Item 4, then, is the statement by the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on inquiries and engagement. I call Huw Irranca-Davies as Chair of that committee.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. As we celebrate our national day, St David’s Day, it’s an ideal opportunity for me to speak on behalf of the committee to outline our current inquiry on Wales’s devolution journey. While looking back, we will also examine how the National Assembly and the Welsh Government, now and in future, can work with counterparts across the UK to further improve the lives of citizens across our country.

The National Assembly for Wales is still a very young democratic institution. Less than two decades old, and yet firmly established as a part of Wales’s civic and constitutional life; it is as if it has always been there to new generations of young people. Yet the process of devolution is just that: a process. It has often been remarked that devolution is a journey, not a destination. For some that is a worry, and for others an opportunity. But whichever view you have, it is certainly a reality. Including the Act of Parliament that established the first Welsh Government and National Assembly for Wales, there have now been five—yes, five—substantive pieces of Westminster law that have helped take us along the journey. Each has, to varying degrees, been controversial or contested. Each has taken us a step forward, though, arguably, with an occasional step sideways or backwards.

Meanwhile, with increasing powers in many areas, we have made our own laws in devolved areas, building up a new body of ‘made in Wales’ legislation. We know that on this journey there have been many bumps in the road, and sometimes those bumps are due to difficult negotiations—politically and in policy terms—between Whitehall departments and Welsh Government on the latest transfer of powers. Or those bumps can be the week-by-week departmental issues of diverging policies on the economy, health or education, and so on. So our committee has decided to reflect on the journey so far, finding out what has worked well, and what has been less effective. Our intention is threefold: to produce best practice principles for inter-institutional working for constitutional legislation; to reflect and build on the work of other legislatures on inter-institutional working as it relates to broader policy areas; and, thirdly, to seek, establish and promote opportunities for inter-parliamentary working, including the promotion of citizen engagement.

Our recent experience in scrutinising what has now become the Wales Act 2017 will help inform our work, and help us identify how interrelationships can be built on and improved. As a committee, we have already sought to learn lessons: we’ve recognised the benefits of working collaboratively with the House of Lords Constitution Committee to influence the UK Government, where a National Assembly for Wales committee, working on its own, may not be able to do so. This has highlighted to us the need for effective inter-institutional relations, and it’s one of the drivers for taking a closer look at these issues at a parliamentary level.

Our inquiry is split into two strands. The first will look at how inter-governmental and inter-parliamentary relations have evolved and impacted on the development of the devolution settlement. And to help us examine the journey we have taken, we’ve secured what I think is quite an impressive line-up of those who’ve been at the sharp end of shaping and working with devolution over the past 18 years. I think they will help us understand why sometimes devolution runs very smoothly, and at other times it runs into potholes—sometimes very publicly. We will look at the people and the personalities, yes, but also the mechanisms that are meant to oil the machine and keep the relationships between these institutions running smoothly. Indeed, we’ve already taken evidence from Lord Murphy. He spoke about the importance of building personal relationships and the challenge of changing mindsets in Whitehall, where that needs to happen, amongst other things.

However, it is not just about reflecting on the past. We must also gain a full understanding of how the existing structures and policies operate in practice. To this end, the second strand will explore the nature of relationships between the Welsh and UK Governments, how these relationships function and how they can be improved. It will look at improving opportunities for improved policy learning between Governments and Parliaments; at best practice in inter-institutional relations from across the UK that could be imported into the Welsh context; and at the nature of the relationships between the Welsh and UK legislatures and identify opportunities for effective inter-parliamentary working.

It is not our intention to produce just another report that will sit on a shelf and gather dust. The committee wants to make a real and direct impact on inter-institutional working by producing best practice principles and leading from the front in building those relationships. Other countries are managing this relationship successfully and we believe that there is plenty we can learn and adapt from good practice elsewhere.

Assembly Members are seeing the impact of inter-institutional working, both positive and negative, every day in relation to cross-border issues where the devolution lines can sometimes be blurred. That is why it is so important to engage with the public to understand the impact these relationships can have on our citizens. To this end we have trialled a small citizen panel—it’s an Assembly first—to help understand the perceptions of a cross-section of the public. We will also work hard to talk to organisations who do not usually engage with the Assembly and to find out why that is.

The importance of this work is also heightened by the constitutional implications for the devolution settlement of exiting the European Union. It is vital that the inter-institutional working needed to facilitate the smooth transition across the nations that make up the UK is fit for purpose. In doing so we need to ensure that we do not lose powers and competence that currently rest in Wales as we exit the EU. We hope that our inquiry will contribute to ensuring that is the case.

Devolution—moving power closer to the people we serve—is here to stay. As such, for Wales and the devolved nations and regions, but also for the good of the United Kingdom, we need to make sure it works effectively for all of our citizens. This inquiry will go to the very heart of those inter-institutional relationships, and point the way forward for improved working in the future.

