1. What advice has the Counsel General given the Welsh Government in relation to amending or removing retained EU law? OQ57594

2. What discussions has the Counsel General had with other UK law officers regarding the impact on Wales of the UK Government’s proposals to change the status of retained European Union law? OQ57622

3. What assessment has the Counsel General made of the impact on Wales of the UK Government's proposals for legislation on retained EU law? OQ57599

4. What discussions has the Counsel General had with other UK governments in respect of retained EU law? OQ57604

I thank the Member for the question. The UK Government has informed the Welsh Government that it intends to fully engage with the devolved Governments in conducting its review of retained EU law. We are pressing for further information in terms of what the review will entail, the proposals that may follow and the implications for Wales.

Thank you. Llywydd, I was really delighted upon reading the agenda that so many Members will be questioning the Counsel General today about retained EU law. And I'm sure that many, including my colleague Rhys ab Owen, are delighted that the UK Government is marking the two-year anniversary of Brexit by continuing to deliver on the democratic will of the people of the United Kingdom in Wales. Despite our exit from the bloc, EU law made before 1 January 2020 continue to have precedence in our domestic framework. That is actually a disgrace and is simply not compatible with our status as a sovereign independent country. Officials across Government are currently reviewing all the EU retained laws to determine if they are beneficial to the UK. Now, you have stated publicly that you want to engage with the UK Government constructively. Will you, therefore, be co-operating in a positive way by making recommendations as to which EU law you would like to see amended or removed, and please tell us what they might be? Thank you.

Well, I thank the Member for that comment. I'd remind the Members—they may have read about it already—the concerns we have about the way this is actually being processed and suddenly rushed forward with apparently no clear reason as to why that might be the case. In December we received a letter from Lord Frost drawing our attention to a written statement setting out more detail about the review, in which he also offered to discuss the review at a future meeting of the new UK-EU inter-ministerial group. However, the devolved Government Ministers were only notified of the UK Government's intention to publish its policy document, 'The Benefits of Brexit', during a call on 29 January. It was published two days later. In fact, I think I saw it when it was published on 31 January. Details about the policy proposals being developed as part of the review have been extremely limited to date, and the policy document largely repeats Lord Frost's written statement. My policy officials are pressing for clarity in this regard, and have asked for a meeting this month for a further update on the UK Government's plans, which still remain extremely unclear.

I agreed to a request by the Counsel General for the grouping of questions 1, 2, 3 and 4, and so I'll ask Rhys ab Owen now to ask his supplementary question.

Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr i chi, Llywydd. Counsel General, you're probably aware of Philip Rycroft's evidence this morning to the Wales select committee in the House of Commons. He described Brexit as a shock to the system, and that one of the premises that devolution is built upon—the Sewel convention—came a cropper through Brexit. Maybe not the usual words of a civil servant, but they were his words, not mine. When you gave evidence to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee last month, you described the situation of the Brexit isolation Bill, as I like to call it, as having a massive impact on the devolution settlement in devolved areas. I know you were only made aware of it on the Saturday, and I'm sure you had better things to do on a Saturday than to be part of that telephone call, but you couldn't give us much detail then about the level of engagement. I'm glad to hear that there has been assurance that there will be more levels of engagement and I look forward to hear more details about that. Do you consider it appropriate that Welsh stakeholders and this Senedd should also be engaged in that process? Diolch yn fawr.

I thank you for the question. The points you raise are absolutely right—the issue of retained EU law and the review of law is something that is of significant concern to us, not just a constitutional issue, but the issue we have in terms of the statements that have been made across this Chamber from all parties about the importance of standards in the areas of food, environment and so on. So, it is unclear precisely what it is. I have to say, I read the document, and considering the earlier debate that was made—. Sam Rowlands, you can have a copy of my—[Inaudible.]—it will certainly be a cure for insomnia. [Laughter.] But I have to say, it does contain within it something I think will be on the lips of every citizen in Wales when they look to the wonders of achievement that are being declared. Listen: a reintroduction of our iconic blue passports, which are printed by a firm in France. But that's not enough—it actually gets better than that, because we're reviewing a ban on EU imperial marketing and sales to give businesses and consumers more choice over the measurements used. But it gets even better than that, because we're going to be allowing businesses to use a Crown stamp symbol on pint glasses. So, I think I can tell the Member we certainly have a lot to look forward to. But in all seriousness, this is a very significant and important document, and we will engage fully, and we will be discussing it fully with UK Government Ministers. 

