Item 6 on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's report on UK governance post Brexit. I call on Mick Antoniw to move the report.

Motion NDM6663 Mick Antoniw

The National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the report of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on its inquiry into UK Governance post Brexit, which was laid in the Table Office on 2 February 2018.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. The United Kingdom has been through a period of momentous constitutional change since the advent of devolution. The changes to the way we are governed have transformed and continue to transform our political and constitutional landscape. As a result of the vote in 2016 to leave the European Union, the UK is also now in the midst of one of the most important and challenging constitutional reforms it has ever faced, with long-lasting implications for the operation and governance of the UK and the individual nations and regions of the UK. This has been the constitutional backdrop to our work on UK and devolved governmental and parliamentary inter-institutional relations.

Our work also drew on the committee’s scrutiny of the Wales Bill and, in particular, the recurring concerns that were voiced about the effectiveness of the relations between the UK and Welsh Governments and how this impacted on the development of the Bill. Our report on UK governance post Brexit, which we published at the start of February, was the culmination of over a year’s work. This work, which started out as 'A stronger voice for Wales', evolved over the course of 2017 and was affected by many events such as the UK general election and the preparations for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, particularly as a consequence of the controversial European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

Before I delve into our findings, I have many people to thank. First of all, those who gave either written or oral evidence; secondly, a citizens panel, who gave their time freely to assist with our work and who provided an insight into what the public expect from Governments and Parliaments working together for the people they serve; thirdly, an expert panel who helped shape and focus our thinking on the last report; and last but not least, the former Chair of this committee, Huw Irranca-Davies, who led the first nine months of our work.   

So, turning to the report, it makes nine recommendations. We believe that they are necessary to improve our inter-institutional relations and, equally important, to ensure that withdrawal from the EU does not result in unintended constitutional consequences. In reaching our views, we sought to learn lessons and, where we felt appropriate, endorse recommendations contained in other reports in this subject area, including those undertaken by parliamentary committees across the UK. Indeed, many of our observations and themes that emerged during our work reflect and build upon the findings of those committees. We were encouraged by the considerable degree of cross-party consensus that has developed amongst the various constitutional committees on the need for radical constitutional reform and how that could be achieved.

Our first two recommendations focus on strengthening the inter-governmental relations that currently exist through the Joint Ministerial Committee. Our fifth and sixth recommendations focus on the use of a Speakers’ conference to help facilitate the delivery of change. We believe that a Speakers’ conference could be used as a means of reaching agreement on changes to the UK’s inter-institutional relations. These will inevitably need to adapt, not only to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, but also to the changing relationship between the constituent nations of the UK as a result.

We heard numerous examples of how effective interpersonal relationships between Ministers can aid the day-to-day work of Government. However, you cannot always rely on those relationships. So it is imperative, in the interests of good governance, to have formal inter-governmental structures in place that are capable of resolving effectively any breakdown in ministerial relations. Getting the arrangements right is vital to ensure efficiency in the delivery of services where there are mutual interests between Governments, where disputes need to be resolved or, in the case of Wales and England, where there are benefits to working together, for example on cross-border issues. We therefore examined the existing inter-governmental relationships to see whether they are fit for purpose and to assess whether they need to change, particularly to ensure that Wales’s interests are not marginalised in the new constitutional arrangements that emerge in the UK.

The current inter-governmental relations are governed through the JMC—the Joint Ministerial Committee. We heard how the JMC needs to improve the way it functions, with some witnesses calling for a complete overhaul. We agreed with those who told us that there is a need to strengthen inter-governmental relations, not just between Wales and England, but as part of a four-nation approach, where each nation is treated with parity. Successive UK Governments have not sufficiently renewed the machinery of Government to respond to the changed relationships between Governments after devolution. This has left serious question marks about how the JMC will deal fairly with the emerging challenges as the UK leaves the EU. So, the need for fundamental reform is clear and pressing. In our view, the best option would be to adopt a completely new approach to inter-government relations in order to provide the institutional strength and durability needed to face the challenges ahead.

