National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon. Can I welcome everyone to this afternoon's meeting of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee? Can I welcome all Members and our witnesses to this meeting? Just a few things to run through first. This is a virtual meeting, as everyone understands, because we're still under the COVID restrictions, and as such, in accordance with Standing Order 34.19, I, as Chair, have determined that the public are excluded from the committee's meeting in order to protect public health, but the public are able to watch the broadcast live on Senedd.tv, both in English and in Welsh.

If I do lose my connection—and it's already showing instability at the moment this afternoon—we have agreed in the past that Alun Davies will act as temporary Chair either until I am able to return to the meeting or the meeting ends, whichever is first.

We've received no apologies this afternoon. Do any Members at this point in time wish to declare an interest?

Chair, just my normal declaration of the three groups I chair for the First Minister.

Thank you, Huw.

And with that, I think we'll move on to our business of the day, item 2 on the agenda. Can I welcome our witnesses this afternoon for the scrutiny session? Jeremy Miles MS, Counsel General and Minister for European Transition, and with him this afternoon, Ed Sherriff, deputy director of European transition negotiations for the Welsh Government, Emma Edworthy, deputy director of trade policy for the Welsh Government, and Sophie Brighouse, deputy director of policy for the Welsh Government. Welcome all this afternoon.

Counsel General, can I put on record, because this is probably our last meeting with yourself before the Senedd elections—? Can I therefore thank you for the time you've given to this committee and for always attending and giving us answers? And as such, we very much appreciate that effort, but I've also told my colleagues, this isn't just the last time, we're sure it's probably the most memorable time as well. So, we'll go forward, in that case.

In that case, we'll go straight into questions, with Dai Lloyd first.

Thank you, Chair. May I first, before I answer Dai Lloyd's question, thank the committee for the work it has done since its establishment? I was a member of the committee, of course, at the start. Its contribution to the evolving picture in Wales in relation to leaving the European Union has been absolutely crucial to keeping the public appraised of developments and helping the Government navigate these choppy waters as well, so I'd like to extend my thanks to the committee.

Before I bring in Alun Davies on some common frameworks issues, Counsel General, you've just highlighted that we've yet to get a concordat signed and agreed. We have yet to get the inter-governmental review, and therefore the establishment of a structure that will allow us to operate effectively. And you've just indicated that there's still a lack of transparency in Westminster, effectively. How does that really tell us the future of the Welsh Government and the relationships we have? We're coming to the point where we'll be electing a new Government—whichever party forms it, a new Government will be elected. What do you say about the future of that new Government and the ability to actually deliver on policies, if we haven't yet got these structures in place that allow some of these issues to actually be implemented? 

I do want to decouple the point, Chair, if I may, around relations with the DIT and the trade agenda generally, because I want to acknowledge the fact that the engagement in practice in that space is very positive, and there are impacts that we can demonstrate have resulted from that. So, I do want to make that, I think, important qualification.

In terms of relations overall, clearly, they are, I would say, generally pretty poor, but there are examples of them being good, when there is political will and when there is that culture that I was talking about earlier—not simply, as it were, accepting the devolution settlement but making it work, wanting to make it work. But the broad picture is that if you are a devolved Government faced with a Government in Westminster that is plainly intent on centralising control, it is not possible to take relations to where they need to be, if those remain the starting points. The best way of making inter-governmental relations work is to go with the grain of them, not to seek to reverse the advances that have been achieved to date. We're coming to the end of a five-year Senedd term, and I think I've said to the committee on more than one occasion previously that we have seen, broadly speaking, over that five years, a deterioration, and that has been a product of political choices. It is absolutely not inevitable, and it is not inescapable. We've moved from the Cameron years to the May years and now to the Johnson years, where we are now in a place where the UK Government's stance is essentially to take on the devolved Governments.

That isn't universally the case. I do want to acknowledge the fact that there are areas where there is productive joint working, but that is the overall picture, and that cannot lead to good inter-governmental relations in the long term. So, I suppose I would make a reflection at the end of these five years that the single biggest thing, I think, that the UK Government could do is to reverse that comparatively recent culture of being particularly in the space of taking on the devolved governments, and to recognise, perhaps in the way in which the Cameron Government gave more recognition to this—I'm sure not a particular fan of devolution on its own terms—that the best way of ensuring the continuity of the United Kingdom, which certainly my party thinks is in the best interests of Wales, is to actually make devolution work and extend it, not try and clip its wings.

Thank you. Alun.

