Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Bore da, bawb. Croeso to the Constitution, Justice and External Affairs Committee. In particular, I would like to welcome Art Wright to his first committee meeting. The public items of this meeting are being broadcast live on Senedd.tv. The meeting is bilingual, with simultaneous translation available from Welsh to English. No apologies have been received. Are there any declarations of interest from Members? Sarah.

There may be a number of issues raised that will be relevant to work that I did when I was at Oxfam Cymru.

Diolch, Sarah.

Can I welcome the Deputy First Minister to the committee this morning? During the session, we're going to be looking at areas of your remit that are within the committee's portfolio, which are justice and international development. I will call a break after the justice section before we move on to international development, so we'll take the session in two parts. We'll spend roughly an hour on justice and then half an hour on the international development section. Before we get started, would you like to introduce your officials for the record?   

Diolch yn fawr. I'll let them introduce themselves. We'll start over here.

Bore da. Andrew Charles, cohesive communities division.

Bore da. Amelia John, director of communities and social justice.

Good morning. I was here the other day. James Gerard, deputy director for justice policy.

Bore da. Mike Connolly, deputy director of the community safety division.

Diolch, bawb. We'll get straight into questions. I've got Josh first.

Deputy First Minister, by the end of this Senedd, what specific and measurable improvements in community safety and justice should the people of Wales expect to see as a direct result of your Government's policies?

The manifesto on which we were elected reaffirmed our long-standing commitment to pursue the devolution of justice and policing with the urgency that we believe it deserves. I think that that reflects also a cross-party mandate and independent support in Wales. It includes, of course, as you'll know, the recommendation of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales to begin with policing, probation and youth justice. We have made it clear as a Government, and the Prif Weinidog and I have both made it clear, that we are calling for an early commitment to the devolution of justice and policing. We are ready and are discussing this approach currently with the UK Government.

I think you've touched on this, but could you identify two or three specific improvements to public safety or the justice system that the Welsh Government would introduce if justice and policing were devolved that cannot be achieved under the current constitutional arrangements?

Pred.

It's definitely an area where improvements have already been made, and there's plenty of scope, I think, for further improvement in the future, and it's certainly important. I think there are two elements to it at least, which is the data sharing between agencies within the justice system and working with the justice system, which is often about individuals and the specific needs of individuals, but also tracking trends. And then there's the information that's made public and available to Government and committees in order for them to have the more global sense of what is going on.

On the second of those, we've definitely made progress in the sense there is now an annual report that we've had two iterations of from the UK Government, which is disaggregated criminal justice data for Wales. I think there's still a live conversation between us and the UK Government and academics—principally Dr Jones, but others are always welcome to contribute to it—in terms of what is of public interest. There are limitations. Sometimes, within Wales, the numbers can be too small and you're at risk of almost identifying individuals, particularly when you try and disaggregate down further from a national level, if you wanted to know what's happening in north Wales or in Dyfed-Powys or in a particular local authority.

In terms of the sharing between agencies, there's an awful lot going on. It's big and complicated. Devolution would help, I think; it would remove some of the barriers to that. It wouldn't remove all of them and it would still be a complex process. You only have to look within a service like the national health service to see that, even within the national health service, it's difficult to share data before you get to sharing with multiple other agencies. And the justice system is itself big and complicated, with police, prosecutors and courts, legal service providers and the Legal Aid Agency, and prisons and probation and multiple other players. But I would, broadly speaking, agree with the assessment that it's one area in which devolution would remove some of the barriers and give some opportunities.

Can I now bring John in online? 

Are we moving to youth justice now? 

Yes. 

All right, brilliant. Thank you, and thank you, Minister. Plaid has repeatedly called for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised substantially, including calls for 14 years old. Can you confirm that remains your position, and set out exactly what should happen when a 12 or 13-year-old commits a serious violent or sexual offence against another child or adult? How do you reconcile that with the rights of the victims and the need for public protection?

Yes, sure. The Deputy First Minister is absolutely right that England and Wales is an extreme outlier. The minimum that is recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is 12. That's been the case since the 1980s. The UK signed up to the convention a long time ago now. Scotland, a while ago, raised its age of criminal responsibility to be compatible with the UN convention, and so, over time, have the large majority of countries around the world, and most of them are higher than 12. I think it's fair to say that in a lot of countries it's 14. There are countries where it is 18. So, we're not looking to do something that hasn't been managed in very large parts of the world before.

It is very rare for children younger than 12 or, indeed, 14 to commit these very serious offences. Of course, it does happen. Agencies across Wales—and England, indeed—work very hard to actually still treat them as children, and not have their entire lives be completely coloured by the one, albeit terrible, thing that they did while they were at a very early stage of brain formation. I think all the evidence suggests that brain formation is still increasingly—. It's clear that it's continuing well past 18 in most people, and, actually, as long as 25 in some respects.

So, the justice system response is, obviously, that it's always very important to work with victims and survivors and families, and try and ensure some degree of restitution. Most evidence, I think, suggests that, actually, when really serious crimes are committed by children that young, that the victims and families and survivors rarely want there to be total lifelong penalties that are similar to what an adult would receive for similar crimes. But it's not straightforward, and I think, fundamentally, it's not just about whether or not the age of criminal responsibility is raised, but it's always about an assessment of what gives that individual child the best chance to grow up to actually be a healthy contributor to society and not spend their entire life within the justice system, while giving some degree of balancing that against, obviously, the need for restitution and deterrence.

Thanks for that. John, do you have any further questions? 

Thank you. If I could just tease out one further question. You mentioned that if there was a very serious incident, there would have to be some sort of safeguards. If a child under the age of criminal responsibility did commit a very serious crime, how would you protect other children? 

Briefly, just to say that a child who is a danger to others would still be deprived of their liberty. If you look at somewhere like the secure children's home in Hillside in Neath, there are children there who are not allowed to leave the facility. Some of those have committed crimes and have found their way there through the justice system, but others have just been placed there by the family court on an application from the local council because they're a danger to others. So, the end result is broadly the same for that child in that respect and in terms of the safety of the community around them; it's just that they don't have a criminal record and the stigma that will go with it. But they'll remain there. They can remain there for a long time, unfortunately.

Diolch. Lynne.

Thank you. It's good to hear you restate your commitment to the UNCRC. Indeed, it might be a good idea for the committee to visit Hillside so that we can all educate ourselves on the approach to children who are below the age of criminal responsibility. I just wanted to ask about the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, because, in my experience, they do really good work in Wales, really good trauma-informed work. There was very good interface with devolved services like education. So, I just wanted to ask how the new Government is building on that work to ensure that there is a partnership there to make sure that children and young people are supported and diverted from the criminal justice system.

Thanks, Minister. We've got a very strong working relationship with the Youth Justice Board. In fact, on the Youth Justice Board, there is Welsh representation, which is really important to us, through the Wales youth justice advisory panel, which is a non-statutory panel that brings together partners from across the youth justice system within Wales to provide that end-to-end oversight. It's co-chaired by the Welsh representative on the Youth Justice Board and me on behalf of the Minister. That's really the forum where we bring stakeholders and partners together, guided and led by the Youth Justice Board and the Welsh Government, to look at the priorities that we collectively think we have across the youth justice space. You'll be pleased to hear that our three priorities, as they stand today, include education, include health and include policing as well. We bring partners together to work on those priority areas and look at what improvements we can make across the system.

Thank you.

Moving on to women's experiences of justice, I'm going to bring Sarah in to start.

Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Could I ask what conversations you've had with the UK Government over funding for the Swansea residential women's centre?

Gwyn, did you want to come in on this as well?

I was just going to add another follow-up question on that. The one thing I was going to raise was, following up, the Welsh Affairs Committee. Not only did they say that that delay was unacceptable, but they also talked a lot about a trauma-informed alternative. I'd be interested to know what further conversations you've had with that committee on that, or whether the Welsh Government are moving forward on any trauma-informed alternative yourselves. 

