Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee

Instruments that raise no reporting points under Standing Order 21.7. The school organisation code: this code has been relaid in response to reporting points we identified in our meeting on 12 January. Senedd lawyers have identified no reporting points. Do Members have any comments or observations? No. Are we happy to agree the report? Yes.

Item 4, instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3. The Care and Support (Charging) and (Financial Assessment) (Wales) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026—draft report. These regulations amend secondary legislation in respect of charges and payments in relation to the care and support local authorities provide under Part 4 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. Senedd lawyers have identified two technical and two merits reporting points. A Welsh Government response has not yet been received. Firstly, Jen, from our legal team, would you like to run through the reporting points, please?

Thank you, Chair. So, further information is requested in relation to the two technical reporting points, which note a change in the Welsh Government's approach to the enabling powers used in regulations of this nature, and also confirmation as to whether all enabling powers have been cited. No response is requested for the merits points, which note the consultation carried out for these regulations and the financial effect, which is set out in the regulatory impact assessment.

Thanks, Jen. Do Members have anything to raise? I see they have not. Are we happy to agree the reporting points? Yes.

The Infrastructure Consent (Correcting Errors and Applications to Change or Revoke Infrastructure Consent Orders) (Procedure) (Wales) Regulations 2026. These regulations make provision about the procedure for correcting an error in a decision document and about the procedure in relation to applications to change or revoke an infrastructure consent order. Senedd lawyers have identified 17 technical reporting points. A Welsh Government response has not yet been received. Jen, would you like to take us through the reporting points?

Thank you, Chair. So, six of the points note inconsistencies between the Welsh and English texts. Nine points request further explanation relating to definitions and whether they are used in a consistent and accessible manner and also whether they reflect the definitions used in the 2024 Act. Clarity is also sought around the confusion that can arise by linking paragraphs by using 'and' and 'or' in the same list. And then there are also two defective drafting points noted due to errors in cross-references.

Thank you, Jen. Do Members have anything to raise? Can we agree the reporting points? Yes.

The Regulated Services (Registration) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026. These regulations amend the Regulated Services (Registration) (Wales) Regulations 2017 as a result of changes introduced by the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, which restricts the provision of certain children's services to local authorities and not-for-profit entities. Senedd lawyers have identified one merits reporting point. A Welsh Government response is not required. Jen, would you like to run us through the reporting point?

Thank you, Chair. The point just refers to the fact that these regulations revoke and remake the Regulated Services (Registration) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 in response to this committee's report on those regulations. In that, the most substantive scrutiny point raised by the committee was the omission of a regulation in the English text.

Thanks, Jen. Do Members have anything to raise? No. Are we agreed on the reporting points? Yes.

Instruments subject to the Senedd approval procedure. Item 4.4, the Child Minding and Day Care Exceptions (Revocation and Transitional Provision) (Wales) Order 2026. This Order revokes and replaces the Child Minding and Day Care Exceptions (Wales) Order 2010. This Order sets out exceptions to what constitutes 'child minding' and 'day care for children' for the purposes of the registration and inspection of child minders and day care providers. It is an offence for a person to act as a child minder or provide day care without being registered. Senedd lawyers have identified one merits reporting point. A Welsh Government response is not required. We also have in our papers a written statement by the Minister for Children and Social Care, which details the consultation responses received by the Welsh Government last year, and we have a letter from her offering a technical briefing for Members. Members who wish to take up the Minister's offer should contact our clerk. Jen, would you like to run through the reporting point?

Thank you, Chair. The point refers to that consultation, and notes that it was still undertaken even though there is no statutory duty to consult in relation to this Order.

Thanks, Jen. Are we happy to agree the reporting point? Yes.

The Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2026. These regulations make amendments to the Procurement Act 2023, alongside UK Government regulations, in order to implement the procurement chapter of the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement. The provisions include transitional arrangements under which these regulations will not affect any procurement under the 2023 Act that relates to the UK-India agreement where the procurement has commenced before the day on which that agreement enters into force. Senedd lawyers have identified one technical and four merits reporting points. A Welsh Government response has not yet been received. Jen.

Thank you, Chair. A Welsh Government response was actually received earlier today. So, the technical point asked for an explanation as to why the word 'framework' isn't defined in these regulations. The response notes that point, but the Government says, as its drafting guidance states, that a definition shouldn't be included unless it will aid clarity or certainty. They take the view that the word 'framework' is well established and obvious from the specific context in which it was used. No response was requested in relation to the four merits points, which noted, firstly, that the regulations amend changes to the 2023 Act that are due to come into force one day before these regulations, secondly, that the amendments in regulation (4) address a reporting point raised by this committee regarding the Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2025, thirdly, that the Welsh Ministers have also provided their consent regarding transitional savings and correction provisions in a linked UK instrument, and, finally, that no consultation was carried out in relation to these regulations due to their technical nature.

Thanks, Jen. Members, do you have anything to raise? No. Are we happy to agree the reporting points? I see we are.

The Representation of the People Act 1983 (Security Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2026. The Order amends the Representation of the People Act 1983. It extends to local government elections the ability for candidates to exclude from their election expense accounts any reasonable expenses incurred that are reasonably attributable to the protection of persons or property.

Senedd lawyers have identified one merits reporting point. A Welsh Government response is not required. Jen.

So, the point notes that the Order doesn't meet the Gould principle, as set out in the explanatory memorandum. The principle provides that electoral law shouldn't be changed within six months of an election that the change would impact. But the explanatory memorandum notes the importance of this rather straightforward change to protect candidates.

Okay, thank you. I warmly welcome it. Do Members have anything to raise? No. Are we happy to agree the reporting point? Yes.

The Welsh Language Standards (No. 10) Regulations 2026. These regulations specify Welsh language standards that registered social landlords in Wales are required to comply with. Senedd lawyers have identified one technical and three merits reporting points. I believe a Welsh Government response has now been received.

That's right.

Jen, would you like to run us through the reporting points?

Thank you, Chair. So, the technical point notes an inconsistency between the Welsh and English texts, and the Government's response confirms that this will be corrected before the instrument is made.

A response was also requested in relation to the first merits point, which sought an explanation regarding why references to documents or materials being available to members of the public in Wales, or being produced for public use, are said not to include documents or materials that are only available by virtue of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but no reference is made to the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Government's response notes that this is a matter that extends beyond this set of regulations, so it intends to consider whether there's a need to bring forward legislation to amend all of the standard regulations to determine that documents made available to the public as a result of the 2004 regulations should be exempted from the standards regime.

There were two other merits points where no response was requested, which note the connection between these regulations and the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2026, which the Chair summarised earlier in this meeting, and that the standards set out in these regulations may be subject to review under the Welsh Language and Education (Wales) Act 2025.

Thanks, Jen. Are we happy to agree the reporting point? We are.

Instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3, previously considered. The Welsh Elections Information Platform (Amendments) Regulations 2026. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 9 February and laid its report the same day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government response to the report, which has since been received. Jen, do you have anything to raise from the Welsh Government response?

Just to say that the Welsh Government has confirmed that the effect and purpose of the regulations aren't outside the scope of the enabling powers and that the correct scrutiny procedure is being followed. And with regard to the defective drafting points noted, the Government is investigating whether a correction slip can be used for two of them, but doesn't consider that any further definitions are required in relation to the final reporting point.

Thanks, Jen. Members, anything? Are we happy to agree to note the Welsh Government's response? Yes, I see we are.

The Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) (Wales) (Amendments relating to Minimum Revenue Provision) Regulations 2026. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 9 February and laid its report the same day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government response to the report, which has since been received. Jen, do you have anything to raise from the Welsh Government response?

Just to confirm that the Welsh Government is seeking to change the Cabinet Secretary's title in the signatory block by correction slip.

Thank you. Do Members have anything to note? Are we happy to note the Welsh Government's response? Yes.

The Education (Student Finance) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations 2026. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 23 February and laid its report the next day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government response to the report, which has since been received. Jen, do you have anything to raise from the Welsh Government response?

Just to note that the Government has noted the typographical error and is currently liaising with the statutory instrument registrar about the possibility of using a correction slip to deal with this.

Thanks, Jen. Are we happy to note the Welsh Government's response?

The Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026. The committee considered this instrument at our last meeting, on 23 February, and laid its report the same day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government's response to the report, which has since been received. Jen, do you have anything to raise from the Welsh Government's response?

Again, the Government is discussing with the SI registrar whether the drafting error can be dealt with by way of a corrections slip. With regard to an explanation of the term 'highest astronomical tide', the Government is of the view that the drafting doesn't create any uncertainty or lack of clarity such that an amendment is required.

Are we happy to note the Welsh Government's response? Yes.

The Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. The committee considered this instrument at our last meeting, on 23 February, and laid its report the next day. The Welsh Government response to the report was brought to the attention of Members at our last meeting, but now we have it here to formally note. Jen, do you have anything to raise from the Welsh Government response?

No, thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Jen. Any Members have anything to raise? No.

The Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments and Transitory Provision) Regulations 2026. The committee considered this instrument at its last meeting and laid its report the next day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government response to the report, which has since been received. Jen, anything to raise on the Welsh Government response?

Thank you, Chair. The Government has confirmed that the wording being amended by these regulations will come into force at the same time as the relevant regulation. In relation to the availability or lack of availability of the St David's Catholic College Incorporation Order 2005 online, the Government has confirmed that this is certified as a local statutory instrument and therefore excepted from the general requirement that statutory instruments be printed and sold. However, it is available through the Welsh Government's online publications archive, and the relevant footnote will be amended prior to the making of the regulations to reflect that.

Thank you, Jen. Do Members have anything to raise? Are we happy to note the Welsh Government's response? Yes, we are.

The Infrastructure Consent (Compensation for Changing or Revoking Infrastructure Consent Orders) (Wales) Regulations 2026. The committee considered this instrument at its last meeting and laid its report the next day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government response to the report, which has since been received. Jen, anything to raise from the Welsh Government's response?

Just to flag that the Welsh Government acknowledges it would have been more consistent to include definitions of the terms 'land' and 'minerals' by reference to the 2024 Act, but considers the meaning of those terms is clear in the context they're used.

Thanks, Jen. Are we happy to note the Welsh Government's response?

Instruments subject to the Senedd annulment procedure. The Independent Review of Determinations (Adoption and Fostering) (Wales) Regulations 2026. The committee considered this instrument at its last meeting and laid its report the next day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government response to the report, which has since been received. Jen, have you got anything to raise?

Just to note that the Government intends to lay a short set of amending regulations to address the reporting points raised.

Thank you very much. Are we happy to note the Welsh Government's response?

Notifications and correspondence under the inter-institutional relations agreement. Correspondence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs: the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme: Plant Health) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. The Deputy First Minister informs us of his intention to consent to these regulations being made and applying to Wales. The purpose of the regulations is to bring Great Britain into alignment with European Union import requirements for certain goods originating from non-EU or UK countries, specifically for pest control reasons. The Deputy First Minister states that the regulations

'impact on biosecurity which has traditionally been approached as a joint concern'

and that introducing separate regulations in Wales, England and Scotland would risk divergence on biosecurity matters where policy is aligned. If Members have no comments, then we’ll move on to the next item.

Correspondence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs: the Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. At our meeting on 9 February, we noted a letter from the Deputy First Minister informing us of his intention to provide consent for the UK Government to make these regulations. The Deputy First Minister now informs us that a draft of the regulations was laid in the UK Parliament on 24 February, and there will be a 21-day committee period followed by debates in both Houses of Parliament ahead of a motion to approve the regulations. If the regulations are made before the start of the Easter recess, the Deputy First Minister will issue a written statement and send us a letter informing us of his decision to consent to the regulations within three days of their laying. If the regulations are not made before the Senedd is dissolved, a suitable form of public communication followed by a written statement will be made once the new Senedd is in session.

Correspondence from the Welsh Government: meetings of inter-ministerial groups. A letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning: inter-ministerial group for trade, 26 February 2026. We have one notification this week of an inter-ministerial group meeting. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning informs us that a meeting of the Interministerial Group for Trade is scheduled for this Wednesday 4 March. She tells us that the meeting will cover an update of trade policy and trade matters to do with the US, GCC, which we believe is the Gulf Cooperation Council, and discussions around steel trade measures. Do Members have any comment?

Papers to note. Correspondence with the Welsh Government: reporting points in relation to Welsh language subordinate legislation. In response to our letter to the First Minister highlighting our concerns about the number of errors in Welsh language subordinate legislation, the Counsel General sets out the Welsh Government's action in the area. The Counsel General states that the Welsh Government is increasing capacity in relevant teams, resolving transitional issues as it moves to a new legislative drafting software, and is pursuing continuous improvement with respect to drafting and translation of secondary legislation. The Counsel General notes that between September 2025 and December 2025 the number of notified reporting points was considerably reduced. However, the Government welcomes the opportunity to engage with the committee and its successor following the election on this matter. Do Members have any comments they wish to make? No.

Correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to the Llywydd: legislative consent memorandum on the Representation of the People Bill. The Cabinet Secretary has written to the Llywydd informing her of the delay to the laying of a Welsh Government legislative consent memorandum on this UK Bill. She states that the

'breadth and complexity of the Bill is considerable, and it contains 81 clauses and 11 schedules which span a wide range of electoral matters.'

She goes on to say that she expects the memorandum to be laid before the dissolution of the Senedd in early April, and that consent implications will be considered by the next Senedd. Do Members have any comments? I see they have none.

Correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to the Finance Committee: Building Safety (Wales) Bill, revised explanatory memorandum. The Cabinet Secretary informs the Finance Committee that a revised explanatory memorandum on this Bill has been laid to reflect amendments agreed at Stage 2. Do Members have any comments they wish to make? If not, we'll move on to the next item.

Correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care: Welsh Government response to the Health and Social Care Committee report on the Welsh Government's Supplementary Legislative Consent (Memorandum No. 3) on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The Cabinet Secretary responds to the report of the Health and Social Care Committee on memorandum No. 3 on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. In response to one of the recommendations made, he seeks to clarify his response to our report on this memorandum. The Cabinet Secretary states that to avoid further confusion, and after reflecting on the comments made by both committees, in memorandum No. 4 on the Bill he has explicitly set out the rationale behind including the amendment to clause 4 in that memorandum, as well as other key amendments. As Members know, the Senedd agreed a legislative consent motion for this Bill last Tuesday. Do Members have any comments? No.

Correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language: Development of Tourism and Regulation of Visitor Accommodation (Wales) Bill. The Cabinet Secretary has responded to our letter, which requested a full response to our report on this Bill, which we had not received. The Welsh Government accepted nine of the report's 10 recommendations. The letter sets out where amendments were tabled at Stage 2 accordingly. It also notes where further consideration for amendments at Stage 3 is ongoing. Do Members have any comments? No, I see they have none.

