Constitution, Justice and External Affairs Committee

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

Lloyd Harris, head of sustainable development in the Welsh Government.

Diolch yn fawr. I know we're probably going to be pushed for time to get through everything we want to get through, so we've agreed to take questions in sections, just to see if that structure works for us today and we can get through as many as possible. I think we'll go straight to questions, and we're going to start with inter-governmental relations. I've got Peredur down first.

Thank you for joining us this morning. It's lovely to see you. One of the most interesting things that's happened recently is the Cardiff agreement. Could you give us an outline of what that seeks to achieve and what are the considerations in relation to how we could work alongside another legislature, another Government, to make progress? Just your thoughts on that.

The first thing to say is that there is a pattern of inter-governmental collaboration that has existed through the inter-ministerial committee and the work that we do across the four Governments in the United Kingdom. I have met with Ministers of the UK Government, from the Northern Ireland Executive and the Scottish Government in relation to that inter-governmental work. I think what emerges from the Cardiff agreement is that close relationship with the Scottish Government and the effective collaboration that we're looking for on issues of joint interest. The agreement mentions constitutional change, tackling child poverty, climate change, immigration. There are a number of issues covered there.

But I do believe that there are further opportunities to develop. I was at the police memorial event over the weekend in Belfast with representatives of Ministers of justice and policing in these isles, and at a meeting there with my peers from the Scottish Government, I discussed how we could work together on issues of common interest in the area of justice. One of the challenges that we discussed was illegal e-bikes, and how the two Governments who face issues in relation to this in urban areas could collaborate. So, it's not just an agreement on paper, but there are practical steps that we are seeking to take in order to improve people's lives.

Of course, that's similar to what the Finance Committee did in the last Senedd, which was to establish a forum between the finance committees in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and to work across the Parliaments to seek to better scrutinise Governments and the UK Government in particular. Is there scope for more such collaboration in your view, for the different parliaments to work together, and to work across Parliaments to provide a kind of shadow committee to the work that you're undertaking as Governments?

Am I going to actually seek to tell the Senedd what to do rather than the Welsh Government, I don't know.

I just wanted your opinion. [Laughter.]

But what I will say is, as a Government, we see great benefit from that collaboration and joint understanding, and from learning from each other. I've had conversations with Ministers from the UK Government, where I learn from what they do, and I hope that they learn from what we do. Therefore, if parliamentarians in this place want to develop their relations with Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Westminster Parliament, then I would welcome that and would encourage you if that is your desire.

One of the areas where there is possible collaboration is with the memorandum of understanding on Sewel, and how that can be placed on a statutory footing. I don't know where you are with that, and where those discussions have got to. Perhaps you could tell us, specifically, how that could help us to resolve some of the problems around the LCMs. So, if you could unpack the MOU and the context in relation to LCMs, that would be interesting.

Yes, what I've seen, in my first months as Minister, is that there are examples of very good practice, where the UK Government works at an early stage, and appropriately, with officials within our Government, and the legislation that is developed as a result of that respects devolution and respects the constitutional patterns within these isles. But there are also examples where that doesn't happen, and therefore a robust MOU would provide a framework around that.

Placing the MOU, and the discussions and understandings that already exist, on a statutory basis would strengthen that further. And I had an opportunity to raise this with Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Prime Minister, as he was then, in Belfast a few months ago. Of course, there is a new administration in the UK now and, therefore, I look forward to the next meeting of the inter-ministerial group to push that forward.

And just one brief question to close. Now, in terms of placing Sewel on a statutory footing, which I think would be appropriate, because we looked at the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee quite a lot during the last Senedd, and what became apparent was that the Treasury was judge, jury and executioner, and there was no way of going back and forth to have discussions. There was no way of dealing with disagreement or dispute, and everything seemed to be in the hands of the Treasury, so there was no way for us to say that that simply wasn't fair, and we see that with Barnett, and elsewhere too. So, I was just wondering about how that could move on.

I'll invite Gareth to respond.

I think that's entirely true on the financial side. In terms of what happens with Sewel, the Government's view is that this should be placed on a statutory footing because that would make the system clearer and would actually hold the UK Government to account on what they insist they will adhere to.

In terms of the MOU, that is a paper that will come from the UK Government; they lead on that, because it's they who have committed to doing that. That probably won't provide a legislative status for Sewel, but the intention is to improve the way that they collaborate with us, to make the process clearer and to ensure that we have clear timelines as to when information is shared. And that, in turn, should help the Government to analyse what's in the legislation, and then help the Senedd to come to a conclusion—to have sufficient time to come to a conclusion—on whether they want to pass an LCM or not.

Diolch. We'll move on to the next section then, the national commission on the constitution, and we've got Josh first.

Minister, the Government has described the proposed national commission as independent. Could you explain how its chair and members will be appointed, and what safeguards will be established to protect its independence from the Welsh Government?

Well, thank you to the Member for a very important question. I've committed from the beginning that the commission should be independent and should be broad based. I have sought out potential co-chairs for that commission who will reflect that independence of thought, and I'm hoping to be able to make an announcement to the Senedd over the next few weeks about those independent co-chairs. I've also reached out to spokespeople from all of the parties in the Senedd to discuss the potential terms of reference and to discuss their ideas about who might serve on such a commission. That engagement has been positive and constructive, and I intend to respond to those suggestions that have been made to me from different parties in the Senedd constructively, as I have set out. So, I am confident that it will be set up in such a way that it offers an independent voice on these matters, but also, hopefully, an independent, serious and thoughtful voice that will consider the issues that are placed in front of it. Thank you.

Could you provide the committee with a timetable for establishing the commission, appointing its members and publishing its first programme of work?

What we're looking to do is to make an announcement on the co-chairs within the next weeks and, therefore, that will be during the autumn term. I have privately briefed the spokespeople from parties as to where we've got to on the co-chairs. What I'd anticipate then is that the terms of reference would be published at the same time. The co-chairs would meet and we would then move to appoint members over the autumn term. So, I'm not going to commit an independent commission to publish its first programme of work as a Minister, but I would anticipate that they would be meeting either in late autumn or in early spring and publishing their work from there.

Can I have one more?

Yes, one more.

Minister, the previous commission identified shortcomings in public engagement and emphasised the importance of ensuring that communities that had not previously participated were able to contribute to its constitutional debate. How will the new commission engage with the Welsh public and what mechanisms will ensure that its engagement is representative of the full range of constitutional views across Wales?