I'm tempted to continue the note of reflection from the Minister. He's certainly right in his analysis that in previous years the attitude and atmosphere was very, very different. But the purpose of structures, of course, is to overcome bad attitudes and to ensure that where you have a lack of goodwill, or where you lack personal chemistry, frankly, between two individuals, the state can continue to function, and I think it's the lack of those structures at the moment, and the undermining of some structures, that are creating some of our difficulties.

In terms of common frameworks, I've got, as the Minister will be aware, some concerns about accountability, about transparency and about scrutiny of common frameworks. I'm not accusing the Minister of this, or the Welsh Government, but I worry that it can be used in order to create almost an opaque bureaucracy governed through that opaqueness rather than through democratic debate and discussion. He has written to the committee today on some of these issues, and I'd be grateful if he could put elements of that letter onto the public record. But in terms of where we are today, I'm presuming that all the common frameworks will be published, and I'm presuming that the Welsh Government, alongside other Governments, have given some thought to how they foresee the democracy unfolding, and the democratic underpinning of these structures. So, I'd be grateful if the Minister could outline, first of all, the contents of his letter, and then how he sees the common frameworks developing.

Thank you for that. Firstly, with regard to where we are, as a sort of progress update, if you like, the provisional common frameworks have been approved by portfolio Ministers across the UK. What hasn't happened in all of the four parts of the UK is that the JMC level of it has been signed off. That has happened in all of the Governments with the exception of Northern Ireland, where they are currently going through their ministerial process to deliver that JMC(EN) sign-off, but the portfolio Ministers in all four parts of the UK have signed them off. What that means in practice is that the four Governments are treating the provisional common frameworks as operable in the interim, if you like, at an official level. They're driving official engagement.

From the point of view of what that means in terms of publication and putting it in the public domain and the scrutiny process, the first thing to say is that we are keen, as a Government, to publish them as soon as possible, obviously. I've said that to committee in the past. But I know that the committee will appreciate that it's essential that we do that on the basis of agreed approaches between the four Governments. There are discussions still going on, partly driven by the point I've just made to you, about how best to do that. I think it's essential from a transparency point of view. I very much don't wish to see the outcome that you were describing, Alun, in terms of your fear. This, ultimately, simply won't work if that's the basis, because it will not engender sufficient trust.

What does that mean in practice? I would like there to be a clear position that when there is a change to a common framework, for example, that will be notified, and if there was a substantive change, there'd need to be a question about whether that was subject to additional scrutiny. I think the first stage of scrutiny, which we will see unfolding over the course of this year, is going to be coloured significantly, I think, by the process that needs to happen first, which is looking at the impact on it of the protocol, of the trade and co-operation agreement, of the internal market Act and so on. I think that needs to happen first and I think that that is, unfortunately, not a small task. But I think from our point of view as a Government, we will want a situation where changes are notified and changes are scrutinised, and when legislation is brought in pursuant to a common framework, that that is part of the legislative process, part of the explanatory memorandum process, so that there is clear transparency around that.

The other point to make, I think, in this context is that we also have the inter-governmental agreement, which provided, certainly with regard to the legislative aspects of common frameworks, that until there is a common framework in place—it anticipates no divergence, from a legislative point of view, in those areas. So, there are a number of locks, I think, in the system as we've currently designed it, but I don't want to give the impression that I think we are where we should be. We would wish to be in a position where scrutiny was already under way, and obviously, we're doing our best to bring that about.

I accept that. I accept that this is an unhappy situation in some ways, and it's as unhappy for the Welsh Government as it is for the Senedd itself. 

There are two further aspects, Minister, that I'd like to focus upon. First of all, the Northern Ireland protocol and the wider agreement with the EU as it affects Northern Ireland and the impact that that has on these different common frameworks. My expectation would be that, if a common framework includes Northern Ireland, then it has to include a lot of the commitments that the United Kingdom Government has already given to the European Union about the status of Northern Ireland in terms of goods and the single market and the rest of it, and that then has an impact on the ability of common frameworks to do things differently in the other countries of the United Kingdom. So, I'd be interested to understand your position on that and your view on that.

The other final matter I'd like to raise with you is the working of the internal market Act. There is no difference between the Government and this committee on that Act and its implications for our form of governance. But how is that impacting today, and as you go forward now that it is on the statute book, how is that impacting common frameworks and your ability as a Government to govern in an unfettered way? What would you view be on our ability as a Parliament to hold you to account and to exploit, if you like, our legislative powers?

