National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon. Can I welcome Members and the public to this afternoon's meeting of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee? Before we start our business, can I remind Members that the meeting is bilingual? If you require translation from Welsh to English simultaneously, it's available on channel 1 on the headphones. If you require amplification, that's available on channel 0. Can I also remind Members to please turn off your mobile phones or put them on silent, or any other electronic equipment that may interfere with the broadcasting? There are no scheduled fire alarms this afternoon, so if one does occur, please follow the directions of the ushers. We have received apologies from Eluned Morgan, Jeremy Miles and Suzy Davies and we welcome Jane Hutt as substitute for Eluned Morgan this afternoon—welcome. We've not got any other substitutes identified. 

Can we move on to the next item on the agenda? Item 2, papers to note. Can I first note the first item, which is correspondence from the Llywydd to David Davis MP, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, relating to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill? Are Members happy to note that? It does reflect upon our work on the EU withdrawal Bill and is in fact supportive of our work on the EU withdrawal Bill.

The second paper to note is correspondence from the UK Joint Committee on Women to David Davis MP, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, again relating to the EU withdrawal Bill and highlighting the concerns relating to the gender balance of the negotiating process. Are Members happy to note?

Could I just make a point on that, Chair, because I certainly feel we should do more than note this letter? It was written by Carwen Howells from the Women's Equality Network, and I have to say, if we hadn't had the funds and indeed the measures in terms of gender equality and non-discrimination policy, we wouldn't have been able to do many of the things that we've done in Wales in terms of mainstreaming equality in the structural funds, particularly, I would say, setting up both the Dove workshop in the Amman valley, and the Cardiff women's workshop here, where we accessed the European social fund women's funding, which made a huge difference in terms of supporting women's training in new technology and electronics. So, can we, as a committee, just do more than note but actually welcome these representations and endorse them?

Yes. I'm happy to return to this item at a future meeting to do that and to reflect upon the contents, very much so, and I agree with you fully that it is important that the issues being raised by the Joint Committee on Women relating to this are aired, and this is an opportunity to have that airing and discussion. So, we'll do that. With that in mind, are Members happy to note at this point? Thank you for that.

We move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the evidence relating to our work on the Welsh Government's resilience and preparedness for Brexit. Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford, and the Permanent Secretary, Shan Morgan? Can you introduce your officials, Cabinet Secretary?

Thank you very much, Chair. So, we have two people with us this afternoon: Piers Bisson, who is the director of the European transition team, and Andrew Slade, who is in charge of all things agricultural and environmental and is here, certainly, to help me as much as you.

Thank you very much, and can I thank you for the written paper as well? It was very interesting and, to an extent, answered a lot of our questions before we came to them. But, clearly, we want to explore a few things within that. Perhaps I'll start off with a couple of simple yes/no answers, which we want to explore and go into more detail on later on during this session. There's clearly a question—we've raised it with other Cabinet Secretaries, particularly the economy and infrastructure Cabinet Secretary when he attended—on the scenario preparations. We just want to find out whether you have been doing any detailed scenario planning on the possible impact of different outcomes for Wales. At the time, the Cabinet Secretary for infrastructure told us they were, I think, waiting for more certainty, but we're getting closer and closer. The clock keeps ticking, as we're being told.

Chair, I think we've been scenario planning from the very beginning. It is difficult because we don't know the scenarios against which we are best able to direct our efforts. I heard Kenneth Clarke at the weekend recounting his meeting with Michel Barnier, where he said Barnier had summed up the whole position by saying that the Commission did not know what the UK Government was trying to get out of the negotiations. And if the Commission doesn't understand what the UK Government is trying to plan for, you can see how difficult it is for us to plan as well, and I see that reflected in much of the evidence that you've had from other organisations—the real difficulty of planning in uncertainty. But nevertheless, the Welsh Government does continue to plan, to plan against a range of scenarios, and to marshal evidence that we prepare ourselves, and very much to rely on evidence prepared by others.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. It was a bit more than a 'yes', but thank you for that. This next one is just a simple 'yes' or 'no'. In your planning thinking, have you been doing anything on a 'no deal' scenario?

The Welsh Government's position, as you know, Chair, is that we're entirely opposed to a 'no deal' scenario, and we will not be drawn into planning for something on the basis that no deal is just one other option on a continuum of options. A 'no deal' would be disastrous for the Welsh economy and our efforts are focused on communicating that to the UK Government to prevent a 'no deal' from being the outcome. In the way that any Government has to prepare for a whole wide range of contingencies, of course we do some thinking about 'no deal'. But I think it's really important that we don't get just drawn into this discussion as though it was simply just another one on a list of ways in which this could all work out.

I fully understand and we share your concerns about the possibility of a 'no deal', but we are there to ask the questions as to what is the preparedness in relation to possible scenarios and so, therefore, the question is, I think, a valid question.  The final question for a 'yes' or 'no', and we haven't had a 'yes' or 'no' yet: have you had discussions with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union in relation to the UK Government's impact assessments, which they have admitted to doing on a sectorial basis and which they have, I think, reluctantly agreed to submit to the select committee in the House of Commons for consideration? Have you had discussions with him relating to those at all?

No.

I got a 'no'. I want to explore the impact assessments aspect, and Steffan will ask some further questions. 

Yes, thank you, Chair. I wonder if you could outline what sort of impact assessments you have undertaken, whether by sector or whether you've done more broad-brush impact assessments—one for the private sector, one for the broader public services, internal for Welsh Government. And, so, I wonder if you could talk us through the nature and the composition of such impact assessments.

Well, Chair, the committee will have seen a number of the impact assessments that the Welsh Government has produced. There was a significant economic impact assessment published in the White Paper that we published jointly with Plaid Cymru in January of this year. There have been subsequent reports by the chief economist, including the report that he published alongside the draft budget on 3 October that also makes an assessment of the impact on the Welsh economy of different forms of leaving the European Union. Our migration paper includes a major scenario assessment done by Professor Jonathan Portes of King's College in London on the way in which different migration policies post Brexit would have an impact on Wales, looking at it on a sectoral basis, comparing the sectoral impact in Wales with sectoral impacts elsewhere, concluding, as the committee will remember, that if the UK Government insists upon a much more restrictive approach to migration—an approach that we do not share—but concluding that if that is the course of action adopted at a UK level, then a Wales quota rather than a sectoral quota would be the better way of protecting different public and private organisations in Wales from that impact. We are committed to producing a further series of papers as part of this work, and I think you know that Cardiff University have been commissioned to produce a report on different forms of Brexit on larger companies here in Wales, and we will certainly publish that report alongside the wider document that we will publish on trade and a future trade policy from a Welsh perspective.

Thank you for that answer. Specifically on trade, I note in paragraph 11 of the written evidence you gave that you mentioned that a trade policy team exists to support all departments and Ministers across Welsh Government. What sort of initial analysis has that trade team undertaken in terms of the different options? I think it's fair to say that the options that are left open are pretty narrow. The British Government has repeatedly stated that we will not be in the European customs union or the single market. Therefore, it becomes, I suppose, a gradient of which sort of extreme Brexit we can expect. So, I just wonder what sort of modelling, if any, that trade policy team has been able to carry out thus far.