It's the first intensive supervision court in Wales, and that operation is anticipated from spring 2027. The key focus there for the Welsh Government is on integration with devolved support services. We just think that an establishment of a residential women's centre would really complete those plans. Our commitment is steadfast on that. But currently, we are funding several women's services in Wales already as a Government, in an effort to provide that really effective, timely and trauma-informed support for women. That includes the women's pathfinder whole-system approach, that includes Visiting Mum, which you may know is a programme that helps keep women in the criminal justice system able to see their children when they're separated from them. There's also the One Wales service, Safer Wales and the independent domestic violence adviser service. So, we are committed to taking that person-centred rather than service-focused approach to ensure that those complex needs of women in the criminal justice system are met.

Thank you. Towards the end, you touched on children. I think, often, the impact that's missed is on the children of women in the justice system, particularly in Wales. Is there anything under the UNCRC that can protect children of mothers who are sent outside of Wales?

As I say, obviously, this currently isn't devolved, is it? I mentioned earlier short sentences. Again, I remember my visit to Eastwood Park. A short sentence blows up a woman's life. She loses her home, she loses her job, she loses her children. The effect of that on those children, who are completely innocent in this picture, is something that this Government is very concerned about. We do have things, as I said, that we fund, for instance Visiting Mum, and there are other services also that we fund here in order to try and mitigate the damage that that can cause for families. I don't know, Mike, if you want to come in there with any more detail. 

I think there's a recognition that the majority of women who are in the justice system shouldn't be in the justice system. I think that's the first thing to say. There are a number of initiatives ongoing at the moment. The Sentencing Act 2026 is looking at diverting more women away from the justice system. And also, as the Deputy First Minister mentioned, there's the establishment of this intensive supervision court in Swansea. While this might not provide an alternative to custody in terms of residential, it should hopefully divert more women away from the justice system, those women who shouldn't be in the justice system in the first place.

Diolch. Thank you. 

Gwyn. 

Darren, was it a follow-on?

Yes. Obviously, we need to make sure that prison is still available for women should they need to be sent to prison for whatever reason as a result of a crime that they've committed. What is your view, given that you've been such a passionate campaigner for the trans community, on people who identify as women? Should they go to a women's prison? What's the Welsh Government's view?

The Welsh Government's view is consistent with the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance on this. Obviously, we're talking about a reserved matter here, so it is a matter for the UK Government to interpret the EHRC guidance on the Supreme Court judgment. So, that would be the view of the Government, because we have to work within that reserved landscape at the moment.

If it were devolved, what would your view be?

Obviously, the Equality Act 2010 isn't devolved, so we would still have to, as we do now across our policy areas, abide by the guidance given by the regulator on the Supreme Court judgment, which was on, of course, the Equality Act, which is a reserved piece of legislation.

If the equalities issue was not reserved and was devolved, what would the view of the Welsh Government be then?

We're talking about a lot of hypotheticals here, Darren. Obviously, all that policy would then have to be worked through.

But you don't have a clear view on that at the moment. So, if Wales was an independent nation, which is obviously the aim, and we've talked a lot about constitutional change—

I think you've had quite a clear answer there, Darren, in fairness.

Well, I don't think it was clear, actually, with respect.

I think it is clear with regard to the current position of this Government—

Yes, your current position is clear.

—my current powers and my current ability to be able to work within this policy area. Of course, that would then be a debate, were those powers to be devolved. The Government would have a view on that, obviously, and would formulate a policy accordingly. But at the moment, that isn't something that we are able to avail ourselves of.

And you're not pursuing the devolution of powers to enable that at present.

Enable what?

To enable you to have responsibility for the criminal justice system, including prisons, and the ability to determine whether biological men who identify themselves as women should be imprisoned alongside biological women.

There are a few issues there, aren't there? We are absolutely pursuing the devolution of criminal justice, which would include the prison service, HM Prison and Probation Service as it is currently. But obviously, the Equality Act is another different matter, which would then interface with the policies within justice. As a Government Minister, I believe that trans women are women, but obviously, as the law currently is provided for, then within the services that we provide as a Government and the policies we have, we are absolutely aligned with the EHRC guidance on this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Pred.

It's on something you said earlier. 

I'll just add a little bit more to that. On the back of the round-table event that the Deputy First Minister hosted with partners from across the justice system and across Government within Wales, officials are now conducting a mapping exercise to look at the totality of the prevention activity that's going on across Wales primarily, but also considering the UK-led activity that's going on in that space. As a result of that mapping, the intention is to produce some advice for the Minister that will look at how we can, at a national level, collectively do more in terms of the co-ordination of crime prevention activity.

In terms of some of the emerging themes and areas that are coming out of that, there's lots of great work going on across Wales, across the justice system, in health and with partners as well. But I think in terms of that programme for government commitment that the Minister referred to, it's about looking at how we can take those parts and make the sum of the parts more than the individual components, if that makes sense, and look at how we can better co-ordinate activity. 

Linking to a previous question, there's also an element of data around that as well. We recognise that there is a lot of data available across Wales, held across different agencies, and if we can bring that data together better than the way in which it is at the moment, then it'll help Ministers and officials make better evidence-based, informed decisions around what's actually going on within the justice system and more broadly within Wales.

Just to add very briefly that the mandate from Ministers has been really, really clear that we must work in a really joined-up, cross-Government way. So, in terms of the Cabinet group around preventative health, officials are working behind to really support that and ensure exactly those conversations are going on right the way across different departments as to how we all come together to add value in that prevention arena. So, that's been a very, very clear mandate and expectation from Ministers.

Diolch, bawb. I'm just mindful of time. We've got quite a few Members wanting to come in, so if I can just ask people to be as brief as they can. I'll bring in Art.

Diolch, Chair. Minister, some of what I'm going to ask you've answered already, so I'll try to zero in on the specifics that I feel have not been answered yet. Plaid has supported demedicalised self-identification and sought powers over gender recognition. What is your position on the placement of male-bodied prisoners in the female estate in Wales? And these are the specifics now, please: on single-sex provision, in probation, courts and victim services, will you guarantee that female prisoners and female victims will not be housed or required to share spaces with males who identify as women?

But I just wanted to say, of course, that we're not directly, as Welsh Ministers, responsible for implementing the judgment across all public services, and, of course, that is absolutely the case on services that are reserved. That's the responsibility of those reserved services. But our priority is to ensure—I'm absolutely unequivocal on this and have stated it many times—that the law is applied correctly across Welsh services.

Moving on now to community safety, I'll bring in Sarah.

Minister, could I ask for some information on the VAWDASV strategy, particularly how it will work with the police and criminal justice agencies, please?

Yes. I think, in terms of the relationship with police and criminal justice, it's really important on the VAWDASV agenda, and we actually have lots of good relationships at the national level, but also at the local and regional level, because, under the VAWDASV Act, there are legal duties on devolved relevant authorities and devolved public bodies, including legal duties on local health boards and local authorities, to work together at a regional level and they often operate in partnership with police. So, police sit on lots of those regional boards as well as the national boards, and they also sit as part of the national partnership board. So, we have a really good relationship with the police on working through these matters and, as we develop the strategy, we're going to continue to engage with them to align what we develop in the strategy so that we're aware of what powers and responsibilities they have, because, as we know, the pathway that victims of VAWDASV experience goes through a number of different agencies, both devolved and non-devolved, and so that relationship is really key to the approach to the strategy.

Thank you. And just delving in a little, could I ask what action the Welsh Government is taking to support women and children, from perpetrators who sustain coercive control, via the family courts or Welsh Women's Aid, for example? They've said that there's a pro-contact culture and that prioritises access to children above safety and well-being. And so, it would be really good to hear what's happening to support women and children, from that kind of abuse.

Thank you. And then, just moving on, it would be really helpful if you could give some information on how the Welsh Government is working on the UK Government inquiry into group-based sexual violence? I think some people commonly refer to that as 'grooming gangs'.

Diolch. So, again, this Government is clear that protecting children and supporting victims and survivors has got to be, absolutely, our first priority. The inquiry itself sits in the portfolio of the Deputy Minister for Social Care, Mental Health and Women's Health. So, if there are any specific things that you would like to raise as a committee, I suggest that you would ask her, either through letter or through appearance, to be able to give you specifics on that. But, of course, I'll talk in general terms, from my point of view, that we know that we are, as a Government, engaging fully with the inquiry. We are ensuring that Welsh voices are heard and we are, obviously, at the same time, continuing to strengthen safeguarding arrangements and support victims and survivors across Wales.