I think there are two things there. One is, as I've outlined, that my desire, as I've stated in the Senedd and here, and to opposition spokespeople, is to have a broad base of commissioners. So, in terms of representing the wide range of views that there are in Wales on constitutional matters, I think that moves us forward there. I think there is excellent work that has been done by IDAG, the democracy advisory group under the chairmanship of Dr Anwen Elias, and I'd hope to build on that work to engage those communities. And while I think we can all be pleased the turnout increased in the last Senedd election—congratulations to us all there on having a rather more engaging election—I think there is clearly more work to be done and there are pockets of lack of participation, which I would hope and expect the commission to address.

Okay. Diolch, Josh. Moving on to devolution of policing and justice, I've got Cristiana down first.

Minister, you are asking for the devolution of policing and justice with what your Government calls 'urgency', yet, in August, just last month, the Government confirmed that it had not even calculated what it would cost. So, before asking for the power, where is the business case of how much it will cost, what measurable outcomes will improve and what evidence demonstrates that those improvements result from devolution rather than simply from better administration of the current model—the present system, basically?

Well, the devolution of justice and policing is a multifaceted issue, problem, whichever way you'd like to frame it, and there are different elements to it that need to be considered at least in some isolation from each other. Turning specifically, for example, to justice, Lord Thomas's independent commission looked in depth at those issues and concluded that justice should be devolved to Wales. So, that was an independent commission run by those who were experts in the legal profession, who looked at all of the evidence and came to those conclusions.

What the previous Government identified was that there were particular areas where we could make progress rapidly in terms of the devolution of justice, around youth justice and family justice and community justice. I've been pleased to visit some justice facilities in Wales where there are examples of excellent practice that are, at times, constrained by the jagged edges of devolution, where health and education services are supporting children in those facilities who are there for a good reason, but the devolved/non-devolved division can create difficulties. So, there are clear and practical examples there where we could improve the situation soonest.

If I may, then, turn to policing particularly, you'll be aware that there is a major programme of policing reform happening across England and Wales at the moment that is looking at both the force structures and the governance structures of that reform. In that context, the development of the policing board for Wales on a clearer, devolved footing would clearly be a step forward, and the review of Lord Hogan-Howe on the police force structures will have a major impact on the potential, then, for creating a national layer of governance for policing in Wales and ensuring local accountability. So, I think there are significant opportunities there on policing that are linked around the current proposals of the UK Government. And we are engaging regularly with our colleagues in the UK Government. I had—I mean, it was a brief conversation—an opportunity to have a brief conversation with the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, on Sunday about these very issues.

I didn't want to interrupt you in full flow—

No, no, no—

You mentioned the Thomas commission, but that commission established arguments and those arguments established a case for constitutional change, they did not constitute a costed delivery plan. So, does your Government at this moment in time have a costed implementation model—yes or no?

Let's take the police one. The implementation model there is straightforward in the sense that, as a part of the police reforms, we would seek the devolution on the basis that is happening in England.

How much is it going to cost?

Well, those costs will be borne by the Home Office as part of the reform programme.

So, the answer is 'no'.

So, that's the point there. But if I may offer some reassurance to the Member, around youth justice, there's been a considerable amount of work looking at how that would work and how we could bring the youth offending teams for Wales into a more coherent structure. The costs of that would be low. The costs of devolving the entire justice system would be one of those areas where I think the new commission could look and could contribute usefully to public debate in Wales, and we could assess those things.

If I may, one more question.

One more.

One more question, Minister. I live in north Wales, so, obviously, what assessment have you made of the consequences for north Wales, where policing routinely operates across the Wales-England border?

I thank the Member for the question because cross-border policing is an issue that is raised time and time again in the context of policing debates. I am absolutely clear that the structures we develop, going forward, should be based on effective co-operation across police boundaries, as happens today, because we have North Wales Police and Cheshire police co-operating effectively, and we have South Wales Police and Gwent Police co-operating with their colleagues across the border in the south. Again, I was in Belfast and I had the opportunity to speak to the chief constable of Northern Ireland, who was telling me that mutual aid from the Scottish force was on the ground in the Garvaghy Road at that very point, supporting their colleagues from Northern Ireland. So, mutual aid, effective co-operation across boundaries.

He also talked to me about how the Gardaí, the Irish police force, and them, were also co-operating across a state boundary in that case. So, I would say, absolutely, this Government is committed to ensuring that the effective collaboration that is happening today is built upon across borders of police forces, and there are examples today of very good practice, in a devolved context, that is happening.

If I may, just to say as well, in terms of specifically looking at the question, there was a piece of work commissioned by the last Welsh Government, which was commissioned from a small team led by the former chief constable for north Wales, Carl Foulkes. So, that was published in 2024, around the preparation of devolution of policing, and that was looking at exactly that sort of question—the opportunities, but also the logistical work that you would have to do. Obviously, you have to make sure those partnerships all continue to work, and that piece of work was done in collaboration with serving chief constables, with police officers on both sides of the border, and also all the other institutions that are involved in the policing architecture. That report was very clear that devolution doesn't pose a threat to collaboration across borders.

But we need to look at the operational impact, because I know North Wales Police have a different view on whether to operate, post devolution, as a one-Wales force, or remain under the current model.

Yes. I think there are two different issues there. There's a force structures issue, and whether—. Let me be clear on my view on this. There are, principally, two options placed in front of Lord Hogan-Howe. One is to maintain the current force structures, and the other is of one national police force in Wales. We have been clear, as a Government, that if the Home Office and Lord Hogan-Howe are to recommend one national police force, then the local accountability, and the regional boards, or whatever it may be, has to be at least as strong as the current position, if not stronger. Because there have been examples of super large police forces that don't reflect properly the local context. We believe in devolution and in decentralisation, and we wouldn't want to come back from that. So, I hope that offers at least some reassurance to you.

Thank you. Because Police Scotland doesn't offer a particularly good reassurance at the moment, culturally.

Pardon?

Police Scotland doesn't particularly—

I think there are examples—. One of the things I'm keen to do is to learn from the examples. If we end up with a national police force, there are some examples of really good practice from Police Scotland. They integrate their serious crime with other partners in broader UK services in one national centre, and that leads to very effective co-operation between those partners and the police services on matters, for example, of terrorism and serious threats to the state. So, I think that's a good example.

I'd actually share your view that they could have done more in terms of decentralisation, and that is a weakness, potentially, of the Scottish model, which we would have to address in Wales.

Diolch, Dafydd. Pred.

You touched on the Thomas commission earlier; we were talking to Dr Robert Jones last week, in a private briefing, on his analysis of how far those recommendations have gone, and there are 78 recommendations. So, I'm wondering: could you give us an update, or even a written update, of where you are with those 78? Are there any that can be delivered without any further devolution? And whether or not this committee could scrutinise—. There are one or two aspects within that we picked up on last week, reports to be scrutinised, and whether or not that's something you would encourage us to maybe write to you about, and to look at how we move forward some of those recommendations. So, just your thoughts on that.