This inquiry will take up much of our time in the months ahead. Alongside it, we also intend looking at the codification of Welsh law. As an initial step, we look forward to welcoming the Counsel General to a committee later in the spring to discuss his ideas in this area and decide how to take this work forward. And of course we will also undertake our core role: the scrutiny of all subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Government and any Bill introduced to the National Assembly. And in that latter role, we will continue to look at the quality of the legislation, particularly against the conclusions and the recommendations of our predecessor committee’s report, ‘Making Laws in Wales’.

We will continually ask: are we making good law and how can it be improved? As part of that, we will look at the balance of the legislation and how much policy is being left to be introduced by subordinate legislation, which of course cannot be amended and is therefore subject to less scrutiny. We will also monitor the use and extent of Henry VIII powers being sought by Ministers, the use of consequential provisions and, related to both, the procedures attached to the making of all subordinate legislation.

So, on this day we remember St David, who told us that the little things matter. Our committee will continue to look after the little but important things of our law and constitution, and by doing so, we might also glimpse the greater things that lie ahead of us as a democratic institution and as a nation.

Thank you very much. David Melding.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I say, I think the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee is a very happy committee to serve on because nearly all the issues we look at are about promoting good, clear government and scrutiny and we don’t really have to labour under the incubus of a heavy partisan load, very often, and division, which is really pleasing. We occasionally have slight disagreements—they’re usually in private session, but they are very, very rare.

I particularly welcome the emphasis that the Chair has given to the examination of intergovernmental working and interparliamentary working, because it does seem to me, as we see devolution mature, and, combined with that now, the challenge of Brexit in how it will change our patterns of governance, that means that a certain formality, perhaps, is required. We’re looking at that. We know that the First Minister has talked about a council of Ministers and some form of independent arbitration. These are very interesting ideas and they would change the constitutional arrangements considerably. But it’s not just about the possibility of UK frameworks being required and then being scrutinised—aspects of them, anyway, being scrutinised—in different legislatures, it’s also learning best practice, seeing where a particular challenge has been examined at great length in perhaps another Parliament, and then not having to do all that work ourselves, taking it, perhaps adapting it, and adding to it.

I think it’s these sorts of connections that are not always there. They tend to be strongest amongst officials, but surprisingly weak once you come to the political actors themselves. So, I think there’s a lot there that’s going to be of great practical benefit and something we would want to share with the other parts of the UK.

We’ve talked about codification and I’m glad to see the Counsel General here. I do welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment. It is going to require speed and effort, I think, because this window won’t remain open forever. But we could really deliver something that’s quite unique in the British isles, because we have this opportunity of not formally having had separate laws, now having our own primary law-making powers, and the ability to have a much clearer statute book is going to be open to us. It’s all about the clarity of legislation, which, in turn, gives the citizen much better access to legislation. I think I’ve made this comment before: there’s a lot of legislation in very, very profoundly important areas. We’re talking about housing, education, and health, where, in some of the aspects, if you want to find out what the law actually is, you need to hire a QC to give you an opinion. Now, that cannot be a good situation to be in. Incidentally, they don’t always come out with a clear view even then. So, I think we do have a great opportunity here to show a different way of working.

Finally—I don’t think those are the little things, actually, I think those are quite big things, but I suppose, when we talk about the little things, we’re looking at how secondary legislation is conducted, and it is important, because there’s usually good practice from the Welsh Government, but there is inconsistency as well. Sometimes, we are having to remind Welsh Government of the need to use affirmative procedures when things of real political significance and of concern to citizens are being decided, and not to rush through the process. The affirmative process, really, is a great protection for the Government as well as for the legislature, and its more routine use, I think, sometimes—you know, it should be the presumption, really, it shouldn’t be the exception to what is normally a negative procedure.

Finally, can I just say that the place of citizens—? I did refer briefly to the clarity of legislation, but I do think all Governments and legislatures in the UK and, in fact, the whole western world, will have to do a lot more work to engage citizens. It’s not enough just at elections or to hope that they leave comments on our websites. We’ve got to go out and road test some things directly with our citizens. But I very much welcome the Chair’s statement today.