Thank you, Chair. I'll ask Piers just to probably give you some detail, but just to say again, Chair, that the Welsh Government has not given up at all on the advice that we have given throughout this process to the UK Government that a form of Brexit needs to be negotiated that places its top priority on the needs of the economy, and of the Welsh economy from our perspective, where continued participation in the single market and, we believe, at least for what might be an extended transition period, continued participation in the customs union or a customs union, ought to be the ambitions of the UK's negotiating mandate. So, while we do have to prepare for a Brexit that leaves us as close as we are today, as we can—because we believe that is in the interests of the Welsh economy—right through EEA, right through WTO, right through to no deal at all, we have to think of all those things, but that does not mean—. 

The next few months are absolutely crucial, it seems to me, Chair, in continuing to try to shape the way that the UK Government goes about these negotiations and moves in, we hope, to the second phase of them. And while the Welsh Government is doing the work that has been described, and Steffan Lewis just asked me about, we are very, very focused on continuing to make the case we have made, and press that with the UK Government, because there are voices in the UK Government still that are closer to where we have been on all of this, and where you can see the impact that we have made in some of the language that the UK Government uses on free and frictionless access to the single market in transition arrangements. We continue to put a great deal of our effort into trying to make sure that we get the best Brexit, as well as having to think about how we can prepare for that wider range of possibilities.

Piers will probably be able to give you a bit more detail on the way in which the trade team has begun to do that more fine-grain analysis. 

Of course. If I start—it might also be that Andrew Slade has something to contribute because some of the knottiest and most difficult issues around trade can actually be on the agriculture side as well. So, if I start and then there may be a supplement as well. 

So, the trade policy team—they've obviously been building out from the analysis done first of all through the White Paper, and, clearly, the overwhelming importance of the level of access we have to the single market and customs issues are front and centre. They've also been liaising with the Department for International Trade to understand the work that is happening there, the way in which the development of the legislation is happening, the way in which associated policy development is happening at UK level, and looking to influence that. Alongside that, in terms of the analysis—then looking to understand where it might be that the UK Government does enter into free trade agreements with other countries, where the potential opportunities are but where the risks are as well, because trade deals with other countries could carry a range of economic or even environmental and social risks too. 

So, in particular, the Cardiff Business School report that's been referred to gives a much more granular set of information than we've had previously at a sectoral level. We're also looking to supplement that through knowledge or sector teams within Welsh Government and our own economic analysis, drawing on published data and information available to us. 

So, it's kind of a quite broad-ranging approach that they've got, both looking to understand and influence at a UK level, but also developing analysis to appear in the policy document when we publish it. 

Thank you for that, and, of course, you've mentioned the influence on the UK position. I take the point that the Cabinet Secretary's made, and he'll know that there's no difference, really, between us when it comes to us hoping that we can change the current aims and intentions of the UK Government. However, as has just been referred to, trade legislation has now been published that marks our departure from the customs union. That is something that is being legislated for, and I wonder if, perhaps, you can elaborate on what impact and influence you have had on that legislation. 

I'll make a start, just to say that there are some aspects of the trade White Paper particularly that we welcomed, because it appeared to recognise, more than some UK papers have recognised, that although trade is a non-devolved matter, there are some very important interfaces with devolved responsibilities, and a recognition in the White Paper that ways would need to be found to make sure that that interface worked effectively, and a recognition that that interface needed to begin not just at the point where we were implementing decisions made by the UK Government, but in shaping the decisions that the UK Government intended to make. 

The First Minister met Liam Fox, the Secretary of State at the Department for International Trade, here in Cardiff a number of weeks ago, and again, I think, concluded that that had been a useful meeting in which there was a greater openness on the part of that department to engagement with the Welsh Government than we might have anticipated. 

The Bill itself is a bit of a disappointment in that it doesn't put on the face of the Bill some of those commitments that were there in the White Paper, and we will certainly be pressing the UK Government to move some of those things from the White Paper and into the Bill itself.  

Were you disappointed that it was published within 12 hours of the consultation closing, which really doesn't reflect a consultation being effective?

It doesn't reflect well on the process, I think, when something appears that rapidly. The Department for International Trade will say that they have been in continuous discussion with people during the consultation period—their visit to Cardiff to meet the First Minister being part of that engagement exercise—and that they've been able to take that into account. But 12 hours is a very short time indeed in order to be able to take a rounded view of a very important consultation.

So, we continue to want to influence the Bill—I think that's the point that I was being asked—and there are things we think that were there in the White Paper that we can use to do that.

Can I expand on a couple of bits? Because, clearly, the Trade Bill, as it will come out, as you say, impacts upon us, but I know the UK Government has mentioned very often that they believe that they will easily transpose the existing EU agreements to work with the UK. Has the Welsh Government done any analysis of those agreements to see which ones are detrimental to the Welsh economy and which ones are better for the Welsh economy, so you can know which ones that maybe you need to have some focus upon?

Well, Chair, it's one of the ironies, I think, of the current circumstances—that, in the free trade agreements that have been negotiated through the European Union, devolved administrations had a guaranteed opportunity to be able to shape the UK Government's attitude and contribution to those FTAs, because the JMC (Europe), which is not the one we normally talk about here, is a long-standing part of the landscape, which meets every quarter, which has the agenda of the forthcoming Council of Ministers in front of it, and is where devolved administrations are able to pass information to the UK Government about that agenda. That includes the different FTAs that have been signed by the European Union.

So, I think it would be fair to say that we have always had an opportunity up until now to make sure that if there were key Welsh interests at stake in a free trade agreement with any third country we would've been able to have made those points at a JMC (Europe), and—. In the normal run of business, there has generally been a proper responsiveness at the UK level to making sure that those interests are understood and safeguarded.

The problem with the Trade Bill is that, unless we are confident in being able to replicate those arrangements in the future, free trade agreements negotiated by the UK alone might offer devolved administrations a lower level of opportunity to shape them than we've had when they've been negotiated through the European Union.

So, of the ones that are there already, we've already had our chance to have our say. Of course, we will want to look to see how the Trade Bill picks those existing FTAs up and tries to turn them into agreements between the UK and that third country, in case there are any glitches that open up there that would be problematic to Wales. But we need to make sure that future FTAs—that Wales has a guaranteed opportunity to be part of the thinking about them in advance as well as their implementation.

As I say, the irony of the situation is that, in taking back control, we appear at the moment to have fewer institutional guarantees about how we will be involved than we've had while we've been members of the European Union.

Okay. You're also talking about the customs issue, and as you will have heard, the Irish Taoiseach at the end of last week highlighted that there would be no discussions on trade until the Northern Ireland-southern Ireland border was sorted, in the sense of a soft border. Again, have you had discussions on the impact that would have on Wales if there is a soft border between the north and south, whatever arrangements are made elsewhere?

