I now call the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Diolch yn fawr, and can I associate myself with the solidarity that's been shown in the Chamber today in respect of the people of Ukraine?

Minister, can you provide us with an update on the discussions you've held with the UK Government and your officials in relation to adopting the provisions of the UK Government's Elections Bill?

Yes, I can. Discussions have been ongoing. They have been very positive and constructive. They haven't yet been concluded. There are two outstanding issues of competence that are still under discussion and the issue of those and whether a legislative consent memorandum is required is under consideration at the moment. 

I'm grateful for the update and I'm grateful for the fact that you've said that those discussions have been constructive. I know that, obviously, one of the outstanding issues that the Welsh Government has concern about is the issue of vote ID. And we on the Conservative benches here would encourage you very much indeed to adopt voter identification for all elections here in Wales so that there is some consistency when people go to the ballot box. Do you accept that not having consistency could cause significant problems for voters in terms of making matters confusing for them, particularly if elections for things such as the UK Government general election or police and crime commissioner elections are held on the same day as elections to the Senedd?

Well, of course, that is an issue that has already occurred, as we had the Senedd elections at the same time as the police and crime commissioner elections, and of course there were in fact different franchises for each of those elections.

I think it's very clear that there is a level of divergence. That divergence, I think, is going to increase, and I think what is necessary is that there is an increased emphasis on the clarity of those elections and where those differences apply in respect of particular elections. We of course had put the case to the UK Government that their proposals in respect of voter ID were in fact not only likely to place hurdles in terms of people actually voting, but they were creating an unwarranted divergence. The UK Government has obviously chosen to proceed with those. We disagree with them for all the reasons that we have discussed in recent debates.

Well, as you know, our position is very clear, and that is the fact that 99 per cent of people from hard-to-reach groups have some form of photo identification that would enable them to vote in elections, and 98 per cent of the population as a whole. The remaining 2 per cent that don't can have free photographic voter ID cards. We don't see an issue with that at all. And of course, it was the Labour Government that introduced photographic voter identification in order to vote in Northern Ireland some years ago.

Do you accept that if the Welsh Government is continuing in this opposition to voter ID and that this does cause greater divergence, as you've already suggested is likely to be the case, that one of the consequences of that—and I know that you have urged this in the inter-ministerial group for elections—is that it's highly likely that you'd have to potentially hold elections on a different day than the police and crime commissioner elections, or general elections, which, hopefully, will never clash in the future, of course? What sort of cost implications might that have for the Welsh taxpayer if you were to choose to hold elections on different days, when, frankly, efficiencies in terms of costs might be an issue?

Well, I think the efficient management of elections is something that is always under consideration, and of course has been in the various inter-ministerial discussions. For example, the proposals that are being made by the UK Government, even in respect of just Westminster elections, will have some financial costs, and we've made the case to the UK Government that those costs, obviously, have to be covered. The response has been received, I believe, positively.

In respect of the voter ID issue itself, you know that our view and our difference on this is that we see voter ID as essentially two things: (1) it doesn't have an evidential base to justify it, but, secondly, it is more about voter suppression than it is about robustness of elections. And if that were not the case, there would be an evidential base for its introduction. That evidential base has never been produced, or in fact even solidly argued.

But I think the point you do make is this: that, in the management of elections, we obviously want to see reform in the future, and, of course, the introduction of an electoral reform Bill. We want to see digitisation of the electoral system, which will make it much easier to manage elections, much more cost-efficient to manage elections, and also much more accessible. But, in circumstances where there might be two elections taking place with different franchises, then I think the systems are alert, as they have already been, to the fact that there are those areas of divergence, and there will be different systems. But it has to be managed. It's unfortunate that it's there, but I think it's in the nature of devolution. We have a particular direction in terms of elections that is about accessibility and openness and maximisation of capacity to vote and votes to be counted. I believe the approach adopted by the UK Government is one that goes in a direction that is different.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Cwnsler Cyffredinol, you're more than aware of the concern that I and many in this Chamber—from Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party—have of the impact of the legislative consent motions on the devolution settlement and their increased use in this Senedd. The letter today from the Deputy Minister for the arts shows the chaotic nature of the LCM process; it really doesn't work. The education Minister said in the Siambr that he was seeking an amendment to the Professional Qualifications Bill, to make sure that UK Ministers could not amend that important devolution Act, the Government of Wales Act 2006—a very sensible move, you might think. But, in contrast, the health Minister has said that she wouldn't seek a similar amendment. She described the power of UK Ministers to make amendments to that important Bill as a small constitutional risk. She was satisfied with a despatch-box promise by a UK Minister, something that doesn't even bind this Government, let alone any future Government. So, which is it, Cwnsler Cyffredinol? Which conflicting approach, that of the education Minister, or the health Minister, is now the principle of Welsh Government when it comes to legislative consent motions? Diolch yn fawr.

