The next item is the topical questions. There is only one question that has been agreed this afternoon. It's to be answered by the Counsel General, and it's to be asked by Adam Price.

1. What assessment has the Counsel General made of how the Supreme Court's judgement on the Scottish Parliament's intention to hold a second independence referendum will affect Wales’s ability to decide its own constitutional future? TQ687

The judgment was handed down this morning. I will take time to study the judgment carefully.

Well, as we know, Counsel General, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict that the Scottish Government, despite the strength of the democratic mandate it secured at last year's Holyrood election, has no legal route under the current constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom to hold an independence referendum if Westminster continues to withhold its consent. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has already stated in the House of Commons that he will continue to disregard that unambiguous mandate, even though you could say that his personal mandate is indirect at best and somewhat tenuous. And, really, what we have here, of course, is a Westminster veto, effectively, a clear crystallisation of the doctrine of Westminster supremacy that we, as a nation, and Scotland, as a nation, are not in a union of equals. We are not an equal Parliament either, and, unfortunately, of course, this situation will not change, even with a change in Government at Westminster, because the UK Labour leader has himself said that he will not agree an Order in Council, under section 30 in the case of Scotland, to hold an independence referendum either. So, that Westminster veto is being used by both Labour and Conservative parties at Westminster in this case.

So, does the Counsel General agree with the view that has been expressed today by the First Minister of Scotland that this judgment emphatically and unequivocally illustrates the fallacy of the notion of the United Kingdom as a voluntary partnership of equals, as a voluntary association? Now, the First Minister in Scotland has announced that she will hold a special conference to explore the means by which the next UK general election could be framed in Scotland as a de facto referendum. Now, this is obviously far from ideal, but it is the only route available to them currently, given the block on other routes for self-determination. As the Counsel General knows, there is a historic precedent in this regard, the 1918 general election, when Sinn Fein in Ireland sought a mandate and stood on a platform of establishing an Irish republic, and the landslide that they got through that referendum was the basis on which they established Dáil Éireann and declared the Irish republic, though, unfortunately, that mandate itself was not immediately respected with very tragic consequences that I'm sure all of us would wish had been avoided.

Does the Counsel General agree with the comments by Professor Ciaran Martin in the joint Senedd and Welsh Government lecture last night that all the nations of these islands should have a clear and legitimate route to express their desire in terms of their constitutional future, including the right to hold an independence referendum? And does he agree, whatever the judgment of the Supreme Court in terms of its interpretation of international law, that, politically, democratically, philosophically, every nation has the right to self-determination, that, as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says,

'All peoples have the right of self-determination'?

That has a particular urgency, you and I will agree on this, in the cases of countries that are colonised or subject to military occupation, absolutely, but the principle is an universal one that we must all, as democrats, uphold. So, does the Counsel General agree that that right to self-determination for Wales, for Scotland, for the people of the north of Ireland, should be enshrined and protected in law in the UK to address the democratic deficit that has been laid bare this morning in the judgment? It is particularly affecting the people of Scotland, given the very clear mandate that there is there, but it is of importance to us as well as we consider our constitutional future. Though you and I disagree in terms of independence, would you, as a democrat, express your solidarity with the people of Scotland and express the clear view of the Welsh Government that every nation, including the Scottish nation, and the Scottish people have the right to self-determination and that should be respected?

The Deputy Presiding Officer (David Rees) took the Chair.

Thank you for the question. Of course, yes, last night, I thought it was a very impressive presentation by Professor Ciaran Martin, following on from the previous presentation by Sir David Lidington. I think these are very important contributions to our understanding of the constitutional issues that clearly do face us.

I think it's worth just being clear about, firstly, what the judgment was this morning. The judgment was a unanimous judgment of all five Supreme Court judges. It is a 34-page judgment, and I will be considering the detail of the judgment very carefully. The main question in the judgment was whether the Scottish Parliament had the power to legislate for the holding of a referendum on Scottish independence. Our role as a Welsh Government within that case was limited. It was not appropriate to intervene, so we carried out a watching brief. There will be a need to consider carefully, I think, all the findings of the Supreme Court and to consider all the submissions that were made, and the response of the Supreme Court to them. I can certainly assure the Senedd that I will undertake that task.