Correspondence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs. In response to our request for further clarity on the Welsh Government's request for an exclusion under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 for a deposit-return scheme, the Deputy First Minister states that the proposal has been discussed extensively at inter-governmental meetings, including at inter-ministerial level, and so has been made in full accordance with the agreed inter-governmental approach. He states that on 2 February 2026, the UK Government confirmed that it would agree to the exclusion subject to specified conditions. However, he states the UK Government has not at this stage agreed to an exclusion covering reusable drink containers, although it has stated its support for the Welsh Government's ambitions on reuse and its intention to continue working with the Welsh Government on an exclusion. The relevant regulations, the Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (Wales) Regulations 2026, were laid before the Senedd on 12 February. We will consider these regulations at our meeting next week. We will reflect on these issues in our evidence session later in today's meeting. Do Members have any comments?

We can group the following two items together for convenience if Members are happy: correspondence from the Wine and Spirit Trade Association on the deposit-return scheme and correspondence from British Glass on the Deposit Return Scheme for Drinks Containers (Wales)​ Regulations 2026. Members are invited to note the briefing papers from the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and British Glass in relation to the deposit-return scheme in Wales. The WSTA sets out their concerns about the transition period for glass containers and question whether the Welsh Government obtained independent advice from the Office for the Internal Market during the decision-making process. They question why the Welsh Government waited until November 2025 to submit a UK internal market Act exclusion request, over a year after the announcement of Wales’s intention to include glass and exit from the UK-wide approach. British Glass’s evidence paper also sets out their view on the UK internal market Act exclusion procedure. Like the WSTA, they share concerns about the exclusion being sought late in the process and also question whether advice was sought from the Office for the Internal Market. They also raise concerns about the consultation process and the impact assessment that have fed into the policy. Do Members have any comments? No.

Correspondence from the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery on 'Common Legislative Solutions: a guide to tackling recurring policy issues in legislation'. The Counsel General informs us of the publication of a third edition of the 'Common Legislative Solutions: a guide to tackling recurring policy issues in legislation'. This edition covers fees and charges and providing information. Do Members have any comments? No.

Can I move a motion under Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix) to resolve to exclude the public from items 9, 10, 11 and 13? Is that agreed? Yes.

Can I welcome Members back to the public session? Can I welcome Huw Irranca-Davies, the Deputy First Minister, Julie James, the Counsel General, and their officials? Do you want to introduce your officials, or do you want them to introduce themselves?

They can introduce themselves. Shall we go from the left, Cadeirydd?

I'm Scott Tyler, I'm head of UK legislation programme.

Tom Smithson, deputy director for economic strategy and regulation.

I'm James Gerard, I'm the deputy director for justice policy.

Croeso. Welcome. Just to remind Members that we commissioned research on the Thomas commission report linked to this agenda. Dr Robert Jones, who is the author of that report, will be presenting the paper formally to Members next week. If you're okay, can we go straight on to questions?

Indeed.

What progress has been made in implementing changes to the operation of the UK internal market Act following last year's review?

I'll give you a detailed update on progress, but first of all, it's worth saying from the very outset that we are disappointed the UK Government's review of UKIMA didn't consider repeal and didn't propose any legislative changes. That was our position from the outset. It's worth saying that.

However, your committee has seen our response to the review, which included a clear, coherent package of legislative reform. We're aiming to try and make UKIMA work more coherently within the devolution settlement. We set out in a written statement in July our position following the conclusion of the UK Government's review. We believe that the UK Government's review, albeit not stepping back from our long-standing position, is actually a useful step forward, because it's underpinned by our ambition for the common frameworks to be the primary vehicle for managing the internal market, rather than the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. This means that any agreements by the four nations within the bounds of the common frameworks for an exclusion to the market access principles will be enacted by the UK Government. This is a change from what was going on previously, which required a separate application, with the UK Government alone deciding. So, it is a step forward.

You'll also have seen, Chair, our response in January, where we detailed how we're trying to influence the detailed design work with the UK Government to ensure that these commitments are now translated into real-world change. Part of this is agreeing internal guidance across all four Governments on the approach and the process. It's important we have those, so that everybody can understand, and it's very clear and transparent, how that will be applied.

So, this is early days. A key test, I have to say, will be applying these commitments to real-world examples, cross-Government examples. In summary, the review is a step forward, but a key test now is how those are going to be applied and how the UK Government honours its commitments in practice. One of the first examples, by the way, of course, was the exclusion that's been granted for the DRS. That was an acid test of the new approach. It's been an arduous process to get to where we've got, but we're applying the lessons from that in what we take forward now in the guidance—so, things like how do we sequence the actions through the common frameworks and the type of information that's required. So, that's our position. We still stand strong on the position, Chair, that we would have preferred to have seen repeal, with common frameworks being the medium through which we resolve these issues, but the review is a step forward.

Alun, you want to come in.

I think the committee agrees with the Welsh Government on these matters. In fact, I think the Deputy First Minister was Chair of the committee when he guided the policy of this committee and the approach of this committee. So, it's a surprise to nobody. But powers under UKIMA, of course, were used to deliver Pride in Place as well. Many of us on the back benches, of course, wrote to the Prime Minister on that matter. And whilst we haven't received a reply yet, I think we were hoping that perhaps the Welsh Government has been quite forceful as well. You say that repeal is your preferred option, and I think we'd agree on that, but there are also issues around the use of the financial powers as well.

Yes, entirely, entirely. No, you're absolutely right, Alun. Listen, I was pleased to serve on this committee when this committee was adopting its approach to it, and it does very much echo the approach the Welsh Government has taken on repeal of the Act overall, but failing that, to have a review that is meaningful and so on. But you've rightly raised the issue of the financial assistance powers. We've been crystal clear—consistently, throughout, regularly—that the use of the financial assistance powers under UKIMA should be abolished. That's our position. They should be abolished. There's no place for them. But if they remain, and they are in place at the moment, we're adamant that their use in Wales should only ever be in exceptional circumstances and only with our consent.

Now, you will know the trials and tribulations we've had on some of this. It's great, I have to say, with the—. Look, the approach that has been taken by the UK Government in the local growth fund has been a signal difference. They've worked with us; they've engaged with us; it's this Government and Wales that is involved in the deployment of that. But you're right in pointing out, even where you acknowledge that there can be some good come from that investment in Pride in Place, that was done in a different way, and we need to keep working on, and with, the UK Government to get them to work with us.

I agree with that. So, what conversations took place between yourselves and the UK Government over Pride in Place?

We had direct conversations with them. There was no lack of clarity on our view and our desire that we would have a different way that that funding would be administered within Wales; that it should have a role here for Welsh Government—in line with, I have to say, the very well-established partnership approach we have in Wales, that we avoid duplication, waste of resource, and we avoid it straying into areas that are within devolved competence where we already have provision. But that tranche of funding could be usefully deployed if it was within the framework we already have. So, we've been very clear with them, in both Minister-to-Minister engagement and First Minister-to-Prime Minister engagement, the lessons that we need to learn from that.

So, I think rather than beating the UK Government over the head consistently, although there are lessons to be learned, that's exactly where we're focused with the UK Government in saying, 'Look, can we do more like the local growth fund? Can we do less like Pride in Place, or none of the Pride in Place?' The principle should be: it should be with Welsh Government consent and funding and involvement, funding within Wales. That's what we had under European funding. That's where we need to get back to as well.

Thank you.