Yes, we have. I saw what the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union had said about not having had specific discussions on the impact on Holyhead. And if by that he meant that we hadn't had a detailed set of discussions about the impact on what is the third-busiest port in the United Kingdom—280,000 lorries passing through Holyhead on an annual basis—well, I suppose if he meant we hadn't discussed with him where they were all going to park after Brexit, that's true enough. But on the more general issue of whether we have consistently raised with the UK Government the very specific Welsh interest in the debate between the border between the European Union that runs through the island of Ireland or a border that runs through the Irish sea, then we have very, very regularly raised that, at Joint Ministerial Committees and in bilateral meetings. I don't think the UK Government could be in any doubt that there is a Welsh interest at stake there, which we would need to be able to discuss with them thoroughly.

Steffan.

On this very point, Chair, notwithstanding the fact the Welsh Government's position's clear, that you wish the UK as a whole to stay in the customs union, at least for the foreseeable future, if not permanently—in which case, that aids in obligations for Ireland, especially in terms of the Belfast agreement—yesterday your colleague the shadow chancellor suggested that a UK Labour Government would be prepared to look at special status for Northern Ireland to remain in the customs union, with the rest of the UK outside it, in order to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland. Is that an opinion that you support?

Well, Chair, we don't take a particular view on the best arrangements for the island of Ireland other than always wanting to say that we understand what a significant issue that is, and making sure that the ground that has been gained in Northern Ireland over the last 20 years is not put at risk as we leave the European Union. Special status for the north is an idea that the Taoiseach very clearly articulated over the weekend, but Members here will know what a hostile response that often evokes from some parties in the north of Ireland. So, our position has been not to try and come down in favour or against particular solutions, because those are for people in Ireland to be able to think about and take forward. But a special arrangement for the north of Ireland does have the consequential effect of mitigating some of our anxieties about Welsh ports in an arrangement where the border ran along the western edge of Britain and the eastern edge of Ireland. 

Okay. Dawn, do you want to ask about support and assistance?

Yes. I wanted to explore a little bit with you the level of engagement with stakeholders. Some of us have been out talking at the rapporteur sessions with various organisations. I was particularly involved in a discussion with one of the health boards, and I think it's clear from evidence that we've had previously—certainly from the NHS Confederation, for instance—that there is quite high-level engagement with stakeholders. But I was a little surprised, and I suppose a bit concerned, at the apparent lack of knowledge at health board level around what the Welsh—well, I'll start at the top—what the UK Government's position was, for a start, what the Welsh Government's response to that was, and how they could effectively plan for any potential scenarios. So, I just wanted to get a better understanding of what the stakeholder engagement has been at what level, and what you would be expecting to happen in terms of that cascading down to the people who actually have to implement some of these decisions in the longer term. 

Thank you, Chair. Well, I think I recognise the first point that Dawn is making from some of the evidence that I've seen the committee's had in this inquiry: a sense from organisations that are already very busy carrying out their own difficult responsibilities that trying to engage with a Brexit outcome, when it is so unclear to them the path that the UK is set on as far as Brexit is concerned—that they are baffled by it to an extent that they don't know how to grapple with it, because they don't know what it is that they are being asked to engage with. By the time you get down to health board level, health boards being, essentially, operational organisations, aren't they—you know, organising the operation of the clinics and trying to get through the day—I think trying to find the space to engage with something when it's so difficult to know what it is you're engaging with defeats them in many ways. I saw that as a theme in quite a lot of the evidence that you have had.

Now, from a Welsh Government perspective, our engagement is essentially at more sort of representative level, isn't it, so our agreement with the health service in Wales is that our key forum for Brexit discussions is with the NHS Confederation, representing all health bodies in Wales. And that has been quite an active place. How far it cascades on down, I think is—there are questions that could be asked about that. But we have, I think, a very extensive engagement with stakeholders set of arrangements that go from the European advisory group at probably the highest level, which has people from universities, people from local government, people from the trade unions, people from the Confederation of British Industry—you know, that big representational level—and that meets regularly and has had a very fruitful agenda, down then through the more sort of sectoral forums.

So, Andrew will be able to tell you about the Brexit round-table arrangements that Lesley Griffiths has put in place, with its seven sub-groups and a huge amount of activity in terms of stakeholder engagement on the agriculture side, but that's replicated in all sorts of other ways. Kirsty Williams has her higher education Brexit working group. Ken Skates chairs a sub-group of the council for economic development that is specifically dedicated to Brexit on the private sector side of things. And it has been a regular topic of discussion at all the big partnership forums that we have. So, I will be going to the workforce partnership council on Thursday of this week to report on Brexit, as I have at every meeting of that partnership council since June of last year. And that's replicated at the third sector partnership council, at the local government partnership council and so on. So, at those places where the Welsh Government has regular interfaces with stakeholders of all sorts right across Wales, Brexit has become a standing item on all of those agendas.

There are regular reports, often from me and sometimes from the First Minister, on developments in between meetings and a regular opportunity then for those particular stakeholders to make sure that we are as well informed as we can be of the concerns they have, sometimes of the activities that they are undertaking.  Chair, I might have said in an earlier answer to Steffan Lewis's questions about sectoral analysis that, of course, we rely a lot not just on the work the Welsh Government does directly but on the work that sectors themselves are doing. So, the Federation of Small Businesses, for example, reported at a meeting of the council for economic development on the recent report that they have published on sectoral impacts in small businesses. I have met the British Retail Consortium and the British Hospitality Association, again for them to be able to convey to us the sectoral analysis that they have undertaken in their particular industry.

So I'm—sorry, in a rather too-long way—trying to just make it clear that these are forums that work both ways. We report to people to try and make sure they are as up to date as they can be on developments with Brexit that we are aware of, but they are also an opportunity for them to make sure that they can relay to us the work that they are doing, particularly as they analyse the impact of Brexit on their sectors.

So, Chair, if I might, does each sector, whether they are public or private sector, have an—? Do they understand what their route is into Welsh Government in terms of discussions that they might need to have around areas of clarity, about Government policy, about the direction—? Do we have people allocated to each sector, working with those sectors? Is that basically how it's working, is it?

Well, there are certainly people right across the Welsh Government who are working directly with those sectors. I think the point at which it becomes more difficult to be certain is the point at which our interface then passes into a second phase of interface with others. So, I saw, for example, some of the things that Pembrokeshire council have said to the committee, but I know that the Welsh Local Government Association is represented on the European advisory group, for example. I know that, at the last meeting of the European advisory group, we took a major item from Councillor Rob Stewart, the leader of Swansea council, who is the WLGA lead on Brexit, in which he brought a paper to that group, setting out all the things that local government themselves are doing, and the things that they need Welsh Government to be helping them with. I could see, from what you have been told, that some of those things weren't immediately apparent to some people who you'd spoken to in Pembrokeshire council. So, that next phase, where the people we speak to speak to their sectors—it's harder always to be certain the extent to which the discussions we have cascade on further into the system.

Yes, and I think that that area of communication was one that certainly we identified when we were speaking to one of the health boards, about that they would find it helpful to have regular updates and bulletins about what's happening at a higher level, I guess, is probably—. And that doesn't appear to be happening, which is something for those organisations to deal with.

