Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee

Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning, Rebecca Evans, and her colleagues? Do you want to introduce them, or do they want to introduce themselves?

I'll ask officials to introduce themselves.

Glyn Jones, chief digital officer—

—chief digital officer, Welsh Government.

Scott Tyler, head of UK legislation programme.

Liz Winwood, head of digital regulation.

Thank you. Diolch yn fawr. I'll start with the first question. You state in the memorandum that UK and Welsh Government officials have been in regular contact since the Bill was announced in the King's Speech in July last year, and that the Bill largely replicates the previous Government's Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. In a letter to the Llywydd, warning there would be a delay in laying a memorandum, you nonetheless state that you received a full version of the Bill three weeks before it was introduced to the House of Lords. Why did it then take 10 weeks for you to lay the memorandum?

Thank you, Chair, for the question. Officials received first sight of the draft Bill on 3 October, and then we had sight of an updated version subsequently published on 23 October. I would just say, really, that this is a complex piece of legislation, and, as you'll appreciate, it does cut across quite a number of Welsh Government ministerial portfolios. Just an analysis of a Bill of this magnitude does take some time, so I think that that really describes part of the challenge, and also, of course, we had the previous Bill, which was introduced by the previous UK Government, the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. There were some similarities between the two, so there was some extra work for us to do in terms of considering the approaches that we took to the previous Bill, and then reading them across and looking for the differences in the new Bill. I just want to recognise, of course, the importance of ensuring that the Senedd committees have the time that they need to scrutinise the Bills properly as well.

Diolch. As outlined in the memorandum, you have constitutional issues with this proposed legislation, many of which mirror concerns previously set out by the Welsh Government in relation to the DPDI Bill. Why have all these concerns not been addressed given the inter-governmental working that has been under way for more than six months?

Some of those issues that we experienced with the previous Bill have been addressed, for example, some of the issues surrounding the national underground asset register, particularly the previous UK Government's approach in terms of a removal of a devolved executive function from Welsh Ministers relating to the newer provisions, which was included in the previous UK Government's Bill. So, some of those challenges and concerns that we have have been addressed, but it does remain the case that there are still some ongoing issues that we are in discussion with the UK Government on, and that's why, at this point, we haven't taken a view in terms of whether or not we're able to recommend consent.

Yes, because that's what I was getting to, if you could clarify your position on the Bill. At paragraph 34 of the memorandum, you state,

'it may be appropriate for these provisions to be made through a UK Bill',

whereas at paragraph 49 you state,

'it is appropriate to deal with these provisions in this UK Bill'.

Can you confirm your position?

Yes. Our view is that it is absolutely appropriate for this subject matter to be dealt with by the UK Government through a Bill in Parliament, but our concerns and our challenges, really, are around those more subtle issues in respect of the constitution—ones which the committee will be very familiar with. So, it's not the subject matter that we have concerns about, it's more about those ongoing discussions around the constitutional points.

Adam.

So, let us turn, therefore, to some of the constitutional points that you mentioned. In the memorandum, you note that the delegation of regulation-making powers in Part 1 of the Bill to act in devolved areas does not align with your principles on UK legislation, and this reflects the same regulations or the same recommendations as in the previous Bill, which you had said that you opposed. What is the status of the latest discussions in terms of these elements of the Bill?

We are supportive of the policy intent of the Bill and of the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill, because of course improved access to customer and business data through the smart data schemes, which the UK Government is proposing, will help to enable customers to make better use of their personal data, and then that will help them to save money and provide access to new and more innovative services across more competitive marketplaces.

The clauses in Part 1 will enable the UK Government to establish that smart data scheme, and those smart data schemes, via regulations, and those regulations then will specify the scope of the scheme, and they'll set out who will be defined, for example, as data holders, and they'll also specify the data that is to be shared. Alongside this, the regulations will also establish the framework for the ongoing management of the scheme and that will include the payment of fees and levies.

