desire of a UK Government to engage in a really genuine and meaningful way. Sam, I've been at some of these from the UK perspective before, where essentially the UK Minister says, 'Here's my agenda, here's what we'll discuss, and here's my note reflecting on what we discussed in the outcomes of the meetings.' It's been that blunt. That isn't happening anymore, and certainly not in the IMG process and not even at the Council of Nations and Regions. So, what the First Minister is currently doing is some of those things that are being aired publicly, because they are matters of great interest to the public and of what we feel is fairness as well, they're also being articulated at the highest tier level meetings, and not just once, but twice, and then they're being taken forward by officials. And we're not being—. I don't want to say that this is easy, but what we're not having now is having it thrown back in our face and being told, 'You should know your place.' What we're getting is, 'Okay, we get it, that doesn't work for us, so let's talk through it', but we're in a grown-up engagement on it.

You're getting the same outcome though, aren't you? As in, you're not getting the Welsh Government's preferred outcome. If we look at national insurance contributions and the covering of the cost and the consequential funding around HS2, for example, these points are well rehearsed by the Welsh Government, and regardless of the depth of the discussion with the UK Government, the outcome's the same, no?

Well, Sam, there will be areas that we don't win every time, and that's not the nature of inter-governmental relations across the UK. There will be areas, the Scots—

So, what have you won? What have you won?

You can point to ones already. So, even if I go back to my own portfolio, if you look, for example, at the work that we're doing collaboratively on a shared agenda on river quality, that did not happen before. So, the work that we're doing, for example, not only on Governments, but regulatory reform on cross-border river quality, there's a tangible example to you, but I could flag up others. The work that's currently going on, and the frankness, as well, I have to say, on the future of steel communities. These are difficult, because we've got Port Talbot neighbouring my area, but we've also got Scunthorpe as well. But the fact that we're in there and we are getting investment into Port Talbot and the steel communities is very important. On ports, the collaboration that's going on there as a result of grown-up dialogue between Governments.

On the wider investment piece as well, I've got to say, if you want to look at one tangible one, it's the fact that NIC is an area of disagreement, Sam, as you well know, and the Welsh Government has said that it will step into some of that space now to assist with that issue. But the actual hard truth of the engagement over the last month is that when we get a £1.6 billion plus uplift from the UK Government, that is a tangible demonstration of the pressure we've been putting on the UK Government and working with the UK Government. And within that, let's not forget, we had, for the first time ever, the first ever contribution from a UK Government, after years of denying they had any responsibility, to the restoration of our disused tips in Wales—£25 million. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language is now going back for the next instalment and the instalment after that. But we're not being rebuffed. We're in that space now of working in a proper way with the UK Government to get wins. But we won't win everything, Sam. You're right. We will not win everything. I can give you that guarantee.

Thank you, Chair. 

Okay. Alun. 

I will be speaking to people in Cwmtillery this evening, so I will certainly give them that message from you, Deputy First Minister. The funding for coal tip restoration, really, is a very, very significant and important issue for us. 

But moving on, you've both described, in different ways, a much improved relationship, which, frankly, we would have anticipated, and expected and hoped for. And certainly, from an outside perspective, if you like, the relationship between the different parts of the United Kingdom seems to be working in a way that is more structured, more formal, but also more collegiate, and the temptation is always to compare with the period when British governance essentially collapsed and different Prime Ministers in the past—. But the Council of the Nations and Regions, which the First Minister attended last week or a week before—in recent weeks—seems to have been a very structured meeting with an agenda that brings in different matters. And then the bilateral afterwards, and also a meeting between UK, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the rest of it, seems to be a good structure. But how will we know if it's working? 

I think it'll be by the outcomes that are delivered. As you know, sometimes people often reflect on—. You wouldn't want to see the inside of the sausage machine or the way the Government works—

I have seen—[Inaudible.]

—but the acid test is in the outcomes that are delivered. And you rightly flag up the role of the Council of the Nations and Regions. We think that that is proving very useful. But to be clear, it does not replace the inter-governmental relations structures, but it complements them, I think, very, very well. And it's interesting to note, Alun, that the top tier group of the IGR has met twice in the margins of the Council of the Nations and Regions. Now, this is the intelligent way of operating inter-governmental relations—that you're there, you're discussing this on the CNR, along with some of our incredible devolved mayoralities now through parts of England as well. But then you morph into—. And by the way, now, let's get that top-tier meeting—. But it'll be measured in the outcomes that we bring forward.

