2. What discussions has the Counsel General had with other law officers regarding the legal implications of the UK leaving the EU? OAQ(5)0002(CG)[W]

I think the Member will appreciate that I’ve only been in position for seven days, so it’ll be no surprise that I have had no discussions with other law officers on this matter, but it is clear that withdrawal from the EU is a massive constitutional shift for the UK. It will also have far-reaching implications for the devolution settlement.

I thank the Counsel General for his response. May I tell him at the outset that his answers have been far more comprehensive than those I’ve received over the past five years, and that he himself received, on occasion, over the past five years?

I respect the fact that there hasn’t been a great deal of time since his appointment, or since the referendum itself, of course. But, in terms of the debate that we’ve just had in this Chamber, it is clear that the way in which European law has been transposed into Welsh law and UK law is going to be a very complex question to be resolved over the next few years. May I refer to an article in today’s ‘Western Mail’ by the barrister Emyr Lewis, who looks at how Welsh law will be part of the very complex question facing the legal profession over the next few years?

What steps will be in place? For example, does the Counsel General intend to announce some sort of scoping exercise that could cover the various directives that impact on law here, so that we can at least understand the scope of the work before we try and understand how to withdraw?

It’s a very important supplementary question that you raise. I know that Welsh Government departments are already starting this particular process, and I am as well, because there are many aspects and complications around this whole process. For example, we don’t know what approach the UK Government is going to adopt to Brexit—for example, what the procedure might be for actually invoking article 50. I’ve seen reports—I’m sure the Member has as well—that there may be a legal application for a declaration from the court as to whether it’s the royal prerogative or whether legislation has to be laid. That might be significant, if that were to be proceeded with and successful, because it would mean that something would have to come before Parliament that would set parameters for the actual negotiations themselves.

I think also the other question is that, of course, many of the pieces of legislation that affect people, whether it be from the UK, whether it be through our own legislation—whether we would want to retain those, whether we can retain those—they impact very much in terms of aspects of policy, for example, of Government. We’ve had many discussions on procurement and we’ve had the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which give very significant standards, too, that we want to see applied in respect of those who actually work in this country. And, of course, there may be impacts, because much of what has been said is about abolition of red tape, but, of course, no-one has been able to get any clear clarification of which are the laws—what is the red tape—that those who supported Brexit would want to have reduced.

I can only go back to the debates we had when the UK Government signed the social chapter, that it was, actually, many of the social rights and the employment rights. If we, as a Government, are supporting the maintenance of high standards of employment, steps that might be taken to reduce those pieces of legislation will obviously be of great consequence. For example, I notice there was an evaluation of some 2,500 pieces of legislation from the European Community, and, in fact, out of all of those, there were only 48 where the United Kingdom didn’t actually get its way.

So, what we’re talking about are many aspects of legislation that actually are ones that Wales representatives, UK representatives, UK Government and so on, have actually promoted and wanted. So, if these are pieces of legislation that we’ve been involved in actually supporting and wanting, why would we actually want to see those abolished? Why would we want to see those revoked? Why would we not, for example, want to see those retained? So, I think there are many questions, but, yes, I will be certainly reviewing this very, very carefully. There are many complications, not least because we don’t quite know the direction we’re going. It’s clear there was no plan A or plan B or plan C in respect of the consequences of this, but it is clearly serious and we have to deal with it.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Counsel General.