Of course. But also, Chair, just to say that it would be a part of a report that I imagine you'll prepare that we will be particularly interested in, as a Welsh Government, when you have a chance to reflect on what you've been told. If there are things that we can do better, if there are things that we can do more, to make sure that the work that we're engaged in gets communicated on, then we are very keen indeed to hear your advice on that. Because, if we can do it better, of course we want to do it better.

Okay. That's fine. Thank you, Chair.

Does it worry you that there seems to be a lack of communication going downwards? Because, obviously, when we go out, we get the impression that the Welsh Government is not doing anything, because those are some of the comments we're getting, but it's clear, from what you're saying, that there are those discussions, and you are talking to the bodies representing individual groups, but they don't seem to be necessarily communicating in that way down the line a little bit. Is that a worry?

Well, I think I'd start by saying that I don't think that that reaction that you have had will be unique to Brexit, because I think it's a struggle always, when you're talking to busy organisations where people have got day jobs to do. When you ask them to become engaged in things that are wider than that sort of horizon, it's often difficult to be sure that people feel that they are engaged in the way they'd like to be and have the information that they would like. Am I concerned with it specifically in Brexit? Well, yes, in the sense that this is the biggest issue that faces us all. Therefore, if we can do better, if there are new ideas that people put to you, things that they would find helpful that we could provide, or that we can make sure are being provided by the organisations who more directly service them—as I say, it's a part of your inquiry that, from my point of view, we are especially interested in, and we'll be looking carefully at your conclusions.

Steffan. Sorry.

Sorry, only briefly, just to expand, as part of the European transition team, we have a dedicated communications post, which then works with the heads of communications in different Welsh Government groups to then access into their networks. So, communications was something that we were particularly alive to, and we put a lot of effort into trying to get it right, certainly in our first-order engagement with outside bodies, and using existing fora wherever they exist—so, statutory partnership councils and so on. Yes, if there are opportunities to look at how we can increase the percolation and dissemination within sectors, then we're very keen to do that, but we have something that has been very focused on communications to try and make sure that, certainly, as it originates out of the Welsh Government, we put energy and effort into making sure that the policy position and priorities are understood.

Steffan.

Thank you, Chair. I think the point is that there are obviously discussions ongoing and regular discussions happening. I'm a bit concerned that, a couple of times, the Cabinet Secretary has used the words 'cascade', and 'to what extent things cascade down in the public sector is open to question'. I think that’s quite alarming, and I think it's alarming because the sense that I get is that the public sector isn't quite clear on what it's meant to be preparing for. I think that comes to the crux of the matter: what is the Welsh Government doing to Brexit-prepare as best as possible the public services that are within its remit? I think that, whilst everybody hopes that we don't get a 'no deal' Brexit, that is a distinct possibility—some might argue a probability—so, the question, I suppose, is: if the European Union and the European Commission are preparing their public services and their private sectors for a 'no deal' Brexit, why can't the Welsh Government begin now preparing the Welsh public services for a 'no deal' Brexit as well?

Chair, I just want to take issue with the idea that a no-deal Brexit is something that you can simply prepare for, that it is—

So, what's the European Union doing—

—a condition capable of being mitigated. Because that seems to me to be what lies behind the question, really.

No, what lies behind the question is that, for example, we've met with representatives in the health sector and there are quite clear steps that can be taken in order to begin the process of at least understanding if not beginning to address mitigation in terms of increased costs of drugs and treatments—the currency fluctuation, the now near parity between pound and euro in terms of what that means for procurement in the public sector, whether it makes sense to streamline procurement throughout the public sector in Wales in order to mitigate those costs. With due respect, I think there is a possibility of looking at what the implications are and what steps we can take to mitigate that no-deal Brexit. It doesn't seem that that discussion's been had. 

I want to try to answer the question in this way, Chair: at that level of micro detail, of very particular things that you might be able to do, then those discussions certainly do happen. They happen in the Welsh NHS, they happen between the Welsh Government and sectors where we think there are those very specific things that might be done. 

If anybody thinks that that amounts to a plan to protect yourself against a no-deal Brexit, then I'm saying to them that I don't think that that is the case. No amount of public money, no amount of preparation, will avoid the harm that will be done to Wales and its economy by leaving the European Union without a deal. Nothing the Welsh Government can do will be able to mitigate the impact of tariffs being placed on Welsh agricultural products. Nothing the Welsh Government can do will be able to mitigate the harm that will occur when non-tariff barriers suddenly find themselves in the path of businesses that, up until now, have had entirely frictionless trade with our biggest and nearest trading partner. Nothing the Welsh Government will be able to do if the UK Government decides to put border posts in Holyhead and Fishguard—. So, while, of course, there are in that practical sense people who will be thinking about, 'If we leave the European Union without a deal, and I can't recruit people in the way that I have now, how might I be able to try to do that differently in the future?' But I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe that that sort of detailed preparation amounts to an ability to withstand the impact of a no-deal on Wales. 

That's why I say that the idea that you can simply plan for it, as though this was all overcome-able by a plan—I don't think that that adequately describes to people in Wales what the impact of a no-deal basis of leaving the European Union would actually be like for them. 

I think one of the concerns we have is not necessarily planning, or even suggesting that in a sense we can mitigate to that level of ability, but the awareness of the consequences and some of the issues that businesses and the public sector may well need to face. Therefore, you are saying that those discussions are ongoing at that point. Perhaps that's what we're trying to find out: are those discussions ongoing? Are people being made aware of the possibilities of the issues that may need to be faced up to as a subject of a no-deal exit?

I might ask Andrew just to tell you a bit about how that is happening in his field. The point I wanted to agree with Steffan Lewis on, and I'm sounding as though I'm disagreeing with him probably more than I am—. The point that I agree with him on is that, as the weeks seep by and the UK Government's position does not become clearer, and as the risks of crashing out of the European Union without proper arrangements rise, so making sure that people are alert to what that would actually mean and therefore, as we would see it, align themselves with the efforts that we and others are making to try to make sure that the UK Government does not—. Again, I'm just trying to be fair: whenever you speak to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, he is completely clear that he is focused on making a deal. That is his intention; that is his plan. He is not planning for no deal. He may have to be thinking about what would happen if there wasn't one, but that is not his intention—that's not what the UK Government, he says, is in this to achieve. And that's why I say that the next few weeks and months are so important in us continuing to put our little bit of pressure into that to try and strengthen the voices of those people at the UK Government who are intent on getting a proper, purposeful deal that protects the interests of Wales and the UK. But Andrew will be able to tell you a little bit more in answer to that specific question.

Well, it won't surprise you to know—and you've looked at this in your work to date—that agriculture, environment, marine, fisheries and food are areas that are completely bathed in EU frameworks of one sort or another, whether that's in respect of legislation and the regulatory environment or the markets in which we operate or, indeed, in relation to European investment. So, it's been absolutely critical from the get-go, after the referendum outcome, that we brought stakeholders together, and that's what the Cabinet Secretary Lesley Griffiths did, through the creation of a round table bringing all of the key stakeholder groups together. As the Cabinet Secretary's just mentioned, we've now got seven sub-groups beneath that round table working, covering a range of particular issues: air and climate; our seas and coasts; land management; trade; regulation and legislation; people and places. And all of that is underpinned by the work of an evidence and scenarios group. We have taken the likely set of scenarios, as colleagues and the Cabinet Secretary have set out, including some variants that are of particular relevance to our sectors, and we have worked those up with the stakeholders.