We do understand that the UK Government's initial focus on the potential smart data schemes will be within the banking, finance, energy, transport, retail and home-buying sectors, and so clearly there are some areas there that are within our devolved competence. Under Part 1 of the Bill, the Secretary of State and the Treasury are provided with regulation-making powers in those areas that we believe to be devolved, so that clearly then is in contrast to our Welsh Government principles on UK Government legislation in terms of needing the decisions to be taken by Welsh Ministers in those areas. So, this is an area where there's ongoing discussion with the UK Government at the moment.

Could you expand on those points? How exactly are these recommendations not consistent with your principles? Just because they give the ability to Westminster Ministers to legislate directly in devolved areas, is that it?

Welsh Government considers the provisions that I described, particularly in relation to transport, energy, retail, home buying and so on, to be devolved. It's our view that none of the reservations set out in Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 are engaged, and that would include the reservations on protection of personal data and the regulation of the sale and supply of goods and services to customers. But perhaps I'll ask, I think, Scott in the first instance. Perhaps if you wanted to expand on that a little bit more.

Yes, fundamentally, as the Cabinet Secretary has set out, our position is that delegated powers in devolved areas should be conferred on Welsh Ministers, and the powers that we're talking about in Part 1 are in a devolved area. As I think the LCM alludes to, there hasn't been agreement with UK Government on that in the past. Colleagues will correct me, but I think Part 1 might be one that we've also had different positions on as regards the Senedd—with this committee. Suffice to say that it is one of those complicated areas that can be argued about, but, fundamentally, that's our position, that those powers that are devolved should rest with Welsh Ministers rather than with the Secretary of State.

Okay. And there's no—. So, there is a difference of opinion between the Welsh Government and the UK Government in terms of this question of whether these powers are matters that are reserved or devolved, and there remains—. On this point, you are continuing to discuss, but on this point, there is still a difference of opinion and no movement at all in your direction.

So, those discussions are ongoing still. I've met with Baroness Jones of Whitchurch to discuss this particular point, and I know officials are in constant dialogue with their counterparts as well. Obviously, I do hope to be in a position where we are able to make progress as quickly as possible to provide the Senedd with clarity on our view in respect of providing consent, or agreeing to that legislation.

And just to be clear, in your view therefore, these powers, because they are within devolved areas, should be delegated to Welsh Ministers. You agree with the policy aim, but you are of the view that Welsh Ministers would be able to achieve the policy objectives successfully, and that that therefore means that the UK Government doesn't have to have these powers—you could do the same thing just as effectively.

I'll give an example with regard to clause 12 specifically. Welsh Government is of the view that a power to levy a charge doesn't amount to a tax falling within the scope of the reservation in respect of fiscal, economic and monetary policy, including the issue and circulation of taxes. As I've set out in the legislative consent memorandum, the UK Government's assessment of the need for legislative consent is different to ours. They're of the view that the provisions under Part 1 are reserved where they apply to the financial services sector, under the financial services reservations, and also under the consumer protection reservation where the consumer is an individual. But they do, however, agree that provisions in relation to business customers are devolved.

So, I think that shows the kind of difference in view that we have at the moment and the things that we're trying to resolve with the UK Government. You can see that there's a case to be argued on both sides, and we're having those discussions at the moment.

Symud ymlaen i elfen arall o'r Bil sydd wedi cael ei throsglwyddo o'r Bil blaenorol, dyna'r argymhelliad ynglŷn â dirprwyo pŵer i'r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol i baratoi a chyhoeddi cod ymarfer ar gyfer gwasanaethau gwirio digidol. Rŷch chi yn dweud bod hwn yn fater allweddol sydd angen ei ddatrys. A allwch chi ein diweddaru ni ynglŷn â statws y trafodaethau fanna?

Again, you've touched on one of the areas that is yet to be resolved. It's our view that the purpose of the provisions under Part 2 of the Bill are to enable the provision of digital verification services, rather than being about the regulation of that service. As we set out in the LCM, we consider three clauses within Part 2 to be devolved—clauses 45, 47 and 49—and we would then say that those would require, of course, the consent of the Senedd.

