Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The Law Commission issued a consultation paper, as you'll know, on devolved tribunals in Wales last December to help shape the tribunal Bill for Wales, designed to regulate a single system for tribunals in Wales. This is now at policy development stage. Given your responsibility for tribunals, what's your initial response to the consultation paper's proposals to, in particular, reform the Welsh Tribunals unit, the part of the Welsh Government that currently administers most devolved tribunals, into a non-ministerial department, but also to standardise the processes for appointing and dismissing members of the tribunals, and introducing a greater role for the president of Welsh Tribunals, to standardise procedural rules across the tribunals and introduce a new tribunal procedure committee to ensure that rules are kept up to date, to replace the existing separate tribunals with a single unified first-tier tribunal broken down into chambers catering for similar claims, and, finally, to bring the Valuation Tribunal for Wales and school exclusion appeals panels within the unified new first-tier tribunal?

Well, thank you for that very relevant question, and, as you've already identified, the Law Commission is working on this issue at the moment. We are anticipating the report of the Law Commission on the reformation, or the recommendations in respect of issues around reform, of the tribunal system, and, of course, it's worth recognising, isn't it, that this is a significant part of the judicial system. It is a system that directly relates to many of our citizens across a whole wide range where the administration of justice is really important. Some we have inherited as a consequence of devolution, others have developed and others we have created, and it is very timely now, I think, in terms of all the developments taking place around the development of the Welsh jurisdiction, that we now look at the tribunals, we look at how they can be more effective, how they can be streamlined, how they can deliver justice more effectively, more accessibly. And I look forward to the recommendations of the commission and also with a view to, as I think I mentioned yesterday, in my report on accessibility, the possible introduction of legislation on the reform of the tribunal system. The annual report of the president of Welsh Tribunals, Sir Wyn Williams, is due imminently, and I will be meeting with the president of Welsh Tribunals, I think along with the First Minister, in order to discuss the content of his report, and, of course, his report will appear—it will be tabled—in the Senedd for discussion on the floor. 

Diolch. Of course, we'll be particularly interested to hear how you respond to the proposal for the Welsh Tribunals unit to become a non-ministerial department.

At the time of the EU withdrawal Bill, the UK Government agreed that UK-wide frameworks—which are also within your area of responsibility—to replace the EU rule book would be freely negotiated between the four UK Governments in areas such as food, animal welfare and the environment, setting standards below which none can fall, with the existing common arrangements maintained until these are agreed. And, in a statement on the UK Government's latest report on common frameworks three months ago, the Welsh Government stated:

'The report outlines continued positive work on Common Frameworks, and confirms that the UK Government has not used the "freezing powers".'

Of course, that's clearly both positive and reassuring, providing confidence with regard to standards now and in the future, without which the essential UK internal market could not operate. Will the Counsel General therefore provide an update on progress with common frameworks, and confirm what mechanism for adjudicating alleged breaches by individual UK nations is currently being considered? 

Well, thank you very much, and, again, a very topical issue, one where I've been in discussion with my counterparts, both in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the UK Government, on this issue, building on a considerable amount of work that was done by my predecessor. Can I say, first of all, on the frameworks, the frameworks are an example, I believe, of how the four nations of the UK have been able to work together collaboratively, in the spirit of recognition of common interest? I think the problem with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is that it drove a coach and horses through that process. It was unnecessary, and, of course, one of the biggest issues it causes, along with other issues around the trade and co-operation agreement and issues around international trade agreements, is that it actually undermined progress and agreements that could be achieved collaboratively. That having been said, you also are aware that there's a legal challenge that will be heard in the Court of Appeal, brought by myself on behalf of the Welsh Government as Counsel General, and that will be heard in January 2022.

On the issues around the lawfulness of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, that having been said, we've been able to carry on discussions and negotiations on a without-prejudice basis in the spirit of co-operation. I can also say that there are encouraging signs that considerable progress has been made. There are, of course, ongoing discussions with officials over the wording, the precise wording that is so important in these matters, and we are hoping to move to a position where, if agreement can be reached on the right terms, and without prejudice to the legal challenge, we start the process of the publication of some of those frameworks, because the process of scrutiny in this Chamber and in committees is going to be very, very important. So, that work is well under way, and I think, despite a number of difficulties, it is fair to say that there is progress being made.