Okay. That's a fair response. Do you think it's time to put some of these structures on a statutory basis? I know we're going to address the Sewel convention later. But we've evolved, if you like, in a very British way, in terms of the widest devolution of power across the United Kingdom. The current United Kingdom is committed, apparently, to further devolution of structures, both in England and across the wider kingdom. But we still don't have an effective quasi-federal, if you like, state that enables decisions to be easily taken amongst the decision makers in different parts of the UK. So, is it time that we sort of grew up?

I think having a philosophical debate about the way that the British constitution works, and whether it is or isn't written, is probably slightly wider than the amount of time the committee has this morning, Alun. And you'll know, as well as I do, that one Government writing down a set of things does not necessarily bind another Government—it just doesn't. That Government is open to changing it. And we know that from the way the IGRs worked in the previous Government and the way they do now. So, I think there's quite a long philosophical discussion to be had about whether writing something down and enshrining it in legislation does or doesn't work. And I would say that you want to be careful what you wish for sometimes, too. So, the Sewel convention, for example, is very interesting, but it's perfectly possible to have a situation where a Government wants something and the Senedd doesn't want it, and then you end up with a very difficult situation indeed. That actually hasn't happened too often here, but it could happen relatively easily.

I understand that, but it's fair to say that the system of dispute resolution simply doesn't work. It doesn't work.

Well, it's never been tested.

And that's because it doesn't work, and nobody believes that it will work. It didn't work when the Welsh Government sought legal redress over the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and certainly didn't go anywhere close to it in terms of Treasury decisions, and we saw that over the Olympics, we saw it over HS2, we've seen it recently over the use of Barnett over national insurance contributions compensation, which the finance Minister said is a clear breach of the statement of funding policy. So, we do have these agreements in place with the United Kingdom Government, but unless they're judiciable, they don't seem to have any standing. I'm yet to meet a Minister who believes that the dispute resolution process would work for anybody except the Treasury in practice.

My colleague has got a longer history from this side of the desk on this. However, let me just give you an observation since coming into Government and getting back to that thing about how do you demonstrate that these structures are actually proving their worth. Well, one of the illustrations of this, one of the test points of this, will be how Wales progresses with our deposit-return scheme. Previously, with initiatives like that, we come from a very strong standpoint that what we want to see is the same flexibilities for innovation within the devolved space that we've previously had when we were under the EU, curiously enough—that ability of subsidiarity, the principles of that.

Under the previous Government, on DRS, the clear message was given to Scotland at the time, as they tried to advance with their DRS, that you can't do it, that UKIMA was an obstacle to that. There would be no discretion given. One of the ways that we can look at it, as opposed to whether it's statutory or non-statutory and so on, is in the inter-governmental relations space. Do you need to escalate something like this into a dispute procedure, or can it be resolved because there are really effectively mature discussions going on and a way forward that doesn't require UK Government to step into the breach and say, 'This far and no further. If you want to challenge us, you're going to have to challenge us using the mechanisms'?

My personal feeling would be that you need that mechanism there, but you actually want to try and resolve it without resorting to it. So, we've got ongoing discussions at the moment with the UK Government on our approach on DRS, and we're glad for the intense engagement that we are having. We're hopeful that we'll come to a good solution that won't require us, Alun, to go to that.

But on your thing about the statutory basis and non-statutory, we have said previously, in terms of things like Sewel, that we think there is a compelling case. And curiously, others, including a former Chair of the public accounts committee in Westminster, a Conservative former Chair—he said he thinks Sewel needs to be on a statutory basis. We think there's scope, right here, right now, on things like Sewel, which has not been functioning appropriately in the recent past, particularly with the post-EU withdrawal pieces of legislation—we need a better working. Is that delivered by a statutory basis? We think, right here, right now, we could do more, actually, with a greater and more meaningful memorandum of understanding that works for all Governments.

But the question, of course, is: what happens when one of those Governments just ignores it, as the UK Government did over national insurance contributions? But let's leave it and move on.

Two very brief questions from me. Can you provide an update on the review that is under way of inter-ministerial engagement, including whether it will look at the make-up of inter-ministerial groups?

Yes, the review of inter-ministerial governance is ongoing—I touched on it just a moment ago. I don't know if we have a timescale on that.

Officials are working through it at the moment, and I think we're hopeful that there will be something that comes through to an Interministerial Standing Committee discussion before the end of the year.

Can I just say, this committee likes timescales? The other question is: the Welsh Government has agreed to give committees, where possible, a written summary of issues discussed at formal inter-governmental meetings within two weeks. However, the committee often receives summaries significantly later than this, and summaries often lack detail, like one or two lines referring to another item of correspondence, which also has one or two lines. Are we going to see an improvement?