Can I very much welcome David’s response to the statement, and can I just put on record my appreciation, not only of his approach to the work of the committee, but also of other Members as well? It is genuinely a committee that strives in a hugely non-partisan way to look at the effective operation of both our constitution and the legislation we see in front of us, and that does make it a strangely enjoyable experience in the way that we approach the thing. But also it’s certainly true as well, as I know is the same on other committees, that it benefits as well from the wealth of experience—not least, I have to say, having a former Chair of this committee as well who has seen a long history and evolution of these matters. It’s quite exciting as well, as David has flagged up, to see that the process doesn’t stop when we look at issues such as codification, and I agree with him, it’s great to see here the Counsel General sitting in as we discuss this, because, as we’ve mentioned on previous occasions, whilst we have to be very careful and considered in how we take pioneering work forward, the issue of codification done well and in a thoughtful way could mean that this legislature is at the absolute forefront of simplifying and clarifying live, real-time, updated legislation that is understandable, not simply to the barristers of this world, but to the people who live next door to me on my street as well, so they can pick it up and work with it, and that’s surely what we should be trying to do.

I welcome very much, as well—and I think he is quite right in saying this—the fact that we do usually see good practice from Welsh Government, and we’re not averse within the committee to recognising that in our reports. Sometimes, I know, Ministers will say, ‘Oh, you’ve been a bit harsh’ on this or that or the other, but we do recognise where there is good practice, and there is good practice within Welsh Government. Our role and, certainly, when I referred to the little things—curiously, it is the minutia that we focus on that actually drives that progressive improvement as well. So, to the Counsel General, or to the business manager in front of us, or other Ministers that might be listening, my soft apologies that occasionally we are the grit in the oyster, but, actually, that means that we move forward and we improve the legislation that we do have.

He mentioned as well—David mentioned as well—the issue of the focus that we have on the committee on the clarity of the law, and also the constitutional fitness for purpose. One of the things that I think’s particularly enjoyable on the committee, but also in the forward programme we’re looking at, is that, very often, to members of the public I think they regard a constitution and law as something that’s set in aspic, it’s done, and that you put it there on the shelf, and then once in a while lawyers and barristers and constitutional experts will take it down and refer you to the relevant point. But, actually, it is an interestingly evolving piece of work, and we can do things quite differently in Wales, and innovate a little bit, and I think that’s what we’re hoping to do here. So, I thank David for his contribution, and I look forward to other contributions here this afternoon.

I thank the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for his statement, and also welcome the way ahead. I also thank my fellow committee member, David Melding, for his kind words. Naturally, we are celebrating today St David’s Day and doing the little things, and we do do some little things such as scrutinising subordinate legislation—quite often that’s quite small. But, as David said, there are big things that can happen as well, and I’m thinking about all the debates that we had around the Wales Act—the Wales Bill as was.

Of course, we not only have the history of St David, but some 300 years afterwards we had Hywel Dda—King Hywel Dda; I’ve mentioned him previously in the context of this committee—and his laws of 1,000 years ago that gave women rights for the first time in the history of humanity. It’s important to note that, that we in Wales can create laws that are entirely innovative, and we have the opportunity once again, under the recent constitutional settlement, to create innovative laws.

Of course, a number of things have changed since Hywel Dda’s days, and I’m pleased that the Chair has set out the three main aims of the committee at present, and mentioned, as it states here, producing best practice principles for inter-institutional working for constitutional legislation’ and also reflecting and building on the work of other legislatures in these islands on inter-institutional working as it relates to broader policy areas’.

It’s very sensible, and we genuinely need to improve collaboration between the different parliaments on these islands. We can all talk about past events, when this place and committees in this place tended to be ignored quite often, and there is evidence that that is still happening, when we tried as a committee to obtain evidence when the Wales Bill was going through. So, I do support strongly the intention that has been outlined here by the Chair.

But would the Chair in his response agree with me that, in this question of co-ordination between parliaments in these islands, there’s a lot of work still to be done? Yes, we’ve established this inquiry, but we are starting from a very fragile place in terms of this Assembly in terms of the ways these islands are controlled or managed. So, there is a job of work to be done, and I would look for more comments from the Chair on that subject.

He also mentioned the way that we are going to engage with citizens, and that’s happened already. I’m looking forward to more meetings of that sort, because, at the end of the day—and I would hope that the Chair would be able to agree with me that there is work to be done here as well to explain, in an easy way, because in this committee we often deal with things that can appear to be difficult and dry. But, at the end of the day, we also need to simplify things so that citizens, and some of us, can understand what’s going on. That is, there are different policies in Wales compared with England and Scotland and so forth. We need to explain clearly to our citizens what has been devolved and what hasn’t been devolved, and the implications of the Wales Act, which is coming into force, and, of course, the basic difference between the Welsh Government and the Assembly. Now, evidently, for us here, we know the difference. But it’s not obvious out there, and very often it’s not obvious to those who write newspaper headlines either—the difference between the Government in this place and the Assembly itself as an institution.

To close, having mentioned two figures in history, namely St David and Hywel Dda, I was going to talk about Henry VIII as well, because, before anyone says that I talk about people who aren’t relevant to our legislation, unfortunately, Henry VIII still has a relevance that shouldn’t be there, I would argue, to our laws today through the overuse, I would say, of Henry VIII powers, which is still happening 500 years after that king left this planet. So, I would also like to see the Chair extend the debate about the use of Henry VIII powers in this place, and the way ahead in order to reduce the use of those powers. Thank you very much.