On the point about the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol and how that applies, I might ask Sophie Brighouse to offer some reflections of any official-level discussions to date. But I think this is, I suppose, at the top of the list, if I could put it like that, of the lenses that we are now applying to the common frameworks programme generally, because of its inter-relationship with the protocol, obviously. Certainly from a Wales point of view, of all the significant developments that have come forward since the common frameworks were developed, effectively, I think the protocol is likely to have the greatest bearing on that, but I'll ask Sophie to come in in a second about any further discussions at official level in that space.

But, on your other point, before I ask Sophie to come in, obviously, from an internal market Act perspective, I think, generally speaking, we haven't yet seen that bearing down on the common frameworks process. That's partly, I think, because of where we are in the common frameworks process. We're now in the process of identifying the impacts these various things will have on it, as opposed to being in the place of re-engaging with the frameworks to manage divergence. In a sense, that will come. What I would say more broadly is that it's already evident that there are some very important interrelationships between the Act and the frameworks. So, in the space of qualifications and services, for example, there are some important questions about how they sit together, which are, bluntly, unhelpful, to put it mildly.

But, our perspective, as a Government, is that where there is a common framework or where there is a common framework in development, then the market access principles in Parts 1 to 3 of the Act should not apply in that space. That was our basic argument underpinning the amendments that we put forward. There is a mechanism in section 10 of the Act that allows them, as it were, to be disapplied, but the committee will know that the operation of that is one of the things that is in dispute, as it were, between the Welsh Government and the UK Government as part of that litigation.

So, we want to see the litigation prevail in a way that clarifies this landscape, and, obviously, clarifies it in a way that works for devolution, because the final point that you made in your question was that if we do not prevail in this judicial review and our worst-case analysis, as it were, of the impact of the Act is borne out, then plainly not only will that diminish the Welsh Government's capacity for manoeuvre, it will also clearly diminish the capacity of this committee to scrutinise it and the Senedd to legislate in it. So, these are huge, huge questions.

Sophie, did you want to add anything, because the Minister mentioned you?

I think that the phrase that the Counsel General used there about lenses being applied to the common frameworks is a really helpful one. I think the Northern Ireland protocol is one of the lenses that officials who are leading on the individual policy areas—and these are all quite detailed areas—will need to apply as they look back across the frameworks that were built up through last year and consider what needs to happen for them to be ready to be finalised. So, I think the Northern Ireland protocol is one of those issues, along with the wider TCA and along with the UK internal market Act as well. 

Thank you. We'll move on to the next set of questions from David Rowlands. David.

Good afternoon, Minister. Could we explore some of the effects of the implementation of the TCA, particularly with regard, obviously, to the Welsh perspective? Firstly, could you update the committee on the current flow of freight traffic travelling through Welsh ports? We realise that, obviously, extrapolating any meaningful figures, given the COVID crisis, may not be appropriate at this moment, but perhaps you could give us an idea of where you feel we might be after the COVID crisis.

Thank you. The picture, broadly speaking, across the UK is that freight levels have more or less, I think, returned to at least something approaching normal levels, generally speaking—comparable levels for this time of year, at least. But, within Wales, the picture is different from that. Certainly, the traffic on routes between Wales and the Republic of Ireland is—. The Irish Government estimates that to be, at the end of January, about 50 per cent of normal levels. Obviously, we've seen a sharp increase in the direct traffic from Irish ports to the European mainland. 

You mentioned COVID. Plainly, that has had an impact, but I think we've also heard from traders, hauliers and the ports themselves that it is the more time-consuming process of the new border arrangements, and the cost that that brings to bear and the risk obviously inherent in that, that has then had an impact as well. And I think obviously we are keen to make sure, although the responsibilities in this space are essentially UK Government and Irish Government responsibilities, we are very anxious to make sure that those practical barriers are kept to an absolute minimum for obvious reasons.

Okay. Well, thank you, Minister. You've anticipated my second question with regard to the diverting of traffic directly to the EU mainland. So, could you tell us whether you've had discussions with the UK Government with regard to seafood exporters from Wales being unable to export live bivalve molluscs to the EU? We know that the European Commission has implemented this ban, much against actually the chairman of their own fisheries committee, who said that suddenly the waters around the UK had not become dirty since Brexit. But could you tell us what sort of discussions you've had with the UK Government?

Yes, well, the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs is obviously having ongoing discussions with the UK Government around the mollusc question and seafood and fisheries more broadly. I think I take slight issue with the premise of the question, which is—. I'm not sure if this is an oversight really, I think it's the product of not having identified and prioritised the right kind of relationship with the European Union in the negotiations, and I think the third country status, which we have acquired as a consequence, would in many ways simply result in these restrictions I think. So, I think it isn't as though these are inadvertent mistakes; I think they are the product of political choices made by the UK Government. Our role in this is to continue to press UK Government to try and find a sustainable solution for the sector, and, indeed, the other sectors that have been adversely affected by the TCA as well.