But, yes, the Deputy Minister, I know—and I think she's said in the Chamber, hasn't she, when she's spoken on this—that she's met Baroness Longfield to discuss the inquiry's work. And I heard the Deputy Minister emphasise the importance of that meaningful engagement with Welsh victims and survivors, and also, of course, highlighting the devolved landscape as regards safeguarding and public services. And I know that she has sought assurance that that Welsh evidence and that Welsh landscape, those experiences, will be fully reflected in the inquiry. So, I would say that if you want anything more specific on that, then you would need to ask the Deputy Minister.

Diolch. Thank you, Minister.

Gwyn.

Diolch. Moving on to policing and governance, Art.

Diolch, Chair. Minister, with the police and crime commissioners due to be abolished in 2028, how will the Welsh Government ensure their replacement does not simply create another layer of bureaucracy and that local communities retain a clear means of holding the police accountable for their performance?

Diolch yn fawr. So, this is a big change. I think the Home Secretary has described police reform as one of the most—well, the most—significant reform in about 200 years. So, there is a big change going to happen. Our preferred model, as I've said, obviously, is to devolve policing to Wales, so that any decision on governance arrangements can be made in due course by the Senedd, who are accountable to the people of Wales. There is consensus in Wales behind that position. So, as I've said, on the case for devolution—I won't reiterate what I said earlier—there are successive reviews supporting that view. But I think that the scale of these proposed reforms is complicating decisions for what model could be suitable and would be most suitable for Wales. So, as regards governance, it depends on the model that we have. If we have a single police force for Wales, or if we have the current four-force model, that would be a significant factor, then, in thinking about the governance model, wouldn't it? A regional system would need to look very different from governance for a national, one single police force. But we've been clear that we would want for the UK Government to think about, at least for Wales, supporting an extension to the current governance arrangements to enable a smooth transition.

Can I just delve in slightly on that? You mentioned something that piques my interest. What evidence does the Welsh Government have that merging Wales's four police forces into a single national force would improve performance and value for money?

So, as I said, we don't have a—. There isn't a single settled position on this. What we are clear about is that we need a model that works for Wales, and that obviously, then, includes local governance. So, we know that as regards the UK review, there have been some delays on that. We understand that there is a final report on that with recommendations. Obviously, this isn't within our power. That's been submitted to the Home Office. We've requested early sight, but we haven't seen that yet, so we don't know what's in that report. But if there are going to be changes to force structures in Wales, our view would be that a single force could be a viable alternative, but only if that force was to retain accountability to local communities as well as, of course, to Wales's national democratic institutions, including the Senedd.

So, we're really keen to see that report at the earliest opportunity so we can evaluate, then, whether any benefits of force mergers would outweigh cost, disruption, thinking about alternative approaches, such as joint commissioning, whether any of those benefits could be achieved and what the resource implications of any mergers would be. But we're absolutely clear that the connection with local communities, whatever that model looks like, needs to be built in. So, we're really interested in that review's recommendations for local policing areas and their governance.

Thank you, Minister. 

Thank you for that. We are just running over slightly, but I'll try my best to get to you, Lynne—I know you're last. We've got prisons and probation next. Darren. 

Thank you, Chair. Can I ask you about HMP Parc? We know that there have been serious concerns about the number of deaths at the prison, issues with drug infiltration and, of course, self-harm. There were plans, of course, to extend the prison places there by about 345 new places, but they've now been shelved. What discussions have you had with the UK Government about the future of Parc prison, and when that project might be picked back up?

Thanks for the question. So, just to be clear, of course, that the decision to expand HMP Parc is obviously not a decision for the Welsh Government. The operational running of prisons is, of course, as you know, Darren, a reserved area. But while that is the case, we are aware of the concerns about what the expansion could bring to areas such as prison safety, where there have been concerns around public safety and, obviously, the impact, then, on devolved services.

So, in September, I met with Ian Barrow, who is the executive director for His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service in England and Wales. He provided an overview for me of the prison estate. I asked specifically about HMP Parc in that conversation, and I was told that they have introduced a range of measures following concerns and incidents that have been happening there, including enhanced physical security, including technology-based interventions, trying to disrupt drug supply routes, which have been at the root of some of those deaths, trying to improve safety. Recent inspection reports have shown and have recognised that there is progress in reducing the drug ingress into the prison. There has been installation, as you may know, of secure windows and other security improvements.

I am going to be visiting HMP Parc now, along with the Cabinet Minister for Government Effectiveness and the Constitution, and that's going to be happening, I think, next month. That will obviously allow us to hear directly from the management and staff on the impact of those measures.

Did your discussions extend to the conditions under which the project could get back on track for the expansion of prison places there?

I'm going to be meeting Catherine McKinnell, who's Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending at the Ministry of Justice, after my visit to Parc, because I want to hear directly from the staff and management first, and then, I hope, I will be raising any observations I have and anything that I've heard there with the Minister in the MOJ. But just to give the committee reassurance, my officials meet on a weekly basis with HMPPS to discuss prison matters here in Wales, which obviously would impact on devolved services, and also to have that opportunity for that timely engagement and collaborative work. But I will be raising matters that I hear from staff and management following my visit next month directly with the Minister.

Obviously, the capacity of the prison estate has led to decisions by the UK Government to have an early release scheme, the second of its kind, which has caused some concern across Wales. And, of course, it has implications for devolved services: housing, healthcare, substance misuse services, all of those other things that people who are on probation, once they've left the prison service, might have to access. What discussions have there been about the implications of early release with the Welsh Government and the UK Government? And has any funding been made available in order to help support the Welsh Government meet the needs of the individuals concerned?

No. There's been no direct funding that's been received. So, just to pick up on a couple of points in the question, at the strategic level we have the criminal joint operational implementation taskforce, which is chaired by the UK Government, that we as a Government and officials are members of. That provides us opportunity at the strategic level to raise concerns, and that board's been running, I think, fortnightly for the last several months, so there's regular interaction there. On focus within Wales, we have the regional partnership group, which is chaired by the regional probation lead for Wales, that brings together partners from across the justice system, but also local authorities, probation delivery units, representatives from health, education and other aspects as well, to consider the releases before the cohorts are released, so to put the right plans and preparations in place. And, of course, although we've had the first couple of tranches under the Sentencing Act, it's not the first early release of prisoners that we've experienced across England and Wales. So, the partnership board, which I referred to before, has been used previously, and has proved to be very effective in terms of bringing partners together across Wales to enable us to anticipate where those issues may be and work collaboratively to be prepared for those releases.

What sort of numbers—? Do we have a handle on the numbers of prisoners who've been released into Wales, if you like?

We do get the figures. Through the first tranche of the current scheme under the Sentencing Act, off the top of my head, around 45 for Wales. So, I think the perception in the meetings that I've attended amongst partners and stakeholders within Wales is that the numbers at the moment are manageable. Of course, there are successive tranches and the challenge will be around the cumulative effect of the tranches in terms of the releases.

Obviously, there's clearly a cost implication of supporting individuals and making sure that they've got access to that support. So, it will be interesting to see if we can quantify that as best we can. So—

Diolch, Darren. I'm going to have to—. We're really running over and I want to make sure that we get Lynne's last question in. Sorry about that. It may be useful if the Minister is willing to write to us after her visit to HMP Parc and seeing the UK Minister as well. I think that would be useful. Lynne. I'm going bring Lynne in on coronial services. You've waited patiently.

Thank you. The committee has been taking an interest in coronial services, and I believe that there is a real jagged edge there with devolved services. I've seen a number of families who have been re-traumatised by going through the inquest process, particularly those bereaved by suicide. Obviously, the inquest process is meant to be inquisitorial rather than adversarial, but what we often see is health boards, universities et cetera turning up with their King’s Counsel in that situation, and it becoming very adversarial. So, I wanted to ask whether you thought this situation would improve with the public accountability legislation that is coming in, and if you've got any wider comments on the support that is given to bereaved families going through the inquest process.