Diolch, Dai. If I can begin at the end with one regent and move on to another then, certainly the Henry VIII powers, we consistently—and in line with our predecessor committee as well—try to push back on the use of Henry VIII powers. It’s a constant dialogue with Ministers and with Government, but our principles are very firm on the committee, for very good reasons, that we want to minimise—. We recognise that there will be occasions where Henry VIII powers, in limited, restricted areas, might be appropriate, but we’re trying to constantly push back. We have to keep going on that journey, I think, and have the dialogue with Ministers on that. It is quite an interesting dialogue that we do have because, as I alluded to earlier, there is good practice. We do find, within some areas of legislation, and with some Ministers, that they do indeed try very hard to stamp down on the use of Henry VIII powers, and in other areas it unwinds a little bit. We’re going to have to keep on working on that. But I think the important thing, curiously, in respect of the way that we see this place working, and the transparency of this place, is that we have these discussions fairly and amicably. But there will be points of difference, I think, sometimes, from us as the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and Ministers, but we’ll keep on arguing, because I think there is a good point of principle that we shouldn’t be relying on Henry VIII powers or trying to avoid, wherever possible, the use of them. I’m sure that the former Chair of the committee would agree with that as well.

To turn for a moment to Hywel Dda, as Dai rightly points out, he was the original progressive legislator, innovator and pioneer. We sometimes forget in Wales that we can look back a long, long way to where we began a process of legislation and how we learned some of those lessons, and perhaps bring them forward now in terms of how we deal with those issues, such as equality issues. We were the nation that pioneered on that.

Dai mentioned that we genuinely need to improve the institutional working. I agree entirely and I would recommend to anybody to go back and have a look at Lord Murphy’s evidence session. Lord Murphy was, of course, twice the Secretary of State for Wales, but also the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and many other roles within the Government. He has a long pedigree, and he himself has been on a journey, but one of the interesting things that he was alluding to was the difficulty sometimes of persuading Whitehall colleagues, also with long experience, of where we were in this devolution journey and so on. So, I’d recommend that.

But there is good practice. We do see good practice. We do see Ministers and committees working on a day-to-day basis, even on cross-border issues, very well. In other areas it’s not so good. What we must try and establish is: what is the best practice and how do we ensure that that best practice is absolutely the norm for every part of the Westminster-to-Wales relationship? I agree entirely when he says that there is a lot of work to be done. Yes, there is. This is why I think it’s an appropriate moment here, after we have finished with the new Wales Act, to reflect and also see how this looks forward. Why is that particularly appropriate? Also because we need to have a look now, as we have this situation where we are in this transition period as we look at article 50 and exiting the European Union: these mechanisms and relationships must be exemplary in the way that they function. So, I think that we can provide a service not only to Wales but also to the UK Government at the same time—and our devolved colleagues.

Finally, he mentioned citizens’ engagement. I entirely agree—a huge body of work here to do for us. I think, probably of all of the committees, because we are not a thematic committee, because we are not something that, very often, is easily translatable to the experiences of my neighbours and so on—it’s not health, it’s not social care, it’s not the buses, it’s not whatever—and yet, if we do not have the right processes in place, much of this good work in those themed areas can fall asunder. So, we have to find a way. I would pay tribute to our team that underpins our work as committee members—the clerks, the researchers, the communications people—for their efforts to try and find those innovative ways, such as the citizens’ panel, where we can go forward and work on it to find ways that we can—. As is often said, people don’t talk about this constitutional stuff in the Dog and Duck, wherever that fictional Dog and Duck is. What we need to find are the clever ways in which citizens can engage with this, because it really does matter. We need to get this right. So, Dai, thank you very much for those comments.

And finally and very briefly—and that means briefly from both of you—David Rowlands.

I particularly like the Chair’s idea of a panel made up of members from the public, but, of course, the strength in that panel will be in its make-up. It would be very detrimental if it had some political bias. So, would the Chair be able to give us any idea as to how he feels that panel would actually be selected?

Yes, indeed. David, thank you very much. Very, very briefly, we’ve already trialled this, and our team that supports us have brought together people with different experiences from the community sector, the private sector, from different parts of Wales, different age groups, different genders—they’ve tried to experiment with a mix of people and it’s not the usual. It’s actually people who don’t normally engage.

Now, I think there’s work to do on that, and if he has ideas—. But what it’s not to be is the great and good. This is a citizens panel. So, what we’re looking to do is find those people out there who don’t normally engage with us to come forward and tell us what we’re doing right and wrong. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You see—it can be done when we have a gentle reminder, can’t it? So, thank you very much.