We would always hope to give as much advance written notice, Chair, as possible of the formal inter-governmental meetings to this committee or to other relevant committees and the policy committees, but there are some occasions where that prior written notice just isn't possible. So, for example—and I've seen this myself—where there are security considerations around particular meetings, that may be a problem, or where meetings are scheduled or confirmed at very short notice, or, indeed, where joint agendas have not yet been agreed. But your point is well made and we will take that back. We would like to make every effort to provide that prior written notice in as much time as possible, but sometimes things, events, militates against us.

Thank you. Mabon.

Yes, indeed. Thanks, Mabon. We've argued consistently for a long time that Sewel is in need of reform. We do think, as I mentioned earlier on, Mabon, that, as a first step, we think the proposed memorandum of understanding will give us an early and a timely opportunity to help restore the convention's effective operation, notwithstanding Alun's point earlier on that that also relies on good, effective collaboration between Governments to make it work. But I think an MOU can take us further along with that.

We've raised this directly with UK Ministers—not just myself, but other Cabinet Ministers. We've emphasised the need for genuine strengthening, firm commitments to its operation, including exploring some procedural reforms to improve transparency of the operation of Sewel as well. So, we are looking forward to engaging, in short order, in detailed discussions on the draft MOU with the UK Government in the weeks and months ahead. I hope that's helpful. I can't give you a specific date again. We're not great at giving you specific dates—

We've noticed that. [Laughter.]

—because sometimes these are subject to some ongoing discussions with the UK Government behind the scenes.

We're focusing very much, Mabon, on the MOU, because we think that is a space where the UK Government can work with us in a much quicker fashion, so we get progress on strengthening the operation of Sewel. If it's of help to you and to the committee, we are hopeful that—. We have an IMSC meeting anticipated later this month, and we're hoping to be in a position where Sewel will be on the agenda there for a discussion on how we can take forward the MOU. The statutory one, I think, is a longer term piece of thinking. We're very focused on what we can deliver in the immediacy here within this parliamentary term.

Sorry, in light of my earlier comments, that's exactly now the nature of the discussions we have. We no longer get told what's on the agenda. There's actually engagement behind the scenes with Ministers and with officials to determine what's on it. We would like Sewel to be on that agenda. We're hopeful that it will be on that agenda for discussion.

Diolch. Sam. 

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Moving on to common frameworks, how important do you see the role of common frameworks as part of discussions on regulatory alignment and divergence? 

We think they're vital. Not so long ago I was sitting on the other end of this quadrilateral table here, in the position that our esteemed colleague is now sitting as the Chair of this committee. We always, thought—. Sorry, this committee always thought that common frameworks should be the fundamental underpinning of the way that we work between Governments. I commend you as a committee for holding to that. We think they are vital. We remain, as a Government, committed to the common framework programme. We think that the effective use of common frameworks could be that foundation of strong inter-government relations, so we are hopeful in our engagement with the UK Government—you'll notice I use that term; I'm not saying I am confident, I'm not saying I can guarantee, but I am hopeful, and you can read between the lines on that—that common frameworks can be lifted up once again to the position they should occupy within inter-governmental relations. We're having those discussions with the UK Government at the moment. I think there's more of a recognition now by this UK Government that common frameworks should be back in the game.

'Hopeful' isn't as strong a language, Deputy First Minister, as 'confident' or the other adjective that you used.

I agree.

Why, then, do you think that you're slightly less confident—you're 'hopeful', rather—around common frameworks in this UK Government? 

Because, Sam, you know that I practise in my sleeping hours as well as my waking hours the niceties of diplomatic language. We are engaged with the UK Government on this. They are very clear on our aspirations for the common frameworks. They're currently carrying out, as you know, a review of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the operation of UKIM. We've been very clear with them that we still operate from the first point of principle that we don't think UKIMA is necessary. We could actually, if you really wanted common frameworks to be the basis of the way that inter-governmental relations works, go back to what we had and you make them. But that's not the position of the UK Government, and I get that, right? And this again is part of agreeing to differ sometimes. But in the review that is ongoing, they are looking at common frameworks. Some of the discussions that we have had with the UK Government on this are around the necessity of lifting them back up so that they are of paramount importance. That is the way we resolve differences, frankly—through getting these common frameworks in place, agreeing what they are, and then making them work on a day-to-day basis.

So when I say 'hopeful', I'm not being deliberately obtuse. I can say to you that this is exactly the conversation we are having with UK Ministers. And, again, it's not being thrown back in our face. So I'm genuinely hopeful that we will get somewhere on this and common frameworks will come back into the foreground instead of being parked in the distance like they have over recent years.

Thank you. Are you able to provide an update on when Senedd committees will receive responses to their recommendations made in relation to common frameworks?