And I, obviously, recognise it's reserved, but the public services are not reserved, and it's the way that public services engage with the coronial service and with bereaved families, and I would be grateful if you would take it back anyway and talk to ministerial colleagues about it.

The other issue that I wanted to raise in relation to the coronial service is prevention of future deaths reports, and, obviously, they are made to devolved services, to Ministers, and I think there is a lot of room for improvement in the way prevention of future deaths reports are handled. Obviously, there's no follow-up for the coroner, but if you just take the example of electronic records in the NHS, there have been numerous prevention of future deaths reports on those, but nothing really changes. So, I would like to ask you, really, whether you think there is scope for more work on this to make sure that there is a more systematic approach when these reports are received, because it's crucial for families as part of their recovery, really, that they see that there is action taken on the back of those.

This isn't within my portfolio, obviously, and similarly to the point I made earlier, obviously, you know, taking action on those prevention of future deaths reports should be within the purview of the relevant Ministers, as you outlined. But I think that there is definitely, obviously, room for improvement, and it isn't something that I've considered, as I say, because it doesn't really rest within my portfolio. But, yes, I'm very, very happy to take that back and to see what consideration that could be given within Government.

We're going to take a very short two-minute break before we move on to the next part of the session. Diolch.

I'm aware that we've run over, and we have the Minister until 11:00. If she'd be willing to give us another five minutes of her time, that would be appreciated, if that's possible.

I do have a meeting.

Okay, you're pushed for time.

But I will, absolutely—I'm sure five minutes will be fine.

We will write to you with additional questions that we might not get through, because the previous session ran over.

Of course.

We'll go straight to it. I'll bring in Sarah first.

Thank you, Minister. Could I ask you to tell us a little about your intended approach for the Wales and Africa programme, in specific reference to the internationalist approach that the Welsh Government have said they want to take, and what Cymru can learn from the rest of the world and what your commitment will be to global solidarity under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015?

Diolch yn fawr. So, the First Minister, I think, has been very clear. He wants Wales to be an outward-looking nation that's really confident about its place in the world, to be ambitious in its international engagement. So, work is, therefore, under way on a new international strategy for Wales. So, that work is being developed currently, and that work is happening across Government, and, of course, is being considered as part of the normal policy development and Cabinet processes. So, I can't pre-empt those discussions, because they are current discussions and they are currently happening, but what I can say is that it's absolutely the intention of this Government to ensure that Wales's international activity supports the Government's wider priorities, strengthens Wales's international profile, creates opportunities for people and businesses, and helps us to learn from and contribute to the wider world. The programme for government, I think, is quite clear on the priority and the role of international work. So, the purpose of this work, really, is to help deliver the Government's priorities at home, while also ensuring Wales is that confident, outward-looking nation that plays that positive and responsible role also in the wider world.

Thank you. And will there be any information—? In my previous role as chair of the Wales Overseas Agencies Group, I criticised the lack of reporting on the Wales and Africa programme, and I think that, should there be positive news that would come out, it would be really helpful to counter some of the unfair rhetoric that these organisations have faced, particularly on value for money, emissions reduction, supporting health links.

Diolch. Obviously, across the programmes that are currently in place, the monitoring and evaluation of all those various programmes takes place on a regular and ongoing basis in a variety of ways—things like meetings and visits and testimonials, they're all used to evaluate projects. There have been a number of publications produced by the Welsh Government and our partners showing the impact of that funding. Of course, that could be about all those different aspects that those programmes touch. And then specific grant schemes, obviously, are very closely monitored with those project updates and regular meetings, et cetera, throughout the delivery cycle of each grant that comes under that programme. And there are detailed reports then on the conclusion of those programmes under those grant schemes.

Thank you. And then, with regard to funding, I think it's important to mention that the scale of aid cuts has been unprecedented and it will trigger severe humanitarian, health and geopolitical consequences. The Lancet, for example, have said that there are potentially 22.6 million avoidable deaths that will occur by 2030. So, I wanted to ask what your plans are for the budget for the Wales and Africa programme and whether you've had any conversations with the Scottish Government around their commitment to support global climate justice action in the global south.

Diolch. Yes, well, the financial situation at the moment is challenging. You'll have heard many Ministers, including the Prif Weinidog, speak about this. I'm not in a position yet to be able to talk in detail about what this means, then, for this budget line or any other budget lines in my portfolio, but there is no denying the financial pressures. And so I haven't taken any decisions yet on that, but I will be prioritising spending where there is an impact, where there's value for money and where the activity can bring positive outcomes for the people of Wales. So, this year's funding that's happening currently, and up until the end of the financial year, of course, was agreed by the previous administration, but I have continued to honour those previous funding commitments under this programme, and I've been really pleased to see the important work that things like the international learning opportunities, the ILO programme, have shown us and then continue to show us in its important work this year.

Josh.

Deputy First Minister, since taking office, have you held any meetings with the UK Foreign Secretary, specifically concerning international development and the Wales and Africa programme? If so, could you outline what was discussed and what concrete outcomes were agreed? And if not, have you requested one and what issues would you seek to raise?

Diolch. The Welsh Government has a constructive working relationship with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and regular engagement happens at both senior and operational levels. So, there are formal meetings between the FCDO and the devolved Governments. They take place quarterly through the senior officials group, with representation at senior civil service level. Those meetings provide a forum to discuss foreign policy developments, ministerial priorities and wider international issues. At an operational level, Welsh Government officials hold fortnightly calls with the FCDO devolution unit. They provide an informal but really important channel for sharing updates on matters including planned Welsh Government ministerial visits overseas, any significant events and ongoing areas of shared mutual interest. I haven't personally met on a ministerial level, but there is, as I have shown, a lot of engagement that happens there.

Thank you, Josh. Thank you, Minister, for your time today. We will be sending over a transcript in due course. Diolch yn fawr, bawb.

Diolch yn fawr.

Moving on to item 3, we have some papers to note. There are four papers before the committee. Are Members happy to note the correspondence? We'll obviously have a chance in private session if there's any further discussion. Diolch yn fawr.

We move on to item 4, a motion to go into private for items 5, 7, and 8 of today's meeting. I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi), that the committee resolves to exclude members of the public from items 5, 7, and 8 of today's meeting. Are Members content? Content. Diolch yn fawr.

Croeso, bawb. Can I welcome you to the Constitution, Justice and External Affairs Committee? Could you introduce yourselves, please, for the record?

I'm Dr Coree Brown Swan. I'm a lecturer in British politics at the University of Stirling.

I'm Dr Paul Anderson, and I'm associate professor in territorial politics at Liverpool John Moores University.

Diolch yn fawr to both of you for taking the time to come and speak to us today. We'll get straight into questions. I've got the first one. Could I ask how well you think the terms of the current inter-institutional relations agreement enable scrutiny and what your views are in terms of where the current gaps might be and any additional areas you think should be included going forward?

When it was drafted and revised, the IIRA really set the pace for enabling parliamentary scrutiny, but we've seen since then changes. Because of the UK's exit from the European Union, because of the introduction of a new framework for inter-governmental relations introduced in 2022, and the ongoing impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and common frameworks, there are some gaps in the ability to scrutinise.

In terms of the strengths, we have a culture of moving towards more reporting, moving towards more transparency, but much of it is quite process driven at this moment: reporting ahead of time, which doesn't really work, because inter-governmental meetings are not often scheduled and timetabled that far ahead; annual reporting, which is probably not necessary in terms of allowing scrutiny to take place, because the likelihood of a committee going back and looking at the annual report, I think, is probably quite small. It's important for researchers to know what's happening, but from a scrutiny perspective, I don't know if it's worth the resources that are necessary.

I have a few ideas, and then I'll hand over to Paul. I think the first is a move from chasing individual notifications to scrutinising strategic decision making: what are the priorities of the Government as they go into the year, as they go into the term, and what are their priorities for inter-governmental negotiations. Evidence tells us, when we look at both the Welsh and Scottish cases, that the advance notice isn't truly workable. The ad hoc nature of inter-governmental relations makes this reporting requirement null and void, because often these meetings just aren't scheduled that far in advance. So, I would, if I were revisiting the agreement, look to introduce a termly kind of forward look, where Ministers set out their IGR priorities to lead committees for the coming year. This could also be incorporated within the programme for government.