The First Minister’s proposal for a UK council of Ministers to replace the JMC has considerable merit to it and would address many of the concerns we heard in evidence. In effect, it would be a forum of national Governments working collectively in the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would provide the shift required to ensure we have proper shared governance, including over areas that have been co-ordinated at a European level. We therefore considered the First Minister’s proposals to be the most coherent long-term solution to resolving concerns about inter-governmental relations. However, an essential and pragmatic first step would be to strengthen the existing JMC structure, and that was our first recommendation. We believe that this could be achieved by ensuring that JMC plenary fulfils the functions of an annual heads of Government summit and by adding new committees to the existing JMC format to cover the single market and trade, and, in particular, to agree on common frameworks.

Our second recommendation again reflected the views of parliamentary committees by placing inter-governmental relations on a statutory footing. This could be achieved by, for example, amending the UK Government's EU withdrawal Bill, currently in the House of Lords. In the longer term, post-Brexit, we recommended that the JMC should be subject to fundamental reform so that it becomes a UK council that is a decision-making body with an independent dispute resolution, arbitration and adjudication mechanism. Alongside these changes, we believe the memorandum of understanding between the UK and devolved Governments—including the devolution guidance notes—should be subject to a thorough overhaul involving collaboration between all Governments of the UK. This should aim to establish shared governance around the machinery that supports the delivery of effective and fair inter-governmental relations.

This brings me to another issue that is absolutely fundamental to effective inter-governmental relations, namely the understanding of devolution by civil servants in Whitehall. Numerous witnesses pointed out the poor knowledge and understanding of devolution that exists in parts of Whitehall, despite some laudable efforts to remedy the situation by successive administrations. We believe that it is unacceptable that the level of understanding of devolution across Whitehall is often poor, that understanding of Welsh devolution is particularly poor in certain key departments, and that attempts to remedy this have been inadequate. The approach of Whitehall civil servants was perhaps best captured by one witness who told us: 

'I should say that I’ve never thought that there was a sort of malevolent reason to ignore Scotland and Wales. I think it was just more of a benign neglect.'

This approach to devolution may stem from the conflict that currently exists within the existing constitution of the UK, where the UK civil service in effect supports the UK Government in its role as the executive for the UK and England. Certainly, we felt that internal Whitehall civil service apparatus supporting devolution as described to us is complex and muddled. It is a matter we intend to take up further with the UK Government in due course.

The same rationale applies for improving inter-governmental relationships and applies to the engagement between the Parliaments that form an integral part of our constitutional machinery. It is clear that there is a need to extend the engagement between committees and between Parliaments. If these parts of our democratic institutions work better together, then there is a better chance that the voice of Wales will be heard across the UK, our collective views acted upon and the fabric of the UK constitution strengthened.

In looking to see how this need for greater, formalised co-operation could be taken forward, we recommend that the Llywydd should seek to establish, with the other Speakers and Presiding Officers of the UK legislatures, a Speakers' conference. Its aim would be to determine how best to develop UK inter-parliamentary working, with a particular regard to scrutinising the impact of withdrawal from the EU on the constitutional framework of the UK. We therefore consider the main role for such a Speakers’ conference to be in relation to developing a framework for inter-parliamentary relations. There will be clear benefits to having a cohesive and structured forum for joint discussion between Parliaments undertaking scrutiny, where information can be shared and respective Governments can be held to account. However, we also see merit in the Speakers’ conference having a role in relation to inter-governmental relations, to assess how they are developing at this crucial period in the evolution of the constitution of the UK. And this should include assessing, in particular, the UK Government’s response to the first four recommendations of this report that I've set out.