The simple answer is 'yes'; I would encourage you to write to us and scrutinise the progress on those recommendations. We had a meeting with Dr Jones a couple of weeks ago, and from that he emphasised that there were particular recommendations that were wholly within the competence of Welsh Government to move forward. I've asked officials to work on where we're at on all of those, and I'll happily share that work with the committee when that's available, and I think that's a useful, constructive conversation we can have around some of these matters.

Darren.

So, just to clarify, you accept all of the recommendations of the Thomas commission, do you?

We're working through the recommendations. I'm working through those recommendations that pertain directly to Welsh Government, and I can write to you on those and how we're looking at them. There are, clearly, a number that will require co-operation with the UK Government, and that relationship is an evolving one. I'm not in a position to be definitive as to how that relationship will—. I mean, I'm hopeful, I'm optimistic, but I'm not in a position to say exactly how that will develop. But, on those areas that Dr Jones has identified as being within the competence of Welsh Government, I'm very happy to give an update to the committee as to where we've got to, or whether, in our view, they aren't practicable in the current climate.

And just to be clear: so you accept his assessment, Dr Jones's assessment, of what is within the competence of the Welsh Government, and what isn't. Because he's not a lawyer, is he?

He's not a legal expert, as I understand it.

Indeed. I'm not going to take some—. I'll take a pause while giving a view on my former academic colleagues in the academic world. My understanding is that he's identified 40 areas where we could make progress. I've asked officials to look at each of those and to provide me with advice. Once I've had advice, I'll be able to offer you a view as to, of those 40, are they, in my view and in the view of my officials, in competence or not. And I will share that with the committee when they are. We haven't reached that view, and therefore it wouldn't be correct of me to offer a view without being in full possession of the evidence.

I appreciate the clarity, and can I just check in terms of your understanding of the current UK Government's position on Thomas? Because, obviously, the previous one didn't even respond to the Thomas commission; it didn't recognise it, effectively, as a valid document. What is your understanding of the current UK Government's position? Did you have any discussions about that issue with the Home Secretary on Sunday?

I didn't go into the 78 recommendations of the Thomas commission in my first conversation with the Home Secretary on Sunday. [Laughter.] I think the question is a broader one about the UK Government, and my view, as of today, is that the new Prime Minister of the UK has said positive things about devolution; his experience in Manchester, clearly, is grounded in devolution. I welcome that—that's a change of tone from the top. I think we're now moving into that phase where, in detailed meetings with different Ministers, we will be able to reach a view as to whether that change of tone at the top is feeding through into different departments.

I've met with Hamish Falconer, the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations, I'm meeting the Secretary of State for Wales later today, and I'm going to be meeting the policing Minister in due course. I'll be in a better position to tell you whether the tonal change has been reflected departmentally. I hope it does, because if it does—if it does reflect a genuine change—there's a real opportunity for the Welsh Government and the UK Government to co-operate. That's the point I'll be making to the Secretary of State later, and it's a point I've already made to Hamish Falconer.

Thanks for that. I think, once that work's been done in terms of responding to the implementation plan, it'd be useful for us as a committee to understand maybe which of those recommendations would be prioritised, in your view, as well, if you could feed that back.

Yes, great. Happy to provide that to the committee. Diolch.

Diolch. Okay, the next section we have is other areas for further devolution. We've got Pred again.

Just briefly, maybe—and you might want to write to us with further details, if there are any, but—further areas of devolution. We know a lot of what they are in the Welsh Government's view: water, the Crown Estate, broadcasting, welfare, energy regulation, ports regulation, rail, air passenger duty, all these things that are big topics in their own right. Are there any of those that have moved forward more so than others? And where are you on the discussions around those topics and any others that I haven't covered? If you could just give us an outline view of where the Government is on those discussions.

Where the Government is. Let me just kind of—. Discussions are ongoing around the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and common frameworks, and we're seeking further clarity from the UK Government on that. My colleague, the Cabinet Minister for Finance, has begun discussions with Treasury and colleagues in Treasury around the fiscal levers and the fiscal framework for Wales. Colleagues will be aware that the previous Government set up an expert group on the Crown Estate, chaired by Nick Butler, who is an expert in energy and previously worked in No. 10 for Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister, for those of you with long memories who remember Gordon Brown. So, there's work ongoing there, which will be able to specify what can be done there.

On the Crown Estate, what I've been—. There's a twin-track approach on the Crown Estate. One is to seek the devolution, but the other one is to seek meaningful and long-term engagement with the Crown Estate as currently constituted. I'm pleased to say the engagement with the Crown Estate has been positive and there is work ongoing. My colleague the Cabinet Minister for Enterprise, Connectivity and Energy is progressing that well. So, there are twin tracks on the Crown Estate.

A lot of the issues around water will be illustrated with the new water regulator being set up, and that is progressing, and there'll, clearly, be things that'll come to the attention of the Senedd around water regulation. So, I'm fairly confident about that.

My colleague the transport Minister has had positive meetings with Lord Peter Hendy, the railways Minister, around rail and rail funding and rail infrastructure and rail devolution. We will all have heard the Secretary of State for Wales repeating the commitment of the UK Government to invest £14 billion in Welsh railways. That needs to be timelined, that needs to be in a clearly deliverable plan, but I think that is significant progress. If we can move that from a declaration into plans for stations and dates and times, then I think we'll have made significant progress on rail.

On both welfare and broadcasting, those discussions are beginning.

So, I think what you've got is you've got a range of areas, some of which are simpler to devolve. In relation to the question asked right at the beginning, there are some that, with the political will, could relatively simply be devolved promptly, and there are others that are in train of being devolved, like water regulation, for example. There are others that will require more detailed, longer term conversations with the UK Government. Those conversations have begun, but the timescale will be longer.

Sorry, that was a long list, but you did ask for the list.

I did give you a long list, so you answered a long list, so that's good. You've also mentioned a lot of your Cabinet colleagues there in different departments. So, from an operational point of view and from your own department's point of view, how does that cross-silo working with regard to the support from a constitutional point of view, and from that element, how does that fit into those conversations from your own view?

We have an overview and we have internally a dashboard that we work on on a regular basis. Gareth.

The Minister has the overview for the whole agenda, but, obviously, the specifics of it can get very technical and they are led by the policy teams. We have somebody in the rail team, for example, who is particularly there to be focused on the devolution aspect and to work closely with us. So, there's a small central group, which is doing the overview and ensuring the Minister is up to speed on how things are progressing, but then the detailed day-to-work work is being led by the policy teams across the Government.

