1. What discussions has the Counsel General had with other law officers regarding the constitutional implications of the UK Government's proposals for the shared prosperity fund? OQ56434

The implications are clear: this is an attempt to take things back to decades ago, when Westminster supposedly knew best. Bypassing the elected institutions of Wales is not just an insult to the people of Wales, it will clearly result in worse outcomes for Wales as well.

I thank the Counsel General for that response. And I draw his attention to the Secretary of State's appearance last week in front of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, where it was made very, very clear that there is no intention from the UK Government to engage with Welsh Government, and that the Secretary of State for Wales's interpretation of devolution—and of subsidiarity and decision making—does not include Welsh Government, nor does it include regional economic partnerships either. But moreover, there was a worrying ignorance—intentional or otherwise—of the policy framework in Wales, including the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 framework. Now, surely, Counsel General, this has not only financial implications for Wales, but real constitutional implications for our current devolution settlement.

I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for that supplementary question. Through the shared prosperity fund, it is certainly the case that the UK Government seeks to be delivering in devolved areas with no input from the Welsh Government on its plans, and without any stakeholder engagement or public consultation. And in practice, that would mean that the UK Government is taking decisions on devolved matters in Wales without being answerable to the Senedd on behalf of the people of Wales. That, obviously, defies the constitutional settlement. And, whilst I note the comments of the Secretary of State for Wales in another context, which highlighted the little status, I think, which he thought the Welsh Government was concerned about, I would encourage him to remember that this is a constitutional settlement, which people in Wales have voted for democratically, and that the decision to proceed in defiance of the constitutional arrangements in Wales is a grave matter from a democratic point of view, but also is ineffective in terms of delivering benefits to people in Wales. And the grievance that we have, and people right across Wales have, yes, it's constitutional, but it's also about a fund that is not going to be effective, has not been consulted upon, does not reflect the priorities of businesses in Wales, cannot be integrated and, where decisions will be taken by a UK Government department whose mismanagement of the towns fund has already been criticised severely in Parliament. And, at a recent meeting, with both the relevant Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, it was absolutely clear that the intention is for MHCLG to make these decisions, including on the basis of officials appointed in Wales to do so. This Government regards that as fundamentally unacceptable constitutionally and, also, not in the interests of the economy of Wales.