Well, of course, I don't see them as being a contradiction or a conflict in that sense, because each particular Bill has to be assessed in terms of the particular circumstances that are applicable to that. And, of course, LCMs are a constitutional requirement that we have to deal with as a result of UK Government legislation, where it changes or impacts in respect of devolution. You are certainly right in respect of the fact that it is not an appropriate vehicle in terms of ensuring that legislation has perhaps the degrees of scrutiny that you should have. And, of course, that particularly is exacerbated when UK Bills are produced late, have substantial amendments that are made to them very late in the day, with limited opportunity then for proper scrutiny. I think those are things that need to be considered constitutionally, and I'm hopeful that the inter-governmental review will provide a mechanism for at least reviewing how that actually operates.

Some of the points you raise go back to Sewel itself. You mentioned the Professional Qualifications Bill and the position there that has been taken, which is not to give consent. The point you raised with the health Minister, I think is of a different nature because it is about consequential amendments. And, of course, we could adopt the position where we would say, 'No, these minor consequential amendments that you have the power to make we would oppose', but if that's the case then you have to remember that, of course, we also make consequential amendments to UK Government legislation. So, were we to adopt that position, it would then impact on the way we conduct our own legislation where we need to make consequential amendments there as well. 

Diolch yn fawr, Cwnsler Cyffredinol. I look forward to hearing your statement next week about taking forward the recommendations of the Commission on Justice in Wales and the Law Commission report on Welsh tribunals. More of the justice system in fact is devolved to Wales than most people think, especially on those benches opposite me. But one strong argument to devolve the rest would be to show that the Welsh Government are running what they already have well, and it's fair to say that hasn't been the case in the past, with the Welsh tribunals often largely forgotten and neglected by the Welsh Government, and by this place also. To implement the recommendations of both reports, which is within the gift of the Welsh Government, would have positive changes for the people of Wales. It's easy for us to point fingers at the Tories all the time, and it's fun isn't it, but, sometimes, we need to take responsibility ourselves. 

Please take this next comment in the good spirit it's being said, but I often struggle with Welsh Government statements. I read it and I try to work out what is it actually trying to say, and more than that, what will it actually achieve. So, please can the Counsel General give us a guarantee that the statement next week will be clear, will provide key milestones and will have accountable leadership to it? Diolch yn fawr. 

Well, firstly, the simple answer to that is 'yes'. 

Diolch yn fawr. 

But I think what I should say is that, certainly with my portfolio as Counsel General and Minister of the Constitution, and with the Minister for Social Justice, what we have recognised is, of course, the Thomas Commission recommended there should be a justice Minister; well, in actual fact, we've effectively created that by the close co-operation in many ways we get, which is more advantageous in the way we're working. But, of course, the issue of justice and the technical aspects of justice, and particularly those that are within our jurisdiction, go very much hand in hand with socioeconomic justice as well. And I think that partnership has been very, very effective. 

And I think what I would also say is, of course, the work that is going on in really preparing a very detailed analysis of the Thomas commission recommendations, the work that is going on in partnership with UK Government at the moment, what it has achieved and how it could achieve more, the things that we think could actually be delivered better in terms of justice by the devolution of justice, and also beginning to set the framework for justice, I think is something that will be very substantial. And I do look forward to that debate, because I think we're at the stage where Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd's comments that the devolution of justice is not of question of if but when are beginning to come to fruition. And I see one of the important contributions to that as being the reform of the tribunals. And, as you say, they have come to us in a sort of ad hoc way, have been developed or created in that sort of environment as well. But we have the opportunity, I think, as a result of the recommendations of the Law Commission, to look at the creation of a new administrative justice system within Wales, with potentially its own appellate structure, and I think that would be a very significant step towards, I think, what is an objective that most of those working within the justice system would recognise as being a step forward.