In terms of the local growth fund, there's a lot of criticism of the rigid split between capital and revenue, and the overemphasis on capital compared to previous shared prosperity funding. So, are you of the view now that you've solved that problem in Wales and you have flexibility?

We haven't solved it entirely, Adam, it's worth saying that, but the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language has been very clear that he would like to see that flexibility. We do have some flexibility; our preferred position would be to have more flexibility within it.

So, even on the local growth fund, they're not listening to you completely and giving you the kind of discretion or flexibility that you would have had previously under a different framework and that you want now.

I think it's fair to say that we've got the ear of Government. That doesn't mean that they absolutely give us everything we always want, and that is true to say. That doesn't mean we give up, Adam, either on advocating the case for the sort of flexibilities that we would say should be ours to decide.

Just returning then to the UKIMA financial assistance powers that Alun Davies raised, you've said that you've said repeatedly that you want those powers repealed. What have UK Ministers said when you last raised it in relation to that?

Well, it's probably accurate to record for the purposes of this committee—and we've said this repeatedly as well—that the UKIMA review offered no meaningful reform of financial assistance powers, and our representations to the UK Government—which we continue to make, by the way—have not yet brought a dividend. We don't think that there is a role for those financial assistance powers in trying to determine, in Wales, the spending power.

I understand the Welsh Government's position. What was their answer?

Well, their answer is very much within the review. They've retained those powers, Adam. They have that ability to use them, which we believe should be—

Okay, right. So, they're not going to repeal them. Did they give a reason as to why they want to retain them?

I couldn't cite the black-and-white text of the reasons, if you like, but I think it's fair to say that the UK Government see a role for UK Government in investing in Wales. Now, we don't disagree with that. We want to see the UK Government investing in Wales, but we want to see it through the prism of our Welsh Government, through Senedd scrutiny and so on. I'm pleased to say that again here today, because we will keep on having this engagement with them. They, however, see a different way at this moment—at this moment—which is that they want to retain the financial assistance powers.

And when you were having these conversations with the UK Government, did you also raise the related issue of the abolition of assisted area status, which some people think is related to the European Union, but it was the European Union that adopted it from the UK when we joined? The south Wales Valleys had assisted area status in the 1930s. So, what's the position on that of the Welsh Government? Did you raise it with the UK Government? Northern Ireland still has assisted area, but now, for the first time really, since the 1930s, we're not able to offer significant advantages—financial incentives—to companies wishing to locate in some of the most deprived communities in the UK, and that goes for the other assisted areas that did exist as well. Have you raised that? What has the UK Government said in relation to that?

I'm going to bring my colleague in now, but the joys of EU withdrawal keep on giving to us. Sorry, that wasn't a lead-in to you.

If I could correct you there, as I pointed out, that's nothing to do with the EU, because it came from the 1930s. It was because of South Wales Needs a Plan, yes, and Hilary Marquand, which led to the creation of the assisted areas, predating the European Union, and that's why it's got completely, completely misunderstood.

So, as I understand it, I think the Welsh Government made the case very strongly at the time the Subsidy Control Act 2022 was being developed, and the UK Government has now put in place the Subsidy Control Act, which is the replacement subsidy control system. There is a set of schemes within that that allow that—. There's a new one—. Sorry, I'm not an expert in this, but I know there is a new one that allows for specific areas to gain additional assistance. We've put in place subsidy control schemes for things like the free ports, to make sure that additional support can be provided there. So, at the moment, we're working within the current subsidy control scheme, or the subsidy control legislation. I do believe there is due to be a review of the Subsidy Control Act, and that again will be another point at which the case can be made once again for assisted area status. It is Welsh Government policy, since the Act was being developed, to argue for assisted area status.

Chair, if it's helpful as well, just to say in terms of us putting our arguments forward and raising concerns with the UK Government on the financial assistance powers, the First Minister has directly raised this with the Prime Minister on several occasions, not least on 18 February and 28 November, but also it'll be raised at the forthcoming Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee by my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language. That'll be on 19 March as well. So, we will continue to push the Welsh Government's position on the use of these powers.

You're painting a picture, Deputy First Minister, of a relationship with the United Kingdom Government that is clearly better than previous times, where you're able to raise issues, talk, talk at length, have reasoned conversations, but you don't seem to be having much success.

Yes—. Sorry, it's like University Challenge here—we're conferring.

I thought it was a starter for 10. [Laughter.]

I'm very happy for the Counsel General to answer the question, if she wishes to.

There is a question here of the progress that we can make with the UK Government, step by step. I would certainly argue that the local growth fund is really a step forward and that has come out of that engagement. We've managed to engage with the UK Government, both at official and at ministerial level, partly, by the way, learning the lessons of the Pride in Place funding as well, to say that cannot happen again. And they've listened to us, and they've engaged with that, and they've moved a step forward.

If we're going to have these powers that were not taken out during the course of the review, which is what we argued for, Alun, that they should be in that review and they should be taken out, they should be stripped away—. But if they're there, then we need transparency, we need consent mechanisms, and we need meaningful engagement, and we are starting to have that. What we haven't got, you're absolutely right, is agreement to strip them out and not use them, but we'll keep on giving it.

I don't think there's any difference between the committee's view—

No, I agree.

—and that of the Welsh Government on many of these issues. I think this committee has argued throughout, certainly this Senedd, that we want to have a relationship with the United Kingdom Government, of whatever complexion, that is open, as you say, transparent, rooted in respect for each other's mandates, and rooted in a much fairer settlement than exists today. And if you think about those themes, there's clearly been an improvement since the chaos prior to the 2024 general election. But whilst there's been an improvement—and I recognise what you say about the local growth funds; this isn't the committee that's been looking at those, but I sit on the other committee that is looking at those—there's a number of areas there where the Welsh Government didn't get what it wanted. And it just feels that the relationship isn't one either of equals or that is rooted in respect. It might be rooted in friendship, but not respect.

I accept what you're saying, in that there has been progress, but it's not where we'd want it to be. Ultimately, it isn't. And we've not been shy of saying that as well.

The critical aspect of this is recognising that the power to make fundamental change on this is rooted with the UK Government, and that's where we need to never give up on the arguments that we are putting. And we think there is a better way. We started talking about common frameworks. We've always thought—we've long thought—that that is the best way to deal with that. We don't think that UKIMA is necessary whatsoever there. If the UK Government wants to invest money in Wales, then talk to us and talk to our partners, and we can then help direct that money through our systems.

But, meanwhile, we have had progress in the way that they are now engaging with us; you were right to say that. I would also say, genuinely, my thanks to the committee for their steadfastness on this as well, because, you're right, it very much reflects the position that Welsh Government is taking, and this committee and we need to keep on making those arguments. We can't give up on this, because I think it is fundamentally to do with those things of respect, of, if not parity, at least respect within decision making, so that we engage properly. And whilst it is significantly better than what we have seen before, we can't give up on the fundamental arguments here, which is why I came back to this place to be—

And the fairness argument that the First Minister made as well.

Very much indeed. Very much indeed.

Yes. I will leave it at that. Thank you.

Moving on slightly, what prompted the Welsh Government's shift in recognising that exclusions to the market access principles in the UK internal market Act are necessary for Welsh legislation such as those proposed for the deposit-return scheme?

So, this is core to some of these discussions, because our argument would be that our experience with DRS, which I've lived and breathed for the whole time I've been in this role, is exactly why we need a clearer, much more predictable, much more rules-based system for handling exclusions. And the UKIMA one that everybody can understand across the four nations is one that reflects the commitments that were actually made in the UKIMA review as well. So, basically, work it through the common framework principles, arbitrate within that space of the four nations.