It's also important to be clear about what the conclusion of the Supreme Court was. The Supreme Court stated very clearly that the provision of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill that provides that the question should be asked in a referendum would be, 'Should Scotland be an independent country?', and the determination of the Supreme Court was that that is a reserved matter. Now, as far as Wales is concerned, the position that we've taken is really set out within our reforming justice paper, which was published, I think, in June 2021, where it said that

'Future constitutional developments in the United Kingdom should be considered on a holistic basis and on the basis of constitutional principle, rather than by way of ad hoc reforms to particular constitutional settlements. This should be undertaken by a constitutional convention.'

Now, of course, we have our own independent commission; we've set it up very much to look at and to explore some of the issues that the Member has specifically raised, and perhaps I'll just remind the Senedd again of what the terms of the independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales is. There are two broad objectives: the first is to consider and develop options for fundamental reform of the constitutional structures of the United Kingdom, in which Wales remains an integral part, and the second is to consider and develop all progressive principle options to strengthen Welsh democracy and to deliver improvements for the people of Wales. Professor Ciaran Martin certainly raised the point that, constitutionally, there needs to be a route in which decisions can actually be taken, and I certainly hope that our own commission will actually explore what those are.

Now, you know that the position of the Welsh Government is that Wales's interests are best served by being part of the United Kingdom, but a United Kingdom that needs significant and radical reform, and those reforms are set out in the 'Reforming our union: shared governance in the UK' paper. I certainly am of the view that the best way of actually achieving constitutional reform and change is best achieved by electing a Labour Government across the UK in the next general election.

Counsel General, I hear what you say about your considered view. You will, obviously, sensibly read the judgment in its entirety. But, from your initial consideration of the judgment, are you able to confirm that the democratic will of Wales is not affected, and that no elections will be terminated by this decision in the Supreme Court, and that every time the independence question has been put to the people of Wales—most recently in the 2021 election—the party that made that offer came a distant third, and the people of Wales spoke with one voice saying that they wanted to remain in a strong United Kingdom? 

Thank you for the question. The judgment is very clear about the competence issue, and that is, really, the only issue that the Supreme Court has dealt with. It is clear and final in that respect.

In terms of the Welsh position, well, what we do have is a recognition within Wales, from the various manifestos, that there is a need for constitutional reform. There is a need for engagement within that, and the Government has made the case very strongly for the need for a constitutional convention. I've set out the position that we have from the reforming the UK decision there, but, of course, the one thing that we do look forward to—and I think that it's important not to, I suppose, presume what the conclusions will be, or the direction that will be taken of the independent commission that we have established, which will give us guidance and information with which to take this constitutional reform issue further.

Now, we are expecting, in due course, an interim report from the independent constitutional convention. And I think when that comes, that will be the appropriate time for us to have a more detailed, more thorough and, I think, informed debate on some of the constitutional options. Of course, the independent commission's report will be an interim one; there will also be a report coming out in due course from Gordon Brown on the Labour Party position on—or, certainly, the report that he has been instructed to prepare on constitutional reform. So, the one thing that we can say is that there is a deep recognition of the need for constitutional reform—that we have a dysfunction within our constitution, and that change needs to occur. The question is what that change is and how it should actually be achieved. This is a debate that isn't going to go away, and I look forward to the receipt of the interim report and any further reports, and to further discussions of this.

The reason that these constitutional issues are important is not because it is some sort of technical debate; the constitution is about how power operates, how it is shared, how it is distributed, how it is exercised. So, these are matters that are fundamentally important to the people of Wales and, indeed, to the people of the UK. But, as far as the decision of the Supreme Court is concerned, I think that that is particularly clear.  

I thank the Counsel General.