1. Will the Counsel General make a statement on the devolution review announced last week by the Prime Minister? 335

Aspects of the Dunlop review can be welcomed. It has the potential to support the joint inter-governmental relations review, however there are fundamental questions about the devolution settlement and the role of territorial offices that are beyond the scope of the review but nonetheless need to be addressed. 

I'm grateful to you for that answer, Minister. I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's absolutely outrageous that the Prime Minister has made a statement of this kind without even consulting the devolved administrations. The First Minister was very clear in answer to a question at committee on Monday that the first the Welsh Government heard about this was when the Prime Minister's speech was being covered in the media, when she was on her feet speaking. One of the fundamental aspects of devolution is that it should be a joint venture between the United Kingdom Government and the Governments in the rest of the United Kingdom, and if the United Kingdom Government feel able to announce a review without even consulting the devolved administrations, the Governments in Wales and Scotland, then clearly it tells you exactly what they think about devolution. 

I'm sure you share with me that this was a grossly offensive way of operating, that it is an appalling position to take and it sums up the United Kingdom Government's attitude at the moment. Minister, will you undertake to convey these feelings to the United Kingdom Government, which I'm sure would be shared in all parts of the Chamber? And will you also ensure that the UK Government understands that the problem with devolution starts and ends with them?

Well, I thank the Member for that supplementary question. He'll recall, I think, the speech that the First Minister made to the Institute for Government a few weeks ago, where he said that devolution, effectively, wasn't simply a question of what happens in Wales, but it's also a question of what happens in Westminster, and it's incumbent on Westminster to look at how Westminster and Whitehall operate in a different way in order to give full support to the devolution settlement. There are some parts of that speech that I think we can welcome. The Prime Minister talks about the UK resting on and being defined by the support of its people, in that sense of being a voluntary association of nations, and we welcome the recognition that devolution is now a stable and permanent part of the UK's constitution, as the speech indicated. I think, if Westminster and Whitehall are serious about addressing how they re-evaluate how they work to support devolution, that will only be a good thing, but I do echo the Member's response in relation to the fact that, if you're going to give a speech that is about the future of the union and the future of devolution within it, then the least you can do is have a conversation with the devolved administrations in advance of that so that, as he describes it, that sense of joint venture of the constitutional settlement is retained and preserved. 

But there's also, frankly, a very practical point to this: we have been pressing here for progress on the inter-governmental review for the last 15 months, and we have very little to show for it so far. He will have seen the announcement made by David Lidington last week and the response of the Welsh and Scottish Governments to that. Actually, pressing forward with that progress would have been a very good way of demonstrating commitment to the devolution settlement here in the UK, and to launch another review without acknowledging that, I think, was unfortunate. And I think had the Prime Minister sought the advice of the devolved administrations, we could have had a constructive discussion about the terms of reference and about how they could be better constructed to meet some of the significant challenges that we face in dealing with the UK Government. We note the emphasis in particular on the importance in the review of the territorial offices, and I think the First Minister was clear in his speech back in May that there is now an opportunity and a need, in fact, for the role of the Wales and Scotland offices in particular to be radically rethought in this post-Brexit world.

I appreciate the response of the Minister, actually, because, of course, the UK Government was simply trying to respond to requests from this Government, and the Scottish Government as well, about the way in which Whitehall and UK departments operate. And we very much welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has responded in such a positive way by announcing this review. Number 10 has made absolutely clear that the review is not going to stray into devolved areas. This is about strengthening devolution, recognising where the boundaries lie and making sure that the machine of Government in London is able to respond correctly and appropriately to matters that cross their desks, where there may be a devolved competence or devolved relationship that needs to be recognised. So, I do welcome the fact that there are many aspects of the Prime Minister's speech that you welcome. I'm sure that there are times when communication could be better between the UK and Welsh Governments, and I think that everybody recognises that there are times when, sometimes, it's good to have a heads-up about these things. Clearly that wasn't the case this time. Perhaps that is a matter of regret.

But, as I say, the reality is that this is a Prime Minister who is responding positively to requests by this Welsh Government and Government in other parts of the United Kingdom to want to look at this issue and make sure that Whitehall and UK Government departments are functioning appropriately. So, can I ask that, in terms of the engagement that you have with the UK Government, you formally welcome the decision that the Prime Minister has taken, and will you ensure that you co-operate with that review in order to help the UK Government identify where those shortcomings are so that they can be put right in the future?

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

Well, I note the points that the Member makes. It isn't just a question of being given a heads-up. I think that, in a sense, reveals the challenge that we face. It isn't just a question of telling us what's going on. It's a question of proper, deep engagement in the future constitution of the United Kingdom, and that's the bit that's missing. We get plenty of heads-up, although not on this occasion; what we don't get enough of is proper mature engagement on the basis of parity, and that, I think, goes to the heart of the challenge that we face.

I think that, if the review ends up with a conclusion that the solution to the future of the union is simply beefing up the Wales Office, as I think I read in some of the slightly hyperbolic press briefing, that is a fundamental misreading of what is required to strengthen the union. What is required to strengthen the union is better relationships and better machinery between the Governments of the United Kingdom, not a strengthening of the territorial offices.

But I look forward to hearing what the review comes back with. As I say, the terms of reference would have been much stronger and more useful had we had proper engagement in advance, but we look forward to seeing what the review has to say in due course.