So, we've been pushing heavily for four nations guidance, so that all Governments can be working from the same playbook, all Governments have the same understanding, less of a taking it case by case and more of a, 'Here are the clear rules of engagement.' We need a shared understanding of the evidence required, the timescales involved, the process for reaching agreement. So, DRS has been quite instructive in that. To say that I've lived and breathed it, we've got to a good place on it, but it's been painstaking, and we've almost had to create the rules as we've gone along of what good engagement looks like.

If we had consistent guidance, then we could have real transparency rather than ad hocery.

And the guidance will be published.

I don't believe we have a timescale on publishing the guidance.

But it will be published.

Yes, our intention would be that the guidance is made available. The guidance will need to be made available depending on the resolution of some of the common frameworks that we're now taking through. There are seven that are well advanced; there are others that are not so well advanced. But the final piece of guidance, once it's finalised, we expect to agree then some updated text that would appear then on the UK Government website text on exclusions via the common frameworks. So, yes, it will appear then publicly.

Thank you for that. Going back to Adam, when he was arguing for assisted area status, some of us would much more like the money to be pumped into universities for life sciences and computing so that we don't generate more and more screwdriver factories, which come and go, with, in some cases, not much time in between, but actually to start developing our own economy and we start building a successful IT, computing, life sciences economy like lots of other places that are very successful in the world.

Well, indeed, and you will know that some of the priorities laid out by the First Minister are indeed life sciences, advanced manufacturing, other areas that we have signalled strengths in, such as cyber security, the south Wales Cardiff to Swansea strip there in terms of AI development and digital, as well as strengths in north Wales. But the power of actually having the ability to make those decisions on all available funding, and also, by the way, to draw down research funding and so on into Wales, is that you can then decide not just on a Wales basis, but on a regional basis as well, what those priorities are. And they will, indeed, in the Swansea and south-west area be different from what they are in the Cardiff and the south-east area. They will be different in mid Wales and they will be different in north Wales. But what we would argue strongly—and this comes back to this argument about the use of financial assistance powers, which may well bring money into Wales—is it needs to dovetail in with the priorities that are being set for driving forward jobs and skills and industry. That's our fundamental argument. It's better to have those lined up properly.

Okay. Adam.

One of the ways in which the state can actually drive innovation is to use regulatory powers to set higher regulatory standards, which then actually create the conditions whereby you can develop clusters that respond to those standards. The circular economy is a good example in Wales where we have now some world-leading companies as a result of the smart use of regulatory powers. Is that one of the reasons why the internal market Act, as a blunt instrument, potentially prevents us in Wales from taking the opportunity to use regulation to drive the development of new sectors?

Our argument is strongly that if we are to still have a UK internal market, not simply common frameworks—although I do welcome the fact that common frameworks are now emerging as the primary vehicle for resolving these issues, getting agreement across the four nations—we need the ability to keep on innovating in Wales, and in Scotland, and in Northern Ireland, and in England, quite frankly, as well. Now, we have a significant advantage of being early to the game in terms of driving forward the circular economy. It's built on what we have done with recycling, but we will want to go further and faster. Now, on that space, that's why we believe that the right way to take forward elements of divergence within a UK market should be resolved within the common frameworks, because then you do have the space for continued innovation, for devolved governments not to do things at all for the sake of it but because you could actually drive jobs and growth within a sector like the circular economy. Now, that is very much, Adam, the discussions that we are in with the UK Government on our ambitions, for example, with things like the deposit-return scheme.

Just on glass reuse, and I understand that the current exemption doesn't relate to that and that is something that you may take forward in the common framework discussion, I was told that industry offered to invest £100 million in a trial of glass reuse, and that's the kind of innovation that we want to see. Why did the Welsh Government decide not to take that forward, then, given what you've just said?

Well, I don't want to delve too much into ongoing discussions at the moment with industry and so on, but, certainly, the way forward that we have laid out on DRS now will mean we are able to take forward single-use glass. We do it in a phased way, in a transition way. I mean, this is where it really works: all four nations introducing a DRS in 2027. But we are able to bring forward, in an advanced timescale, but with a transition, single-use glass. You and I will remember returning bottles. Sorry, you're not as old as me; I certainly remember returning bottles, okay, and getting the deposit back on them. And it cleans up litter and it deals with all of that. Now, that is the process we're involved in, and that includes, by the way, ongoing discussions that are continuing with industry on driving this forward in Wales on a larger scale pilot. So, previously, we'd been looking at—you may recall, Adam—a large-scale pilot in what I might refer to as the greater Newport area, as in Newport's outlying areas and so on, how we would do a DRS scheme with glass involved within that. So, we're still having those discussions.

And just in terms of the regs, I'm interested in the complexities here, because two legislatures are involved. So, am I right in thinking that targets for potential future reuse are included in the regs before the Senedd but that would be contingent upon a further exemption from the UK Government?

So, the exclusion for single-use glass is now there. If we were to move to not single-use glass, but returns of bottles and so on, then that, under the common frameworks approach now, which we're trying to establish, would be a future exclusion we need to take forward. But what we have is the will of the UK Government now to actually work with us on this. It's a signal difference from what came before. You will recall Scottish Government being stopped in their tracks by the previous UK Government on any proposal to differ in the approach of a DRS they wanted to bring forward.

But do the regs before the Senedd, from a Senedd legislative perspective, facilitate potential future reuse, or targets for that, but that would still require, then, the UK Government to exempt?

Correct.

Okay. It's a kind of slightly unsatisfactory position to be in, isn't it? But let's move on to another UKIMA matter. On 11 February, you said you were working to secure a UKIMA exclusion for phase 2 of the single-use plastics ban. In your letter of 25 February, you say you're still considering whether an exclusion is needed. So, which is it?

Right. So, this has been driven by the different approach that we've now taken within the Welsh Government, which is based on the position that the UK Government came to after their review. We still have that long-standing position that UKIMA should be repealed and common frameworks should be the way forward. But, putting common frameworks now at the centre aligns directly with our core aim of a system based on consent and collaboration, with respect for devolution. So, it's closer to the model we've consistently advocated. However—however—in the situation that we now find ourselves in, particularly in terms of single-use plastics, this means that we now need to progress discussions within common frameworks for an appropriate UKIMA exclusion for the phase 2 bans on single-use plastic products—so, things like polystyrene lids for cups, takeaway food containers, single-use carrier bags, oxo-degradable plastic and so on. But that discussion through the common frameworks process—so that we're crystal clear—means that it is no longer viable to agree and enact an exclusion under UKIMA to implement the remaining phase 2 bans. So, what we're doing instead is working now, under the common frameworks, working consistently closely with the other UK nations to find a way forward to tackle that environmental damage using the common frameworks. So, we released, as you know, a written statement on 11 February, with an updated position. We remain committed to taking this forward, but it's under a slightly different route now, because we're doing it under the common frameworks.

Okay. If I can summarise, then, the answer to the question is an exclusion is still needed, but you're going to try and get that through the common frameworks rather than a UKIMA exclusion.

Correct.

But doesn't that have consequences, though, in terms of timing et cetera, and shouldn't you have pursued the UKIMA exclusion earlier?