Is that a change from previous practice, or is that a similar practice to what was happening before?

Structurally, it's similar to how it was before.

We'll move on to the next section, 'Rewiring the State' and devolution within Wales. I've got Gwyn first and then Darren.

Thank you very much, Chair. As far as you're concerned in relation to 'Rewiring the State', how do you see that deeper devolution within Wales could work, and what about the risk of that undermining the authority of our Senedd?

There is a point of principle here first, and it's a very important point of principle—I do think that most people would accept this—namely that governmental arrangements within Wales are a matter for the Welsh Government and the Welsh Parliament. That's how I would see it working. I also think that that's how the UK Government expects it to work. There are risks, of course, and we need to guard against situations where the UK Government, for whatever reason, circumvents the devolution settlement. There are specific issues around financial assistance powers, for example, that could cause some concern in this regard.

But, as I see it, and as the Government sees it, we are clearly in favour of devolution for Wales, but we also believe in decentralisation—that is, devolution within Wales too. That is part of our mission as a Government: we want to empower communities and authorities at a local level to take decisions too. So, there is a risk, yes, and we are alive to that risk, but I think that the point of principle is that it's the Welsh Government and the Welsh Parliament that should set the framework. I would be eager to work with the UK Government and others to ensure that decentralisation within Wales develops too.

How would you see it working? Would it be local communities or regions like north Wales, south-west Wales, south-east Wales? What would be the most appropriate way of doing it?

It's a very good question, if I may say so, from the Member. What's become apparent to me, in receiving this brief within Government, is that there is a patchwork of regions, of maps, authorities and legislation right across the country. And therefore, in different places, the boundaries may be a little different, the authorities may be different and the legislative framework may be different. Surely this isn't the most effective and efficient way of working. That is my perception in terms of the pattern as it currently exists. I would be eager to see a more co-ordinated pattern in whatever form the Senedd, the Welsh Government or the people of Wales wish to see. Doing that will take time. That will certainly take time.

But, for example, one of the things that we looked at quite recently was the well-being assessments that were being done by the public services boards and the regional partnership boards, two different boards with similar geographical footprints. What we were asking them to do was to do things in a shared way, and the guidance was strengthened by this Government to ensure that people did collaborate. So, there's that first step of collaboration, but then there is a further step, which is a far broader conversation than just a conversation for me or this committee, in terms of what the regional system in Wales should look like for the future.

What's your view on varying taxes—I also saw that in the paper—between the different regions?

The simple answer is that the Welsh Government hasn't taken a position on those issues. Clearly, today, local authorities in Wales set different levels of council tax, in accordance with the priorities of those people who have elected them. There are taxes that vary at a local level. If there are proposals to discuss these issues further, then be that as it may, and we will look at them.

One final thing, because I know that Mr Millar wants to come in on this area, too. As far as the health boards are concerned—and it's no surprise that I'm discussing health, of course—we've been calling for some time, for example, for a regional pattern to be developed there in order to run the health service more effectively. Would you, perhaps, consider tying in regional health boards and regional authorities? That's my last question. I will stop there. Thank you.

I look forward to Darren's questions, because they may be easier than yours. [Laughter.] Structures and institutions have developed over time and for particular reasons. I don't want to rush in to this. I think we need evidence, we need to be considered in relation to this discussion. So, despite the desire to say something off the top of my head in this committee this morning as to what should happen, I think it is wiser to pause—to note that there are geographical challenges here, to note the desire to seek more co-ordination, but also to state that we need a far broader discussion in order to find consensus on these issues. Because the last thing I will say here is that we will not be building new structures without consensus across parties.

I'm going to bring in Lynne quickly, if that's okay, because it's on that point.

Thank you. I think Gwyn makes an important point. You've referred to all the structures we've got for collaboration. We're a small country, we have a lot of structures, and I hear what you're saying about taking a considered approach to this, but I wondered if you could give us any indication of when you think you'll be in a position to say a bit more about this issue.

Thank you, Lynne. I'm pausing a little, because I don't want to give a timescale that is unrealistic. Shall I commit to either coming back or writing to you with further thoughts on the regional structure in the spring? That would allow some discussion and things on some of the areas where we're moving forward. I think that might allow some time for consideration. Because people always complain about the structures—'Oh, something must be done. Someone must do something'—and four years later, nothing has been done and no-one has done anything. So I recognise that danger. I also recognise the danger of a lack of stability and queries in organisations. So, if I can have some months, but months in the order of three months, to consider it and to give you further clarity on some of the things we'll be doing then.

Diolch, Dafydd. Yes, we can pick that up as well, can't we? Darren.

Just on the structure point, if I can, the big problem with the regional structures that we've currently got is the perceived democratic deficit of those structures making decisions, sometimes against the will of local authorities, which contribute to those decisions but might feel overruled by other partners in the region. So I'm not persuaded that the current structures are right or appropriate, because of that lack of democratic accountability, if you like, within the system. I would be interested to hear your views and have a discussion about the future of things in Wales. It seems bizarre to many people across the country that we've got 22 local authorities for such a small nation, often pulling in different directions. We have 22 local authority recycling schemes, 22 local authority chief executives, and all of the bumph, if you like, that goes with that.

Can I just ask you a little bit more about this 'Rewiring the State' document? Obviously, it was published in July, very shortly after Andy Burnham became Prime Minister. Was there any discussion with the Welsh Government prior to its publication?

I can check on that. There were the initial discussions with UK Government Ministers. I'm not aware of very specific discussions around that topic, unless colleagues would correct me on that.

The noises that Mr Burnham was making as Prime Minister gave me the impression he didn't really understand the devolution settlement in Wales, that he thought it was a bit of a mayoralty, to be honest, rather than a country with its own Parliament. Is that the perception you had?

I think what I would say in fairness to the new Prime Minister is that he was reflecting his experience of devolution in England in a number of the things he was saying and doing. Having become Prime Minister, there are a range of aspects where he has become—. It's a broad panoply of areas that he is now responsible for, and I would hope that colleagues from Wales and the work that the Welsh Government has done, and others in Whitehall, have illuminated some of the differences between English devolution and devolution to the nations of the UK.

I'd give you one sense of hope here, which is that I think the initial plan was that there would be a meeting of all of the mayors and the First Ministers all in one room, that that would be the structure. Further thought has been given to that, and there will be a National Economic Council of the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of the Governments of the nations of the UK and the territory of Northern Ireland. So, I think progress has been made.

