9. How does the Counsel General ensure that the Welsh Government complies with international law and conventions on equality and human rights? OQ59333

Compliance with international law and human rights conventions is at the heart of everything we do in Wales. We do not see these obligations as optional extras, but consider them fundamental to the functioning of a progressive democracy. As law officer, I consider these obligations very seriously.

I welcome that response, and I noted the earlier response of the Counsel General to a question by my colleague, Joyce Watson, in respect of the UK Government's aptly titled Illegal Migration Bill. Can I note how strangely ironic it is that UK Ministers highlight in the very title of that Bill that the proposals that they're bringing forward are judged by many international authorities to be illegal in risking contravening international law and conventions? Yet this is not the only piece of legislation that introduces the strange predicament for Ministers in devolved nations of being asked to be part of the Executive function, because of directions from the UK Government, in discharging illegal actions. How does the Counsel General feel about that, and how do his Welsh Government Cabinet colleagues feel about being asked to take forward things that contravene international law and conventions?

Well, thank you for the supplementary question. Sadly, on so many occasions, we have seen this occurring, and we've had to discuss it and to raise it in this Chamber. We did it in terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which was clearly unlawful, and of course we've seen all the previous incidents that ended up in the Supreme Court, where the unlawfulness of what was happening by the Westminster Government was rightfully challenged. In fact, the irony is the response of the UK Government to those challenges was, 'Well, how can we then restrict the actual operation of the Supreme Court itself?' And we see internationally what happens when Governments try to actually undermine the independence of the judiciary and the operation of the rule of law.

What I would say, in terms of our record within this Senedd, in terms of our obligation under section 108 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, which prevents us from passing any regulations or legislation that is not compliant with those international obligations, is that we were the first UK nation to make the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child part of its domestic law; our Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 adopts the principles of the UN’s sustainable development goals; children's rights are enshrined in Welsh law in the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011, and I could go on and on, and we know, in terms of the legislation passed in this place, that reiterates and complies with international obligations.

Can I say what is fundamentally disturbing about the immigration Bill that has been tabled in Westminster that is being pushed through Parliament now, with very little proper engagement and adequate time for scrutiny, is that the purpose to having a statement on the front of it is to say that the Human Rights Act 1998, the European convention on human rights, has actually been considered and complied with, that the legislation is in compliance? There is not a get out of jail card to say, 'Well, actually, we don't think it complies', et cetera. I really question whether legislation should be allowed to actually be tabled if it is incapable of being able to have a statement by the law officers or by the appropriate Ministers that something is in compliance with international obligations. Otherwise, you're effectively tabling legislation that says, 'This legislation is probably unlawful, but nevertheless we're going to pass it.' What does that actually say about parliamentary democracy and the rule of law? I think it is a really disturbing development in Westminster, and something that really needs to be addressed in terms of the constitutional status of the way that these things are dealt with.

Finally, question 10, Jack Sargeant.