So, it does have consequences, because it does mean a slight delay, and we've been very open and transparent on this, but it's not a delay to do with a change in policy because we're still committed to this. Our original intention, Adam, was to introduce the remaining phase 2 bans in this Senedd term. But because of the UK's updated position, following its review on the internal market Act, this has changed the context in which we're now operating. You rightly describe now what we're trying to do. So, in line with this new position on the UK internal market Act, the change in Welsh Government approach to the UK internal market Act, we started working within the common framework on an exclusion proposal, whilst notifying the UK Government and other nations of the tight timescales. So, you are right—it does have an impact on the timescales, but our argument would be this is actually a better way now to engage with other nations, but it does mean we have a slight delay on it. I don't know if colleagues have anything to add on that. No.

Well, time is tight; maybe we should move on to the next question, really, which is a more general one. This is a kind of case in point, I suppose. When you're seeking exclusions under common frameworks, as you just described in this particular instance, how will you keep the Senedd and affected stakeholders informed at the outset and as the process moves along?

I think we will need to keep the Senedd informed. I think the challenge comes here in the process of, first of all, agreeing the common frameworks themselves and then publishing them. The other point is getting to an agreed position with the other UK nations. This is a Government-to-Government process on agreeing exclusions. It's a lot of heavy lifting internally—not just with the UK Government, by the way, but other devolved nations as well. But in terms of then putting in front of the Senedd the updated position, we would of course do this, and we have the opportunity to do that, of course, as well, as we bring forward proposals, including within the way we normally bring forward regulations and things like environmental impact assessments, and so on. So, there will be undoubtedly a need to produce this in front of the Senedd, once we're clear of positions.

Right. Well, obviously, we're talking about exclusions to common frameworks, so, presumably, you've got to have the common framework agreed before you can ask for an exclusion.

Indeed. Exactly. Yes.

But will you commit to notifying the Senedd when an exclusion bid is submitted?

Look, as we finalise the guidance across the four nations, we're very happy to look at the most suitable point at which to notify the Senedd on formal exclusion proposals, because I think this is what we want to see. It's identifying at what point in that process do we produce it for the Senedd, to say, 'We've come to a position on this', but, yes.

Okay.

Diolch. Alun Davies.

I think we probably need to move on from this conversation to address other matters, but just to conclude the conversation on common frameworks, do you feel confident enough now to be able to say that the common frameworks are the principal place for policy discussion within and throughout the United Kingdom? If that is the case—you're nodding as I ask the question—if that is the case, how would you propose—? We've just been talking about keeping the Senedd involved, but there's a real danger here that we could be sleepwalking, if you like, with very good intentions, into government behind closed doors, where these decisions are taken, as you say, government-to-government, but they're not subject to scrutiny or the involvement of stakeholders and the electorate.

On your first question, yes, we're much more confident. I'm not saying 'fully confident', because, ultimately, we need that clarity of guidance on how this works—that transparency on the rules of engagement, for all four nations, and also so that the legislatures, this committee, can also see how this actually works. But are we more confident? Yes, definitely. And some of this has been hard won through the experience of things like the deposit-return scheme and others. But we can only be fully confident when we have some meaningful guidance that does, to come back to your point earlier on, demonstrate as well, in the words of that guidance, the respect of the way that this is done between the four nations, and that the rules of engagement are very clear. That is when we'll have even stronger confidence that it's not upon the whim of this Government or any future UK Government. It has been agreed between the four Governments how this will work. Now, we're in that process at the moment. When that is concluded, that will give me more confidence.

When do you expect it to be concluded? Because this has taken years.

Yes, indeed. And we can signal where we've seen success, because there are some areas where the work has been much more advanced in terms of common frameworks, and we can see them working really effectively. Several of them are in my specific area because of the intensity, the necessity of the intensity of work within the broad environmental circular economy sphere and so on. We don't have an end date, a final date, unless colleagues want to illuminate me, that we have some idea of when this would be concluded, but we are—

It doesn't look like they want to.

Possibly not.

Not for all frameworks, but we are hoping to be in a position to publish, as the Deputy First Minister mentioned, about seven prior to dissolution, and then work will be ongoing around the guidance, as has been noted, for many of the remainder.

I'll leave it at that.

And just to come back to Adam's point, if we can get those signed off there, then we can actually look at the agreed governance mechanisms, the transparency around that, and keeping the momentum going. Because those seven should be the start of rolling them out to the other areas that are more complex and more difficult. But we've got good progress.

Just on transparency, do you anticipate that you will appoint the deposit management organisation on the deposit-return scheme by dissolution as well?

If you don't mind, because we're in a very sensitive time of discussions within the whole DRS, I won't be able to give you a clear answer on that right here today. We're in very good but very sensitive moments of discussion on the appointment of the management organisation.

On that point, we move to Adam to talk on justice.

Yes. Since the Thomas commission reported in 2019, what are the main recommendations that sit with the Welsh Government to deliver? And what concrete progress have you made in relation to them?

First of all, it's probably acknowledging that, despite some progress on a range of areas where Welsh Government has responsibility, we continue to work with the UK Government on matters that remain reserved, of course. We have had some delays, and this is not a casting around for reasons why we haven't got on with many of them. But undoubtedly, the impact of COVID did have an impact on developing some of these priorities, and in some areas, in the light of changing circumstances, we felt that there are different ways of achieving the same aim as well. Now, I know the committee has seen the progress report that we put out in 2024, but where there’ve been recommendations within devolved competence, we've taken forward tangible work. So, for example, even though we haven't done everything on it, on tribunals, access to services, legal professions as well. But it's true to say we'd acknowledge, Adam, progress has not been as fast as we'd hoped in some of the devolved areas, including, by the way, the wider aspect of tribunal reform. But those areas that require UK Government support—those are also going to be the most impactful, as you're very aware. So, we do need to make more progress.

Dr Jones's report for the committee, which was mentioned earlier, says only three of the 78 Thomas commission recommendations have been fully achieved. Do you accept that assessment?

I think we haven't had time to fully assess his report yet, but I noticed that he does say only three have been fully achieved, 21, I understand, potentially achieved and so on. We're going to have to go through those to see whether we are in agreement with that or whether we would contest any of some of the individual points there. But look, fundamentally we are not disputing the point that very few of those recommendations have been fully achieved. I have to say, the amount of work that was done by the Thomas commission, and that was presented as a very coherent piece of work—. That was totally rejected by the previous UK Government, which wasn't just a disappointment, it was disrespectful as well to Lord Thomas and the commission and, frankly, all of those who gave their expertise and time to support that work.

I note that the research that you've commissioned by Cardiff University has said very much that the analysis and the recommendations of that original Thomas commission speak directly to the many challenges facing the Welsh justice system today, in 2026, as well, and we wouldn't disagree. So, we know how much more has got to be done in this space. It's really disappointing that, previously, the last Government dismissed them out of hand. We are making more progress with the UK Government, both on steps towards aspects of devolution and on shorter term improvements to justice in Wales, but there is a long, long way to go.

I will come on to the UK Government in a second, but you accept, broadly speaking, the analysis that there's been an extreme lack of progress, really, if you broadly accept three out of 78 fully achieved as the yardstick. But you even accepted in your comments that there's been a lack of progress in relation to the Welsh Government's areas of principal responsibility as well. You mentioned COVID, but what other reasons are there for the for the lack of progress? Is it that responsibility has been spread, currently, between three different Ministers? There hasn't been a singular focus recently on driving forward these proposals. Is that part of the answer in relation to your responsibilities as a Government?

