2. What assessment has the Counsel General made of clause 49 of the UK Internal Market Bill? OQ55917

Clause 49 of the Bill as introduced would make the entire UK Internal Market Act a protected enactment. Protected enactment status should only be used where it can be justified. We have proposed that this provision is omitted; it is for the UK Government now to make the case for its inclusion.

Diolch, Counsel General. The Welsh public voted in favour of devolution in 1997. After that initial mandate, we've had 12 further democratic events that have allowed the Welsh people to confirm that view—in the form of a further referendum in 2011, five Senedd elections, and six general elections. The referenda and all the elections returned clear pro-devolution majorities. Now, you'll know that clause 46 of the internal market Bill will enable the UK Government to spend money in devolved areas in Wales. That would allow them, for example, to spend money on transport plans that could have a detrimental effect on areas that are devolved, such as public health, the environment and conservation. As you've been setting out, Counsel General, clause 49 of the Bill prevents the Senedd from being able to bring forward a legal challenge to such plans, even though they affect devolved areas. We've known from the beginning that Boris Johnson was hostile to devolution, which has since been confirmed through the horse's mouth. This power grab is a substantiation of that hostility. So, do you agree with me that the Tory UK Government has zero democratic mandate to pass such provisions, especially given that a majority of Welsh MPs voted against them and that this Senedd is opposed?

I think the Member is right to point to the effect of the protected enactment designation on the Bill, in that it does prevent the effects of the Act from being modified by this Senedd. But she points as well to a much broader provision in the Bill, which is equally iniquitous—if I can put it in those terms—which is the provisions that give UK Government Ministers powers from devolved areas to spend in Wales. Now, we heard the contributions in the House of Commons during the debates on the Bill earlier in the year and it was evident from those contributions that I think what motivates some of these judgements is the UK Government not being content with the priorities that the Welsh Government, elected by the people of Wales, have set for themselves as part of a democratic mandate. I think what's important at this point is for the UK Government to recognise it isn't too late for it to change its mind in relation to this provision. We would certainly invite it to do that. When we've discussed it with the UK Government, obviously, it's described as an opportunity to work in partnership. Well, if that is the case, it seems to me to be an opportunity to work around the Welsh Government, rather than work with the Welsh Government. But, as I say, it's not too late for the UK Government to change its position in relation to that and recognise the democratic devolution settlement. 

I'm particularly concerned about this, because, having been told that leaving the EU is about taking back control, I don't think many of us realised that that meant the UK Government clawing back both control and the money that goes with it for the centre to be able to target seats for their own political purposes. And just leaving aside the incompetence of the UK Government over test, trace and protect and their appetite for giving money to their mates, the whole point of devolved government is that the Welsh Government understands the difference between Cardiff, Caernarfon and Caersws, as well as the granular detail of communities like mine, like Adamsdown and parts of Pentwyn, which are super-output areas of deprivation, and whose needs are completely different from those of, say, Cyncoed or Penylan, even though they're only a few miles apart. So, what can be done do stop the Tory UK Government from hijacking this money for their own ends, rather than tackling poverty and deprivation in our communities?

The Member is, of course, right to say that the purpose behind the Bill—the intent of the Bill, certainly—is to limit the capacity of the Senedd and Welsh Ministers to act in accordance with the devolution settlement. It didn't have to be this way, and it still doesn't have to be this way. We've proposed an alternative to the Bill that respects the devolution settlement, but also delivers the high standards across a range of areas, which I know that she feels very passionately about and is a very ardent campaigner for. As I say, we've pursued a strategy of putting forward constructive alternatives, and have had significant support in the House of Lords, as I know that she is aware, for many of those positions, from a range of political voices and non-political voices, and from a range of different walks of life. And there has been a very, very strong theme that the devolution settlement needs to be respected and that if the UK Government is proceeding on the basis that this Bill is intended to strengthen the union, it will find that it is mistaken, because the best way of doing that is by defending and extending devolution, rather than trying to ride roughshod over it.