I said at the beginning and I'll repeat again that the jury is out on the UK Government's approach to devolution. I remain optimistic. I'm hopeful that, with positive engagement from the Welsh Government, we can make progress. But we are moving now from the initial declaratory statements, which offer some cause for concern, but also some cause for hope, into the more detailed discussions. So, we shall see, I'm afraid, is the—

It was a well-developed document, though, wasn't it, issued by the Cabinet Office. You'd expect the Cabinet Office to understand the devolution settlement, wouldn't you, across the United Kingdom. You say there's lots of positive discussion and interface between the Welsh and UK Governments, but it doesn't strike me that that's the case, given what appears to be a complete lack of appreciation of the differences and nuances between Wales and the rest of the devolution settlements across England.

Thank you for the kind offer to get into a slanging match with my colleagues in the UK Government. For now, I won't, because I am keen to co-operate and to collaborate with the UK Government to see if the comments made by Andy Burnham are borne out in reality. If I become gravely concerned and if devolution is under threat from the UK Government, I will make that point. But I am not in a position to make that point today, so I won't.

Since the publication in July, there's been a better understanding, if we can put it that way, that Wales and Scotland are rather different from the devolution settlements in England—

Yes, we exist.

And just in terms of the engagement with the UK Government since, because there were some small references to Wales and what might happen for the Welsh Government to pick up, what has that engagement been like?

As I was saying earlier, I'm meeting the Secretary of State for Wales later. I've had a formal meeting with Hamish Falconer, the Minister for inter-governmental relations. There's another Interministerial Standing Committee coming up in Edinburgh in six weeks' time, where we'll have further discussions. We've had bilateral meetings with the policing Minister. As it happens, I've had conversations with the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the policing Minister at various points. And that's just me. Other Ministers are having broader engagement. One of the UK Government colleagues has reported that it was lovely to see Welsh Government Ministers in the Home Office in discussions—for the first time in a while, they said. So, I'm pleased with that kind of response. I can't go any further than saying I am hopeful, but we don't know how it will pan out yet, despite your—

So, nice mood music. Can I ask you, then? Just turning to Wales and your approach in Wales, you've spoken avidly, before your election to the Senedd, before the publication of this particular statement in July, about your own personal passion for devolution within Wales, for decentralisation and for all of those things that we've already touched on, and you said you want to come back in three months' time and perhaps give us a different view. Is there any scope, do you think, for elected mayors in Wales—directly elected mayors in Welsh regions?

I think both you and the previous Member are tempting me to get into areas where the Welsh Government hasn't formed a view on it.

I'm just interested.

We haven't formed a view on that, and I think, coming back to my earlier point about consideration within months, the regional aspect in Wales—and I think Lynne's identified a number of the challenges of all of the structures—will need to be addressed in the round. At this point, I wouldn't want to put anything—. That consideration has to be full and thorough.

But you're not ruling that out?

The Government hasn't taken a position on it.

Okay, I'm just interested.

The Government hasn't taken a position, nor had a discussion, on mayors. It isn't on the table as a live discussion at the moment.

And just one final question from me, and this is on the issue of non-domestic, business rates. So, obviously, one thing that the Government could consider doing in order to give current local authorities within our current structures greater responsibility for improving the economic state of the areas that they are responsible for would be to enable them to access a share of any increase in the business rate revenue in their areas. Has that been considered as a possible opportunity for further devolution and decentralisation in Wales?

I think that would be a very good question to pose to the Cabinet Minister for Finance, who is responsible for non-domestic, business rates.

But, obviously, you're responsible for devolution. Has there been any discussion?

I think, technically, I'm responsible for the devolution of powers from the UK Government to the Welsh Government.

Okay. Sarah's been waiting patiently, so I'm going to bring her in.

Thank you. I'm of the belief that a lot of this change is due to the damage that was caused by Brexit, and so I wanted to ask what discussions you're having on safeguards to protect us from the risks of centralised distribution, particularly of funding—for example, like the UK shared prosperity fund and the impact that that's had with the lack of engagement of Welsh Government. Because a lot of the good things that happened in Wales were through EU funding, and that's where damage is being caused to people. So, I'd like you to give some consideration of how we are safeguarding Wales and Welsh Government in this process.

I think by and large—. I mean, there's a significant amount of work being done in Welsh Government around the UK internal market Act and around financial assistance powers. We were meeting earlier this week—time blurs—or at the end of last week, to discuss the approach, and what we identified there were some areas of concern with the UK Government in relation to how those powers that had come as a result of Brexit were being used.

Again, I would suggest to colleagues that there is a theme here that in certain Whitehall departments there is a very clear appreciation and understanding of devolution, and colleagues work very well with the Welsh Government. That isn't across the board, and therefore one of the things—I've made the point already to my UK Government colleagues—is that a consistency in approach and a recognition of devolution in every Whitehall department would assist both the UK Government and the Welsh Government in making progress, because I think there is a danger of going around the Welsh Government in that way.

Ultimately, those are political decisions for the UK Government, and they would, clearly, be inconsistent with the comments of the new Prime Minister, and therefore I hope they won't happen, but there are mechanisms, following Brexit, by which the UK Government can use those powers, which the previous Government here and this Government are concerned about.

Diolch. We've moved ahead a little bit there. I know I had Pred down for a question on rewiring the state.

Yes, just following on a little bit from that, in the Government of Wales Act 2006, I think—there are people here who can tell me otherwise—local government is a devolved subject, and therefore any further devolution to local government should come through the Welsh Government. Otherwise, it's potentially in contravention of Sewel. So, bypassing the Senedd and devolving directly to local authorities would be something that we'd have a concern about and be hopeful that that wouldn't happen. And hopefully in those discussions—

Yes, I think 'concern' is being polite, Peredur. [Laughter.]

I am a very polite person, but I was just following on from not drawing you into a slanging match, as you said earlier. But what recourse would we have if that transpired, and how do we avoid that in discussions?

It would be clearly unacceptable. I hope to avoid those situations by co-operation and collaboration with the UK Government. I think that's what a responsible Government does. I hope to see the same attitude from the UK Government.

Diolch.

Okay. We did touch on the UK internal market Act there. I don't know if anybody's got any other questions on that.

Yes, I do. I know you mentioned that this is the responsibility of the Cabinet Minister for Finance, but I would like to have some further understanding on your role in relation to common frameworks and also the Welsh Government position on the Act.