No, I don't think it is. Certainly, the three Ministers, the triumvirate most involved in this—myself, my colleague here and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, and, to some extent, of course, the support given to this agenda by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language in driving this forward and the commitment to this agenda—means that we have seen some progress. But I do acknowledge, Adam, we would have liked to have seen more. We would also like to see more delivered within that UK context as well. This is something the seventh Senedd will have to push on very, very hard to see further progress.

If it's not the splitting of responsibilities, then, between different Ministers, beyond COVID, what else explains the lack of progress in relation to these recommendations that you are responsible for as a Government?

I think it is—. The progress that has been made is because the three Ministers have come together and agreed where we can actually achieve progress. Progress that hasn't been made is because of a range of other matters that we've been focusing on as well. It is fair to say—it's a fair criticism within the report that you've commissioned that we haven't gone as far in the devolved space as we would have wanted to. I don't think I'm going to cast about for particular blame on that and so on, but we do need to do more going forward.

Can I come in for a second? You haven't denied it's only three. [Inaudible.]—said it's four, but you haven't named four. How many more do you expect to be achieved by the time the Senedd breaks?

Rather than give you a number, I can certainly turn to the areas where we are anticipating that, because of the work going on, we can make significant progress. Those include aspects such as probation and youth justice. There may be other areas I don't know as well that we can turn to. So, we're not looking at a scorecard of numbers, but significant areas where we've been engaged to get progress.

Back to you, Adam.

Let's turn to those matters, then. Have you had, from the UK Government, a timetable for devolving probation and youth justice?

When I met the former Lord Chancellor, we agreed with them the need to work at pace on youth justice and probation, and we made clear to the former Chancellor, as we've made to this Chancellor, the need to show tangible progress during this Senedd term as well. Now, that isn't the full devolution of youth justice and probation, but they are significant pragmatic practical areas where responsibilities, for example in youth justice, could be realigned. So, the clear tangible wins out of that would be things such as the strategic oversight of youth justice, partnership and governance arrangements, the funding of the youth justice service. They are really good steps forward, so that's what we're working on, and also agreeing to explore formalising the governance through which UK and Welsh Governments engage on youth justice as well. Now, with that one, the work is ongoing with real intensity. It needs to conclude very soon. I can't give you an exact date of when it will come out, but we are working exceptionally hard on it, and we will notify the committee on that when we're in a position to say more.

On the overall devolution of justice, we have a firm position on the overall devolution of justice, which we still hold to. I am hopeful that on aspects of the devolution of justice we can say something publicly before the end of the Senedd. That's the timescale that we've made clear to the previous and this Lord Chancellor. So, we are working towards that end of saying something before we get to the end of this Senedd term.

I think Alun Davies wants to come in.

That's four weeks, of course—

Indeed.

—in terms of where we are now, so it will be interesting to look forward to that.

The list of actions you've just described, Deputy First Minister, is very useful, but it misses the point, doesn't it? Because what is necessary is a date, and a means and a mechanism by which the UK Government agrees to devolve youth justice and probation, and all of the different aspects of management that you've described can actually fit into that date within the framework very, very easily. But the problem we've got is that we're putting the cart in front of the horse in many ways. We need the date, we need the framework, we need the process of devolution, and then all of that can feed into it, in a way that supports the devolution of these issues and doesn't obstruct it.

Yes, absolutely. To use a rugby analogy, we play what we see in front of us. So, when the UK Government came in, it was very clear, from our early engagement at official level and ministerial level, that they had their hands full, particularly in the probation and justice sphere. They were dealing with prison overcrowding, they were dealing with issues within the probation service, and they made very clear to us that they needed to resolve those before they really engaged with us, as they are now doing, I have to say, on these issues.

But you are right in saying—and the work that the committee has commissioned here; that point that I made earlier on—that the findings of the original report of the original commission bear still that credibility, that test, today, as they did previously. So, that's why we hold firmly to our point that, actually, there are reasons to go further on devolution in the right way, in a pragmatic way, with the right funding and resource behind it.

Well, you say in a pragmatic way, but in a principled way as well.

Yes, indeed, in a principled way as well, because it is to do with the—. Fundamentally, it's not to do with devolution—you and I will agree on this—it's actually to do with better provision, better services, to those people who are caught up in the system that is failing them at the moment. So, we hold to that and we keep on doing it, but we do recognise, when we came in, they were in an almighty bind, and we can remember the headlines at that time dealing with the issues.

However, if I can touch on what we're trying to achieve here with the probation service, we think a really pragmatic step forward is actually going to be if we can get agreement on the approach that's been taken forward in Greater Manchester. If it's good enough for Greater Manchester, why isn't it good enough here, where we have a memorandum of understanding, where we then have that greater local flexibility, tailoring services to the needs of individuals under probation? Now, I applaud Andy Burnham for pushing hard on this. We're pushing hard on this as well. We're having really good engagement of the UK Government on it. The question is, can we land this by the time we get to the end of the Senedd?

I think I'd prefer you to use the example of Scotland rather than Manchester.

Yes, yes—

If you work on that basis, rather than the basis of a city in England, because what we need, and it goes back to the First Minister this morning, if Wales is to be treated fairly—we need to be treated equally, and at the moment that is not happening.

Yes. Your point is absolutely right.

The clear assumption—. The focus on youth justice probation emerged from the Gordon Brown report; the clear assumption from everyone was that this was referring to legislative devolution. I mean, there was a reference in the Gordon Brown report that nothing that has been offered to Scotland shouldn't be offered to Wales eventually, and this will be the first phase. Do you not accept that the kind of management agreement that you're talking about with Manchester is a million miles away from legislative devolution of youth justice and probation, which is what was offered?

It is not legislative devolution in the way that we would want to see it and the way that we understand it. And that's why we cannot step back from that. But what I would say to you, Adam, is it would be a significant step forward and one, I have to say, that would be supported by those people who work in Wales in the justice system, in the probation system; they would want to see us seize this opportunity as a step forward. But it can only be a step forward. We expect the UK Government to make good on its manifesto commitment to have devolution discussed as part of its strategic review of probation governance. We stood four-square behind the Gordon Brown report, and the principle that Alun talks about is the right one, which is, if it's good enough for Scotland, it should at least be offered to us.

Lord Timpson told us that devolving probation isn't a priority, because the system is under huge pressure. What's your response to that?

Well, I don't want to get into, necessarily, trading views with UK Government Ministers, but our position is very, very clear—

Why not? He was prepared to say—. UK Ministers are prepared to say that they disagree with everything that you've just said, so why don't you say what you think in relation to his position?

Yes, except that this UK Government is now engaging with us on steps we can take now. We do not step back; we do not take a step back from our long-established position. That's why we did the work, when we were in Government, under previous First Ministers, of establishing the case, the practical, outcomes-based case for devolution in these aspects, and we will keep on arguing that. So, that would be my argument to Lord Timpson, or to any other Minister: that this discussion needs to go forward on the basis of, as Alun said, principles but also on outcomes, better outcomes within the justice system. So, that would be my response, Adam, to Lord Timpson: the case has been made.

On that very point then, what practical preparation is the Welsh Government taking so that, if probation or youth justice were devolved, in whatever form, the next Welsh Government could take those responsibilities on without delay?