I'd also work to reduce the reliance on joint communiqués. Because we know, if we've seen those joint communiqués, they say where the meeting happened, who attended and the agenda items, but no information is provided on the position of the Governments. So, they lack the necessary detail to support and enable scrutiny. And there's a whole range of inter-governmental relations processes—both vertically with the UK Government and horizontally between the devolved Governments—that aren't captured by the agreement and aren't captured within the formal structures, post the 2022 reforms, of inter-governmental relations. So, I would think about how those could be better captured and scrutinised by committees. I'll hand over to Paul.

I would echo almost all of what Coree has said. I think the agreement is important. As you all know, scrutiny of inter-governmental relations is hugely important. I think some of the current weaknesses of the agreement relate to just the evolution of politics—Brexit, obviously, being an important one. I think one of the gaps in the agreement at the moment is the common frameworks and inter-governmental relations around the UK Internal Market Act, which has, in some areas, transformed some aspects of devolution, and there are some pernicious ramifications related to the UK Internal Market Act as well.

I think there's an issue around formal and informal inter-governmental relations, something that I don't necessarily think an inter-institutional agreement could necessarily solve. I had a look at the UK Government's 2025 report. There were 197 meetings with the Welsh Government in 2025, and 127 of these were bilateral. I would hazard a guess that Senedd committees have not had 197 reports and I would hazard a guess that they haven't had 127 reports of the bilateral. The bilateral is in the agreement, but I think there's an opportunity here to strengthen the reporting requirements around bilateral agreements. That doesn't necessarily capture every phone call and every informal dialogue that happens, but, from those 197, I think my understanding of the report is that those are formal meetings, so there should be minutes somewhere; I don't know if parliamentary committees are seeing those minutes.

I think Coree picked up there as well that what's not in the report or what could be stronger in the agreement is the horizontal dynamics. We will see, I think, potentially, more horizontal inter-governmental relations given the nature of the three Governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales moving forward, and I think scrutinizing horizontal inter-governmental relations is just as important as the vertical.

The final point, just to finish, is that I think the three principles that the agreement is based on—transparency, accountability and confidentiality—are important, but I don't think, based on what I've looked at from the last Senedd, that they're all treated equally. Confidentiality seems to carry much more weight for Government. Let me be careful with my words. What it shouldn't be is a free pass for Ministers to say, 'This information is confidential.' The Welsh Government's position should not, as far as I'm concerned, be confidential to the Welsh Parliament. There, it's ensuring that all three of those principles, which are important, are applied equally. I'll finish there and then we can pick up on anything later.

Thanks very much. The next question is from Sarah.

Which inter-governmental structures do you think should be within the scope of the IIRA?

All of them. Since the agreement that governed the last Senedd, things have changed. The Joint Ministerial Committee is no longer an inter-governmental forum that we have. I think the formal multilateral structures that we have in the UK should be there. The Prime Minister and Heads of Devolved Governments Council, the Interministerial Standing Committee, the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee and the inter-ministerial groups—and the Welsh Government is part of all of those—should all be included within the agreement. The Council of the Nations and Regions—the new forum created by the Starmer Government in 2024—should also be there. Whether that's going to remain an inter-governmental forum is to be decided, so I think it's important that those are all mentioned. And then I think it's important that there's a stronger wording related to the bilateral meetings that are not necessarily within a formal forum, but are formal meetings. So, to me, anything that's minuted, and there are formal minutes, should be included within the agreement.

Since the elevation of Andy Burnham to Prime Minister, there's been a lot of focus on devolution and partnership and making things work, not so much using the formal structures that we have in the UK. So, here, this is a spotlight on the challenges, in that, so far, the multilateral meetings in the UK since Andy Burnham became Prime Minister have been through the National Economic Council that's been revived by Andy Burnham. That's not an inter-governmental forum as we understand it, but, so far, that's what's served as the formal meeting that has brought the four Governments of the UK together. My understanding is that that meeting will also take place at some point this week or next week, and that's being treated as a second inter-governmental meeting. So, the short answer there is that I would include all the formal forums that exist at the moment, with the caveat that things evolve, and some forums are being used and some forums are not. It's entirely possible that a new forum is, at some point, created. There's a bigger issue there around—. Sorry—go on. 

On that, do you think there's a way to widen the scope, so that you don't see things like this that almost bypass those agreements?

I think there's a trade-off in widening the scope, in that if you make it too broad, then, perhaps—. As Coree was saying, as researchers, I would like as much information as possible on this, and I'm sure, as parliamentarians, you would also want the same for scrutiny. So, for me, it would be definitely name the existing multilateral forums, and emphasise the 'bilateral'. But here I think it's about shared ownership in inter-governmental relations. Coree mentioned the reporting dynamic. That's a fairly weak aspect of the agreement, in that it's there, but the phrase that Coree and I often use in these committees is that you can create the most perfect structures, but if people don't want them to work, they will not work.

So, how could we strengthen that element, because you're right, just knowing a meeting's happened isn't helpful?

Yes. So, for me, it's ensuring that the Ministers involved, and the officials, because, in common frameworks, it's the officials that play an important role in developing these. They know that they have to report this stuff. Often, what happens—. Coree and Professor Nicola McEwen published a report in Scotland on this that noted that many committees said, 'This isn't within our remit; this is the constitution committee's remit', and that's not the case. I think it's important that almost all committees within the Senedd are conducting some form of inter-governmental scrutiny within their remits.

So, for me, it's about ensuring that people are reporting not just who was there, when it took place, where it took place—we get that in the communique—what was discussed, and we can get onto confidentiality issues there, but, in this case, what was the Welsh Government's position, what was put forward by the Minister and were there any action points to be followed up, et cetera. I think that's the information that doesn't break any confidentiality. In terms of this Parliament, that's the information that parliamentarians should receive.

I'm going to bring Pred in first, and then—.

Following on from that, in that relationship building as well, these things work when you have Ministers and officials actually building relationships. I was just wondering if you could unpack for me the elements that you touched on there in the balance between transparency and confidentiality. For you to be able to have a full and frank discussion on something needs that relationship building to start with, but also the confidence that what is said in the room isn't verbatim, necessarily, communicated. How do you build that confidence within that relationship to be able to then have meaningful outcomes? And how do you balance that, then, with the scrutiny that we need to understand what the party's positions are, to be able to realise the nature of the discussion, because you can't be in every single room to scrutinise every single decision? So, there's that bit there. So, if you could unpack that for me, that would be interesting.

I think the first point—I'll be brief, but 'famous last words'—is on building relations. This is where the informal inter-governmental relations are really important. This is the stuff that's going to be very difficult to capture. It's frustrating for us as researchers, and I'm sure it's frustrating for parliamentarians, that the informal stuff happens and we don't know—a phone call, a WhatsApp, a chance meeting in a corridor. And we know that, in informal meetings, things get discussed on the sidelines that then are not reported. That's politics and we have to accept there's a trade-off there. Those aspects are also really important, because, 'Oh, shall we go for a coffee?,' is important to build trust between officials, parliamentarians, Ministers, et cetera. So, don't underestimate the importance of the informal, but it's very difficult to scrutinise that.

In terms of finding the balance, that's the important—. I think there needs to be a balance in between confidentiality and transparency. Government Ministers have to know that when they are participating in inter-governmental meetings, word for word is not then going to be available in a public forum or be scrutinised by Parliament. I think the key thing for me, in the instance here related to the Welsh Government, if the Welsh Government was to report its position in the meeting—so, perhaps what its priorities were going in, what it discussed in the meeting and then, any action points that it came away with—is not breaking the confidences of what was discussed in the meeting. What they should not do is then tell you the Scottish Government said this, the UK Government said this; that's what they can't do. But I think what they ought to be doing is reporting their position very clearly to the committee, to say, 'This is—', because, at the end of the day, you're scrutinising their position; you're not scrutinising the position of the Scottish Government.