Our fundamental position on the Act is that we believe it should be repealed, because there are some considerable challenges. In terms of common frameworks, there have been delays by a combination of cross-Government political issues and practical programme areas. There are also interactions between the common frameworks and the UK internal market Act. The uncertainty about the UK Government has caused some difficulty. So, Ministers haven't been necessarily willing to sign off matters at a UK level, so there have been challenges. On the other hand, in March 2026, the late payment, blood safety and quality, and the organs, tissues and cells common frameworks have been published. We are hoping to progress all 10 common frameworks by autumn 2026. There are examples of common frameworks that function effectively, support good intergovernmental relations and manage divergence—the air quality common framework being one; the plant varieties and seeds common framework being another. So, there are opportunities there, if collaboration exists.

So, it would be interesting to hear of those common frameworks that are more of a risk to devolution.

I think—

In general, common frameworks shouldn't be a risk to devolution, because of the principle that they're taken forwards on four Governments collaborating. And in fact, they're an antidote to the UKIMA approach, which clearly does provide an advantageous position to the UK Government over the devolved Governments. So, where common frameworks are established and work well, they support and underpin devolution rather than threaten it.

So, coming back to UKIMA itself, has there been any conversation with the UK Government on the difficulties that that places on devolution? And if the Welsh Government position is to wish to repeal it, what actions could be taken to move that forward?

I think there are two issues here, as Gareth has outlined. If we can get common frameworks working well, the threat of UKIMA is—. If we can get common frameworks working well, the threat of UKIMA is reduced. If we can get a common understanding around financial assistance powers, which aren't directly related in all circumstances but are also a concern, we can make progress there. I'm hopeful, and we'll see more common frameworks over the next few months emerging on a four-nation, four-territory basis, and that would be the best way forward.

I like your positivity on this, however—

You're sceptical.

I am sceptical, given that we've got a Prime Minister right now who seems, as you say, to be more positive on devolution, but look at the number of Prime Ministers we've had in the last five or six years—that could change in 12 months' time; politics moves quickly.

It could. And this is more a political comment, but it does seem to me that there is a level of stability in the UK Government that is likely to last for the next two to three years, and therefore there should be a—. I mean, we can reasonably expect a common approach from that UK Government.

I think what I'm driving more towards is: what protections have we got for the longer term, with the risk that UKIMA still has? That might work in the shorter term, with a Government that is co-operating, but, in the longer term, UKIMA is still the issue.

Yes. UKIMA is an issue. Longer term, our Government position has been clear: there should be a new Wales Bill that enshrines the powers of the Welsh Government and devolves further powers to Wales. That's the clear position of this Government; that is what we would hope to achieve. Whether the UK Government will be willing to work with us on that, we shall see, because that goes beyond the individual areas to a more comprehensive framework. I think that would be welcomed generally, but shall we see on that one?

Diolch.

Okay. We're doing pretty well in terms of time, so thank you, everybody, for being very direct. Oh, Pred, were you waiting to come in on that one?

Yes. Some of the interplay with the common frameworks is around the deposit-return scheme and those aspects. So, could you give us an update as to where we're at with the regulations providing agreed exclusions around the deposit-return scheme and the interplay between that and common frameworks, and where we're at with the discussions with UK Government?

So, the DRS is clearly an important part of this. As colleagues will be aware, Exchange for Change has been appointed as our deposit management organisation for Wales, and there is work currently ongoing focused on implementation, infrastructure and interoperability across the UK. We are continuing to work with the UK Government and the other devolved Governments, through the common framework process, on the interoperability across countries, including future reuse proposals. So, we're working on that, we're working through that. I think it is a significant advantage that the Welsh Government has appointed a well-known and the same deposit management organisation to work in Wales, and that will assist with interoperability.

Okay, thank you. Diolch.

Okay. If we move on to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, I understand that the 'Wellbeing of Wales: 2026' report has been published this morning at 09:30. I think Lynne might have a copy there already—[Interruption.]—and I've got Lynne down for this question.

Well done, Lynne. [Laughter.]

Thank you. I've got a summary of the report that's been published today, and, if I could say, I do welcome the fact that the lead for this legislation is yourself, Government effectiveness, rather than placing this with rural affairs. I think that is the right approach for a cross-cutting piece of legislation. I've only skimmed, obviously, the briefing that was just handed to me, and I understand that the report says that there's a picture of 'mixed and gradual progress'. If I could just draw your attention in particular to the section on health, where it says progress towards a healthier Wales remains limited, with a number of indicators worsening, and of particular concern to me is that mental well-being among young people has declined and inequality has widened, and later on in the briefing it states that loneliness is worse for younger people than older people. Obviously, those aren't a surprise to me and the reasons are complex, but I just wondered how, as the lead Minister, you're intending to take forward some of these issues, which I think are proving really, really difficult to address across the whole Government.

I think there's a general principle point about how we work better together across Government. You will know that sometimes the tendency is to work very much in departments rather than to try and work across Government. I've been working closely with the two Deputy Ministers on health prevention and on women's health and different issues there, and trying to bring both the health teams, but also teams across Government, to work on these issues.

I do think mental health is a major issue. I think, more broadly, too, we haven't fully recognised and understood the impact of—. Well, there are two aspects, I think, that we are only beginning to understand, which is the impact of COVID on young people, the impact of COVID on those people whose formative years through school were blighted by the pandemic, and then interrelated in part to that is the impact of the new social media world that young people live in. I think those twin factors are significant. How you address those is a huge challenge, and if we manage to crack that, I could retire happily and go on a lecture circuit around the world. But I think there is a sense in Government of the real challenges there are around mental health more broadly, but also with young people in particular, and how we then address some of those issues in the healthier Wales.

It also comes back to a part of my role, which is to try and keep the focus on the outcomes for people. Let's accept that is difficult, but we need to think through each of our policies and work out, actually, 'Is this improving people's mental health, ideally, or is it stopping the continuing challenges and decline of these things?' and asking of each policy and each initiative, 'Does this achieve the long-term outcomes we're seeking?' There can be a tendency, in governments of all shades, to seek out headlines, and that detailed, careful policy work that looks to the longer term doesn't necessarily gain the headlines, but it'll be the things that will address in the longer—. And part of the future generations framework, really, is looking to those longer term issues. So, that's how I'm trying to deal with it in Government, to bring people together, to break down silos, but also focus on the outcomes. I think that will, hopefully, allow us to make some progress on these issues, but it will not be fast. That's one thing we need—. It's a long-term challenge. It's a long-term challenge being faced right across the world. These are not issues that are distinct to Wales, but that also then means we have to—. We can learn from other places too, of really good examples of practice, and develop from there.

Thank you. So, is it your intention to publish a new iteration of the continuous learning and improvement plan, and, if so, when will you be doing that?

I think I might turn to Lloyd on that one.

So, with the new Government, there's been a restructuring. There's a new strategy unit, and as that strategy unit comes together and develops the new iteration of the continuous learning and improvement plan—whether it will be called that or not is still to be determined—it will form part of that, so that the well-being of future generations Act sits within the whole organisational structure, not just as a plan for the well-being of future generations Act within the civil service.