Yes. Our officials in the Welsh Government will keep on working very closely with policy leads and the teams across the four Governments on the important piece of work that is finalising the frameworks once committee scrutiny is complete. Now, this means that we have to bring together, we have to collate and consider, all the recommendations made by all of the committees. We don't want to be at a point where any individual Government jumps the gun here, where we pre-empt those discussions or, frankly, any potential amendments to the frameworks, Sam, by issuing individual responses or a running commentary before all the recommendations—all of them—have been received and have been jointly considered. And that phrase is important—‘jointly considered’. So it's—

Deputy First Minister, I may have put the cart before the horse there, then. When are you expecting the frameworks to be finalised? 

Well, they need to go through that appropriate process. That will include, I have to say, full and proper consideration of the committee reports as part of that process. 

It's tied up with UKIMA, isn't it?

It's tied up with UKIMA—that's the issue with it. So, what I can tell you is this: in the timescale, we were very pleased to see that the review of UKIMA had been brought forward. We were pushing last autumn and into the early days of this year to say, 'Will you please get on with the UKIMA review?' Some of the meetings that we'd had with the UK Government, along with other devolved Governments, were pushing hard for it to be brought forward. That has been brought forward. The UKIMA review enables us, as part of that, to get on with a piece of work on common frameworks as well. So the sooner we can tie up the UKIMA review, which is in the control of the UK Government but we understand that that will not be long now, then we can get on to actually signing off on the common frameworks as well in their entirety.

Great. Thank you very much, Deputy First Minister. Back to you, Chair. 

The UK Government has suggested towards the end of this year publicly. Is that what you've heard from them privately?

I think that's realistic on what we understand of the timing of the completion of the UKIMA review, and then enabling us to go on to it, bearing in mind that a lot of work already has been done because of the committee work on this and the process we've been through. We just need to get to the point where we can clear those process hurdles, and, in their entirety, sign them off and agree them. So, I think that's probably realistic. 

Okay. Thank you. Alun. 

Okay, fair enough. It feels to me that UKIMA was almost a knee-jerk reaction from a Government that didn't understand what devolution actually is, if I'm quite honest with you. And it's a disappointment that the current Government, which I think does understand devolution, seems intent on keeping it in place, albeit we're going through this review. I'm grateful to the Deputy First Minister for outlining the continued view of the Welsh Government on it, but the review, of course, does not include, and excludes specifically, I think, the financial assistance powers in the Act. That enables UK Ministers, as we've seen over recent years, to take decisions in devolved policy areas and to fund projects. Now, that's been a pretty chaotic experience over the last few years. It hasn't led to better outcomes, but it's led to confusion, sometimes duplication and certainly an awful lot of waste, as well as the political issues around that. So, the fact that these financial assistance powers are excluded from the review, is that something you've raised with UK Ministers, and where does the Welsh Government stand on it?

It's worth saying that, in the engagement I've had directly with UK Ministers on UKIMA and the review, both face-to-face and also by correspondence, we've made clear that we thought the financial assistance powers should be part of that review and didn't need to be in there as part of UKIMA. They were an impediment to the effective collaborative engagement between Governments that we want to see. So, I guess the fundamental question then becomes: if it's not in the review, then when and where do we deal with this? We have had some constructive engagement with the UK Government at ministerial level and official level about our objections to the continued use of financial assistance powers by the UK Government.

And let's be frank as to what this is about as well, for people who are listening in to this: it's not that we're against finance coming from a UK level into Wales; it's the way it comes in and the partnership approach then to actually making sure that it's focused on the right local, regional and Wales needs within the framework that we have. It's not an objection to having funding coming in. Please throw more to us. It's just the way that it's done. So, we've also made clear to the UK Government that if powers aren't repealed, then they should only be used—they should only be used—in exceptional circumstances and, importantly, with the agreement of devolved Governments. So, that's where we stand very firmly.

Now, we do expect the question of, 'If not in the UKIMA review, where?' We do expect, Alun, further discussions on the future use of the financial assistance powers to be on the agenda for the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee, which I understand takes place on 26 June. So, it's not in UKIMA. We wanted it to be there. We have made our position clear there, and hopefully through the finance committee.

But these powers continue to be used in the meantime in almost exactly the same way as they were being used a year ago. So, that is a matter of some disappointment. In terms of trying to draw some of these threads together, both Ministers today have spoken very positively about the structured engagement that's taking place with the United Kingdom—

It's not all milk and honey, it really isn't—it's difficult. 