We will be publishing, with the stakeholders effectively, some of that work in the course of the next few weeks. It's just out with them at the moment for their views. The principal focus of that, really, has been to ensure that we are as sighted as we possibly can be in our negotiations with UK Government in terms of advancing points for the negotiations in respect of deals done, but also in respect of how the UK might work with itself in future. The other area has been specifically to get sectors alert to some of the issues that come out of those scenarios, as the Cabinet Secretary has said, and with us, as a partner in this process but effectively for themselves, to start to say, 'What can we do—', in the case of businesses, food businesses, '—to start to take account of this range of scenarios?' But, as the Cabinet Secretary says, there is a limit to what either they as individual businesses or indeed we as a Government can do against some of the scenarios.

Okay, thank you. For the record, when we met the lead EU negotiator, Michel Barnier, he also said he wanted a deal as well. So, both sides clearly want to make a commitment. Mark.

Again, much of what I was going to raise has been raised in response to your follow-up question and in response to Steffan. All the witnesses we've heard, whether national bodies or international bodies, in this inquiry and I think almost all, with possibly one exception, since this committee came into effect, do not seek a 'no deal' scenario. The question is about preparedness for that. I think all the international bodies we've spoken to and Governments or regional representation outside the UK are, nonetheless, preparing for all options as best they are able to, including a 'no deal' option.

In terms of the cascading point, it's a term I recognise from my previous employment with dread, where, at senior management meetings, we were filled with information and charged with going back to cascade the information to our local managers to then cascade to the staff, top down, and then agree how we were going to deliver that. The issue there is, domestically, we've spoken to a range of witnesses and a range of bodies, people with very pertinent, relevant and helpful suggestions, who appear not to have been engaged by their representative bodies or organisations. So, it's turning that cascade up. I don't know what the reverse term for 'cascade' is. Perhaps you can suggest one. But how do we reverse cascade?

Well, Chair, I would certainly welcome it happening in that way. I tried to say to you earlier that the meetings that we have with the representative bodies are always a two-way meeting: us making sure that they are well-informed about the Welsh Government's work, but also—and always—an opportunity for them to pass to us messages from their members and from the work that they are doing.

I definitely recognise the limitations of the term, but I was simply trying to explain the way in which the Welsh Government is able to operate. We cannot hold 22 meetings individually with 22 local authorities, when we are able to have a well-recognised interface with the Welsh Local Government Association, who then communicate on with their members. We can't meet 13 different health bodies, when we can work through the Welsh NHS Confederation, who then have that direct interface with their members. We work in exactly the same way with the Confederation of British Industry, with the Federation of Small Businesses, with the Institute of Directors, with the Trades Union Congress, and so on. Anything we can do to make that more effective, both in the way that Mark Isherwood just asked me, and making sure that they are well-placed to pass on to us the suggestions that their members are making, or that we can make more effective their ability to pass on the messages that we give to them, we've got no interest at all in not making that work as well as it possibly can, and any practical ideas how to do it better, we are very open indeed to hearing them.

Thank you. I'll move on to the next area, if I can, because I'm conscious of time. Jane Hutt.

Yes, I'm just looking at all the work that you're doing to help work for a deal, and that is about capacity, and then influence as well. I think it's very important to acknowledge—and your paper does—that the Welsh Government, in partnership with Plaid Cymru, was on the front foot with 'Securing Wales' Future' in terms of having influence, particularly in terms of setting out, with good evidence, the stall of how we need to support the transition and how we need to negotiate with the UK Government. So, can we just have a bit more about how important the Cabinet sub-committee in terms of European transition is in enabling a strategic direction from the Welsh Government, and perhaps a bit from the Permanent Secretary or Piers about the European transition officer groups—you know, how many sub-groups have you got? What are their roles and functions? And then, because of this, can you help not only sort of engage the outside world with your European advisory group, but also effectively influence and support—of course, you, as Cabinet Secretary—your negotiations with the UK Government?

Thank you, Chair. Well, I'll deal with just a couple of those things, and then the Permanent Secretary will give the detail about the way that particularly the officials' group has been working. I think there have been three key groups that the Welsh Government has worked through during this first year. There's the European advisory group that I mentioned; there's been the liaison group that we have had with Plaid Cymru; and then there has been the Cabinet sub-committee. The Cabinet sub-committee is the place where all the papers that we have published get their first airing, at Cabinet level, before they go to the Cabinet as a whole. It's the place where the different work that goes on at the portfolio level comes together to make sure that we are alert to all the work that is going on, make sure that we try and knit it together so that we get the maximum impact from it, and so on. It is why I believe that we have been able to have some influence over the way that the debate at the UK level has been conducted.

I've probably said before at this committee, Chair, so I'll say very briefly that, at the very first Joint Ministerial Committee that I attended, the European negotiation JMC, we had to work quite hard to get a discussion of free and frictionless access to the single market as being a top priority, but you now see that very much reflected in UK Government thinking. At that very first meeting, there was no appetite at all to talk about transition arrangements. The Secretary of State told me that we didn't need to talk about transition arrangements because he was confident that, within two years, he could settle the divorce and agree the future relationship. Anybody here will know how far that has gone, and it's why, as a Welsh Government, we were keen to welcome what the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech about a two-year transition period in which, to all intents and purposes, we will remain members of the European Union to allow that forward prospectus to be worked out. So, I think our structures were put in early, I think they've worked reasonably effectively, and I think they have provided us with a very clear basis from which we've been able, effectively, to influence others. Shan.

Thank you. When I arrived in this job from Brussels in February, I found an organisation that I felt, and continue to believe, is very well structured and co-ordinated to consider the policy implications and to share information across the Government and with our stakeholders in Wales.

Specifically on the official-level groups, there is a group of senior officials representing all departments of the Welsh Government. That was set up immediately after the referendum. That's called the European transition officials group. That meets very regularly to provide policy co-ordination and the sharing of information across the Welsh Government as a whole. As I said, there are representatives from all departments of the Welsh Government civil service on that group. In addition to the main group, there are three sub-groups that focus on very specific issues. So, there is one, for example, on legislation, one on the economy and the impact of EU transition on the economy, and one looking at the common frameworks. These are the mutually agreed co-ordination mechanisms across the UK that are being discussed.

Obviously, in addition to that formal structure of the European transition officials group and the three sub-groups to it, there are as many ad hoc groups as we need on specific subjects and, for example, to produce specific policy documents. So, it is well structured. That European transition officials group—the overarching group—makes sure that there is effective co-ordination across the Welsh Government itself, but also monitors co-ordination with individual departments in Whitehall to make sure that we are giving consistent and clear messages across the whole of the Welsh Government. And it is the European transition team who provide the secretarial support for that overarching group.