Okay. Thank you. One of the areas where the commissioner has been a bit critical is in terms of how the Act is influencing the budget process, and I share that concern, and have over a number of years, really. Is it your plan to more fully embed the Act in budget setting? Will that involve looking at things like the current strategic integrated impact assessment process, which I think there is plenty of room for improvement in? In particular, will it involve a stronger focus on children and young people's needs, as you look to set budgets?

I think, in principle, certainly we're keen to ensure that we reflect those principles in the work that we're doing. Obviously, my colleague the Cabinet Minister for Finance is leading the budget process at the moment and is engaging with all of those issues as she develops the budget. I think it is worth saying—and this isn't a reason not to engage with those principles; I think it probably makes the engagement with those principles more important—as the Cabinet Minister has outlined, that the financial position for the forthcoming year, 2027-28, is very challenging. There is likely to be a real-terms cut in the Welsh Government budget. So, these are challenging circumstances. And you could respond and say, 'Oh, well, we must just do a little bit less of everything we do'. But we've seen the impacts of that across a whole range of public policy areas, where salami slicing doesn't cut it. The important thing here is to anchor our consideration in those principles of the well-being of future generations Act, and others, in that budgetary process. But it isn't easy this year. I mean, it's never easy, but, in the current financial climate, it is particularly challenging.

Okay. Thank you. And I'm not in favour of salami slicing; I'm in favour of budgeting on the basis of priorities, informed by values like this, so it's good to hear you say that.

Can I just finally ask about plans for a review of the Act, which has been a commitment by your Government—

Yes.

—but also whether you'll be able to report on the findings of the review by June 2027, which is what the previous equality committee had recommended?

So, we have committed to that review and we will be progressing it in due course, and Lloyd might want to come in there. We've taken the recommendation on board. Our view is that a rapid review will take approximately 12 months, so, at the very least, by this time next year we should be in a position to report on that rapid review. There are several reasons why a rapid review makes sense to me. One is that there are a number of changes, hopefully, and if there are changes identified that can be made promptly, that allows us to make those changes in a prompt fashion. If there are broader changes around legislation, it allows us, and other parties who will be submitting their names to the next election, to consider how you might approach a new piece of legislation that might amend the Act too. I have asked colleagues to focus on those areas where we might be able to make fairly rapid changes and improve the implementation. Lloyd.

There's a scoping and design phase before that in the programme for government commitment. It commits to engaging with the future generations commissioner and his office as well. So, ahead of the beginning of undertaking the review, there are going to be at least two scoping workshops just to determine, within the remits of finance and resource, what will be in that review. And then, from there, which should hopefully be the start of next year, it will be 12 months from then. So, it won't meet that July deadline, but it will be early in this Senedd term.

So, will it mostly be an internal review, then, or are you planning to have a level of independence and stakeholder engagement in it?

My view is that stakeholder engagement is a really important part of the process. My colleagues, officials, will be moving the review forward, but we will be looking to engage with stakeholders, whether it's people more generally, whether it's from particular sectors, whether it's from the public sector organisations that are implementing the Act.

I do come back to a point I made around outcomes. One of the questions I always come back to is—many people have commented that the future generations Act is a world-leading Act—what changes has it made and what changes does it make year on year And that's a question I think we should all ask ourselves and be able to reflect on and be able to answer the question, too, on a regular basis. It's a conversation I've had with the future generations commissioner about how important it is. The ways of working, the framework of the Act, is important. It's important because of what it achieves for people's lives.

Absolutely. It's not enough just to pat ourselves on the back, is it, for having passed the legislation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah.

I'll start with the review, just to pick a few things up. I think it would be really important to mention that one of the best things about the Act was how it came about, and that national conversation that was had with people right across Wales. So, it would be really interesting to see how you consider public engagement would work in this review. For example, could it be the citizens' assembly so that we get a direct view from the public rather than only from organisations themselves?

I think we're certainly open to those mechanisms. I mean, it's sort of 'The Wales We Want' conversation in various forms. I'm keen to involve the public. I'm also keen to involve, as I would hope every Member of this Senedd is, those who are less engaged with our democratic processes and who do not normally engage. I think that's an important area we should be seeking to engage, and very consistent with the Act too. So, I am keen. Officials are working on that involvement exercise now and making that progress.

And we don't need to ask anyone to already know that one of the issues with the Act as it is is the lack of enforceable legal rights and mechanisms to hold public bodies accountable. So, I'd like to know if that will be considered in the review and, further on from that, what progress this Government will make to lead the way for public bodies to move past short-term into long-term thinking.

There are two questions there. I think one of the aspects of my role, and one of the things—I've been meeting with PSB chairs, I've been meeting with local authorities—I've been challenging people to do is to think both about outcomes and for the longer term, which is clearly consistent with the Act. So, I think the Government can both encourage that and be an example of longer term thinking. Let me emphasise, none of that is easy, but that's where we want to go.

Potentially changing the legislation is clearly within scope of the review, but I'm not going to get in—. Given that we've asked for a rapid review, I'm not going to then start speculating on the potential outcomes of the review and how the Government might respond to what the review might say. So, I'm kind of open—I mean, it will be within scope, and if the review concludes that we need to make legislative changes to strengthen the framework, for example, then the Government will clearly consider that in due course.

Just moving on from that, you've already mentioned budgets and how difficult it is. We know it's been very difficult for local authorities, for example, to enact change, given austerity, the ongoing cost of living. But I'll give an example: lots of local authorities a few years ago made huge declarations of a climate emergency, but the actions to deliver change on that climate emergency in some part didn't really reflect an emergency. My local authority in the Vale of Glamorgan, for example, installed solar powered bus stops. That isn't a change that is reflecting a climate emergency. So, it would be really interesting to see how this Government are going to drive that system change, for example when it comes to the economy and the application of well-being budgeting—not just for the economy, but the wider programme for government.

One of the cross-cutting areas in the programme for government is climate change and the nature emergency. That is one of the areas that we'll be addressing right across Government and hopefully making progress on that. It comes back, in part, to the points made by Darren earlier. One of the things that does at times frustrate me is that there are pockets of good practice in virtually every local authority in Wales. They aren't always shared and they're not always replicated. If I can do one thing, it'll be travelling around the local authorities, identifying the good practice, making sure that it is shared and holding those to account who don't adopt the good practice that we see. It's not one council being a great example and one council being awful; there are examples of good practice everywhere. That's part of the thinking and part of what we'll try and do, working with councils across Wales.