So, we've been doing an immense amount of work in this area so that we can keep this argument four-square in the minds of UK Government, both in this period but also in the seventh Senedd. So, we've commissioned experts to undertake reviews in youth justice and policing and probation. This committee will have seen the work produced by the Welsh youth justice academic advisory group, but also the work that's been done by the Wales probation development group and the work that's been led by Carl Foulkes on policing devolution. More recently, Adam, we've established a justice research programme, supported by an academic advisory group, to build on this further, and the priorities within this at the moment include reviewing the arrangements for funding of youth justice services—because, as I was saying, it's not only the devolution of, it's making sure that we've got the funding in the right place as well—and identifying the necessary capacity for Welsh Government to take forward the strategic oversight of youth justice. We've got the Wales Centre for Public Policy having undertaken two research projects for us, which will inform the creation of the memorandum of understanding for probation services but also our future ambitions for devolution of probation. And just finally, we've also brought into the Welsh Government our own expertise now on youth justice and probation, strengthening our capacity internally to ensure that we are well placed to take forward further responsibilities. And just to say, I know this isn't a budget committee today, but this is reflected in the increases, then, in the justice transformation budget and the use of budgets taking forward the work of the constitutional commission. So, we are laying the groundwork, Adam, for this to continue.

On policing reform and the abolition of the police and crime commissioners and the White Paper et cetera, could you just update the committee on the latest state of the discussions that you've had in terms of what the future entails for Wales and the role of the Senedd in terms of accountability?

Yes, indeed. First of all, it's worth restating that we've always been clear that policing should be devolved to Wales. Let's put that bang on the record once again. However, we recognise it's not a simple binary choice here, where everything is devolved or nothing is devolved, and there is a moment here that we can try and make the most of. So, designing the replacement arrangements for PCCs is an opportunity to take forward something that is a step towards full devolution. A majority of the funding for policing in Wales, we have to recognise, already comes from Welsh sources, and as Jane Hutt, my colleague, has said in the Senedd previously, money should be spent in Wales where it's raised in Wales, and powers should sit with those who provide the funding. And that's our position.

But, more importantly, again, to come back to the basic parameters here, this is about outcomes: making communities safer, reducing crime rates, supporting victims better. So, Jane's written—. Sorry, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice's written statement on 27 January set out the approach we're taking. There are regular discussions happening now with the policing Minister. We welcome the fact that the White Paper notes the importance of reflecting the unique Welsh landscape in the work going forward, and it's supported by a commitment to close working between Home Office and Welsh Government in partnership with policing in Wales, local government and other key partners. Now that's a step forward. This is not being done to; they're engaging with us.

We also welcome the commitment of the Home Secretary that Welsh partners will be involved in the forthcoming independent reviews, looking at force mergers to reflect the existing devolution settlements. We think there's an opportunity here.

Could I just ask—? When, for example, police mergers, a single Welsh force, was last mooted by a Labour Government, they did actually commission a Senedd committee—well, an Assembly committee in those days—to give its view. Do you think that, actually, what you're discussing there is on a par in terms of that level of transparency and also in terms of democratic accountability? It's all inter-governmental discussions and other stakeholders, but, in that instance, they actually asked, 'Well, what's the Assembly view?' And that was fairly influential. Of course, the entire process came to a halt, but it was seen as fairly influential in terms of Wales.

Well, it's fair to say that the decision on the abolition of PCCs and the proposals around reforming police structures across England and Wales have been brought forward at some pace. So, we have run at this opportunity now to engage. But it does mean that that approach you're describing about previous iterations hasn't been possible on this occasion. However, I think we would welcome the input of this committee and others as to their feeling on what shape the proposals would be, because what we do now have is very active engagement with the UK Home Office on this and a willingness from them to engage with us so that it is shaped around Welsh parameters. It feels at the moment—but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating—that they are not striving to do this to us, but to engage with us and to recognise that there are real opportunities here in Wales. Because what we already do within the policing sphere, the engagement we have with the police forces across Wales, the engagement we had with PCCs—. Many people will say to you, Adam, that it feels like there is at least as much engagement with Welsh Government and Welsh stakeholders as there is with the Home Office and UK Government. That's an opportunity to build a structure that reflects Wales. So, that's the argument we're currently putting forward.

If I may say, Deputy First Minister, I think you are extraordinarily—. I'm an optimist, but your optimism I find absolutely striking, because the paper published by the Home Secretary had one paragraph about Wales. The box was ticked. There was nothing there about the whole paraphernalia of engagement and the rest of it.

The Cabinet Secretary was brought to the Senedd Chamber on an urgent question, and she was trying to brief herself in the lift on the way down. She was treated pretty shabbily by the Home Secretary and the UK Government on this matter, and so was the Welsh Government. There hasn't been any engagement on that. We know this, because they've been very clear about it. So, I think that if your argument is that there's been a sea change since then, I'd like to see the evidence of that, because, otherwise, I'm yet to be convinced. And, do you know, our minds are moving towards 7 May, and I think people in Wales actually do want politicians to take binary choices, quite honestly. I think they do want to see change. Because if we constantly end up compromising on what we honestly believe is best for Wales, then the people of Wales will say, 'Actually, perhaps we need some people who have got stronger views on these matters, and you've had long enough.'

So, let me say quite clearly to you: when I say that devolution of policing is not a binary question—. And I'll reflect on this again—we play what's in front of us. We have an opportunity here to make a significant change that could be to the benefit of the people of Wales. Ultimately, our destination is devolution; let's make no mistake about it. But if we can use this opportunity—. And I do take what you're saying, because the announcement that came forward on this, it's fair to say we had to run at the UK Government then to say, ‘Hey, we want to be involved in this; we have proposals about how this could work if this is your step forward.’ So, if that was reflected in the way that my Cabinet Secretary colleague then responded initially—

She was treated very poorly; she was treated badly.

But I will certainly say, because we meet regularly as the three Ministers, the subsequent engagement has been very good, because we put forward very forcibly—very forcibly, Alun—the arguments that we have an approach that could work in Wales, that it should not override structures that are already in existence, and that there is also a role for the Senedd within this process as well.

So, I think this could be a step forward—and I say 'could' advisedly—because if the UK—. You say I'm an optimist; it's the only way I can survive, being an eternal optimist. But work within that spirit, that we have a willing partner, based on the representations that my colleague Jane Hutt has made—and, you can imagine, Jane Hutt is not shy at saying this directly to UK Ministers—we have ways we can make this work within Wales. Do not try and invent new systems: we have a framework; we can make the devolution of policing work in this current proposal.

We've run out of time, in many ways, and it would be useful, actually, if we could continue to talk about the inter-governmental issues. I think the Counsel General seems to have escaped completely this afternoon, which I'm sure she will be really sorry about.

We're out of time, and I have to go, I'm afraid.

Okay. Well, that's fine. Alun.

Can we have some correspondence from the Deputy First Minister outlining how the Welsh Government is engaging with the UK Government on policing?

Yes.

Because I think that would be very useful—

Yes, more than happy to.

—and I think it plays into the conversation this session started having about overall inter-governmental relations.

Yes, very happy to.

You won't be surprised to know we didn't get anywhere near through all the questions we had. If we write to you, can you respond as quickly as possible?

Yes.

I think there's a whole debate on policing, and I'm going to throw my oar in here, that America seems to have got it right: you've got the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and you've got county police forces and you've got highway patrols. This idea that everything has to be run by the one police force, which often is both too big and too small for dealing with the key issues—. But that's my thoughts on policing.

There we are. Thank you. I'm more than happy to write, and on any other questions that you had but we didn't get the time for.

We've got another 10 of them. [Laughter.]

Diolch.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

That's literally the only time I've been in a committee and never opened my mouth.

It's on the record now. [Laughter.]

Okay, shall we go into private session?