Yes, I think I'd broadly concur in thinking about the revised agreement and how it captures the informal as well as formal inter-governmental relations, and that balance between the transparency and scrutiny and confidentiality. I think there's a difficult line to tread. I do also wonder if Governments hide behind the need for confidentiality, in the sense of, 'We can't publish outcomes because those are confidential and we need to seek agreement'. So, then you have publication of a very brief agenda three months after the fact, when the issue has moved on, which obscures activities from scrutiny. But, concurring with Paul, I think committees need to know not necessarily for every meeting, but in broad policy areas, what is the position advanced by the Welsh Government, what do they seek to achieve within these meetings and what do they achieve and what were the outcomes. And I think that can be shared either through correspondence in closed sessions and public sessions without breaching the need for confidentiality.

Obviously, if there are really complex negotiations going on—because we know these negotiations are happening on trade, on the internal market, et cetera—there might be a necessary lag as Governments are in the midst of those negotiations. But what are they setting out to achieve? So, I think there's a few different ways in terms of capturing that. I think the overall understanding of the Government's priorities for inter-governmental relations—how there might be internal market impacts or a need to negotiate in order to bring forward legislation—is really, really important. And I think it's lost when we focus too closely on the nitty-gritty of what's happening in each individual meeting.

Just, if I may, from experience of scrutinising finance Ministers in the previous Senedd, one of the biggest frustrations that was reported back from a finance Minister here was the revolving door of Treasury Ministers and having to build a relationship every single time. And I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on whether or not more transparent scrutiny, or more transparency on what was discussed at the previous meetings, would help Members here to be able to hold our Ministers to account in that sense, but also help to track what the direction of travel was in previous meetings, rather than have to start from scratch every time—your thoughts on that.

Yes, absolutely. It was interesting. So, in 2023, as Paul mentioned, I did a commissioned report for the Scottish Parliament on inter-governmental relations scrutiny. And when we spoke to people who worked, both officials and parliamentarians, on finance, they said, 'Actually, scrutiny works better here. We get more information', because, within the FISC structures, within those bilateral negotiations, there's a bit more of a requirement, and there's a committee that feels quite empowered to ask questions of their Ministers, of, 'What's going on? What is the status of negotiation? What are you asking for? What are you getting?' But I think that's really important. And perhaps something more broadly, in the ethos of the agreement, we know in comparison with federal structures, with federalised countries, the nature of UK inter-governmental relations, despite some institutionalisation, is quite ad hoc and it changes quite a bit. The forums, as Paul mentioned, that people invest in, that individual governments choose to use to channel inter-governmental relations, have changed pretty dramatically over time, and may continue to change. So, I think, in terms of that flexibility, the availability of information and providing some continuity can be really, really helpful.

I also think there's something in terms of, I hesitate to say, 'educational', but perhaps an empowerment component, that every Member of the Senedd feels that inter-governmental relations is their business, that they know what inter-governmental relations are, they know what the structures are going on within their policy area, and they know which questions to ask, because what we found from our interviews was the sentiment that, 'Well, that's the constitution committee's job; that's not our job.' But if you're talking about internal market Act exclusions on environmental policy or on a deposit-return scheme, for example, that's very much the job of the committee that scrutinises the environment. So, I do think there's probably a cultural element as well, which I don't think can be institutionalised within the agreement, but might be something more broad to reflect on, in terms of whether every Member of the Senedd feels like inter-governmental relations and scrutiny of inter-governmental relations are a part of their remit.

One of the things that the Finance Committee in the last Senedd did with our sister committees in Scotland and Northern Ireland was set up the inter-parliamentary forum that allowed for Members of those committees to be able to have those discussions and to try and shadow the FISC, so that at least there were those Members of this place, as well as Scotland and Northern Ireland, able to use their collective scrutiny position to be able to scrutinise the Ministers in their own right, and that seemed to be an effective way of doing that. Possibly, we didn't meet as often as we might have wanted to because of constraints, but it was a forum to be able to bring some of that together. Whether or not you think that was a good idea—.

Paul is a bit more of an expert on inter-parliamentary relations.

Well, 'expert'—it's my—. I think it's important. So, I think every committee I've been to, giving evidence, I've said inter-parliamentary relations are the underdeveloped aspect of IGR in the UK, of this. And they could be used to strengthen collaboration between different institutions, the Parliaments, which all face, for example, similar challenges related to inter-governmental scrutiny, transparency. But I think also, at a practical level, one of the things—and I gave evidence to the previous committee—is we lamented the struggle that there is to get a UK Government Minister to appear in front of a committee of a devolved Parliament. Therefore, can inter-parliamentary forums, or these IPR, be used to, for example, get the three Parliaments in the room with a UK Government Minister, in which case the UK Government Minister is being interviewed once but with all three Parliaments present, so that they can't say, 'We're too busy'. So, I think—

It only works if the Minister doesn't just stay for 10 minutes.

Well, yes, but—

And is 20 minutes late.

Sure, but 10 minutes is better than zero minutes. That's my classic characteristic Scottish optimism. But I think it's important to try and work with other Parliaments to at least explore opportunities to try and increase transparency and scrutiny. I think, just linked with that, what you were saying about previous meetings, the key thing here is more detailed summaries of what was in the meetings. So, a good example for the committee to look at is the Inter-ministerial Group—you may have to help me here—for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, something along those lines. They have very detailed summaries, so it's not just a communiqué of who was there, what was discussed; some of their communiqué are very detailed summaries that also say, 'We discussed this and there's an action plan forward', so those points can be tracked and then scrutinised. So, I think more detailed reporting on these meetings underlines the importance of inter-governmental relations.

Darren.

Yes. I just wanted to follow up on this inter-parliamentary relationship issue, if I can. Obviously, the Senedd is engaged in some inter-parliamentary work through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and its work with the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, but there's no current formal, regular pattern of engagement between UK-only Parliaments and legislatures. And my own view is that that is a deficiency that needs to be addressed, and it would afford some of the opportunities, Dr Anderson, that you've suggested in terms of killing three or four birds with one stone for Ministers' availability. If there were to be some sort of UK inter-parliamentary assembly—let's call it that—which met two or three times a year in order to undertake scrutiny of the bilateral and vertical relationships between the various Governments in the UK, would you see that as a positive development? And if so, how do you think such an assembly could be constructed?

Good question. So, the first part of the question—definitely a positive. I think the devil's in the detail in terms of what the forum would be set up to do, for example, but I think increasing some form of collaboration between different institutions is in itself just of value. But I think, when it comes to inter-governmental relations and scrutiny and transparency, it would increase that value as well, because there would be opportunity for shared learning, and what we find in inter-governmental forums is that they are used to say, 'We've tried this policy', or 'We've had these difficulties' and those things can be shared with other Governments.

How it's established—good question. We would probably have to go away and think a bit about that. But it would be using the existing relations that probably there are between the Parliaments, those personal relations between Members of different Parliaments or clerks of committees, or things like this, to then—. I think all institutions would see that this would be beneficial. It would just be getting the right people in the room to say, 'Let's create this forum', or, for example, this committee could put forward some sort of proposal that could then be discussed at other committees elsewhere. I would say, do what you can if you think this would be beneficial, or this committee will have sister committees in the other institutions in terms of looking at inter-governmental relations—. Could you work with that committee to then say, 'Could we establish some form of—?' That would also, perhaps, save some time in engaging with Government Ministers, or things like this.

I guess, yes, getting committees working together might be a way to take something forward, mightn't it. I think that's quite a novel idea, certainly as an interim arrangement to something more formal being developed. But I think one of the challenges we have is that, obviously, the relationships of our Welsh Government are not just with UK, but also bilateral with other Governments in Europe and beyond, and then we have the sort of commonwealth links as well that people have. It does get quite unwieldy, and I think that, particularly when it comes to those much wider relationships with European nations, Ireland and others, the institutions that are there—the inter-parliamentary institutions, Committee of the Regions and Council of Europe, things like that—the representation in terms of the number of people from each Parliament is so small that it's not always able to convey the breadth of scrutiny that you might want if people are from the same political party, for example, as the incumbent Government. So, would you have any thoughts on how to address those potential deficiencies in scrutiny by inter-parliamentary bodies like those?

