6. What legal representations has the Counsel General made on behalf of the Welsh Government in relation to the UK internal market Bill? OQ55722

There is ongoing engagement with the UK Government at both ministerial and official level to discuss our concerns with the Bill. I have also made a written statement to the Senedd, publishing proposed amendments to the Bill, to demonstrate how our concerns could be addressed.

Diolch. A recent Welsh Governance Centre report made clear that the UK internal market Bill will forever blunt the policy-making tools of the devolved Governments, prioritises removing potential barriers to trade at the expense of all other public policy goals, fatally undermines co-operation between the nations of the UK, and even creates the implication that the UK Government may use new spending powers against the will of our Government and Senedd. I don't see what this has to do with Brexit. When Boris Johnson talked about taking back control, removing powers from Wales that were secured through democratic referenda wasn't on the agenda; it wasn't talked about. The Bill power grabs, and with regard to Wales's own powers on goods and services, which were never actually under the EU's control, it will make all laws and regulations made in Wales—future and past—potentially erasable by the UK Government. The Bill is undemocratic and ignores the settled will of the people of Wales. It may even lead us into unwillingly breaking international law. So, what I'm asking—. I'm sure you would agree with all that, actually. What I'm asking is what concrete steps will your Government be taking to ensure a solid and unified resistance to this outrageous power grab?

I thank the Member for that question. I agree with the analysis of the Wales Governance Centre in the report, which the Member has described, and I agree with the way in which the Member has described it—as a power grab. I think he makes an important point, amongst a number of observations, that the extent of this Bill goes beyond retained EU law, for example. So, it extends beyond the scope of powers that were currently exercised at a European Union level, and it has a narrower set of exceptions than would've been the case under EU legislation. So, it goes significantly beyond what even the UK Government would put as its rationale, which is to replace the EU internal market in the UK.

In terms of the concrete steps that the Government can take, this is legislation going through the UK Parliament, so we can seek, as we have with some success, to create, with the support of other parties, a coalition of resistance in Parliament. We have brought forward drafted amendments that can deliver the outcomes that we would like to see for the Bill, which is a fundamental overhaul of it, and we would urge parties in Parliament to support those amendments so the Bill can be transformed.

Now, you will have heard my response to questions earlier about exploring a full range of legal avenues. Once the Bill becomes law, if it becomes law, then there are a range of powers that UK Government Ministers take themselves, through regulation, to give effect to various parts of the Bill. It seems to me very clear that some of those powers are going to be contested and contested heavily, and we will certainly do everything we can to make sure that Welsh regulation and the rights of Welsh consumers and businesses are protected. We have also made sure that the Senedd is very clear in the advice that we offer about the approach to consent for this Bill. We do not believe that the Senedd can or should consent to this Bill as it's currently drafted.

You may well ask me what happens next if the Senedd proceeds to withhold its consent. Well, UK Government would struggle to justify proceeding in the absence of consent, given what it has said previously about how the Sewel convention should operate. So, I hope that the Senedd will give a very clear signal to the UK Government that it does not consent to this outrageous attack on devolution in Wales.

Surely, Minister, the internal market Bill simply aims to maintain the joined-up market of the UK. It ensures that all four of the UK nations are not limited by regulations determined by each devolved Government, which would, of course, be very damaging to trade within the UK. It also aims to guarantee that the international community has access to the UK as a whole, knowing the standards and rules are the same throughout the devolved nations.

The devolved Governments seek to portray this Bill as a power grab that is designed to roll back devolution. There is no evidence whatsoever that these powers will be used in the way you are determined to portray. Rather than a power grab, it is a pragmatic, sensible approach that most of the people of the devolved nations would see as sensible and constructive. I would hope that you, as a committed unionist, Minister, would agree that it is right to have UK-wide policies and regulations wherever possible.

Well, I think anyone who is interested in the success and future of the union should be very alarmed by the contents of this Bill, because I think it does, as much as anything does, strengthen the cause of independence in all parts of the UK, and that is not an outcome I wish to see. So, I think his reading of the Bill is, bluntly, fundamentally naive.

We as a Government believe in the internal market; we think an internal market is an effective way of protecting the Welsh public, Welsh consumers, Welsh businesses and the economy. So, we think that that is an endeavour in which we should all engage, as four Governments, to make sure that there aren't unnecessary barriers to trade in the way that the Member's question suggests, but we already have a mechanism for doing that, which is the common frameworks mechanism that enables Governments to have different policies in different parts of the UK, consistent with delivering the internal market. It's worked very effectively until now. There is no reason to destroy it by giving a very heavy-handed legislative way of circumventing it.

I think that this Bill will do more damage to the UK and more damage to the internal market of the UK than the constructive, moderate, reasonable and deliverable proposals that the devolved Governments have put forward in replacing it.

And the final question is question 7—Helen Mary Jones.