So, that's the broad structure. It seems to me to be working very effectively. Obviously, we keep that under constant review, and as and when we feel that there is a need for any additions to that structure then we will take that on board.

And presumably you have the overall ultimate responsibility, Permanent Secretary, for this EU work through the transition team or via Piers, rather than it being individual departments.

Absolutely, both as principal accounting officer and as Permanent Secretary of the Welsh Government. Perhaps I could give an example. I have three main areas that I'm responsible for in relation to European transition. First, obviously, I have to keep our resources under constant review and make sure that we are targeting our precious resource where it's most needed, as the Cabinet Secretary has already made clear. That has been a question, very largely, of reprioritising existing resource. Secondly, I represent the voice of Wales and Welsh interests at the weekly meeting of all Whitehall permanent secretaries with Sir Jeremy Heywood. I can make sure that I am always adding a Welsh perspective there; so, keeping that sort of overview function. And thirdly, I also represent Welsh interests very directly on EU transition at the regular bilateral and multilateral meetings that take place in London with the head of the Department for Exiting the European Union. So, yes, I have to keep that overview and make sure that we are consistent in all our relationships with Whitehall.

Thank you.

In that sense, clearly, there'll be priorities emanating from some of the discussions. Are those priorities going to be the priorities of the transition team or the departments? How will you manage to ensure that a priority you've identified is given that priority within the department?

I'd say that there are two main sets of responsibility within the Welsh Government for work in this area. First, there is the overall policy co-ordination and strategic planning and constitutional expertise at the centre of the organisation led by the European transition team. So, they will co-ordinate overall and take overall responsibility for production of policy documents. But second, there are particular parts of the organisation where we need to be thinking hard about operational readiness. Andrew has already described the work that's in hand, obviously, on environment, agriculture and fisheries—three of the areas where the impact of exit will be felt immediately—where there have been some enhanced resources. But additionally, obviously, we have a strong Europe team in legal services. We have, as the Cabinet Secretary said, strengthened the trade team to look at this. I would say that work on EU exit is now effectively mainstreamed across the whole of the Welsh Government. It is a dimension of all our work now, given the potential economic impact and the potential impact on services provided by the Welsh Government. So, there are different responses. It's part of my job to make sure that, when I hear what's coming from the centre, I share that information with all the teams, and that we all make sure that we're clear about emerging developments at the centre in Westminster.

And finally from me—I'm conscious of time, so I will be quick through this section. Finally from me, in that sense, at the start of our inquiry, back 15 months ago, it was made clear to us that there were deep concerns over the fact that perhaps many in Whitehall did not understand devolution across departments. You've already highlighted that you're there with a voice very much at a senior level. Have you seen a change in their understanding of devolution within departments across Whitehall, or are there still some areas concerned where there still are questions over the relationships and the understanding of devolution?

I would say that all departments are now much more intensely aware of devolution as an aspect of taking forward Brexit negotiations. Jeremy Heywood has made that absolutely clear in the weekly meetings of permanent secretaries. So, I think he has put the devolved administrations firmly on the radar. But in addition, I would say that there are departments that are just much more naturally attuned to the devolved settlements. So, in departments like the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for example, where almost all their areas of responsibility have a devolved dimension, they have always been very sensitive to our issues, and very much aware of the devolved settlements. I saw that just as much from my role in Brussels as here. So, I would say that, overall, although I think Sir Jeremy Heywood is making it clear to all my colleagues that they need to factor in the devolved administrations in preparation for Brexit, there is a degree of variation, still, between departments, depending upon the extent to which they engage actively in policy formation with the devolved administrations. 

Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, could I ask you the last question for this session? Because we have another session, which we'll have shortly. You said 'no' to the question I asked regarding whether you've seen the impact assessments. Have you asked the UK Government for sight of those assessments? Because clearly, although they're not specifically for Wales, Scotland or any other individual nation, there are sectors in there that are very dominant within Wales. And, in terms of the analysis that you've asked Cardiff University to look at, will that also be feeding into the UK Government for their consideration?

Chair, the answer to your first questions is 'yes', we did directly ask the UK Government to see that analysis. Part of our frustration throughout this process has been that we have felt that we could have been of more assistance to the UK Government than they have been willing to take from us. And their sectoral analysis would have been better had they had the advantage of the information and expertise that we were willing to contribute to to them.

So, once we have the Cardiff University study and it's public, of course we will make sure that the UK Government has a copy of that, and there is more that we believe, both in this and in other aspects of Brexit as well, we could've done to help. And it's been a frustration for us, really, that those offers of assistance, which we make regularly, have been so infrequently taken up.

Okay, thank you. Can I thank you for this session? We'll bring this session to an end. We'll have a five-minute break and then go into the next session with the Cabinet Secretary in relation to the EU withdrawal Bill and the implications for Wales, particularly the JMC(EN) negotiation aspects. So, shall we have a short break of five minutes?

Can I welcome Members back to this afternoon's evidence session of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, where we're continuing our evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance? Can I welcome Des Clifford to this session, who's sitting in the seat that Andrew sat in previously? 

Cabinet Secretary, obviously this session is more focused upon the EU withdrawal Bill and, in a sense, the outcomes of the JMC(EN) and some of the comments that were made. Perhaps we can look very carefully at those comments. Particularly of interest to us is the common frameworks agenda, and Steffan will lead on that—common frameworks. 

Thank you, Chair. The communiqué that was issued after the last JMC(EN) suggested that there is a scope or a possibility for common frameworks to be agreed between the different Governments. Having read and reread the communiqué, I wondered if you could help me in understanding precisely how such common frameworks could be agreed. I might be wrong or maybe too pessimistic in my analysis, which was that the principle had been sort of agreed, but that actually there wasn't much more than that. 

Chair, Steffan Lewis is right to say that at the last JMC(EN) all that was agreed was a set of common principles that would underpin any frameworks. But that was quite a significant step forward; we've not been able to agree anything like that at a JMC(EN) previously, and a lot of work went into that from the UK Government, from the Scottish Government and ourselves. But we recognise that we now have to move on from agreeing the need for frameworks to agreeing which aspects of the shared areas of concern frameworks are needed for. And once we've agreed which ones require frameworks, we will need to agree on the content, the format, the evolution and the governance of those frameworks. So, there is a lot of very practical work to be done. 

You will have seen that we have agreed with the UK Government and with the Scottish Government that we should take three areas for what the UK Government is calling a 'deep dive' into the whole issue of creating frameworks. We've chosen three areas that we think are more likely to belong to that part of the spectrum where more formal frameworks will be needed. So, the first of those meetings has happened last week; that was on agriculture. There will be two more this week. One is justice and home affairs, which is more of a bilateral set of discussions between the UK Government and Scotland with us sitting in and listening. And then the third one will be on public health. 

