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

Diolch, Llywydd. Building on what you've said in your previous responses, although we cannot support Gordon Brown's constitutional reform recommendations announced by the UK Labour Party on Monday in their entirety, there are elements that, in our view, merit consideration, including proposals to ensure that Wales has a permanent voice, not just in the House of Commons, but in the second Chamber, if this would lead to proper bicameral scrutiny of devolved legislation; proposals to seek greater co-operation between the four UK Governments to deal with shared problems, such as pandemics and pollution; and proposals to enhance the role of Members of this Senedd so that they could enjoy the same privileges and protections as Members of Parliament in relation to statements made in their proceedings. 

We also note the statement by Labour's Lord Blunkett that Sir Keir Starmer's plans for an elected second Chamber risk US-style gridlock and should not be a priority, and that, despite the First Minister's statement here last week, that the transfer of responsibility for justice matters, which is the policy of his Government, was contained in the Labour manifesto in the 2017 and 2019 UK general elections, UK Labour now only proposes to devolve powers over youth justice and the probation services to the Welsh Government. How do you therefore respond to this, and do you agree—I think I can judge the answer; it's a rhetorical question—but do you agree that this now puts to bed the wider devolution of justice and policing to Wales?

Thank you for the question and you covered some very interesting points within there. And I'm very pleased, and I think we commonly recognise, don't we, the importance of changes that have occurred: the fact that we are a primary law legislature and the importance that we actually have a permanent, recognised place within the Supreme Court. I think the old arguments in terms of jurisdiction are actually outdated.

I think where you have parliaments that are legislatures and you have matters that are constitutional, and the Supreme Court plays a constitutional function, it is absolutely right that Wales should be specifically represented. I think this is being represented almost through the back door by ensuring that there is a Welsh judge there, and I'm very pleased that Lord David Lloyd-Jones is there in the Supreme Court—a Welsh-speaking Supreme Court judge; the first one ever. But I think it is important that that becomes something that is formalised and becomes part of our structures, so that, as with Scotland, as with Northern Ireland, and as with England, there is a specific Welsh judge in the Supreme Court. So, I'm very pleased we made those. And also, the recognitions in terms of the importance of co-operation and inter-governmental improvements. The importance, I think, of the recommendation within the Gordon Brown report in terms of the establishment of an irrefutable structure in respect of Sewel is something that we've long argued for. In whatever format, it would be something that would be a significant step forward.

But I don't agree with what you say in terms of justice. The Gordon Brown report doesn't close any particular doors; it is a report that makes recommendations to the UK Labour Party as a whole, but it is one that gives very specific reference. The bits I read out earlier, I think, are very, very clear that it is deferring to the independent commission and that, when that commission has reported, it calls for constructive engagement. And the report makes it absolutely clear that there are no doors closed and that the basis of further devolution should be based on subsidiarity: that is, it is only those items that are necessary in terms of interdependent governance within the UK as a whole that should be dealt with by UK Government, and the rest should be devolved. So, it does represent a very significant transfer and I don't believe it says what you're suggesting at all about justice, and I am confident in the inevitable devolution of justice to Wales.

Well, thank you. It's my understanding that there are voices in senior UK Labour leadership who do grasp the east-west axis of crime and criminal justice across the Wales-England border and recognise that full devolution accordingly could be counterproductive.

However, responsibilities you hold as Counsel General include matters relating to legislation passed by the Senedd and accessibility of Welsh law. As you will be aware, provided that a Member of the Senedd is acting within the expectations of a constituent, the Member has a legal basis to request information from a public body when representing the constituent. Section 24 of the Data Protection Act 2018 allows an elected representative to receive information from another data controller, including a local authority, in relation to an individual for the purpose of a casework matter where they're acting with authority. However, after I wrote to—I won't name it—a north Wales local authority regarding social services matters on behalf of neurodiverse parents, the response from the local authority's social services chief officer included, 'These appear to be issues raised by you as a Member of the Senedd about an individual case, and therefore outside of the parameters we would disclose to a third party.'

What action can you therefore take within your remit to ensure that senior officers in such local authorities understand that responses regarding individual cases should be provided by council departments when replying to correspondence sent by a Member of the Senedd—this Welsh Parliament—in a representative capacity?

Well, obviously, we do want the maximum of co-operation between Members of the Senedd and any public bodies, and, indeed, private bodies as well, where they reflect upon Senedd matters and Senedd duties and constituency duties. I think the only way I can refer you, in terms of the matter that you raised and of which I have no specific knowledge, is that the rights and entitlements are set out in the Data Protection Act. Where an individual is dissatisfied with the response they've had to a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request, there is a process where it can be referred to the data protection commissioner, who will then basically consider the legal position on that and whether that is something that should or should not be disclosed. And I think that is the appropriate course of action that should be being taken there.