Thank you. Finally, moving to another topical issue within your range of responsibilities, UK Government Ministers have repeatedly stated that the amount of money going to be spent in Wales when the shared prosperity fund comes in will be identical to or higher than the amount that was spent in Wales that came directly from the European Union, underpinned by the not-a-penny-less guarantee. The UK Government's plan for Wales states that projects include implementing the new levelling-up fund, which will invest up to £4.8 billion in local infrastructure across the UK that has a visible impact on people and their communities.

And I note, for example, that, during Prime Minister's questions in May, the MP for Clwyd South, Simon Baynes MP, praised Wrexham and Denbighshire councils for their dynamic proposals for the Dee valley in their joint bid for the levelling-up fund, including regeneration of the Trevor basin, improvements for Chirk and Llangollen, and investment in Corwen station and surrounding areas. I also note that the MP for Wrexham, Sarah Atherton MP, is working in the UK Parliament to ensure that Wrexham receives the funding it needs and deserves from the levelling-up fund, focused on the gateway area around the Wrexham racecourse.

Through their positive engagement with Welsh Government officials, I am pleased to have been advised by several organisations in north Wales that these officials are directly involved in the UK Government's community renewal fund, levelling-up fund, UK shared prosperity fund and community ownership fund, and that these are at last delivering internal devolution in Wales by involving local authorities and communities in the design and delivery of programmes, playing an important role in levelling up and strengthening our union of British peoples as we build back better from the pandemic.

Can you get to your question now, please, Mark Isherwood?

Perfectly timed. Will the Counsel General therefore tell us what direct involvement—[Interruption.]—what direct involvement with this funding his officials are having in practice with the UK Government and other Governments within the UK?

Well, what I can tell the Member is, of course, this is essentially a matter that is within the portfolio of the Minister for finance. Perhaps, if I comment just on one or two of the general points that perhaps do, to some extent, come on to the very edge of my portfolio, I do think that the failure to engage with Welsh Government on money that was previously within the jurisdiction of Welsh Government and this place, but is now deliberately being used to bypass the elected Chamber here, is, I think, shameful and undermines democracy, and has a very clear political strategic purpose to undermine devolution. And I think it also means that money that is spent that doesn't respect the democratic processes here, and the democratic mandate on which we have all been elected, undermines democracy within the UK as a whole. In terms of the amounts of money, I have heard the not-a-penny-less guarantee; I will believe it when I see it.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. As you know, Counsel General, when the UK Government introduces a Bill in Westminster that is within the devolved powers of the Senedd, the Welsh Government need to lay down a legislative consent memorandum. In the whole of the fourth Senedd, only eight Bills were within the devolved areas. Already, in this sixth Senedd, we are up to 13. Now, I am glad that the Welsh Government are not consenting to eight—I wish it would be 13, as I implied yesterday, but I'm glad you're not consenting to eight. But do you agree with me that this increase in the need to have legislative consent memoranda is a blatant example of the power grab that is happening with the Westminster Government? And what steps are you and the Welsh Government taking to combat that blatant encroaching on our devolution settlement?

Firstly, thank you for your question. And I think the increase in the number of LCMs where we are not recommending consent is a result of a number of things. Firstly, the scale of UK Government legislation, but secondly, the extent to which that legislation seeks to intrude very directly into devolved areas. The position that we are taking on those is to understand collectively what is happening as a result of that legislation, but also to identify within it a number of principles. That is, we won’t refuse consent just as a matter of course; we will look to see what benefit there is in Wales to a particular proposal in legislation and will it benefit the citizens of Wales. Of course, if it relates to a devolved power, our priority is, as far as is reasonably practicable, to deal with legislation within Wales on those matters through Welsh legislation. Sometimes that is not possible because of the scale of legislation, because of the priorities, and sometimes because there are common interests, and sometimes even concurrent powers that are valid.

What I can say also is that what is very clear from what I have seen in the few months that I’ve been Counsel General, that builds a little bit on what I saw in my previous role in the last Senedd as Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, is that there is an incredible degree of inconsistency. There are areas where it is possible to work with UK Ministers and where progress is being made, where there is an understanding of Sewel, and there has been very collaborative work, and there is a respect towards Sewel. But, of course, there are other areas where there is a complete disregard. We saw, for example, during the Senedd elections, a piece of legislation on the animal welfare sentencing provisions, which clearly required Senedd consent but they decided to proceed irrespective.

The other area of disrespect is, of course, announcing legislation that clearly is going to impact on us but where we do not have any proper engagement on that legislation, on those issues that may affect us, and we are presented with that legislation almost at the last minute, almost as though it is a fait accompli. Of course, the demands then that that has on Welsh Government resources in order to tackle that are extremely difficult.