Because it wouldn't actually be a huge amount of money that the UK Government would have to give to the Welsh sector, would it, to make a great deal of difference? Could you update the committee on the development of the three new inland border sites in Wales, and outline what contingency measures are being considered in the event that the sites are not completed by July 2021? And it looks as if that it is going to be the case, doesn't it?

Well, it looks impossible for that deadline to be delivered really in practical terms. I should say probably—just for the sake of good order—extremely challenging, but, in practical terms, I think the challenge of meeting that is evident, isn't it, at this point? And we've been clear about that from the start by the way. I think that was one of the consequences of the lateness of our engagement, of our being brought in, as it were, last year, but I don't want to labour that point. It's obvious what our position is on that.

So, in terms of where we are in practical terms, I'm hoping that we'll be able to make an announcement very shortly actually about the Ynys Môn border control post, which is very good news, and obviously our priority, as a Government, has been to make sure that that's situated as close to the port as possible, which is in the interest of the island and the port and in the interest of freight. So, as I say, hopefully, there'll be an announcement on that very shortly. 

In the south-west Wales ports, so Pembroke and Fishguard, we have been looking at a number of sites there. One of the challenges, which I think I've discussed previously in appearances, is whether we need a site for each of the two ports or whether one common site is sufficient. I think it's, you know, without looking at the feasibility, if I can put it like that, of having one common site, given the volume of traffic and the biosecurity landscape generally, if I can put it like that, which is pretty benign, so that set of discussions is currently happening. There are a number of sites that have been identified and the ultimate question is whether it's that one site or two sites. And, again, I hope that we'll be in a position very shortly to make that decision about whether it's one or two, which would then open up—actually it will narrow down, in fact—the range of options on the table.

But all of that is incredibly challenging, if not impossible, by July obviously. We've been advocating for some time for there to be a set of contingency measures. I should say that this isn't, as it were, simply a challenge that we are facing in Wales; this is also a challenge for ports in England and in Scotland as well. So, it's a common set of challenges that we're all trying to navigate, and, of course, part of the issue is maintaining the biosecurity picture across the island. So, working together is absolutely essential in this, and we are doing that in terms of exploring contingency at the moment.

Okay. Thank you for that, Minister. Moving back again to the UK seafood sector, and I'm pretty certain I know what you're going to say here, but do you think that the £23 million allocated by the UK Government to support the UK seafood sector—that's the total for the whole of the UK, of course—is sufficient to support the industry in Wales, their share of that?

Much of this, I should say at the start, is a policy responsibility for the Minister for the environment and rural affairs. But, just to be clear, the scheme falls short of what we need. It falls short in a number of different ways. I think in the last 24 hours, actually, including today, the UK Government has responded to our calls, as a Government, for that to be amended. So, there are some discussions going on about that. But I should say that we've not been involved in the design of the scheme, despite this, obviously, being a devolved area. So, it's not possible to know, frankly, whether it will do the job it needs to do as I sit here in front of you today.

I think most of us would agree with you that it doesn't seem a sufficient sum to cover what has to be covered, Minister. So, is there any way, do you feel, that the Welsh Government can give some financial assistance to the sector in Wales at all?

The practical consequence of developing this scheme on a UK-wide basis in a way that doesn't respect the devolution boundary is that there is no consequential that is coming to the Welsh Government. That is the practical consequence of this. So, it's not, as it were, just a constitutional argument. What it has meant in practice is that there is no money coming in to Wales on an equivalent basis for us to develop a scheme that actually works for our fishers, basically. So, I'm afraid that is the consequence of doing it in that way, which is why that is so disappointing and unsatisfactory.

Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. And we'll move on to questions now from Huw Irranca-Davies. Huw.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Minister. It's good to see you and thanks for—. I'd echo what the Chair has said about you appearing in front of us regularly. Thank you for being open with us.

Let me turn to the UK-EU future co-operation, and particularly the Welsh Government's TCA document, 'What it means for Wales'. I've got a couple of questions for you on this. Within that document it describes how there are substantial agreements and arrangements still to be put in place, and we're wondering as a committee, Minister, what those particular ones that are of most importance for Wales might be, that are still to be put in place. But can I also ask you—? In that same document, it says that the Welsh Government believes that

'better arrangements can be negotiated in the future.'