Clause 49 in Part 2 of the Bill is the one that provides the Secretary of State with powers to prepare and publish that code. That code would, of course, be applicable to Welsh public authorities in an area that we consider to be devolved. So, that is the discussion that we're having with the UK Government at the moment. I hope, really, to have the opportunity to resolve those conversations and discussions before I'm able to provide that fuller view to the Senedd. I wish, Chair, that I was in a position today to give more clarity on that but, I'm sorry, I'm not.

You note that the UK Government's interpretation of internet services reservations is a very wide-ranging one, and there could be a range of implications as a result of that. If so, why have you not sought consent in relation to the other provisions of the Bill in Part 2 that are related?

Perhaps I'll ask Scott to come in on this particular point.

I don't know about the detail of Part 2 and the other clauses. Suffice it to say that, when advice and a decision is taken by Ministers on this sort of thing, it'll be based on legal advice to the extent to which provisions have regard to devolved matters. So, I can only assume that those other parts of Part 2 have been assessed differently by our legal services. But, I apologise, I don't have the detail on the other elements of Part 2. That must be the distinction would be my assumption.

Shall we write to committee on that particular point? But I think the broader point here is that we're satisfied that the vast majority of the provisions within the Bill are reserved—so, either under the data protection reservation, the sale and supply of goods and services to consumers reservation, the telecommunications reservation or the reservation for the registers of births deaths and places of worship. So, our overall assessment is the vast majority is within the reserved space, but we have those ongoing discussions about the areas where we have a disagreement.

Okay. Fine. Thank you very much.

Alun.

I think a Bill like this tells you all you need to know about the inadequacies of the settlement. But I'm genuinely bewildered by the Welsh Government's approach to this Bill. There are elements to it, which you've just been discussing with Adam, which are quite rightly and clearly reserved matters for Westminster, and the rest of it, and in terms of data adequacy as well, and I don't think there's any serious argument there about where they should rest. But the underground asset register, and all the issues around that, are clearly completely devolved, in my view. I don't see any disagreement there from the Welsh Government. It's clearly a devolved function, and that's certainly the approach that the Welsh Government seems to be taking. So, why on earth, or what was the policy objective, then, that you're just going to accept the imposition of this in some ways, from the UK Government?

So, as I say, a great number of the concerns that we had around the national underground asset register in relation to the original, or the first Bill, which dealt with this matter—

Sorry, my question wasn't about that; it was about the policy objective. Why did you accept this in the first place rather than where the powers rest? That's a secondary issue, as far as I'm concerned.

So, we've got no objection to the policy direction being set out by the UK Government. In fact, we've been working with the Geospatial Commission for a number of years on this specific point, and perhaps Glyn can provide a flavour of the work that's been going on for quite some time.

Yes. Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. So, the national underground asset register is going to provide a statutory framework for data sharing around pipes and cables underground; it will help save money, save lives—and I'm sure committee will be aware of that. We've been working with the Geospatial Commission since 2021, when they first talked about piloting this on a non-statutory basis, because we could see the benefits there for us in working with them, because the negotiations with some of the undertakings, such as telecoms and so on, would be best done if we can work together and get a consistent flow of data from those providers, which will support both the national underground asset register and our own policy objectives, such as work we are doing around the strategic infrastructure steering group, where we're looking at future planned works, so we can understand what digging undertakings they are planning to do. We can bring that back, then, into our own data flows for future infrastructure works. We've already seen examples where that has saved money. So, the policy objectives are aligned. We're quite content for the Geospatial Commission to lead on a national underground asset register that brings together data from organisations and undertakings that may cross boundaries. But, at the same time, we can see the benefit in having shared data standards, interoperability, which work across both private sector and public sector organisations to provide that information in a single, standard way.

