6. What discussions has the Counsel General had with other law officers regarding the Wales Bill? OAQ(5)0020(CG)[W]

Well, Members, and the Member in particular, will know that this answer is subject to the established law officers’ convention. The Wales Bill today will be receiving its third reading in the House of Lords.

Thank you, Counsel General. Of course, I was expecting that kind of answer. One of the things that we discussed yesterday in approving the LCM, even by those who voted in favour of that motion, was the concern about the use of the words—in English, because the Bill is only in English—’relates to’, and that that could be a means of restricting the devolution that’s taken place in the past. On the other hand, there were many here, particularly on the Conservative benches, who stated that sufficient clarity had been provided by Ministers of the Crown in Westminster to demonstrate that this wasn’t going to be used to restrict or limit democracy. So, insofar as you can give advice or comments in this Chamber, I’d like to know whether you’re of the view that the Bill has now found the right balance between the reserved-powers model and the fact that Ministers of the Crown still have this right to intervene in relation to the ‘relates to’ test?

Well, the answer to that is the Bill is unsatisfactory and inadequate for many reasons, most of which were explored and set out in detail yesterday by yourself, by the First Minister and by many others. What was obtained, again through hard negotiation, was a narrative that explains that that was not the intention of using the ‘relates to’, to actually undermine the devolution process and devolution legislation. That is some assistance insofar as it is there—it is in writing. But again, as with many of these things, it is going to be a question of trust and goodwill, and we will find out when legislation goes forward whether that is honoured. I would expect it to be honoured. I think it was made with good intent and goodwill, but we have to work on the basis in the future that that will continue. If it doesn’t it will result in more matters themselves going into the Supreme Court.

The point the Member made yesterday, though, was a very important one, and that is that Sewel will go onto the statute book. That is fundamentally important. In itself, it doesn’t create necessarily a veto at this stage, but what it does mean is that it can’t be removed. It is there. It establishes in law a convention, and over a period of time that convention becomes a fundamental part of the constitution. So, the issue of justiciability will remain in terms of what normally can and can’t be done. These will be issues, I think, that will become part of our constitutional debate in the future. So, it is a step forward. As in many things, sometimes there is one step forward, two steps backwards. This I think actually is a step forward in some areas, it’s a step backwards in some areas, but overall a decision had to be taken yesterday and we’re aware of the decision. We now know where we are in respect to the Wales Bill, but there will be challenges and there will be difficulties.

Thank you, Counsel General.