When you say that within that document, is that to do with a reference to renegotiation of specific provisions or parts of it, or to future arrangements of areas that haven't been agreed yet?

Okay. Well, thank you for that. So, in terms of what remains to be agreed, if I could put it like that, there are two separate categories: what remains to be agreed and how one might change what has been agreed, if you like. So, in terms of what remains to be agreed, there are obviously some areas that are, in a sense, not matters for negotiation—they're matters for the EU to make, more or less, unilateral decisions. So, the obvious one and probably the most prominent one in that context, in terms of its impact, is the data adequacy arrangement. We hope to have a good outcome to that clearly, but that's a question at this point.

Then, in terms of the other areas, whether it's around product-specific rules of origin perhaps, the qualifications question for those in the service sector, state-aid arrangements, or again some of the protocol points that Alun Davies was asking about in his question earlier, there are definitely things in each of those areas that need more granular engagement really. Not, I dare say, to change the overall picture, but to work through what some of them mean in practical terms.

I think on the larger question that you were asking—what does it mean to have better outcomes, if you like, or a better deal—I want to be very clear. Obviously, we have a list of things, and I'm sure we all have a list of things that is getting longer by the day as we see how sectors are impacted by the practical implementation of the agreement, but we obviously have a list of things that we would want to see changed. But I don't want—. I do not think it is the case that we will see the UK Government and the European Union get back around the table to reopen parts of this agreement later this year or next year; I just don't see that as a realistic prospect. So, what the document really is saying is that there is a platform in this agreement on which a better relationship can be built and will need to be built. But it's a medium-term thing, really. We've got a list of things that we'd want to see changed, but they're not going to be changed this year, it seems to me, now.

Yes. And within that future look, that looking forward, Minister, within the framework that's set up by the TCA, it's important to see how Welsh Government will make good on its aspiration to have a clear voice for Wales, either on matters that are substantially devolved or matters that have a material effect on devolved responsibility. So, have you worked up some sort of set of proposals, outlining how that might work, how you get your voice heard in this institutional framework?

Well, yes. We're in the course of doing that is the direct answer to your question. But there are two parts to it, I think. The first part is what is capable of being achieved, and where we are with that at the moment is that we are pressing for there to be a commitment, if you like, from the UK Government, that there should be appropriate representation for the devolved Governments, for the reasons that you give. That assurance has not yet been given. And, in our mind, just to be clear with the committee, because these things often bump up against each other, the work that we were talking about earlier, about the inter-governmental review, is essentially a set of intra-UK arrangements, and that is distinct, very clearly, in our minds, from how we engage in the partnership committee world, if you like, which is really about a set of relationships with the European Union. So, those two things are clearly very closely connected, but, importantly, very separate as well.

In terms of the specific—what that looks like in practice—that's what we're working up at the moment, really. I suppose, just to be helpful, I hope, to the committee, the two templates, I guess, are, at the kind of constructive end of it, the sorts of relationships that you will have been familiar with in your ministerial capacity in Westminster around intra-UK working as part of the European Union, a Council of Ministers format, essentially: seeking to agree a common position, all that sort of thing, and then involvement. That's the positive end of it. The negative end of it is the sorts of things that we've failed to get achieved during the negotiation of the agreement. But there are some—. We developed a lot of thinking in that process about how these things could work. So, there is material there that we are drawing on in developing that ask, if you like.

Okay. We get the feeling very much that there's a lot of intense work going on behind the scenes to get this right, and, as you say, there are different elements. Maybe I could ask you on a couple of those elements. First of all, on the question of four-nations representations on the new UK–EU fora, established by the TCA, how is that going, how are discussions going on that? And, separately from that, but, again, it's an important part, how are things going on the selection of the UK representatives to the partnership council as well?

There hasn't yet been engagement at that level of detail at this point. I'll ask Ed to update us perhaps on official-level discussion. But, at this point in time, I'm not able to say to you, 'This is the partnership committee structure in terms of what it means for the devolved Governments and here is how we will dock with that', if you like. I'm not able to say that to you yet; that's part of our ask as much as anything. But, Ed, do you want to give some colour on more recent discussions, perhaps, around that?

It might be helpful if you or Ed, Minister, could give us some of the idea of what might look good.