This is a radical initiative to support sustainable constitutional reform and it is not without precedent. It is a way of bringing the nations of the UK together and kick-starting the process of post-Brexit constitutional reform that we consider essential to the future hegemony of the United Kingdom. There have already been positive moves to improve parliamentary co-operation. In this Assembly, we have forged important relationships with committees in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament. In addition, the creation of the Interparliamentary Forum on Brexit, which I attend with David Rees, has been a very positive and constructive development. We believe it has the potential to be a valuable precursor to the strengthened parliamentary relationships and structure that will be essential within the UK once it has left the European Union.

Whatever inter-governmental changes or adaptations emerge in the future, it will be important for the National Assembly to continue to hold the Welsh Government to account, and it is our view that the approach adopted in Scotland between its Parliament and Government provides a sensible model that could be adopted in Wales. On that basis, we recommend that the Welsh Government enters into an inter-governmental relations agreement with the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee to support the scrutiny of Welsh Government activity in this area.

As our report demonstrates, the UK’s constitutional arrangements are likely to be put under considerable pressure over the next decade. The UK will have to adapt its internal arrangements to ensure that a consequence of leaving the EU is not a greater centralisation of power in London. New inter-governmental structures will have to be in put place. And it makes no sense to suggest that the structures we have in the UK now, while part of the EU, should be the same after we have left the EU.

The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, in constructive collaboration with other parliamentary committees across the UK, is playing an active role in helping to shape a constitutional framework fit for the new challenges we face, and in so doing will help strengthen the voice of Wales in the family of nations that make up the United Kingdom.

Can I commend the work of our Chair, Mick Antoniw, his predecessor, Huw Irranca-Davies, and the whole secretariat, particularly the clerk? I think this is an excellent report. It's succinct, and I think it's already had some impact and leverage. But it requires an awful lot of effort to produce something as powerful as that, and to draw some sort of reasoned argument out of the whole range of discussions we had and the opinions that we heard. We were greatly helped by the citizen panel and by the expert panel, and I think we can honestly say that our report was materially affected by both those contributions. And that really should be the way committees work, I think, when we reach out and engage.

I think the consequences of leaving the EU are always going to have profound ramifications for the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. They're not insuperable problems, but they are definitely challenges. And I think we can be proud in Wales that we've done our bit to face them, and come up with a range of very constructive proposals to make the British constitution both more balanced and stronger. I think, for me, if we do nothing, there is a danger that the greater role for UK governance, especially in terms of policy making in England, over things like the environment, agriculture, and other issues that, at the moment, are part of the EU's policy architecture—that that inadvertent, I think, dominance that's generated in England could close some of the options and the spaces for policy development in Wales and in Scotland, and in Northern Ireland, indeed. And that's the thing that we need to guard against. It may be inadvertent, but if that danger is not faced, and effectively checked, then we will end up with considerable damage being inflicted on the devolved settlement.

I think the resources of Whitehall are always going to be a great benefit, potentially, for the rest of the United Kingdom, for the devolved Governments, but they have to be used in partnership, and they cannot be used to impose agreements that don't have genuine consent, and this has to be at the heart, I think, of developing the frameworks that will be required in the UK, and how they will be run, and how open, accountable and amenable to proper parliamentary scrutiny—all these things will be necessary for good, strong government.

Mick has already addressed the issue of the JMC. Can I say that the JMC will continue to be important, especially in negotiating trade agreements? And I do hope that it will work a bit like the JMCE used to work—that is the JMC Europe. When it was preparing for work in the European councils, it would develop a speaking note, with all the officials from the various parts of the United Kingdom, and sometimes then would permit Ministers from Wales and Scotland to attend, and sometimes to speak, and that's the type of participation and partnership that I think we expect.

In terms of developing the JMC so that it does itself have a function of a ministerial council, or a ministerial council is actually constructed afresh, I think it needs to be properly resourced, it needs to have effective work plans and agendas, and it may have its own officials. And, again, it's going to have to work on the basis of shared governance models, and some form of dispute resolution mechanism, when that is needed, but, overall, have the necessary institutional strength and rigour to allow the type of joint working and partnerships that we will need to be properly constructed.