I can see that as a policy objective, but that's not what the Welsh Government is doing here, is it, because this hasn't come from Welsh Government. I'm aware of some of the work that you've been undertaking. I think it's very good work, I think it's very positive, and I think it's a good thing to do. But I'm interested that the Welsh Government has not sought to bring forward any proposals of its own to provide a statutory framework for this. You've been doing this work, which I think is very good and very positive, in exactly the way that you've described, but the Welsh Government itself has not, to my knowledge—and the Minister can correct me on this if I've got it wrong—brought forward any proposals to provide a statutory framework of its own. What seems to be happening is that the Welsh Government is sort of piggybacking on this UK Government thing and losing its powers over that, the work that you've just described, as a consequence of that piggybacking. That seems to me to be a real dereliction of responsibility.

The powers will still allow us to set regulations of our own, if we felt we wanted to introduce a newer—

What it's got here is different to that, isn't it, because it does provide powers for a Secretary of State and powers for a Secretary of State to act only in consultation with Welsh Ministers, but consultation, as we know, means nothing in reality, and then it provides for 'concurrent powers' to be exercised by Welsh Ministers, not 'powers' to be exercised by Welsh Ministers.

So, these are the key areas that we're in discussions with the UK Government on now. So, one of our principles that you'll be very familiar with is around consenting rather than consulting, so it's those particular areas that we're in discussion on at the moment.

But it would be much easier, surely, and we would have much more clarity in terms of the law, in terms of the powers held, in terms of a settlement, and in terms of enabling the public and undertakers to understand where the law sits, if the Welsh Government introduced this—Part 3, largely—as a piece that was free-standing, independent legislation. It just seems to me that we are creating another muddle on the border, another muddle of powers.

I think that goes to Adam's question as well in terms of legislating on our own behalf, if you like. We think that we would have the competence to deliver the provisions in Wales, which are similar in effect, but we don't have plans to do that at this point, and we're taking advantage of an opportunity that there is for us, and I do think that, in this case, that kind of consistency across borders is useful, certainly for business and others, and we do have that good relationship with the Geospatial Commission. We've been very involved in the piloting of the work and so on. So, I don't sense that this is an area where something is being done to us. It's something that we're collaborating on.

Well, the fact that you haven't got the powers that you want tells me that that is not true, Minister.

Those discussions, as I say, are ongoing at the moment.

So, there is a possibility, and a real possibility, if the UK Government doesn't provide you with that, that you will withdraw from this position.

Well, the whole point about consenting versus consulting runs through our approach to all legislation, and it's no different in this particular case.

But the point I'm making, and I'd be grateful to you for some clarity in answering this, is that if you are unable to reach agreement with the UK Government on these matters—and I agree with the matters being under discussion, by the way—then you will withdraw a request for the Senedd to consent this and withdraw from the shared asset register.

Well, we would not want to be in a position where we would be withdrawing from the shared asset register, because of the value that it provides to us and all of the work that we have done in developing it so far. So, I really want to have that ongoing space to have those discussions with the UK Government, with a view to resolving it to our satisfaction.

But you will seek the Senedd's consent, whether you get those agreements or not.

Well, we haven't provided a view yet—

But you just said you didn't want to withdraw from the shared register.

We don't want to be in that position. I think the point is that, as of now, we haven't made a recommendation to the Senedd, and we're not going to do that until we have clarity and have those opportunities to continue what have been useful discussions. And, as I say, the UK Government already saw some of our arguments in respect of the first Bill and amended their approach to this one.

Okay. I'm grateful to you for that. Do you not appreciate the concern of people like me, who I presume you may be asking to vote on some of these matters, where we've got a new UK Government that made all sorts of assurances prior to the UK general election, about extending the powers of the Senedd, about devolving different matters, about treating Wales fairly? We haven't seen many of those delivered so far, and what we are seeing now are powers going back and powers that are being taken away from both the Senedd and Welsh Ministers to be exercised by UK Ministers, presumably, sometimes, in cases where they might not have the consent of Welsh Ministers, either—so, Welsh Ministers being overruled. Now, this scenario isn't something that I'm at all comfortable with. I wasn't comfortable when the Conservatives were suggesting it, I'm not comfortable when Labour are suggesting it, because I think that we should be looking at the way in which we legislate for Wales in a more holistic way. Now, my position has always been, broadly, the same as successive Welsh Governments, and I find myself somewhat curious now that this current Welsh Government is not as—how shall I say it—confident in the settlement as, perhaps, I would wish that they were.