Yes, of course. I think the TCA document does set out some useful detail in the structure of the governance arrangements, starting with the partnership council, the trade specialised committee as well. The case that we've been making is that, as the Minister described, as happened previously, Ministers from devolved Governments should be represented on those structures where there are matters within our direct interest being discussed. And then you can work down through the rest of those structures, in terms of the specialised committees on sanitary and phytosanitary standards, the level playing field, good regulatory co-operation, the specialised committees on fisheries, participation in union programmes. As you work through the structures that are set out in the TCA, you can directly see those areas where there are clear, strong, direct devolved interests. I think we would expect to be represented in those structures, and, as the Minister has just said, involved in the joint work in terms of agreeing a genuine UK-wide position.

And then there are also a number of structures there where we would have a very strong indirect interest, in terms of the specialised trade committee on rules of origin, technical barriers to trade, which, while they're not directly within our devolved competence, do have some very strong indirect impacts to Wales as they're being worked through. So, I think, as you work through that level, you can see those direct levels and those indirect interests, and that's exactly what we're pressing at official level with our UK counterparts. So, we've had two discussions with officials within the UK Government and with other officials from the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to make that case in terms of what we think looks good. And, as yet, we're waiting to hear what the proposal from the UK Government is after they've heard what our case that we've put forward to them is. So, we're expecting to hear back from them in the next couple of weeks, because these structures need to get set up and operationalised within the coming weeks to make sure that these matters can be discussed on an ongoing basis with the EU. 

Ed, thank you very much, and Minister. That's really helpful, because we do have good precedent and good previous practice on which to base some of these models, and hopefully the UK Government will be aware of that, but we've certainly got some strong allies in Scotland as well to advocate for a best-practice model of the way going forward. Can I ask you one final question, Minister? It's simply whether you've got a clear idea now of the internal mechanisms to monitor the work of the new UK-EU fora. Has that been done, or is that something that you're still working on?

Because the operations of the fora are still, as it were, emerging, in the way that Ed was describing now, for now, that work will continue to be done by the European transition team within the Welsh Government. But we're coming up to a new Senedd and a new Government, aren't we, so I dare say those will be issues that are looked at in that context, as well as the greater clarity coming out of the partnership committee structure.

Thank you very much. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you. Can I just clarify something? Ed has mentioned and clearly helped us understand that you've identified different sectors and different areas in those fora that are of relevance to Wales. Therefore, you can confirm that you've identified those ones that are more important to Wales and those ones that are of least importance to Wales, and have you prioritised those, in that case?

In what sense prioritised them, Chair?

Well, if the situation is, 'Where do you want to put your emphasis, where do you want to put your time and effort into?', which ones do you think you'll need to put the greatest focus on?

Firstly, it might be helpful for me to say to you that, as this picture becomes clearer, if it fits in with the kind of timescale of the Senedd, I can send you a letter that might update you before the end of the term on that point, if that's helpful. But—

On that point, it would be helpful—if not for us, at least for our legacy committee.

Absolutely. Just on the principle basis, though, if I may, the two tests have always been what has most impact and where are we most likely to be able to make a difference. There are the areas that will have a lot of impact, but, actually, we may not be able to make as much headway ourselves as a Government, for reasons to do with inter-governmental relations. Those are the two lenses that we've applied throughout, really, to all of this work, and they will have a bearing on this as well. But I think it's probably more helpful for me, as the picture emerges, Chair, to write to you again about that, if I may. 

That would be helpful. Before we move on, I'm conscious of time, we have 10 minutes left on our schedule, and I've got quite a lot of questions left to go, so do you have an extra 10 minutes, say, at the end?

I have Cabinet, which starts at 15:00, Chair, so perhaps I can ask the First Minister to allow me to be five minutes late, but I think I'll be trespassing if I ask him to be 10 minutes late, if that's okay.

Okay. Thank you. In that case, we'll move on to Alun, and Alun's been given the indication that he's got to be fast. 

I certainly have, haven't I? I'm interested as to where the Welsh Government is going at the moment in terms of its own engagement with the European Union. The Welsh Government's office in Brussels performed, I thought, a sterling task in supporting Ministers—certainly the support they provided me when I was attending council formations was first class—and in terms of providing the information and the support for Ministers. Now, Ministers are not attending council formations, obviously, so what is the role that you see moving forward for that office, for the civil servants that are based there? You've said in the past that you intend to strengthen, not diminish the office, so it would be useful if we could understand the role and function, as you see it, of that office, and then how you see engagement with EU institutions going forward, from the perspective of the Welsh Government, not the stuff that you would do through the UK. 