I think, in terms of inter-governmental working, we do not want to replace the relatively closed system of the EU with a closed system in the UK for shared governance, and Governments can slip into this all too easily. The legislators of the UK will need to thoroughly scrutinise as well.

And this brings me finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, on to the idea of a Speakers' conference. Devolution is approaching its twentieth anniversary. I think this will be an excellent time to look at inter-parliamentary relations, with the Speakers of the United Kingdom—all four of them, I think—getting together, and convening a conference. There's a proud tradition of a Speaker's conference—and that used to be just the Speaker of the House of Commons then, of course—convening a conference to look at major constitutional matters. And so I think this idea has much to commend it, and I do hope that you and the Presiding Officer may find that you're able to advance this particular recommendation, and speak to your colleagues in the other parts of the United Kingdom. Thank you very much.

It’s a pleasure to participate in this debate on this wonderful report, which has been produced by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. And may I echo the thanks to our current Chair, Mick Antoniw, to Huw Irranca-Davies, our Chair for the first nine months, and also to the clerks and researchers who have been working very hard behind the scenes to produce this masterpiece? Because the gestation period was lengthy, as they say, and, of course, as Mick has just said, certain aspects changed over time, and the report has therefore changed to reflect that, and has been strengthened as background factors have changed.

We started by taking evidence on the Wales Act 2017, and, of course, it's true to say that during scrutiny of the Wales Act 2017 we asked the Secretary of State, Alun Cairns MP, to appear before our committee on four occasions, and he didn't appear once. That gives you some background of how Westminster views committees of this place. And Alun Cairns still denies that we have lost substantial powers due to the Wales Act, although we all know in this place that we are rushing through the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill before we lose the power to legislate in that area on 1 April. April fool indeed.

So, in losing powers through the Wales Act, we also see that we are losing powers through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, although Alun Cairns also denies or rejects that. With all of these negotiations about leaving the European Union, it's clear, as Mick Antoniw said, that Wales has been on the periphery. Our Government has been put to one side, there are decisions being taken and we are not happy with those decisions. Even with issues that are important to Wales, such as the devolved issues—when they are discussed, we are not part of those discussions, and that's why it's crucially important that our first recommendation in this report is that we strengthen the JMC. We heard yesterday that that joint committee hasn't met since January 2017. It needs to be strengthened, it needs to meet, and it needs to reform how it works—and not just work as the voice of London and the voice of Westminster, but as an equal voice for all Governments in these isles. We gravely need to change that, and that's the basis of our first recommendation and recommendations 2 and 3.

Once this European withdrawal Bill is done with we need long-term planning for the JMC so that it becomes a council for the United Kingdom that makes decisions on the basis of equality—all Governments and all Parliaments respecting each other on the basis of equality. That doesn't happen at the moment. It's about time it did happen, and that is why we desperately need to change the system of the JMC, because it's an insult to our nation at the moment that we are losing these powers and nobody is doing hardly anything about it. We are trying to do something about it, and, to be fair, our Government is trying to do something about it, but people aren't listening and they deny that any problems exist. That isn't fair and it is disrespectful of what has happened here in the context of devolution.

Of course, we need better collaboration between committees of this place and committees of our other Parliaments, and we also need to scrutinise Ministers from elsewhere in this place. That's why we make recommendations to that end in our report.

But to conclude, we desperately need to reform the governance of the UK. Yes, the excuse now is that we are leaving Europe, and I note that UKIP Members, who caused this mess of leaving the European Union, aren't in attendance to listen to this debate on how we are trying to resolve this mess. But finding ourselves in this mess, we need to change the way in which Parliaments in these isles respect each other, and collaborate with each other, because at the end of the day, it's not just Westminster who are to decide everything.

There's been a great deal of talk about turning the clock back, hasn't there? But devolution has also happened. There was the referendum we had here in 2011 insisting on legislative powers for Wales. We need to respect the outcome of every referendum, not just the last referendum. Thank you.