Well, I would respectfully disagree on that point, particularly because we have what I think is a sound set of principles in terms of how we would go about dealing with UK legislation. And those principles haven't changed as a result of a change of UK Government, because those principles are there to protect the Welsh Government and the Senedd in the circumstances of any and all future UK Governments. So, I think that none of that has changed. We do have, I think, a really good example tomorrow in respect of the debate on the Great British Energy Bill, where we have been able to work in a collaborative way with the UK Government and find ourselves in a position where they have listened and they have made changes in respect of consult versus consent, and so on. So, when we do have those opportunities to enter into those discussions, then we have seen examples, I think, of where they've been really positive, and I really hope that we get to a positive place on this Bill with these discussions, too.

Perhaps this Bill will be a test for those principles. I'm grateful to you.

Thank you. Laura.

Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. Another concern that has rolled over from the DPDI Bill is the potential for the Bill to impact the UK's current EU data adequacy decision. The Welsh Government previously agreed that the assessment of the trade and co-operation agreement be included in legislative consent memoranda for Bills that impact the agreement. This memorandum contains no such assessment. Could you give us an overview of how the Bill engages with the TCA and how this differs from the DPDI Bill? Diolch.

Yes. I might, again, ask Glyn to come in on some of the detail, but we have had, again, on this particular issue some good discussions with the UK Government, and the UK Government remains positive that there will be no implications to the EU data adequacy decision by the Bill. So, I think that's really important. And, actually, our own officials and the advice that I've received are very much of the view that the Bill won't have an immediate or direct impact on the UK's compliance with the TCA.

The data protection provisions within the TCA are quite broad and high level and, as such, the changes to the UK data protection framework proposed by the Bill are unlikely to impact on the UK's compliance with the TCA. I suppose our concerns, really, are around that futureproofing, in the sense of not wanting to be in a difficult position, where you see the UK's divergence from the data protection regime currently in place across the EU and the UK, and what that might mean then. So, our concerns are really precautionary, rather than based on detail. We would like to see further information forthcoming from the UK Government in this space, particularly around the risk assessments that they've undertaken. So, I would say that.

Okay. Thank you. The UK’s data adequacy decision expires in June. Are you aware of UK-EU discussions on its renewal, particularly in light of the reset in relations? Has the renewal of the UK’s data adequacy decision been discussed at the inter-ministerial group on EU-UK relations? Thanks.

I know that there have been significant discussions between the UK Government and the EU. So, I know that Peter Kyle, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, has met the previous European commissioner for justice twice, and I know that he has written to the new commissioner as well to have a conversation, and has requested a meeting to explore issues around data adequacy. I'm also aware that officials in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Home Office are engaging with EU officials on this matter, and I know that the Secretary of State also provided the House of Lords European Affairs Committee with a letter that sets out some of the work that they've been undertaking.

As data adequacy isn't devolved to the Senedd, we haven't been personally involved in those particular discussions, but I know officials have been provided with information from those discussions that are ongoing at the moment. And just to reassure colleagues that I've been raising issues around data adequacy with counterparts in the UK Government as well.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. You state in the memorandum that the loss of data adequacy could impact on public service delivery and that the risks to the health sector are even more significant. Given these serious concerns, what are you doing to make sure your detailed assessment is thorough, but also completed soon, please, Cabinet Secretary?

If the UK were to lose our data adequacy status, implementation of the safeguards required by the EU would mean quite considerable additional administrative work and reporting requirements for business, for example. But then also in respect of public service delivery, it would have an impact where service delivery relies on that flow of personal data from the EU. It could impact on education or local government services, for example. And those risks are even more significant from a health perspective, potentially impacting the delivery of NHS services and co-operation with the EU on health matters.