I'd just refer the committee to the letter from the First Minister to the President of the Commission back in January, which describes, at least, the scale of our ambition in this space and gives some indication from a structural point of view of how we would want to take that forward. The first thing to say, I think, on a very practical basis, is that at least in the short term, probably medium term, we will continue to have a relationship with the European institutions through the completion of the European structural funds programme, so it's a working relationship in a very real setting. So, that will obviously continue, and we obviously have a broader policy interest in some of the developments across the EU anyway.

In terms of the Brussels office specifically, that does three things, really, at the moment. One is to monitor those policy developments I was just talking about. One is to maintain the links—we've got important links, even outside the European Union, whether it's the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, whether it's the Vanguard initiative, which we've been chairing. There's a range of ways in which we will continue to need the office in Brussels to play a very key role for us there. I guess the third aspect to its role is maintaining and nurturing, and developing even further, if you like, the links at a regional level across and, in fact, outside the European Union. So, all of that work has been important, and, actually, all of those things will continue, because none of them are contingent on continued European Union membership. So, in a sense, it's one of the fulcrums of our international strategy in terms of our overseas infrastructure.

I think, tying back to the conversation we were just having, we are working through what role it can have as well in maintaining our presence, if you like, as the infrastructure of UK-EU relations develops through the TCA, the partnership committee and so on—what role can the office have in that infrastructure to maintain our presence, really. So, we very much see it having a practical role, potentially, in that environment, as well.

Thank you.

Alun, are you finished? 

Yes, given the time, I won't press the Minister on that.

I'll ask one question on this, on the relationship you anticipate with the European Parliament, because as a Senedd, we clearly want to build a relationship with the European Parliament as well. What is the Welsh Government doing to ensure that there's a good relationship between Wales and the European Parliament and how is it supporting that process?

Again, the Brussels office have played an important role for us in maintaining that institutional link, working with MEPs, really, from the relevant group on areas of common interest and policy interest, in particular. The friendship group that exists—I think we are keen to make sure we can support that, firstly through the resources of the office, but if there are expenses that might be incurred, then we'd look to be helpful in that context as well. We think that's an important link for us.

I understand the Scottish Government is actually putting a lot of effort into creating a similar concept for Scotland within the European Parliament with a Scottish group, as well.

I think the letter from the First Minister to the President of the Commission indicated our commitment to that.

Thank you. Nick.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Last but not least—I appreciate there are time issues, so I'll be succinct—Minister, different aspects of trade policy have been split between Welsh Government Ministers during the fifth Senedd. How do you think that has worked? Do you think it's a model that can be followed through in the next Senedd, or do you think that it can be done differently within Cabinet?

I think the incoming First Minister probably wouldn't be grateful for my reflections on that, really, in a sense, but I will say that the split between the European transition role, which I've had since the new Government was formed under the new First Minister, and the international trade portfolio effectively reflected a comparable split in Westminster, really. But, throughout that period, Emma Edworthy and colleagues in the trade team have worked across the piece to understand the trade implications of both sets of negotiations and to see them as a whole. So, I would absolutely, whatever the ministerial configuration is, if I can put it like that, anticipate that continuing, because it's been absolutely invaluable.

Thanks. What sort of negotiations, relationships, have there been with the UK Government on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the UK is acceding to?

Well, there are two aspects to this. The relationship, in terms of keeping us in the picture, about the intention and the objectives, and so on, that's obviously an emerging picture, clearly, but I would say that has been good. So we would completely anticipate being kept in the picture around the formation of the mandate as that goes forward and having a role, obviously, in the devolved areas for that mandate. But if you were to take a step back, it seems, I think, pretty odd that the UK Government would want to prioritise joining a block that represents I think under 6 per cent of our trade when it's been so keen to leave a block that represents 60 per cent of our trade. So, I think that's the big-picture context to it. It's a very complex agreement, and by acceding to an existing agreement, there is obviously more limited capacity to influence the content of the relationship, for reasons that I think are obvious. So, we are anxious to make sure that, in doing that, some of the concerns that we have around protecting the NHS, around the inter-state dispute mechanisms are resolved. There are a range of anxieties that we have about the agreement, but we are continuing to work through it in a very detailed way so that we can feed in our clear perspectives into the mandate. 

Are you going to publish an assessment, or are you considering publishing an assessment to bring all of this together, your concerns about the—

Yes, I will. I don't know in what format yet, Nick, if I may say, but certainly hoping to put something in the public domain that describes our stance. 

Great, thanks. And in terms of non-trade areas, the Welsh Government is involved in, or is seeking involvement in, the negotiation of international agreements not related to trade—. Sorry, I missed out a word there—are you seeking involvement in negotiations on international agreements that aren't related to trade?