Can I also thank Mick Antoniw for his report and your predecessor, Huw Irranca-Davies, and also thank all the members of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for this important report? I think the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee is an example of very robust cross-party working, and I've seen that in terms of the reports that have come through. It's vitally important if we're going to have influence on the UK Government and, indeed, to follow through with these recommendations. I'm also very glad that we engaged the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, chaired, of course, by David Rees. We exchange as two committees and we work together, particularly on issues relating to the European Union. So, I think this report adds to the body of evidence that is emanating from these two committees, which are very important in terms of preparing for and gauging the impact of Brexit and future relationships that are crucial at UK inter-governmental level.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Yesterday, we heard about the latest JMC(EN)—the European negotiations JMC— proposals about devolved administrations. It was disappointing to hear from the Cabinet Secretary—although he was wanting to be constructive and positive—when he said that they came to a JMC meeting and there was no paper in advance of the proposals, which, of course, are proposals that have a very unfortunate centralising intent with the power of veto over key devolved responsibilities. And, of course, that has led to us progressing with our continuity Bill, whereas the Cabinet Secretary was hoping that negotiations could lead us forward, so that would not have been necessary if our amendments, and indeed the amendments of the Scottish Government, had been accepted. But I think this is an example of why we have got to look at these inter-governmental relationships and how disappointing it is that they aren't more robust in these important times.

I will say—hopefully it's helpful—to give my evidence and experience of being a former member, as a Minister, of JMC Europe, which of course—and I think the Cabinet Secretary has also recognised this—has been a very constructive model. Because in terms of JMC Europe, which was a regular event that I attended with Ministers from the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and with UK Government Ministers, our officials all met well in advance of these meetings, agendas were planned and we often had trilateral and bilateral meetings before the JMC took place. And, of course, we were discussing issues like preparations for the forthcoming European Council and major issues where the UK Government was asking for our views, as devolved administrations, as to the impact of the agenda issues. I think there's a lot to be learnt from that. Why isn't that model being adopted for JMC(EN) as well—your all-important European negotiating JMC?

Also, I'd have to say that during our time as a member in Europe, often devolved administrations' Ministers were asked to go to EU councils. And even at one time, I remember being the only Minister available from the countries of the UK because there was a UK general election. So, they were very happy—the UK Government—for me, as an education Minister, to go to an education council on behalf of the member state, which of course was the UK Government. We must learn from that. Why can't we build on the good, positive, respectful relationships that were developed?

So, I just want to welcome the report, particularly the recommendations about JMC plenary. Not only must we strengthen it, but we must actually make it work. I think, yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary said it hadn't met for many, many months—meetings were postponed and not organised. This is entirely the wrong situation in terms of where we should be now. We need to make it function. All of the recommendations that the committee has made are so important in that it should have decision-making powers; it cannot just be a talking shop. It cannot be something—. There is much stage management, obviously, of these events, in bringing key people—Prime Ministers and First Ministers—all together, but it should have that kind of decision-making clout. It should have recourse to independent dispute mechanisms, adjudication mechanisms and arbitration as well.

I was very interested that, in the evidence from Rhodri Morgan—and I'm very grateful that the Chair put that acknowledgment of a former First Minister in his foreword—because Rhodri also said that there should be an independent resource-allocation mechanism, an independent mechanism in dispute over resource allocation. Well, of course that was critically important. Gerry Holtham said that was crucial in his recommendations in the Holtham commission. We know that in terms of dispute over resource allocation, that was crucial. Maybe you discussed that and felt that you couldn't go that far in terms of the committee.

So, I think 'Securing Wales' Future'—. Of course, we do often go back to that; it's not that long ago, that White Paper, which of course was developed between the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru. It was very clear then that we needed a new set of robust, transparent and accountable relationships at UK level. And the Council of Ministers, of course, is the way forward, and of course our First Minister had already suggested that we should have that arrangement, that inter-governmental arrangement.