—with the United Kingdom Government, but there seems to be a structured commitment to engagement and to the deliberation, if not agreement, on different issues. But you know what seems to be missing is some sort of collective agreed vision on the purpose of all of this, because it feels to me that everything is very ad hoc—that we're going to talk about coal tips today, we'll talk about Sewel tomorrow, we'll talk about Barnett perhaps next week. It doesn't feel to me that the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland—obviously if there are different parties in power, you wouldn't expect agreement there—there doesn't feel to me to be any collective view on what the United Kingdom should look like.

Oh, my goodness, what a question. [Laughter.]

It just feels that—

Is there a collective view in this room on what the United Kingdom should look like?

Well, it feels to me that everything we've had so far is the starter, not the main course. I'm a big fan of my main course. Now, what I'd like to understand is: does the Welsh Government have a view of where all of this is taking us, because, at the moment, we seem to have a plethora of meetings discussing individual subjects, but what we don't seem to have is that collective view of where this is taking us?

My answer would be 'yes'. But my answer would also be that we've got still a relatively new Government in the UK whose priorities were focused on other things when they walked through those doors of No. 10 and No. 11, and they had things to fix. So, one of their priorities immediately was not when I and other Ministers were banging on the door, saying, 'Can we also get into the real meat of what are really important bread-and-butter issues but have a constitutional element to them?' So, when we talk about youth justice and probation, when we talk about devolution in other areas, it's not because we are going, finger in the air, 'Hey, we fancy some more of this', it's because we've worked through the evidence and we know that we can do some really good stuff in devolved space.

But it's probably fair to say that, in a new Government coming in, particularly after a period of being out of Government, they've had to get on with fixing the roof, first of all, and then getting on to what they see as their priorities. But—but—are we clear on what we want out of this? Yes, we are. I think the First Minister's laying out in her speech recently, in the Norwegian church, was a helpful moment in that as well. There was a clear agenda within that, not only in the devolved space but, actually, wider as well, setting out where we stand as a Welsh Government on a range of other issues, so that we can hope to influence the UK Government. And I think it was right to do that as well.

The question is: what does all this apparatus underneath it actually add to that? When this apparatus works effectively, and I would argue there was limited evidence under the previous Government that this machinery was going on, and I remember the previous Counsel General coming in front of this committee, and the only thing that brought a smile to his face, over a number of years, was when he talked about the implementation of this inter-governmental machinery—the three tiers, the Council of the Nations and Regions, how that complements it, all of this. He was enthused by that, but it just was not—. By the time he left his post, he hadn't had any sense that this could work. It is now starting to work.

So, our priorities, I think, are well articulated. There is also, underneath this, a degree of detail. So, when I have my IMGs within my portfolio area, we are going through the nth degree of detail on really key things that matter and that we hope will never get to a dispute resolution because we bottom them out by grown-up inter-governmental discussions around the table. I'm not being told by an England Minister or a Scotland Minister, or Northern Ireland, 'This is not for you'; we're really engaging. It's working properly.

So, I think we're clear, and I think we're getting to the point now where the UK Government as well has got beyond that initial period of, 'Jeez, we've got to fix a number of things here', and they're now properly engaging with us. But—but—I would say the proviso is the next few months. In the next few weeks and months, we've got to see, actually, delivery—as I say, sitting next to the Minister for Delivery—on a range of issues that the First Minister has laid out as of critical importance to us in Wales. So, it's things like not just the quantum of investment generally, but what we are going to do for the welfare and the safety benefits of actually dealing with the instability of former coal tips. But it's on a range of issues—for example, how we in the next few months take forward not just the longer term aspirations of devolution of the Crown Estate, but how we, right here, right now, materially can see that we can influence and shape the development of, let's say, the floating offshore wind projects off here, so that they're not only a benefit to wider UK decarbonisation and renewables, but benefit the ports of Wales as well and benefit our supply chain.

So, that's, Alun, what I would say to you. I think we're very clear—very clear—on what our aims are. We think the Government is engaging more now, but the next few weeks and months, in case there are any UK Ministers listening in to this conversation—. It's the same conversation we're having with them, which is to say, we need to see delivery now on some of these items—on all of the items, actually.

Thank you.

Yes, all of them.

All of them. And it's not, by the way, going in a begging-bowl shape. We don't come at it from that angle. What we're arguing here for is fairness, so we can get on with delivering for the people of Wales.

Yes, but we also need to wait for further devolution in England. They've passed the halfway point now on mayors; I expect that to come to an end some time soon. That will make make an entirely different UK to the one we've got at the moment. Mabon.