The purpose of those three two-day meetings is to establish the extent to which we believe that this way of coming round the table, seeking agreement, producing frameworks, can be delivered in practice. You will know that the Welsh Government's position has always been that while we agree there will be areas where, post Brexit, we will need new ways of making sure that the UK can function effectively, the way to achieve that is to come round the table together, the four component parts of the United Kingdom, each with their own respective responsibilities, but willing to come together to agree common ways ahead. Our contention has always been that that is the right and mature way to shape the United Kingdom after the European Union, and we've always contrasted that with the approach taken in the withdrawal Bill, which is for the UK Government to collect those powers back to itself, resolve those matters, and then hand things back to the devolved administrations at a point that they can't identify to an extent that they cannot describe and having made use of those powers in the meantime in a way that we would have had no ability to influence. So, these discussions are very important for us. They do have a lot to do, but a start has now been made.

Thank you for that answer. So, in terms of the meeting that has been held on agriculture, obviously I respect that that meeting will be subject to some privacy and confidentiality, but, broadly speaking, is it a case that the UK Government takes the onus on setting out broadly what could be in a framework for the whole of the UK and then the devolved Governments substantiate further and put their positions? Or, is it the case that each Government gets to suggest its own vision for how a common framework in that given—? Is that how the meeting worked last week?

Piers was more directly concerned with that.

I wasn't there directly but a member of my team was. So, I think it will depend, according to the nature of the area. On areas such as environment and rural affairs, then clearly that's a very, very well established devolved area, so we wouldn't anticipate that would just be something where we would have hand-me-downs. That would be very much something that would be all administrations or Governments being able to contribute and think what is sensible to have in forms of co-operation or areas that might be covered. On some areas that might be more of a UK Government lead but then may have implications, then we might be interested to hear and see what the UK Government had to say on it. But in respect of agriculture and environment, then it's not a situation where the UK Government said, 'This is it, and then you'll work on that basis.' It would be far more iterative, involving the different Governments.

So, last week, we'd be right in surmising, then, that Welsh Government went to that meeting with a proposal for a common framework on agriculture. 

It would be based on work that had been done internally to understand what might be needed in different areas. I think it was the first meeting, so I think it would have been very much initial scoping, rather than, 'This is the Welsh Government plan and this is very much what we'd expect to see finally.'

Okay, thank you. How do you reconcile the rather late albeit welcome concession on the need for common frameworks to be agreed with the fact that there are already plans afoot in Whitehall for legislating in these spheres? We can expect, I think, in the new year, quite a lot of UK legislation in areas that are either partly or wholly devolved, with the suspicion that there might be enforced frameworks within them.

I think my explanation would be that there are parts of the UK Government that simply proceed on the basis that they will know best and that devolved administrations, at the most, will get to be consulted on some of these things. There are other parts of Westminster and Whitehall who are now a good deal more aware of the fact that our opposition to that way of proceeding is absolutely real, that we are determined to do whatever we can to not go forward in that way, and their willingness to engage with us, I think, has moved significantly in our direction over recent months.

So, is there agreement, then, with the three initial areas for discussions on trying to agree to common frameworks, that that process would be used as a template for others? And, if so, who gets to decide where there is a need for agreed frameworks rather than UK central frameworks or even devolved stand-alone frameworks?

I think the way the process is intended to work is this: we identified three areas where we thought they were more likely to be at the end of the spectrum where formal agreements would be needed, and we're testing those out. We will agree with the UK Government a couple of examples that lie at the opposite end of the spectrum, where simply keeping in touch may be enough to make sure that things are properly co-ordinated, and we'll think those through. When we've had a go at those things, and I think the next thing that we're agreed to do is that—from a Welsh perspective there are the 64 different areas, 111 in Scotland, 167 in Northern Ireland—we will then, having had a go at things at either end of the spectrum, go through all 64 of them and try to allocate them to a place on this broad set of, you know—. Is this an area where informal arrangements are needed? Is it an area where something like a memorandum of understanding will be sufficient? Is it something that might require legislation? We'll agree a typology in that way. So, first we have a go, to see whether we think we can make it work. Then we divide the 64 areas up into that typology. All of this will be reported back into JMC(EN), as the way of trying to keep track of this. If we can demonstrate that our way of doing things can be made to work, then the case for the UK Government proceeding with its model to date will be—. I think they will understand that it has been significantly challenged.

Finally from me, can I just make one last point? How are we going to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny? Obviously, the executives are involved in this, understandably—at least initially—but there may well be a need for give and take, perhaps, between the different Governments at some point. In which case, how can we ensure that the Parliaments of these islands are involved in that process?

Chair, just to recognise the importance of that issue, the First Minister said in his last Plenary statement on these matters, on 24 October, that ways would be found to make regular reports to the parliamentary side of the Assembly on the discussions that are going on in the JMC(EN) and in other forums. I recognise completely the point that Steffan Lewis is making, and the Government is committed to making sure that the very proper parliamentary interests in all of this are respected, in that we provide information in a way that you can scrutinise, and the part that Parliaments would need to play themselves, because if there needed to be legislation, there would be a direct parliamentary interest in that, and that the parliamentary side of the Assembly has the information it needs to be able to plan for its part in those arrangements.

Before I ask Mark to come in, you've mentioned the 64 areas of law, which were brought to our attention by the Secretary of State for Wales when he came to the committee. Are those 64 areas of law identified by the UK Government? Have they been identified by joint meetings? Are there areas you think are not covered? Basically, where do we see those 64 area of law that have been talked about? Are they appropriate? Do they meet everything we need?

So, the 64 areas were originally proposed by the UK Government to us. They didn't propose it as a definitive list; they did, to be fair, propose it to us as a list for our consideration. And we continue to work through that with lawyers and policy officials here to make sure that we agree that these are indeed the 64 areas, or where we think they may need to be augmented or amended.

So, it's not yet agreed that there are just 64.

No. No, the list continues to be a list for discussion between the two Governments.

If I could just add, Chair, we are considering the 64 that have been tabled by the UK. It's entirely possible that, as a result of that consideration, we will go back and discuss with them and suggest that a number of those 64 areas are areas where frameworks are not needed. It is also entirely possible that, as we consider the detail, and in the light of the further legislation that has been referred to, which is coming from the UK Government, that there are a number of other areas not currently included in the 64 that we may want to bring forward as areas for joint discussion with the UK.

Okay. Mark.

Thank you. What inter-governmental engagement has there been, either at JMC or otherwise, regarding framework-related matters such as the funding related to framework matters and further issues such as state aid? Secondly, and my final question, if I may: what engagement has there been—again, at JMC or otherwise—over the 'correction' of process regarding EU law being transposed into UK law and the ability of the Welsh Government to input into that where it relates to framework matters. 

Thank you, Chair. Well, both of those matters have been directly discussed in JMC European negotiation meetings, and successively at them. There have been bilateral opportunities to discuss them as well. I had a very specific discussion with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union in a bilateral meeting about the way in which European law being transposed into domestic law would need correction, and the part that the National Assembly for Wales would need to play in that where that correction involved devolved bodies, for example. So, we have had some opportunities to do that.