I echo the points made by Rhys about proper engagement and the constructive approach being taken by the Minister, but can I just say, citizens across the nation were hanging the bunting out over the weekend. They were overjoyed to hear this news, and also the appointment of man of the people, Jacob Rees-Mogg, as Minister for Brexit opportunities, and that there would be a bonfire of regulations brought forward as this grandly titled Brexit Bill mark 2 proceeds on retained law. We're far beyond parody now, of course. As this coincides with the cross-party Public Accounts Committee reporting that Brexit and the increased bureaucracy of cross-border movements of trade has suppressed trade with the EU every day since we've left. We see the political impact in Northern Ireland and Éire playing out before us every single day. Hauliers are choosing to bypass Welsh ports and the UK to ship directly to the continent, and we learnt only these last 24 hours that exports into Germany from the UK have tumbled by 8.5 per cent during 2021, and before the opposition benches say, 'Well, that's been the same for everybody', it's compared to a 16.8 per cent increase in imports from other European Union member states. Minister, Counsel General—. Does the Counsel General believe that this new iteration of Brexit Bill mark 2 will build on these remarkable successes?

If I perhaps respond to the Member's first comment, which was about this wonderful new descriptive propagandist creation of ministerial titles—Minister for Brexit opportunities—it almost reminds you, doesn't it, of the former Soviet Union Government and 'The Minister for the over-fulfilment of the five-year plan'? [Laughter.] But the point the Member makes is very important, because the document that we have is a very propagandist document; it is full of very loose aspirations. We will obviously want to engage and to explore what they mean, but also we will want to seek guarantees in terms of the constitutional integrity. In the meeting I had on that Saturday I referred to, I raised very specifically not only that the process was unacceptable, calling us in that way, but that was not respectful engagement, but equally so, that we wanted assurances—and I know that others asked for the same thing—in terms of devolution integrity. I'm still not convinced that we have actually been given that, but we will see what actually happens. But the point he does raise, of course, is that if you are to look at EU retained law, if you are to look at it in the round, you have to look at all factors, not just the propagandist ones you want, but the serious implications that there are for trade in terms of some of the things that have either been removed or are proposed to be removed, and the serious implications there might be for the standards that we want to uphold in food, agriculture, environment and so on.

Counsel General, working collaboratively with other devolved Governments of the UK is essential. The majority of the people of Wales support devolution and have twice voted for it in referendums. Leaving the EU must not mean that devolution is diluted by the UK Government. Our devolved powers must be protected. What action is the Welsh Government taking to help ensure that all nations work together to defend their devolved interests?

I thank the Member for the question. We will be working co-operatively with all the Governments of the United Kingdom. I hope the discussions and negotiations will be in accordance with the principles that have already been agreed now in terms of the inter-governmental review, which are respect for the devolved Governments, mutual respect, and principles of integrity in the way the discussions are actually to take place. Now, if that happens, then we can have a positive and constructive discussion, but I make it very, very clear that we will not concede, we will not make any concession, if this is just an attempt to introduce another internal market Act mark 2.

Moving on, what is the position of case law from the European Court, such as the well known Bosman judgment? Will they still apply now that we've left the European Union and, if so, for how long? This is an issue of great interest and has major repercussions, not just in football.

Well, of course, the influence of jurisprudence—the influence of decisions from Europe, from the European Court, are obviously ones that are important, still taken into account, and of course we do have, as Members from all parties have mentioned, retained EU law. The assumption that somehow—an assumption was made by the first speaker—that somehow all this stuff is bad, that somehow it is all something negative, I think, will turn out not to be the case, but, again, until the review starts—. Now, the problem is, until we are properly engaged, we won't precisely know what direction UK Government actually wants to do, but I hope that what will come out of it is that we will recognise that there are many aspects in terms of existing EU law that we not only want to retain, we may even want to improve upon, and, where that happens, I hope that what won't happen is an attempt to actually basically negate all those positives that exist.