Well, Mabon, I just don't accept the basic premise of your sentence there, I'm afraid. We clearly have a difference of opinion on this. I've answered this question a number of times now. I just made the legislative statement in the Senedd. I think we're making very good progress on our legislative programme. We've already introduced six year-4 Bills; another bill is on track to be introduced before the summer recess. I had a real pleasure in introducing the annual legislative statement in April, for the final year of the legislative programme. I'm absolutely delighted that we have a legislative programme for the final year of the Senedd. That's been a long time coming, and it certainly wasn't a feature of the previous Senedd, so I'm very delighted we've been able to do that. We intend to make full use of the available time to introduce new legislation, by having four Bills in the final year of the legislative programme. So, I think that's going well. Obviously, we have to track the UK Government's legislation as well. If you're faced with a new and enthusiastic UK Government in the last year of your Senedd term, you have to obviously make sure that you can track that as well, and that definitely is something we're also doing.

I just don't accept the premise of the question. I think that we're doing a very good job on where we are on legislation, and I'm 'chuffed'—that's the word I want to use—at having a year-5 programme.

Thanks, Mabon. I think you can see that happening—some of the innovations that we've agreed with the Commission on how we're introducing the year-5 Bills, for example. So, we've agreed that we will publish the draft Bill for the purposes of the committees being able to look at what they need to do in terms of scrutiny at that earlier stage. The draft Bill is not published, I want to absolutely emphasise, for further consultation with the public, but it is published with a view to allowing committees to sort out what sort of scrutiny they want to go through, what their programme of interviewing stakeholders is, et cetera, et cetera. That's an innovation that I want to continue on with. We have some other innovations that came out of the review, trying to have shorter, more focused Bills. So, we've introduced one Bill that had just a few pages, for example, to just get something done. The types of Bill are sometimes small and sometimes big, basically. It's not, you know, technical; it's just some of them are big Bills, some of them are small Bills. We've been looking to make sure that we have a small Bill where that will suffice and a more comprehensive Bill where that's necessary.

In line with our principles, we also continue to have situations—I know the committee disagrees with us, sometimes, on this—where we take the view it's in Wales's best interest for provision in devolved areas to be made via UK legislation, because an opportunity has presented itself. So, clearly, the Government takes a slightly different view to the committee on that, and, I mean, we just take a different view to you on that. So, I just don't recognise the lack-of-capacity argument. We have a profession of people in the Welsh Government who are Bill managers, who are deployed on the various Bills necessary to take through. We're able to deploy those people as necessary. As a result of the budget negotiations this year, for example, my colleague to my left here is taking forward a couple of Bills—well, two Bills for you, one Bill for me—that came out of those negotiations, and we've deployed Bill teams for all of those legislative opportunities. We've been able to work with a Conservative backbencher on one of his Bills. I'm really pleased to see that coming forward as a Member's private Bill, but that's been enabled because the Government has been able to put the capacity into doing it. I mean, I'm just putting forward my own point of view; I don't want to argue with people who have told you something different, Mabon, but from the Government's point of view, we've deployed our resources effectively and our programme is ongoing. 

Thanks, Mabon. That's very much what I was talking about. So, earlier in this session, I spoke a little bit about the tribunals Bill and getting a draft ready for the seventh Senedd. There are a number of other Bills that we think are uncontentious, as in they're not political, they're technical Bills that we think pretty much any Government is going to want to do.

We're going into a four-year Senedd term. It will be essential, whoever the incoming Government is, to use all four years to get its legislative programme through. So, because we believe in good democracy, we are making sure that an incoming Government, whoever that is, has a variety of technical Bills that they're able to look at and hopefully take through.

I think it's quite likely, given the number of people who are standing down, that you will have Ministers who have little or no experience of taking legislation through, so it's a good training programme for them. The Government civil service is gearing up to be able to put into place whatever programme for government the new Government comes forward with, and they will have Bill teams ready to go to be deployed where legislation is part of that programme. Bear in mind, very large parts of the programme for government are not about legislation. I will, I think, be making the annual statement on the programme for government towards the end of the summer term, and you'll see a very large part of that—well, you know already—isn't about legislation. But we are making sure that that happens.

And then the whole experiment about what's year 5 in this Senedd term, but will be year 4 in the next Senedd term, around how you can get the kinds of Bills that can take place in that shorter time frame going—that's been very much what we've been discussing with the Commission about how we can get the year-5 programme going. So, I think, Mabon, we've done a fair amount of work in trying to make sure that a four-year term can work as well, and I am, frankly, chuffed that we've managed to get a year-5 programme into the shape that it's in.

Thank you. Sam.

Thank you, Chair. The Welsh Government's response to the Business Committee's review of the public Bill and Member Bill process said that it is

'imperative that we move away from the expectation that there is a minimum or standard timescale for Stage 1 scrutiny of any Bill'.