Again, our concerns, really, are precautionary—what might happen in the event of the loss of data adequacy. We've given this a lot of thought over the years, because when we were heading to a potential no-deal Brexit, we worked very hard to ensure that our public bodies were ready for such a scenario. I'm not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that's where we are at the moment, because the UK Government is very confident that this isn't an issue. But as I say, we like to consider all options. I'll just pause to see if Liz or Glyn wanted to add anything on that point.

Thanks, Cabinet Secretary. I'm happy to come in. Just to reiterate, I think the concerns here are about the risk of future divergence. We've been getting a lot of assurances, and Liz has met with DSIT officials around the status of adequacy with this Bill, and we would just like that risk assessment, just to provide that greater deal of assurance. But the work we did back in 2019 with the public sector I think set us up really well to dusting that off if needs must. We did a lot of work with the public sector in raising awareness of understanding their data flows, and to set up standard contractual clauses where needed. Hopefully, that'll give us greater resilience if it came round again, but at this stage, it's more around just getting those right assurances from DSIT colleagues.

Diolch. Cabinet Secretary, I think your adviser mentioned just then the UK Government's risk assessment—I couldn't quite hear it. Have you had sight of that paper? Because as far as the committee is aware, that's never been shared. Has the new UK Government carried out a similar risk assessment, and has it been shared with the Welsh Government? Thank you.

No, we haven't seen that risk assessment, although I have raised it at ministerial level and I know officials have at official level too, and we will continue to press that point.

Diolch. Adam.

With the status of the discussions with the UK Government at the moment, can you tell us what is your position in terms of legislative consent? Are you in favour of legislative consent or not?

I can't, unfortunately, give a view on that today, until those discussions with the UK Government are concluded. I know that's unsatisfactory to the committee; it's not ideal for me as well. But I just want to confirm that it is the intention to provide a recommendation on consent prior to the motion being debated in the Senedd.

Are there any red lines, if I can use that term? Are there some things that are so important as a principle that if there's no movement on them, you will have to withdraw your consent?

I hope that we can make progress on all of the areas that we're currently in discussion with the UK Government on. As I think Scott set out, some of these points are quite nuanced, so the UK Government does have some credible things to say where we do have those areas of disagreement. The Welsh Government takes a particular view, and we hold it strongly based on the evidence and our understanding, but, equally, the UK Government believes that it has a credible case as well, so we just need to try and have those discussions, see if we can move towards each other and find areas of compromise.

Can I just ask one more question? This Bill, if I'm right, creates a register of underground assets for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It doesn't for Scotland because they have a register already, and I think they, perhaps, were one of the first in the world to have a register of that type. So, they're keeping their register, keeping the legal framework separate. Am I correct so far? Are there any benefits that you've assessed in comparing with the Scottish model, where they have a legal framework and a register? Are there any advantages to having a situation like that, rather than being part of a register that's part of that UK legal framework?

You're absolutely right that Scotland was ahead of the game on this. There will be, I'm sure, discussions in future as to how things operate most smoothly across borders. But again, perhaps Liz or Glyn would be better placed to provide a bit more detail.

I think there are advantages of working with the Government in London on this, as I said earlier, in terms of the effectiveness, value for money and the fact that you can have these agreements with relatively large companies together, rather than us all discussing separately. Scotland, before the UK Government brought this in, had those discussions with some of the major corporations, I'm sure, and with the local authorities themselves. But if we look at this in terms of being consistent, we don't need to go again and ask the same questions. If we look at the local authority level, that data will be able to flow once. So, we can gather the data, and they will get the data with the same standards and the open standards that help all of us to do what we need with the data. I haven't had the conversation with Scotland in terms of the benefits for them, but I'm sure that's something that we could do to understand those advantages. But that's where I'm coming from on the policy side.

Are you able to have that discussion, for example, to ask why Scotland isn't coming in now? I can understand that they might say, 'Well, in terms of those discussions, they've been had, so there's no benefit in that way.' But are there any other reasons why they haven't—? They haven't actually had an invite anyway, have they, either way. I don't know. It would be interesting to find out whether they still see the value of a different framework for their register.