So, I would just say today that this is a cross-party report, which I'm sure we will endorse and there will be a strong backing from the Welsh Government. We are signed up to it; what about the UK Government? Where was the Secretary of State for Wales? How are you going to take—? How are we—? It's not just you; it's not just the Welsh Government. How are we as an Assembly, as a Senedd, going to ensure that this is taken forward? Of course, we can make the first step with securing a Speakers' conference to move forward these important recommendations in this report. 

I call on the Counsel General, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to be able to respond to this report and I want to thank and congratulate the committee for producing a detailed and meaningful analysis of the current situation in terms of inter-governmental relations and inter-parliamentary relations, and for a clear statement of the reforms that are needed in order to put these relations on a firmer footing. It's my pleasure to confirm that the Welsh Government agrees with the set of recommendations, which are very convincing, from the committee. I'm going to focus the majority of my comments on the recommendations for improving the relationships between Governments, but I also want to talk a bit about the relationships between the Parliaments, and about the broader context for inter-governmental relations.

In April, the majority of clauses of the Wales Act that Dai Lloyd mentioned will come into force, noting a new chapter in our status as an Assembly. Many of the chains that have prevented us from being able to make decisions on our own issues will disappear increasingly after that, and we'll be able to become a full Parliament and decide how many Members we have, how they should be elected and who should have the right to vote.

But meeting the goal of becoming a Parliament of course requires more than simply a focus on name and numbers, as we all know. We should have the confidence, as well, to test the parliamentary procedures and ways of working against the best equivalent examples anywhere in the world. And it's incumbent on us, as well as tackling the high-profile reforms, to look at the machinery that underpins scrutiny, challenge, legislating and executive action, which the committee referred to in their report, as we become a new Parliament. If we grasp those challenges, it will put us in a strong position to contribute as equals to building on the relations between Parliaments and Assemblies across the UK, and we support the committee's imaginative recommendation for a Speakers' conference to focus on that particular issue.

However, I want to focus on the relationships between Governments. Everyone agrees inter-governmental relations are important, but all too often that's looked at in the context of problem solving, or managing disagreement, or issues that need to be resolved. That's an essential part of the picture, but it's not all of it. Good inter-governmental relations should also be about more than managing our differences; they should be about identifying and addressing the policy challenges that we share across the four administrations of the UK. No-one has a monopoly on good ideas or good policy development, and no-one has all the answers. So, inter-governmental relations also need to be about sharing best practice and working together where it makes sense to do that, and that can only benefit the people that we serve.

Devolution itself, of course, has contributed significantly to policy innovation across the UK, and that hasn't been about taking on powers in an abstract, in a vacuum. It's about using those powers, yes, from a position of principle, but also a position of pragmatism, so that the powers we have are deployed in a practical way to improve the lives of people in Wales. And it's the same consideration with this, with the constitutional architecture, if you like, how Governments relate to one another. This is not an exercise in constitutional lawyering, but in developing a way of working and a basis of principle that supports the Assembly and Government in using the powers that we have in a way that we feel best suits Wales. That was implicit in the comments that Mick Antoniw made.

So, turning specifically to the committee's recommendations, we entirely agree that the JMC plenary needs to start fulfilling the functions of the annual heads of Government summit that it was, in fact, initially conceived to be. We also agree that we need to add new committees to the existing JMC format. We called for exactly that in our recent trade policy paper a few weeks ago. And we agree that the memorandum of understanding needs a fundamental overhaul. It has not been updated since 2013, and a great deal has happened, as we know, since then. It simply does not address the new circumstances of Brexit. We'll be pressing for agreement on commissioning an overhaul of that at the next JMC plenary. Jane Hutt, in her comments, referred to the significant shortcomings in the current arrangements, so we need to tackle those.

So, we agree that improvements can be made in the short term; however, it's clear that, in the longer term, the existing JMC structures will not be able to bear the weight that Brexit will place upon them. So, we welcome the committee's call for a UK council of Ministers, which echoes the proposals we set out in 'Brexit and Devolution' for a council of Ministers, as David Melding referred to in his contribution, which would be able to make binding decisions with an independent secretariat and an independent adjudication mechanism for disputes that can't be resolved by any other means.