Now, what I do think is important, where there is some progress being made, is again in terms of the inter-governmental review, where discussions between the four nations have been taking place, where it is hoped that we may achieve—and let's say 'we may achieve', and we have to wait and see what that progress is—what we desperately need, and that is a proper system for the four nations to meet together, a proper secretariat to support the work of that, an independent secretariat, and a proper disputes process. As the Member will well know, and it’s something I’ve referred to on a number of occasions, it is no good having a system where we write and say, 'This is a matter of our competence, therefore it requires legislative consent', and UK Government replies to us and says, 'We don’t agree, and that’s the end of the matter.' That is not a proper constitutional way for Governments to work together. So, there has been a lot of work behind the scenes. There is progress being made. I’m hoping that there will be positive announcements in due course, but we’ve been down this road before and we tread very cautiously.

I’m glad to hear some positivity in your answer, Counsel General. That makes me wonder what evidence those on that side of the Chamber need to see before they realise that No. 10 is undermining our devolution settlement.

I want to move on now to the boundary commission and their announcement on reducing the number of Welsh seats to 32. It's clear to everyone what's happening here—it's the same as what happened with the elections Bill, where ID will be needed. The Conservatives are once again trying to strengthen their hold on Westminster and undermine the Welsh voice. Does the Welsh Government intend to respond to the boundary commission consultation? Are they going to raise concerns about the negative impact that this will have on the people of Wales?

Certainly, the issue of the boundary commission is not within my portfolio of responsibility. I’m sure there has been engagement. I will happily look into it and ensure that you are briefed on the level of engagement that there actually is.FootnoteLink I think the important political points that you made in respect of your question are this: what is proposed does reduce the voice of Wales within the UK Parliament. It does have a direct impact on the relationship that exists within the UK Parliament, and it's not simply a matter of the numbers of constituencies or the size of constituencies, but the fact that it impacts on the recognition of the actual relationship between the four nations of the UK. What I think it also does, though, is highlight how important it is that we look at the issue of Senedd reform, the role of this place, the demands that are made on this place, and our role within that parliamentary process, and the need for further constitutional reform.

Information further to Plenary

Thank you, Counsel General.

My final question is similar to that of Mark Isherwood, but, of course, from a different perspective, as you probably won't be surprised. It's about the newly named levelling-up department, under the leadership of Michael Gove, probably a hero of some people over there. Now, they're in charge of distributing the levelling-up fund and, as has been mentioned, it appears that the fund will probably be supporting Tory constituencies by most, and it will bypass the Senedd in the process. The UK Government previously said these words, 'When they consider it appropriate, they will seek advice from the Welsh Government on projects in Wales.' How very kind of the Westminster Government to consider, when they think appropriate, the elected Government of the people of Wales. Is the Counsel General aware of any discussions between the Welsh Government and this newly named department, and does he agree with me that this is a third example of a power grab by the Tory Government in Westminster?

Well, I certainly know that this is a matter of considerable concern, and that officials within Welsh Government, the Minister for Economy, the First Minister and the Minister for finance, and, I think, the Cabinet generally, are concerned about the situation, and that there are obviously discussions taking place, and I'm sure there will be further statements on that in due course. But you are absolutely right: they are an undermining of democracy. They undermine the democratic mandates that are given to this place. When we stand in a Welsh general election on the basis of, 'These are the powers of the Senedd and this is therefore what we can do', and then when UK Government basically says, 'We are going to bypass that and we are not going to engage with you,' what other interpretation can you have, that it is a deliberate ploy, a deliberate step, in undermining devolution, devolved responsibility and the devolved powers that we have already been given by the UK Parliament? So, I think there is an abuse there.

And we have also seen, from the evidence we have so far, the way in which these so-called levelling-up funds have actually been used. It will probably not surprise the Member—it may surprise across the Chamber— that 85 per cent of all the money that was allocated somehow went to the impoverished shire Conservative constituencies. So, I think there is a long way to go. Now, there has been a reshuffle. Michael Gove has the responsibility; he has the new title—I think he's the Minister for levelling up. I will no doubt be meeting with him in due course in respect of the common frameworks, and the proof of the pudding as to whether there is going to be a genuine levelling-up process, we will see over the coming few months. But what I would say is, 'Don't hold your breath'.

Question 3, or in this case, question 4, Rhys ab Owen. [Laughter.] 

Let me just get it up.

I apologise.

I was getting so excited with the—[Interruption.]

Would you like me to read it for you, Rhys?

No, I've got it here, Llywydd. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.