On the morning of the day that the Prime Minister announced this review of devolution, I received an e-mail from you, Minister, giving an update on the work that you've been doing to try to improve inter-governmental working in your role as the Welsh Government representative on the JMC(EN). You announced that the committee had agreed draft principles on how those relations should be conducted in the future, and they were very welcome. They were drafted by the Welsh Government. They include, and I quote,

'Maintaining positive and constructive relations, based on mutual respect for the responsibilities of governments across the UK and their shared role in the governance of the UK. Building and maintaining trust, based on effective communication'.

A few hours later, we were treated to this announcement from the Prime Minister that her Government would conduct a review of devolution. The devolved administrations, including yours, Minister, were not given prior notification that this was on the way. That is the crucial point here, isn't it? You were not informed about the detail, the scope or the terms of reference of the review, and you did not consent to it. Do you agree with me, Minister, that the draft principles for future inter-governmental working, which it's taken over a year to agree and which your Government had produced, were broken within a few hours of their publication? Doesn't this tell us all we need to know about whether the UK Government can be trusted to act in good faith when it comes to inter-governmental relations? David Lidington, the Deputy Prime Minister, has as good as acknowledged today that Wales is seen as having been failed by Westminster. The current devolution settlement contained within the Wales Act is a matter of law. Can you, therefore, assure us that, whatever the outcome of this dubious review, Wales's powers, as enshrined in that legislation, will be protected? And, finally, considering the UK Government's behaviour in this respect and in terms of risking our nation's economic future with a 'no deal' Brexit, is your view the same as the First Minister, in that your commitment to the UK union is not unconditional, and, if so, doesn't it follow that your Government may one day conclude that Wales's interests would be best served as an independent country?

Well, I can give her the assurance, certainly, that this Government will always fight to make sure that Wales's interests are best reflected in all the discussions and negotiations that we have with the UK Government and we will not tolerate the taking away of any powers from this Assembly or Welsh Government. She has my categorical assurance in relation to that.

She will have noted the terms in which I responded to the publication of the principles last week jointly with Michael Russell, my counterpart in the Scottish Government. We welcomed the fact that these principles were put in the public domain and I will take this opportunity of thanking Welsh Government officials who lead on that work and lead on that work very effectively. It was—it is—a matter of regret that that was the only part of the review that we felt was sufficiently developed and mature to put in the public domain. One of the things that will need to happen is an early meeting of the JMC plenary between the heads of Government, and I'm sure there'll be reflection at that point about how those principles need to be delivered upon, not simply published.

And, to her point about the exchanges that she had with the First Minister in the committee the other day, I would just say we've been very clear that we think that Wales's interests are best protected as part of a well-functioning union, which is why we work so hard to try and reform the aspects of that that do not best work in Wales's interests at this point. I thought the First Minister took advantage of what ought to be a space in committee to have a more reflective, thoughtful, measured discussion about some of these things, to engage in exactly that, and I'm bound to say I thought it was somewhat unfortunate how that was responded to. The First Minister made the point very simply, I think, that if you were to say—. Is any politician able to say way into the future that, under all circumstances, under any version of the—[Interruption.]—under any version of the—that the interests of Wales would be best protected? That isn't—you know, one cannot say that, but our view is very passionately the case that Wales's interests are best protected as part of the United Kingdom and a well-functioning union, and a union that needs to work better than it does today.

This, of course, isn't the first instance where the representative democratic interests of Wales and the Welsh Government have been, to some extent, bypassed or put to one side while the UK Government just gets on with something without discussion or consultation. It does seem very, very odd. The previous one, of course, was equally significant, on the UK shared prosperity fund. So, I wonder—clearly, they're not learning a lesson, or they're wilfully carrying on to ignore the wishes of Welsh Government or the Scottish Government and both Assemblies as well, both Parliaments, but where are we on the shared prosperity fund? Because, meanwhile, in Wales, like the suggestions that have been put forward by Welsh Government and by the Scottish Government on future structures of devolution, we're also working on ways forward for allocating properly funding throughout Wales. So, the group that I'm delighted to chair—the regional investment for Wales steering group—is working actively across Wales with representatives of wider Welsh society to look at the right structures, and yet UK Government is off doing its thing on the UK shared prosperity fund and we don't know a lot. Would the Minister share with us where we are on that at the moment? Do we have any clarity at the moment on that? Because that might indicate to us the way in which they intend to take this latest piece of work forward.

Well, I thank the Member for that. Can I also take the opportunity of thanking him for his work chairing the regional investment steering group, which is important work and goes to the heart of the point I made to Llyr Gruffydd earlier about needing to take proactive steps in a very creative and imaginative way to look at how we can deliver some of these funding sources into the future differently from how we have been able to do that to date? So, I thank him and members of the steering group for the work that they are doing in that important area.

I think the point that he makes in relation to clarity of information and sharing of information in relation to the prosperity fund is absolutely critical, isn't it? We have been clear that this is not the way to proceed if you're looking to respect the devolution boundaries, and I think he will have shared my dismay at the remarks made by Boris Johnson—in Cardiff, of all places—last Friday in relation to this. I very much hope that that will have ended up being a question of party politics as he seeks the nomination of his party. I'm afraid I don't have much confidence in that. As we stand today, I can't tell him that I have any insight into what the proposals are or any substantive detail, and I think he will share my regret about that.

Thank you very much, Brexit Minister.