I'm happy to have that conversation with Scotland to discuss that and bring it back to the committee.

Great, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

We're coming towards the end, now—[Interruption.] Oh, sorry. Yes, go on.

I was interested, Minister, in that answer that you gave to a previous question from Adam in that you're having these conversations with the UK Government. You seemed to be saying—and this is what I wanted the clarity about—that UK Ministers believe that these powers should be exercised by UK Ministers. It was ever thus, of course. What this Bill does, of course, is to repeal some regulations that we already have in existence in Wales and impose English regulations uniformly across Wales, and to ensure that UK Ministers have the right to exercise powers without your consent in devolved areas. It is the view of the UK Government that that is a reasonable way of governing.

I was probably talking about some of the different, more specific provisions. I think I set out earlier some of the examples where we believe that it's about the operation of something, rather than the regulation of something, so those kinds of discussions. But as I said, it's in our principles and we are very strong on the consent versus consult, and you've seen changes that we'll be voting on tomorrow in this space.

Yes, but I'm concerned that if UK Ministers believe that they should have the right to take decisions and to exercise regulation-making powers in devolved areas without the consent of Welsh Ministers, that's a very significant afront to the settlement as we've always understood it.

And this is why we're having those specific discussions around consult versus consent, because, as I say, we'll be voting tomorrow on changes that will be made in that space.

I'm grateful to you for that. I think the committee may wish to take a view on some of those matters, because there are specific issues here that you've outlined—and I make no comment on that—in terms of this particular piece of legislation. But there is also the principle of how we govern, which this committee spends its time worrying about, of course, and that is a real afront to the settlement, and that, I think, has wider implications for the settlement than simply an underground asset register. So, I think that's something the committee may wish to consider.

We've come to—[Interruption.] I was going to thank you, but Adam wants to come in. Go on, Adam.

I was just looking at my legal notes that we had received and there is reference—I don't know all the technical details—to changing the regulations relating to street works to make the street works regulations England a basis for things, so, it will be 'England and Wales' then. I just want to ask the question—and this is admitting that I don't know all the technical detail—but symbolically, visually and conceptually, are we on some slippery slope here, where 'England and Wales' is coming through once again as a constitutional concept to areas that we had thought were devolved long ago, sometimes, for relatively reasonable reasons in practical terms?

With one thing, you can think that there's nothing to lose, we're not losing much power, but over time, you take it all together—and there is disagreement about some of the constitutional perspectives from the Westminster point of view and how they are in charge of things—suddenly, over time, you've given way to a more substantial concept. Do you agree, Minister, that perhaps we need to look not just at the technical question, but we need to think about the potential effect that this can have as we give more and more away? And that's why the principles are so important, and if you feel the principles are being breached, then we do need to do something about that—do you agree?

It goes back to that point about the principles being the right ones and ones that we should be looking to adhere to with all UK legislation, because they're set out for any UK Government. Just because we share the party of the UK Government, actually—well, we might not, for the next time this legislation is looked at in Westminster. So, I think that we need to be looking to protect ourselves, regardless.

So, if those principles are breached, you will therefore always refuse to give consent. That’s why I’m taking from your response. Am I right?

Well, yes, I would hope that we would be in that position. You do have to weigh up a range of things, then, don't you, in terms of whether there's a policy risk in not agreeing. But then these are difficult things to balance, then, aren't they? We would always, always want to be in the position where we can negotiate a positive outcome.

Okay, thank you.

At that point, I get to the stage where I do finally thank you and your officials for coming along and giving evidence. I have to tell you that there's a transcript, which you will get to see, to check, which I'm sure you knew all about. So, thank you very much. I'm very grateful for you coming along.

Thank you.

Just a reminder, you did promise to write to us.

Yes, we will.

Thank you.

Great. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch. Shall we have a break until twenty past?

Four minutes—

Or twenty-one minutes past. It's easier—.