The constitution of the UK after Brexit can't just stumble on in the way it's doing at the moment—imbalanced, ad hoc and informal. So, we have also said that we should look at how we could place inter-governmental relations on a statutory footing. The committee's report notes and endorses, of course, the recommendation made by a number of parliamentary committees for such a statutory footing, and we think further work would be needed to work through the implications of that, but we fundamentally agree with the committee's recommendation.

Finally, in respect of recommendation 8, I can confirm that the Welsh Government is happy to discuss with the committee the content of an agreement on inter-governmental relations. In doing that, we'll want to consider carefully the agreement between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to which the committee refers in the report.

I want to conclude by recognising that both our proposals in 'Brexit and Devolution', and those of the committee in this excellent report, are challenging and perhaps a little frightening for the UK Government, but we are in uncharted territory now. The constitutional catalyst, which Brexit represents, has created a new dynamic that is going to further change the way in which Britain is governed. The constitutional history of these islands has generally been piecemeal, rather than part of a coherent vision, and the romantic interpretation of that is that it has stood us in good stead. I'm not at all sure that that is the case.

The UK Government needs to recognise it can't keep trying to muddle through. It needs to commit to a root-and-branch review that will put our system of inter-government relations, and the UK constitution itself, on a firm footing for the future. The Welsh Government is ready to be a partner in that process of change, and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's report adds to the chorus of calls for such a review. I hope the UK Government will soon begin to listen and embark upon a journey of reform that will enhance the constitutional resilience not just of Wales, but of all parts of the United Kingdom.

I call on Mick Antoniw to reply to the debate.

Thank you. Well, firstly, I thank the Counsel General on behalf of the Government for the very positive response that's been made to what is a very radical report. I'd like to thank all the speakers who have contributed, and I won't go through them one by one because I think all the comments made have been positive and made a significant contribution to, really, the steps that have been taken and are being taken across all the Parliaments to actually look at a way of making the constitution of the United Kingdom reformed and actually work.

And in particular, the reference to a Speakers' conference, because I believe, Llywydd, with your pursuance of this matter, that this is a radical but, as I say, a not-without-precedent step. It also enables us to pull together the views that are coming from all the constitutional committees, cross-party committees, that have one sole objective, and that is: in the post-Brexit environment, how do we ensure that we have better governance, how do we replace the changed governance that we have? And I think that is the particular strength. I say 'not without precedent', because, as discussed by the Counsel General earlier, there was a 1920 conference on devolution, a Speakers' conference. Unfortunately, its findings were never discussed in the House of Commons. Otherwise, devolution might have taken place much, much sooner.

But one of the recommendations was not only in terms of the short term and the longer term reform, but also the capacity of the Speakers of all the Parliaments of the United Kingdom to actually pursue what we all know needs to happen, and that is that there has to be a consideration of the whole of the UK constitution, a UK constitutional convention of some format. And also to look at and deal with the 'elephant in the room', as it was described by John Morris so many years ago, and that is the English question as a fundamental part of resolving the relationships on a permanent and sustainable basis. 

For those who say there may be fear about these proposals coming from Wales and so on, all I'd say is these proposals haven't just come from Wales. We are endorsing, effectively, proposals from all around the UK, and perhaps I'd refer back to the comments from the great Welsh MP Cledwyn Hughes in 1973, during the Kilbrandon report, when the issue of the English question was raised and he answered the Prime Minister as follows. He said:

'Is the Prime Minister aware that we who belong to the Celtic fringe will do all we can to protect the English interest in this matter?'

This is a matter that is of benefit to us all, of concern to us all, for the future. I'm very grateful that such a positive response has been received from Government. I look forward, Llywydd, to you taking, hopefully, the steps forward to engage with the other Speakers of the United Kingdom and to call the Speakers' conference and to kick start this constitutional reform process.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.