Thank you. I did respond accordingly. But of course, this wasn't a freedom of information request, I was making representations—as we all do—on a neutral basis, representing my constituents at their request, and with their written authority, so it was an alarming response. And in that context, as I trust you're also aware, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, Part 10, code of practice, relating to advocacy, states that local authorities, when exercising their social services functions, must act in accordance with the requirements contained in this code, and that it is open to any individual to exercise choice and to invite any advocate to support them in expressing their views, wishes and feelings. However, after an autistic adult recently asked me to attend a meeting with the same local authority, as an advocate for her—as I've done scores of times with constituents and public bodies; I'm sure you have also—she received a message from the local authority this weekend, stating, 'I'm not able to invite Mark to the meeting as I've been informed by higher management that if Mark has any issues regarding yourself or your son, he needs to access customer services.'

I hope you'll agree that these and other similar responses by a local authority's senior management are serious matters, with potentially damaging repercussions. So, again, what action can you take to ensure that repeat offenders, such as this local authority, both understand and operate within both UK and Welsh law?

Thank you for that. In respect of the particular circumstances that you raise, I think those are ones that could and probably should be referred to the Minister, who I'm sure would respond. There is of course another course of action, in terms of reference to the ombudsman, in terms of the way in which the local authority that you refer to has acted. I just think it would be improper for me, on something that I have no direct knowledge of, to actually give any specific further comment than that.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. My first question this afternoon is about a matter in my region causing consternation for constituents, but has a national implication. The application of Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd to continue coal extraction operations at the Ffos-y-Frân mine, beyond the original deadline, and mine for another three years, has caused considerable distress to residents due to concerns over air quality and noise pollution. The site is located just meters away from homes, schools and playgrounds. Can the Counsel General confirm whether article 67, section 26A of the Coal Industry Act 1994 gives Welsh Ministers the ultimate responsibility for approving bids for coal mining operations in Wales? Would the Counsel General also confirm whether the December 2018 notification direction obliges councillors to refer bids on coal or petroleum operations to Welsh Ministers? And based on these pieces of legislation, would the Counsel General give a view on whether the Welsh Government is able to refuse the application by Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd to continue coal extraction operations at the Ffos-y-Frân site?

Thank you for raising that. You raise some very specific matters that relate to, obviously, planning matters and the powers of Welsh Government. And of course, there are issues that have been raised, for example, in respect of another coal extraction area, and the issues relate, often, to what powers the Welsh Government has, and whether it's in respect of existing planning permissions that have been given or whether it relates to new planning applications, and so on. Look, in respect of the circumstances there, the detail you asked for is not something I can give you today; I think, if you write to me separately, if there are matters I can reply to you specifically on, I will happily do so. But I think it would be improper without knowing the background to it, knowing what stage it might be in the planning system, what other issues there might be, as to whether I can actually respond and in what detail I can respond to you on.

Thank you, Counsel General, and I'll certainly write to you on that.

Since the last round of Counsel General's questions, we have received the verdict of the Supreme Court that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum. Does the Counsel General concur with the remarks made by the First Minister in the summer, that there is an unambiguous moral and political case for allowing Scotland to hold an independence referendum? And do you also agree that every nation has a right to self-determination, if that is the democratic wish of the people? Finally, what is the Counsel General's assessment of the impact of sections 60 and 64 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 on the ability of Welsh Government to hold an independence referendum?

Well, thank you again for a number of important questions that are there. Can I just say, firstly, in terms of the general principle of self-determination? I think that's one that the First Minister and I and others have made clear in the past, that nations do have the right to self-determination. Our position in terms of referenda and what would happen with a Government that had a majority for a referendum is set out in 'Reforming our Union', and I think it was referred to very specifically in First Minister's questions the previous week. So, that position remains the Welsh Government's position, and is absolutely clear.

In a recent series of lectures—one by Professor Ciaran Martin that I attended, of course—there was the significant constitutional issue raised in terms of what the routes should be for a country, for a Government that has a mandate, and that is, undoubtedly, part of the ongoing constitutional debate. In terms of the Supreme Court judgment, I do have, I think, two questions that are about to come that are specifically on that, so, if you don't mind, I'll refer to that specifically when those questions actually arise.

But in terms of the point that Professor Emyr Lewis has raised, I've noted his comments with interest. He is, of course, correct to point out the differences that do exist between the Scottish settlement and the Welsh Ministers' executive powers. I would also say that there are, of course, significant differences between the powers of the Lord Advocate—my counterpart in Scotland—and their powers to be able to refer on constitutional matters, a power that is not a power that I specifically have in the Government of Wales Act. He also points out, of course, that these matters are incredibly complicated.

My own very preliminary view on it—and, of course, we're still giving thought to some of these issues as they arise—is I think it's unlikely, in respect of section 60, section 62 and section 64, that they would actually legitimise the holding of a poll that asked specifically the sort of question that the Scottish Government put in their Bill, which clearly does relate to a reserved matter in terms of the constitution of the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court was very clear on that particular point. Any poll that we would have, I think, would need to relate to intra vires powers—powers the Welsh Government or the Senedd actually have. And, of course, in many ways, we've exercised those powers by the establishment of the independent commission, which looks broadly at the well-being of Wales within a constitutional context.