I'm just wondering, how does this lead to better scrutiny of legislation? 

Well, it's about having the right sort of scrutiny for the right sort of Bill, isn't it? That's all it means. There will be some Bills that you want more scrutiny for, and we've had a discussion with the Commission about needing more than 12 weeks. So, actually, the inter-governmental agreement actually says 10 weeks, but it's become 12 weeks by custom and practice. I think there are some Bills that clearly need more than that. But there will be Bills—. You know, there was one Bill that was, what, five pages long. Does it really need a 12-week scrutiny period for a five-page Bill?

So, I think it's just about horses for courses, Sam. And one of the reasons that we want to publish the draft Bill at the point in time it goes for determination by the Llywydd is to allow the committees to have a good look at that Bill at that time to structure their scrutiny around it so that they do the best sort of scrutiny. So, to give you an example, I took the Legislation (Procedure, Publication and Repeals) (Wales) Bill—well, now 'Act', actually, because it's passed; we're waiting on Royal Assent for it—through, and I had a bit of a discussion with the Commission at the beginning and with this committee too about whether people really needed that amount of time, and it turned out that we didn't need that amount of time, but I absolutely could see that the committee hadn't seen the Bill, and so it was very difficult for them to make that decision.

So, hence we've moved to a process where the draft Bill is published for the committees' purposes. I emphasise repeatedly not for stakeholder review at that point, but for the committees to be able to come to a decent conclusion about what kind of scrutiny that Bill requires. And that's for the different types of committees as well. So, I'm talking not only about policy scrutiny but about the kind of technical scrutiny that this committee might do, and the Finance Committee's view of it and so on. So, it’s about trying to move to—to use a cliché—horses for courses. 

Thank you, Counsel General, I appreciate that. In his evidence to the review, the former First Legislative Counsel to the Welsh Government, Professor Thomas Glyn Watkin, described the Stage 1 process, as quote, ‘an excellent example of inclusive democracy’. How do you respond to his view, and what risks could curtailing scrutiny at Stage 1 create to inclusive law making in the Senedd?

Just to be really clear, nobody’s talking about curtailing it. I’m simply talking about making sure that it’s fit for purpose for the Bill. I just want to very much emphasise that at no point have I ever said that the Government wishes to curtail scrutiny. On the contrary, I think we very much want to have the kind of scrutiny that is most appropriate to the particular Bills. And I’m sure that his opinion is extremely valid; I don’t take any issue with it.

Some of the Senedd committees are supportive of maintaining the 12-week, or even longer, period for Stage 1, to enable them to properly conduct their own scrutiny. I’m just wondering, in terms of the Welsh Government, what steps it can take in its own processes to ensure the Senedd has the time that it needs to properly scrutinise legislation.

Yes, so I've already discussed that, haven't I? I think there will be Bills that require longer. There will be Bills that are five pages long and it’s very difficult to see why you would need 10 weeks to scrutinise. What we want to do is make sure that the Welsh Government publishes sufficient information at the point in time that the committees make that decision, and the Business Committee helps them make that decision, so that we get the right outcome for the best kind of scrutiny. 

Yes, thank you. That was the point that I was getting at—what would the Welsh Government be able to do. But you mentioned it there, that early publication is paramount to that. So, I take that point.

Is there anything that you see, then, specifically—just as there’s a few minutes before 1 p.m.—that causes a bottleneck to the timely publication to help with that Stage 1 scrutiny, from the Welsh Government’s perspective, Counsel General?

No, not really. This is about making sure that the Bill is fit for purpose from the point of view of the Government, and its programme for government, of course. So, we want to make sure that the Bills do what we want them to do. So, if you take the mines and quarries—I can’t remember the exact title now—coal tip safety Act, as we all call it, there was quite a long discussion in the Government, I think it’s fair to say, Huw, about what the ambit of that Bill should be, and whether it should just be coal tips, or whether it should have more in it.

So, we have a process to go through inside the Government—any Government would—to make sure that the Bill is fit for the policy purpose that it is intended for. And then, of course, we want to be able to produce it for the Commission in a way that means that we have the most effective scrutiny. We want to make the best laws for Wales, both as a Government and as a Commission, and as a legislature. That’s our primary purpose, isn’t it? So, our entire point here is to try and make sure that we produce the best Bill in the first place, but that also the ultimate outcome of the Senedd process is that we have good law for Wales.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. I will just ask the last question. I think that you’re absolutely right that it’s about length of scrutiny, but why does the length of Bills decide it? And quite often, it’s a number of parts of civic society in Wales, and other organisations, who want to comment and want to have their voice heard on it. Now, some things will have very few people wanting to have their voice heard on it; others will have a long queue. And as a committee, we quite often have three or four people at a time in panels in order to get through everybody. So, I think that the length—. I’m not convinced, unless you can convince me, that the length of the Bill is the key; it’s how much interest there is in society.

