Questions now from party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution, will you make a statement on your Government's position on further devolution to Welsh regions and local authorities?

Well, our position on further devolution to local authorities is basically that we have a commission that is set up that will look at governance within Wales, the well-being of that governance, how it might move forward, how we might work to empower and support—I think the empowerment of communities and individuals within Wales, and I look forward, in due course, to the recommendations of the commission that has been established, which is going to be co-chaired by those I announced yesterday.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. In your statement yesterday, both your written statement and oral statement, there was no reference to the further devolution of powers from Cardiff Bay to Colwyn Bay and other places across the nation. Isn't it a fact that your Government, over the years, has been a Government that has centralised powers down here in Cardiff Bay, rather than actually distributing them to the local communities who ought to have been able to make decisions for themselves? The fact of the matter is that people in the part of the country where I live in north Wales feel as though they have a Government that is remote and out of touch with them. We have the worst waiting times in our hospitals, we have poorer local authority settlements, we have road projects that are in the deep freeze. These are not the devolution dividends that people were promised. When can we expect to see the Welsh Government take devolution to the regions of Wales and to local authorities seriously?

I think it has always been the case that, within this Senedd, we have worked fairly in respect of across Wales and with a view to encompass all the views of the people of Wales. I do wonder whether you actually listened to the speech that I made yesterday, because in that speech and earlier statements, I'd always talked about how the ethos behind the commission is about the empowerment of people, it is about the empowerment of communities, and it seems to me you've totally disregarded what was said in order to, I think, make some cheap statement that is obviously one that has become part of the Conservative Party in Wales's mantra.

I can assure you I listened very carefully to what you had yesterday, and I didn't hear the words, 'devolution to regions and local authorities' at all. You talk about the empowerment of people and communities, but isn't it the truth that you’re simply after a power grab from local authorities and a power grab from the UK Government and that really is what the independent commission on the constitutional future of Wales is all about?

Can I ask you to ensure that, as an important part of the work stream of the independent commission, because it is not in the remit that you published yesterday—the very broad remit, if I might say so—? Can I ask that you specifically ask them and task them with looking at where appropriate powers should lie, including whether there should be that further devolution to Welsh local authorities, which are much closer to the people on the ground that they serve than this remote Welsh Labour Government, which has been centralising powers since 1999?

Well, I think it's probably true that you did listen to my statement yesterday, but you certainly didn’t hear what I said. And I certainly wonder what your understanding is of the concept of empowerment of people and communities. And I wonder what your understanding is of the broad objectives that were set, which are really about the future of Wales and the enhancement of Welsh democracy and to consider those issues that would lead to the improvement and benefit of the people of Wales.

Now, if you think it’s appropriate in a commission to actually start telling the commission what its conclusions should be from day one—well, that’s not my concept of what a commission is. I believe it is vitally important that the commission has the flexibility and discretion to address those broad objectives. And if you’re saying to a commission to go out and to engage with the people of Wales, well, you have to listen to the people of Wales and what they actually say, rather than tell them that this is what you’ve already determined is important for them. Now, that may be the Conservative way of approaching this, but I don’t think it is the way that many others of us in this Senedd actually think is appropriate for a commission.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhys ab Owen.

Thank you, Llywydd. Counsel General, many of us here are very concerned about the significant increase in the number of Bills that the UK Government is trying to pass in devolved areas. Many on those benches will be familiar with the verse,

'He that hath ears, let him hear.'

Well, listen to this on the Conservative benches: in the fourth Senedd, there were eight legislative consent memoranda; in the sixth Senedd already, there are 14 LCMs. Some of the Bills, such as the Professional Qualifications Bill, give powers to Ministers to change primary legislation made in this place and to change the Government of Wales Act 2006. I'm sure you would agree with me, Counsel General, that the devolution settlement of our nation shouldn't be subject to the whim of a Tory Minister in Westminster. So what are you doing therefore to safeguard the Senedd from the Tory Government in Westminster, which is seeking to undermine our devolution? Thank you.

Well, I think the Member has made his points very, very well, and they’re ones that, certainly, I’m very focused on. And perhaps to add to some of the examples that he gave, I would also express concern that some of those pieces of legislation that we will need to consider, because of their implications for devolution, actually go to the heart of our democracy and the democracy of the United Kingdom—the proposals in respect of judicial review, the worst of which were actually removed by the previous Lord Chancellor. And I have this great fear that, from indications of things that are being said by the new Lord Chancellor, there is an intention to reintroduce that; the issue of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Sentencing Bill, which would be a significant restriction on the right of civic protest. And we see now even the intention to introduce legislation to actually significantly restrict the issue of human rights within our legal system. These are all things that I think we regard as very, very significant and very important, whether it be democracy within Wales, or whether it be democracy within the United Kingdom.