I think there is probably something to be learned from a model or learning—. I'd have to delve into that a bit deeper; I don't have that off the top of my head. But there's some work on how European Parliaments are scrutinising activities at the EU level. And obviously, we don't have that dynamic within the UK, but the ways of working and the challenges of scrutinising quite complex inter-governmental relations I think would be quite useful to see. Is it focused mostly on reporting requirements, or are there other more informal ways of ensuring scrutiny happens? Obviously, the European structures are more transparent than UK inter-governmental relations structures. I think that's something that Parliaments should unite in calling for, and the 2022 revisions to inter-governmental relations set out a process where there would be an inter-governmental relations secretariat. It exists, but it doesn't have a visible presence. Right now, we see the duplication of effort to try to capture when activities are happening, when meetings are happening. The Scottish Parliament Information Centre has a really good inter-governmental relations hub, but I really think that should be done at that secretariat level.

So, there might be some institutional learnings, and I'm happy to come back to this in written evidence, and what we might take from some of those other Parliaments. But there also might be more informal learnings in terms of how do you encourage scrutiny to happen, how do you encourage parliamentarians to take agency over scrutiny.

Thank you. I'll bring John—. Oh, sorry—Pered, just before we go to John.

I'm just going to briefly come in on that. Maybe in the notes, if you're looking at written evidence, could you look at the devolution guidance note 12, the expectation of co-operation with devolved committees—

Yes.

—and see if there's anything within that? Because I think the Interparliamentary Finance Committee Forum noted that, in the way that Darren Jones hadn't given due regard to it when he eventually turned up at the other meeting in Northern Ireland. So, it's just something that maybe would aid us in understanding whether that needs to be formalised. But, of course, it's Westminster guidance, therefore it only is there to advise, but it's something that might be of use.

Yes, definitely. Happy to look at that.

Thank you. I'll bring John in online.

Thank you. If Welsh Government Ministers can characterise discussions as informal or as party political rather than governmental to sidestep disclosure, doesn't that make the information sharing commitments voluntary in practice? And can you give the committee one example in the past 12 months where Irish transparency or dispute mechanisms were actually invoked to force the Government to disclose inter-governmental discussion details? Thank you.

I think there is a problem with or a challenge in terms of we know so much—. What happens in the IMGs is important, what happens in these formal forums is important, but there's so much preparation and agreements and phone calls, particularly amongst officials, that go on as the basis, or in the background, in the run-up to those IMGs, to support a decision being made within those forums.

I don't know if it's a realistic prospect to capture each of those interactions, many of which might be a quick phone call or an in-person interaction on the sidelines of something. But there is a challenge there in terms of classifying things as informal to avoid disclosure, but I think the inter-institutional agreement, if it took a broader scope, could capture that. I can't think of a particular dispute or requirement to disclose within recent months. One of the things we notice is that we've seen this introduction of dispute resolution processes within the inter-governmental structure, but, to my knowledge, they're quite rarely used. I think they're a position of last resort.

So, I don't know if I've fully answered your question, but there is a challenge, which is not unique to the UK, which is not unique to any democratic system in terms of the need for a certain level of confidentiality and formality to allow decisions to be made, to allow discussions to happen, to allow trust to be built. Because inter-governmental relations very much are based on both structures and interpersonal relationships—trust between levels of government. And I think, if you had to capture, if you had to minute every single interaction, that would reduce trust and that would reduce—. It might become more of a hassle to have those interactions than to not.

So, I would say here, and the first question is: what is the difference between formal interaction and informal interaction? The agreement says, 'with regard to its participation in formal interaction'. And the first thing I would say to any of my students is, 'Define what you mean by your key terms.' So, what does 'formal' mean in this instance? So, I think, perhaps, in the updating of the agreement, there is a discussion about what 'formal' means. For me, it would be that there are minutes at the end of that meeting, and therefore those things could be captured.

I think on party political, the onus there is on parties to make it clear that something is party political. So, when John Swinney and Michelle O'Neill came to Cardiff, that was the parties meeting. And my understanding is that it was clear that they were meeting as party leaders. But then there was a bilateral between the First Minister of Wales and the First Minister of Scotland and from that came the Cardiff Agreement, which is a formal bilateral inter-governmental agreement. So, I think here it's important, then, that there is an onus on Governments or party leaders, First Ministers, to make clear when something is party political and when something is governmental.

I think on the dispute, like Coree, I don't think I can think of anything. I can think of issues where it wasn't used. So, if we think, for example, when the UK Government intervened in the Scottish Parliament's passing of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, that was not disputed through formal resolution procedures. It was ultimately disputed through the courts. And at the time, I imagine—. I think I wrote some blog posts around this: why did we create a dispute resolution mechanism for it then not to be used and go down the legal route, as opposed to trying to work something out politically or informally? Party politics comes into play here. You're all politicians and there are differences in how parties approach things, or whether or not there's something to gain from not following through inter-governmental procedures. But I think that would have increased the transparency of those issues, but it didn't—we ended up in court in trying to work out the way forward.

Thank you.

Can I come in with one further thought? I guess it's up to you as a committee to decide what you want. Do you want notes of every meeting that takes place and the agenda items and the outcomes? Or do you want an overall, more holistic understanding of what the Welsh Government's positions are ahead of inter-governmental negotiations, whether that's on finance or going into environment and food and rural affairs, or whether that is on constitutional questions or things pertaining to the internal market or common frameworks?

So, I think there's probably two different aspects that could be captured in the inter-institutional agreement. First is that regular reporting of what's happening in these individual meetings, what positions. Because if you're legislating and then there's a whole inter-governmental process that you don't have sight of—. We saw this with the glue traps legislation in the Scottish Parliament and we saw it also on deposit return: legislators were proceeding, they were scrutinising legislation, but there was this whole process happening in the background that they had no idea about until the very last minute, until it became clear that their legislation would not be able to go forward as it currently stood without the agreement of the UK Government. And that, I think, is the real problem—the idea that legislation, the scrutiny processes of Government legislation, is happening without a sense of the interdependencies, the negotiations that need to happen. 

So, I think that there are probably two aspects there: do you want to understand your Government's priorities for the coming term, going into a specific set of negotiations, whether that's about the budget or something else, or do you want day-by-day accounts or more regular reporting? I think you can have both, but it seems to me that that overall understanding is perhaps more useful for parliamentarians than tick-box reporting might be.

Thank you for that. Josh is next. 

If the IIRA was expanded to include international relations activity, how should we determine which activities are sufficiently important to warrant notification to the Senedd?

That's a great question. I think it should be. I think that we see what we call in academic literature paradiplomacy, the way that the devolved nations, devolved Governments might be interacting on the international stage. I don't know if it means, again, that day-by-day reporting, but those broader statements and that accountability for what's being said within these forums, what's being sought within these forums, whether that's entering into an agreement, whether that's on the sidelines of a UK trade agreement, et cetera. So, I think that that's something definitely to consider. I think that reporting should be incorporated into this agreement, going forward, because we think it's going to become of increased importance in the years to come. 

Just two points on this. The first one is, picking up on what Coree said there, that we are now in a landscape in the UK in terms of devolved politics where we don't have, as it was at the beginning of devolution, particularly in the Scottish Parliament, watertight containers of, 'This is devolved. This is reserved.' We are now in a landscape where we have an interdependent landscape when it comes to devolved powers and reserved powers, and some international aspects sit right in the middle of that. So, I think that it is important that there is some inclusion of how the committee looks at international aspects, whether that's some form of agreement or trade negotiations or something that's going on, both bilateral and multilateral.

I think the second thing to mention here is all of the problems that the Joint Ministerial Committee had—and between Coree and me, much ink has been spilled saying that things could have been better. The one forum that did work was the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe. It met regularly, it reported regularly, and so there is a precedent in inter-governmental relations and international affairs working. And that's the Europe committee, not the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations), which didn't work as well. So, I think that it's potentially worth looking into. That underlines the importance of international affairs when it comes to IGR and scrutiny, but it also might help highlight how that could be done as well. 

Thank you. Pred.