Well, that’s one of the things, isn’t it? There are a whole series of things. You can have a very long Bill that’s very technical, and only three people are interested in commenting. You can have a five-page Bill that half the population of Wales is interested in. I completely agree. The point is, you want the kind of scrutiny necessary for the Bill in question. So, the legislation Bill is a good example, isn’t it? There was a long period of time requested, and, actually, it turned out that very few people really had much of an interest in it, although I would want to say that it was a very excellent Bill from my point of view. [Laughter.] So, that’s a good example. And, Mike—Chair, I should say—you’ll be very familiar with my response, often, to being asked to give succinct answers to succinct questions, because the question I always quote is, ‘Explain local government finance’, which is a lovely succinct question; good look with a succinct answer. [Laughter.]

Read the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy book. [Laughter.]

Okay, can I thank the Minister for Delivery and Counsel General and the Deputy First Minister for coming along and answering our questions, and finishing on time, which is a tremendous achievement? So, thank you very much. You know you’ll get a copy of the transcript. You know you’ll need to check it, so I don’t need to tell you any of that, but I’ve done it for the record. Thank you very much.

Diolch. 

Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

And can we now go into private session? 

Welcome back to the meeting of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. Item 3, instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Orders 21.2 or 21.3. This is a standing item on our agenda, however we have no items to consider today.

Moving on to item 4, instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Orders 21.2 or 21.3 previously considered, Members are invited to note the letter from the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery, which responds to the three letters sent by the committee on 9 May to various Welsh Ministers regarding corrections to statutory instruments. In addition to providing an update on the committee's analysis of when and how the Welsh Government has committed to correct areas in Welsh statutory instruments, the Counsel General responds to the committee's request for further information in relation to issues identified in its report on the Special School Residential Services (Service Providers and Responsible Individuals) (Wales) Regulations 2024 and the Cockle Fishing Management and Permitting (Specified Area) (Wales) Order 2024. Are we happy to note these letters? Yes.

Item 5, notification of correspondence under the inter-institutional relations agreement: correspondence from the Welsh Government on meetings of inter-ministerial groups. Members are invited to note the various pieces of correspondence we've received from the Welsh Government in relation to the inter-ministerial meetings. Firstly, the Deputy First Minister informs us that he chaired the Interministerial Group for Net Zero, Energy and Climate Change, which took place on 6 May 2025, and provides a link to the communique from the meeting, which has been published on the UK Government website.

Secondly, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales informs us that the next meeting of the Interministerial Group for Transport Matters will take place on 25 June 2025, and he'll provide us with an update after the meeting. 

Lastly, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language informs us that a meeting of the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee will take place on 26 June in London and he will update us after the meeting. 

Item 5.2, correspondence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs: the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2025. The Deputy First Minister informs us that he has now given consent to the UK Government to make and lay these regulations in relation to Wales and provides a link to the written statement with further detail. The Deputy First Minister confirms that the regulations were laid before the UK Parliament on 4 June 2025 and are expected to come into force on 11 August 2025. 

Papers to note. The Independent Water Commission's review of the water sector: Members are invited to note the press release in relation to the interim findings of the Independent Water Commission's review of the water sector. The committee responded to the public call for evidence, which closed in April 2025 and received over 50,000 responses from a wide range of stakeholders. The interim findings of the Independent Water Commission state that:

'An improved legislative framework should respect the legislative and policy differences between Wales and England. Though the greater part of the legislative framework applies in both England and Wales, water is a devolved matter in Wales and review of legislation that applies to Wales would be the responsibility of the Welsh government and the Senedd.'

Do Members have any comments they wish to make? No.

Briefing by the Bevan Foundation, a strategic approach to rebuilding the immigration legal sector: Members are invited to note the briefing provided by the Bevan Foundation in relation to the immigration legal sector in Wales. Are Members content to note this? Yes.

Item 6.3, a written statement by the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs—inter-institutional relations agreement: report on inter-governmental relations. Members are invited to note that a written statement and letter by the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs provides a link to a report published by the Welsh Government about inter-governmental relations covering the period April 2023 to July 2024 in the context of the inter-institutional relations agreement between the Senedd and the Welsh Government. Are Members content to note this? Yes.

Motion under Standing Order 17.42. I invite the committee to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Do Members agree? Yes. Okay.