What I can tell the Member is that, in terms of the legislative consent system, of course there are areas where—pieces of legislation—there will be potential overlaps and so on, and so the process is one that is important, in considering where there may be mutual benefits or not, or where there may be intrusions into devolved responsibilities. But the fact of the matter is that what is happening at the moment, I believe, is an onslaught on devolved responsibilities, it is an attempt to undermine devolved responsibilities, and I believe it actually undermines the democratic mandate that we have.

So, in considering all legislative consent memoranda, and to get an understanding of the global impact of them collectively, as well as those other processes, such as memoranda of understanding, the sort of despatch box agreements, is to evaluate the impact that they have in every respect in terms of the devolution settlement, with a view that legislation on Welsh matters should be pursued within Wales itself. Where there are areas of common interest, it's on the proviso, except in exceptional circumstances, that it does not undermine devolution or result in a transfer of powers from this place. It is a very, very difficult environment. I am hopeful that maybe the inter-governmental review, and the outcome of that, may improve the situation. But, as I said yesterday in discussing these matters, they do not provide the fundamental constitutional floor that I think is one that we actually need, and one that the commission we were referring to just earlier I think will no doubt consider.

Diolch yn fawr. I want to stay with the legislative consent motions. I want to quote some wise words to you, Counsel General. They were written in March 2021, by the then chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, in a letter to the environment Minister. These are the words:

'The arguments you have put forward to support the UK Parliament and UK Government legislating in devolved areas have often centred around issues of clarity and accessibility of the law or ensuring compatibility with policy in England. These are arguments in favour of not holding powers in this area at all and, in our view, they have no merit.

'We are concerned about the substantial and damaging cumulative impact of a succession of decisions that have been made which have resulted in the UK Parliament and UK Government legislating heavily on devolved matters within your portfolio.'

Well, I agree with those words, Counsel General, and of course they are your words. Now, do you still stand by those words, Counsel General, and, if so, why did you support giving consent to the Environment Bill last month, and what are your criteria for granting consent for future LCMs? Diolch yn fawr.

Well, firstly, I do stand by those words—they remain. I have always caveated, of course, when I've attended evidence sessions and so on, that there are, from time to time, areas where there may be benefits to Wales in pursuing a particular course of action, where there are either overlapping responsibilities—. Environment, of course, is one of those areas where there are major decisions that are taken at UK level that have direct impacts on Wales. And in all those approaches, we, I think, adopt the view of what is in the best interest of Wales, what is the best way of actually working to protect the environment, to develop where possible responsibilities within Wales that enable us to tackle the environment.

I understand the point that the Member is making, because sometimes these are very fine and difficult decisions, and there are, from time to time, circumstances where it is necessary, or where we give consent and perhaps it is not the most desirable circumstances in which we give consent, but, on weighing up all the circumstances, it is in the best interests of Wales to go down a particular road. They arise from time to time. But it does not move me away from those fundamental positions that you read out in that letter—ones that I still hold now—that one of our prime objectives is to preserve the integrity of devolution, and also to progress the integrity of devolution.

Diolch yn fawr. And finally, you've touched on my last question already—those comments by Dominic Raab to change the Human Rights Act 1998 to allow some sort of a mechanism so that Ministers can correct court judgments. Now, Counsel General, do you agree with me that Dominic Raab must have forgotten one of his first constitutional lectures at university, because this goes to the very heart of our parliamentary democracy? The Senedd and the Westminster Parliament have powers already to amend law. It is not for Ministers to overrule court judgment simply because they don't like it, or simply because it's inconvenient to them. Does the Counsel General agree with me that it's not their role to do it, that it's not the role of any Minister to correct court judgment, and, if this does go ahead, it's a clear breach of the principle of separation of power and the rule of law? What conversation have you had with law officers to address this? Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank the Member for those particular points? They are absolutely valid points and they've been made by a number of organisations within the legal profession, and we can put it this way: Parliament without the framework of the rule of law is effectively a dictatorship that is elected every five years. The rule of law is what sets the framework in which the exercise of power takes place. Now, that has always been my understanding of the way in which Parliament works and the importance of the rule of law. What has been proposed with regard to judicial review is basically a building on what was being proposed in legislation a year or two back, which was to allow Governments to act unlawfully, to allow Governments to actually breach their international obligations.

So, it is an issue that I had intended to discuss with Robert Buckland when he was Lord Chancellor. Unfortunately, my meeting was the day after he was sacked—not that it had any connection, the two. [Laughter.] But it is very concerning now that the new Lord Chancellor is making comments that indicate a reversal, I think, of the decision that had been taken by Robert Buckland after consultation. I will, in due course, be meeting with the Lord Chancellor, and I will make these points, but I have to express that these proposals, in conjunction with all those other pieces of legislation, in my view, collectively, are a significant undermining of civil liberties and democracy.