There are opportunities to discuss some of these matters in some of the other bilateral arrangements that we have. So, I think it was three weeks ago I went with the Scottish finance Minister to the quadrilateral meeting that precedes the budget. This is a meeting between ourselves, the Treasury and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in this case. I had a bilateral meeting with her on the same day, and in both of those forums—. In the bilateral, I discussed with her very directly funding issues and the way in which funding that comes to Wales as a result of our membership of the European Union must continue to flow to Wales beyond the European Union and mechanisms for making sure that that could happen, and that discussion was repeated in the quadrilateral meeting as well. So, beyond the directly Brexit discussions, which are bilateral or multilateral, we take the opportunities that we have and are able to engender. For example, I remain hopeful, if not optimistic, that there will be a meeting with the Home Office in advance of the next JMC(EN) to talk about our migration paper and the way that migration issues cut into these other matters as well. So, we look for every opportunity we have to be able to raise these Welsh concerns with UK Ministers in the different forums that are available to us.

If it would help, I could explain about state aid briefly, which is to say that there's a specific administrative or officials forum with the business, energy and industrial strategy department in Whitehall, and that has covered state aid. In fact, actually, we also hosted a meeting with UK Government and Scottish Government officials—I think Northern Ireland officials too—in the last week or so, and that was hosted here in Cardiff. So, in respect of state aid, we very much recognise the importance of it for sectors in the economy and have been trying to be very active in making sure that the Welsh perspective and Welsh voice is heard in the discussions, which are still really only at official level at the moment, but we've also fed those in formally to UK Government and to parliamentary inquiries as well.

Chair, I believe Des has one sentence to add. 

It touches on the first part—a very important issue—of Mr Isherwood's question: one of our consistent themes in our dialogue with the UK Government—and we went into it in some detail in our Brexit and devolution paper—is that where new UK bodies are being contemplated to be established as a result of Brexit, for example in areas like state aid, that the interests of devolved administrations must be reflected in the establishment and the governance of any such new UK bodies, and, indeed, we argue that the same should apply for existing UK bodies that may be repurposed as a result of EU withdrawal. Those bodies too would, as part of their repurposing, need to examine the interests of devolved administrations of Wales, specifically as our process goes forward. 

Thank you. Based upon what you've just said, and the consensus of agreement on frameworks and whether they'd be part of the 64 areas, or not, or maybe other areas, and based upon the drafting of the EU withdrawal Bill as it is at the moment, do you have confidence that, actually, this concept of shared ownership and shared partnership in the common frameworks matches with the Bill, which basically gives the rights to the UK Ministers to make decisions? 

Well, it clearly doesn't, Chair, at all, and I always have to say to UK Ministers that our willingness to take part in these discussions on frameworks is without prejudice to our fundamental opposition to the withdrawal Bill as currently constructed. They are completely different ways of solving a problem that we agree needs to be solved.

The Secretary of State for Wales, when he came before the committee, indicated that he had an agreement to hold joint sessions with stakeholders with the First Minister on that list of powers that may need common frameworks. Do we have any idea as to whether they have now actually got a schedule for such events and a timescale for completion?

I've seen the correspondence in which that approach is agreed, but I don't believe that we've yet got a date for the first of those to take place.

I think the intention is that the first one may be around agricultural and environmental issues, but also what we wanted to do was make sure we'd had the discussions between Governments and the deep dives, so that then, when you're having the engagement with stakeholders, the Governments are doing that informed by initial clearing of the ground and understanding positions. So, we are expecting the first one to be agriculturally related. I'm not sure there's a date in the diary now, but there's hopefully one that will be fixed in the near future.

It's likely, it sounds, to be some time in the new year.

I don't think we've ruled out this year, if we can make it happen, but—

It's also likely that it might take place after the Committee Stage of the EU withdrawal Bill, in which we would have a situation of understanding what amendments or non-amendments would have been accepted.

Yes.

It could be an interesting time in that case.

It certainly will, Chair. Of course, we look to see what amendments the UK Government might bring forward to the withdrawal Bill, and whether they bring them forward at Committee Stage.

Are you confident that this approach now—this communiqué on principles and the agreements that seem to be taking place, at official level at this stage anyway—is leading towards a concept of a shared-power model for these frameworks?

The two key things that we hammer away with with the UK Government in relation to the withdrawal Bill are, first of all, the issue of consent, where UK Ministers seek to operate in devolved areas. We say it can only be with the consent of either Welsh Ministers or, where necessary, the National Assembly itself. And, secondly, we hammer away at the point that, where you need to have common solutions to issues that will face the UK post Brexit, those things, where responsibilities are already devolved, can only be done through agreement. If we can get those two principles accepted in the withdrawal Bill, we believe that that will then form the template for the replication of that approach in subsequent legislation that comes forward. And once you have accepted those two premises, then the need for co-decision making, joint decision making in areas in which you have four different legislatures, all with a responsibility that has to be discharged, it just leads you inevitably in that direction.

In the short term, the Welsh Government is prepared to think of JMC structures as a way of doing that, but in our paper on post-Brexit arrangements for the UK, you know that we have a more ambitious set of ideas as to how the UK could work effectively in the post-EU era.

I'm conscious of the time so a final question from me. The 64 areas we talked about: do you have a timescale by when you expect to have some form of consideration of all those 64 areas? Clearly, the clock is ticking and we need to know where we are and we need to know whether we can move forward on each area where there needs to be a common framework. So, have you any idea about timescale as to when you can complete that work?

As swiftly as possible. I think we're expecting some more information from UK Government to clarify some of their thinking and, at that stage, we'll look to put in a process that enables us to reduce the 64 where everyone feels it's appropriate, as quickly as possible, and then work up ideas in relation to some of the areas where there's a common view that there might be some beneficial type of framework. But I think they will go at different speeds. We will look to try and prioritise. Clearly, there are a set of things around agriculture and the environment. The list is heavy in relation to agriculture and environment, so some of the early thinking is important to be done there. But, no, we don't have a very specific date by which it will all be done—by x or December or January or February—but we will look just to press that ahead as quickly as possible.

And just to say, Chair, that we are doing our best to move this forward as fast as we can. We will have had the three subject discussions by the end of this week. I will meet the Scottish Brexit Minister on Friday of this week. We will review our understanding of the way that those three discussions have gone, so that we can then have a purposeful discussion at the next meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on exiting the European Union. I think we are very keen—as soon as we are able—to move to the next stage in the consideration, and we will want that to happen.

And when is the next JMC(EN)?

We are promised there will be one before Christmas. There is a date, which I have seen in circulation, which would make that happen, but I don’t think it’s yet agreed between the four different administrations that will have to be involved.

Can I just also clarify that these meetings that might take place with the Secretary of State and the First Minister, they don’t get in the way at all of progress in terms of the JMC decision making?

No, not at all.

I’m conscious that we've now extended our time, and I know you have an engagement very shortly. So, can I thank you this afternoon for the evidence that you've provided? As you know, you will receive a copy of the transcript for any factual inaccuracies. Please let us know, if there are any, as soon as possible. Once again, thank you, and to your officials and the Permanent Secretary for attending this afternoon.

Thank you very much.

The next item on the agenda—moving to a private session. Are Members happy, under Standing Order 17.42(vi), to resolve to exclude the public for the remainder of the meeting? Are Members content? They are. So, we move into private session.