I want to talk a little bit about the UK and EU trade and co-operation agreement, but before that, I'd like to know your experience in Scotland in having an SNP Government in Scotland with a Conservative Government and then a Labour Government in Westminster, comparing that to a Welsh Government that, up until May, was a Labour Government here with either a Conservative or a Labour Government in Westminster. Those informal conversations and the informal relationship between the Welsh Government and the UK Government might have happened on party lines, rather than informal relationship lines. That has changed now in Wales; obviously, in Scotland, it has been like that for a number of years, and Northern Ireland has been in a similar position as well. Could you unpack some of that for me to see what you think of—? Have you got any thoughts about that, and whether or not formal arrangements now need to be more important than maybe they have been historically, just because of the nature of politics in these islands?

I think the first thing is that it's what makes our job exciting, because we get to look at how different Governments and different political parties work together. I think one of the interesting things was that, prior to the SNP coming to power in Scotland in 2007, this was going to be the big challenge: how would an SNP Government that wanted an independence referendum work with—at that time—a Labour Government. And then we had the coalition Government in 2010, and actually what we found was that they worked quite well together. The informal was important. At that time, there were party political things. The SNP's policy was to prove competence in Government in order to get re-elected.

What the SNP Government did do at that time was say, 'We have to resurrect the joint ministerial committees', which weren't meeting. There hadn't been a committee meeting, I think, for four years, because they were all intra-party chats between Labour in Wales, Labour in Scotland and Labour in Westminster. The political science word here would be the 'fragmentation' that we have in the UK now. We have four Governments led by four—or five if we include two in Northern Ireland—different political parties. The informal will still be there. I think it comes back to personalities: the personality of the Ministers involved, the Secretaries of State, the Ministers in the devolved Governments working together.

At the end of the day, you have to work together. That's the nature of any political system. But I think there is perhaps more importance placed on formal relations to say, 'So, we've had lots of conversations—should inter-governmental relations be placed on a statutory footing?' Until 2022, they were very much within the gift of the UK Government. We've seen that some forums have continued to meet. The inter-ministerial committees meet. The council of the nations, which is supposed to meet twice a year, has not met since 2025. For me, that's surprising, given that we have a Prime Minister now who understands devolution, who understands the importance of relations. Why aren't those committees meeting? They're not even fulfilling their quota that they're supposed to in terms of meetings, whereas other committees do.

So, I think there is an onus on formalising those relations so that they do happen. But still, the ad hocery has not gone away. We're still plagued by ad hoc and sometimes episodic inter-governmental meetings. But I think the informal is still important to keep things moving along. I think when it comes to legislative consent motions, for example, we've seen that Parliaments or Governments agree for the UK Government to legislate on behalf of the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government, because it just makes sense not to repeat legislation. That's mostly in a consensual manner. I don't know if you have anything to add. 

In general, echoing what Paul said, I think party incongruence—so, different parties in the capitals of the UK—is probably a benefit for transparency and scrutiny. Like Paul said, the JMC forums had largely fallen into disuse when you had Labour Governments in Cardiff, Edinburgh and London. In that way, it might make inter-governmental relations themselves more contentious, because you have different parties pursuing different objectives—and sometimes quite dramatically different objectives—but in terms of operating within formal structures, I think that's helpful, rather than things being sorted out on the sidelines of a party conference or in a social setting et cetera. It does bring issues of trust. There can be a partisan incentive to advance disagreements, to air disagreements publicly, which can undermine negotiations and undermine the process of negotiations. It's not a barrier to well-working intergovernmental relations, but what we do need is inter-governmental structures that can withstand conflict between different levels of Government. We need them to be institutionalised and meeting regularly in order to build trust, to build those relationships, but also to get things done. We know from public polling that people want their Governments to be working together in productive ways. You need clear transparency, reporting mechanisms and dispute resolution functions. I think one of the challenges of inter-governmental or inter-parliamentary scrutiny in this domain is that the system changes all the time; forums become the peak inter-governmental forum, and then don't meet again for years. So, I think any revision to the agreement needs to capture the fact that the UK is very ad hoc and there's a capriciousness in terms of the way that inter-governmental relations work in that context.

I'm particularly interested in the dispute resolution bit as well. Just from my experience of scrutinising F:ISC, the Treasury is the judge, jury and execution. Therefore, you can have as much discussion as you like, but what the Treasury wants, the Treasury gets, which isn't fair when it comes to that. So, that's a particular interest in understanding how those disputes, either along party lines or along Government lines, are resolved in a meaningful way so that, potentially, smaller nations have an equal voice around those tables. So, that would be something that I'd be interested in.

But if I go on to the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement meetings, what do you think should be in there from the point of view of notifying us of when the Welsh Government have been at these meetings? And then on that transparency, frequency, note-taking, whatever that looks like, going on from what we've been talking about this morning, or this afternoon now, should there be a read-across that it should happen in the same sort of way?

I think there's an added level of complexity within those meetings, because the devolved Governments should absolutely be included, they should have a seat at the table, they might be even more strictly bound by confidentiality, but I think reporting should happen and they should seek, perhaps, agreement with the UK Government on how that will be reported to allow the Parliaments of the UK to scrutinise that activity. But I do think it poses an additional challenge.

Here, I think perhaps advanced notice of the meetings is more useful than I would imagine in other settings: do you know the meetings are happening, do you know the position of the Government? Quebec has a system where the National Assembly can provide a mandate for their Government going into inter-governmental negotiations. I don't think we would necessarily want to ever see that replicated here, but it could be helpful, and I think the Government should see this as helpful as well. It could be helpful to say, 'Here's the meeting that we're going into, here's why this matters for Wales, here's what's important to achieve.' I think that transparency both with Parliament and with the public is really important. It perhaps bolsters the position of Wales and increases the incentive for the UK Government to listen to the Welsh Government or representatives of Wales within those settings.

Just briefly picking up on what Coree was saying there about the prior notification, Coree mentioned earlier, 'How useful is that?' We slightly disagree here, in that I think the prior notification is important for all inter-governmental relations, as long as the committee or committees have an opportunity to feed into that if that's what's required. If it's just to know that there's a meeting happening, then I don't know how useful that is. But for example, with trade negotiations or some form of international engagement, I think perhaps it is important that committees know, because then parliamentarians can seek to, through the mechanisms available to you, speak to your Government, influence Government here.

I think the answer to this is more detailed reporting. I fear what we would see, as Coree was saying, in terms of how this could be reported. We probably would just see what we see already, which is, 'A meeting took place, here's who was there, here's who attended, here are the main issues discussed.' It's useful, but beyond the contents of the meeting, we don't get anything. But for this part, I think there is a balance to be struck with confidentiality. It's not the job of the Senedd to scrutinise the Scottish Government or what else is being discussed there, but it is their job to scrutinise the Welsh Government's position and how the Welsh Government are presenting things in these forums. It goes back to where we began, which is that these reports should be more detailed with regard to what the Welsh Government's position is—and that doesn't break any confidences; they don't have to tell you the positions of the other Governments in those meetings.

I wonder if this perhaps presents an opportunity. Darren mentioned the inter-parliamentary relations. I wonder if that might be a useful test case for inter-parliamentary relations. All the devolved Parliaments and the UK Parliament have an interest in scrutinising this potential trade agreement, these arrangements—could that be done on a cross-parliamentary or inter-parliamentary level and does that create the seed of something that could grow into a more institutional, more established process? Could that be a good opportunity? Because I think one of the challenges that we see is that we've both been here, we've both been to the Scottish Parliament to talk about inter-governmental relations and scrutinising inter-governmental relations, and we never have those questions asked at the centre. We haven't been to the House of Commons to talk about scrutinising inter-governmental relations because they don't have a sense that that's part of their job. Inter-governmental relations are rarely mentioned. But I do wonder, if you had a specific kind of confined policy area, does that provide an opportunity for inter-parliamentary working because it is more focused—it's not just a talking shop, we're focused on a specific type of meeting, a specific event, a specific process. So, perhaps that's an opportunity to both have a bigger voice and establish some of those ways of working in supporting inter-parliamentary working.

Interesting. Diolch.

Diolch. I think that has covered all of our questions. You've given us some food for thought there going forward as well. Diolch eto. Thank you for your time and coming to talk to us today, and we'll make sure you get a transcript as well.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good luck.