Exactly. My intention wasn't to be mean to the Vale of Glamorgan; I'm trying to reflect the difficulty that they're facing in actually delivering the change that I know they really want to be able to do. I'm sure there are many examples of good practice that they follow.

Moving on from that point, I think one of the most difficult elements with the Act as it is is how public bodies understand their—. What's the word? How they should be delivering global responsibility. It's well known already within the sector that that's the most difficult part of their work—to reflect how they have shown that they have been globally responsible. I probably should have mentioned earlier that I'd had some conversations with the previous Government in my previous job on the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023. Global responsibility was missing from that until we really lobbied to make sure that it was considered in the Act. It's in guidance, but not in the Act itself. Other elements of the future generations Act are in the law itself. I think we need to really consider global responsibility as something so important when we're living in a world that is more uncertain day by day.

I think that's exactly the kind of thing I'd expect the review to be considering. I don't know whether you want to add anything, Lloyd.

Yes, certainly. It was recognised in the future generations report from the commissioner as well that global responsibility is one that is lacking in a lot of the plans. One report we've got coming out next year is the future trends report, which, along with other things, is combining the global megatrends—so things like war and the environment and climate change—with local and national trends and risks and how they can work together. The hope is that that will inform assessments and plans going forward, to allow connections between that global level and the local and regional level.

I'm just looking around the room. Are there any additional questions? Pred, have you got one? We've got a few minutes left.

We've heard from the new Prime Minister about some movement on looking at the relationship between the UK and the EU and opening or widening up the discussion as to what that future relationship looks like—whether or not that's single market or rejoining. All these aspects seem to be back on the table to have a discussion about. Have you engaged at all with No. 10 and officials on a ministerial level on a formal role for Wales within that discussion? Because what we don't want to happen is like the UK internal market Act, where things are done to us rather than with us. So, I'm just wondering if there's a job of work that needs to be done and whether or not you've had some of those discussions already, or if it's on your radar to bring them up.

It is on our radar to bring them up. We haven't had those discussions as yet.

Because it's really important for this committee as the external affairs committee, as well as other aspects.

The National Economic Council is coming up in a few weeks' time, towards the end of this month. I would expect the range of areas that the Welsh Government is concerned about to be reflected by our Prif Weinidog in his meeting with the other Prif Weinidog.

But then, from a constitutional point of view, not an economic point of view, we'd need to keep an overview of that—

I think it's fair to say that the National Economic Council is somewhat misnamed, because it does seem to be a summit of all of the First Ministers. And while there is a clear economic focus, there will be an opportunity to raise broader issues.

And if I could ask for this committee to be kept informed of those discussions, because, obviously, it would be of interest to a lot of us around this table. Diolch.

Darren.

I just wanted to return to this issue of democratic accountability, if that's okay, and the ability of people to influence things. I've just been scanning through, as have others, the well-being report, which was published today, and it does seem to suggest that people feel less able to influence things in their own local communities than they have done in the past. There's been a slide in those numbers—I appreciate you may not have them in front of you yourself. But one of the things that this committee is going to be charged to do in the future is to review our election processes here at the Senedd. You will know, from speaking to members of the public, as we all do, that one of the frustrations that many people expressed with our new election system was the inability to endorse individual candidates, rather than political parties, in the way that they do. Do you have any thoughts on that? I appreciate that Plaid Cymru as a party has a particular position on the single transferable vote, but are there any other ideas that you believe could have potential merit to resolve that problem?

I think the first point to note is that you as a committee will be charged with moving forward with that review, and I think it's important that that process is owned by the Senedd, not by the Government. You will be unsurprised to learn that the Government will have a view and will look to engage with you as a committee as you develop that work. Our position long held is that STV offers both a level of proportionality and an ability for people to support individual candidates or parties, in accordance with their preferences. There is evidence that systems that allow voters greater choice lead to greater engagement. Therefore, from a democratic engagement point of view, not only in principle, we think, as a Government, that STV is the way forward, and we would support changes to make that the position in Wales. Of course, you'll also be aware that that will require a two-thirds majority in the Senedd, and that can only therefore be done by consensus. So, I shall look with interest to see how views develop across the Chamber, including our colleagues from Reform, who clearly will have a view as to whether voters should have the ability to be more engaged and to make some more nuanced choices in the elections.

As a member of the previous Senedd's Senedd reform committee, one of the other opportunities, other than STV, was this ability to either vote for a party or vote for an individual candidate of people's choice, in order to reorder party lists, to empower people to be able to do that if they wanted to—so, not STV, but a way of endorsing or giving credit to an individual of the voter's choice. I'm interested in this, because, again, Mr Burnham, in recent days, has talked about the prospect of electoral reform for UK Parliament elections. I know that comment has only just been made, but is this a discussion that you will pursue on that front with the UK Government?

It isn't at the top of my list for discussion with the UK Prime Minister.

I appreciate that, but if I can just make this point. One of the problems we have is confusion over the various different voting systems. Even up until the more recent elections, where people have been voting for many years with the two-vote system for the Senedd—the regions and the first-past-the-post—people still didn't appreciate or understand, sometimes, how that system worked and the nuances of it, and was confusing to people. Very often, they'd be having to ask for clarification from the clerks in polling stations, et cetera. And we've got this inconsistency now, haven't we, with elections for the UK Parliament, local government, multi-member wards, single-member wards, the six-seat super constituencies that we have. And voter confusion is not what we want, is it? We want it to be easy for people to understand our election system in order to promote engagement. So, it is a discussion that needs to be had, isn't it?

It is a discussion that needs to be had—

Even if it's at the bottom of your priority list.

I would caution you, of course, that some of the evidence that's emerging from the last Senedd election shows that voters were the least confused they have been in any previous election, because it's a single vote, and the more votes a party gets, the more seats they get. It's far more explicable than some of our other systems. The view of the Government, the view of my party, is that STV is the best electoral system and should be adopted for all elections. There are many jurisdictions and states around the world that have STV for all elections.

Diolch yn fawr. As everybody has picked up on, this is something we're going to be having much more detailed discussions on in the coming months, I'm sure. Diolch yn fawr to the Minister and your officials for attending today. I think we all appreciate your openness and your offer to—

I'm going to be in trouble now, I'm sure. [Laughter.]

We appreciate it.

But Chair, seriously, in my role, there is a role to work with parties to build consensus, to work collaboratively on the evidence base, and I'm very keen to work with this committee and with other Members of the Senedd to achieve that. Diolch yn fawr.

Today has been a good example of that, and we'll certainly be in touch about the areas you've offered to update us on going forward as well. We'll also send you a transcript for accuracy. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr iawn.