Yes. Wherever matters touch on devolved competencies that go beyond trade, then there ought to be a grown-up way of engaging in those processes. We already have memoranda of understanding with the Basque Country, with Quebec and other places, so we are familiar ourselves with having those levels of engagement. And I think where any international agreement touches on devolved competence, it is both right and, I would suggest sensible, for that to involve devolved Governments in an appropriate way. 

And does the Welsh Government have internal mechanisms in place to monitor the impact of non-trade international obligations on the Welsh Government's competence and the devolution settlement you just mentioned?

Well, broadly speaking, 'yes' is the answer to that. We are generally reasonably reliant on the UK Government keeping us informed of those negotiations, because obviously they are in their gift and control, aren't they? So, there have been some examples where that hasn't happened, but, broadly speaking, that's the source of our initial engagement. I think wherever there are negotiations that are relevant, trade or non-trade, then the whole team of officials and lawyers across the Welsh Government will be and are monitoring that on an evolving basis, really, to understand the impact it can have on competence. And actually, that's why it's so important for there to be a formal way of engaging around those things, so that you can surface these concerns, some of which may well be inadvertent, if you like, at an early point in a way that enables the mature resolution of them. 

Diolch. I'll leave it there, Chair, because of the time. I don't know whether it would be useful for the committee to have some of that information, if the Minister could provide us with it. 

What information was that in particular?

In relation to the mechanisms that are in place on the non-trade—the international obligations you just mentioned there. 

Okay. I'm not sure there's much more I can say to the committee than that, really. It's part of the broad work plan of Welsh Government—

If you get any more information, you'll update us. 

Absolutely. I'm happy to do that. 

Great. Thanks. 

Thank you. Thank you, Nick. 

We've tried very hard to get you back to the Cabinet on time, Minister, but I've got one final question for you, based on what you just said. I got the impression—you said they're keeping you in the picture and you would like to get involved, but are we still in a position, like we were with the EU negotiations, where the Welsh Government is not involved in setting the mandate?

Well, it is definitely a very different picture from the EU negotiations. I want to be very clear about that. And despite the concordat not being in place, so there isn't that formal arrangement, there is definitely proper information sharing and proper engagement on the mandate. And I would say we could certainly point to areas that have been moved as a consequence of our engagement, really. It is productive engagement, if you like. I don't know if Emma might want to say something about that, Chair, in the couple of minutes we've got left, that could be helpful to you in terms of official-level working on this, which obviously she'll have a better perspective than me on.

You've been put in the hot spot, Emma.

That's okay. Just to add a little bit more to what the Minister said, I think we've said previously to the committee that we do get shared the draft mandates, as they come through, in areas of devolved competence. So, one of the areas that we continue to ask UK Government is to share in other areas that are directly related to our devolved competence. So, areas like market access, tariffs, we do not necessarily see; they will not share that with us in advance in paper copy, but if it is a devolved competence, they will share that with us, paper copy, and we are able to report back, give them our views and they will send us something back that says where our views have been taken on board, why, and where not. And if they haven't, why not.

Okay. It sounds like it is more productive than previously. Okay, thank you for your time. Thank you, Minister, once again for your time and the efforts you've given to this committee and the responses you've given to us. I think again you've managed to ensure that we haven't made it too hard for you. But I wish you well and you'll get a transcript, as you know, of this meeting. If there are any factual inaccuracies, please let the clerking teams know, so we can have them corrected. So, once again, thank you very much for your time today.

And for Members, we move on to item 3 on the agenda, which is papers to note, and we have a few. The first one is the correspondence from the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition on amendments to the Trade Bill, and it explains why the LCM has not been made in relation to them. He has committed to keeping the committee informed on any further amendments that he would consider engage devolved competencies. Are Members content to note that letter? I see they are. Thank you.

The second one is from the Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee who has written to the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to confirm that his committee will prioritise scrutiny of the plant health and plant varieties and seed provisional framework outline agreement. Are Members content to note that? Thank you.

The third one is from the Counsel General again, who has provided the committee with a copy of the Welsh Government's document, 'The New Relationship with the EU – What it means for Wales'. Again, happy to note that?

The fourth one is from the convener of the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee, which provides a copy of the correspondence that was sent to the Scottish Government Minister for Public Health and Sport regarding the provisional UK common framework on food and feed safety and hygiene, which is what we've been looking at. Are Members content to note that? Thank you very much.

I think that's the last one.

So, the next item on the agenda is a motion under Standing Order 17.42(vi) to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of today's meeting. Are Members content to do so? I see that they are and therefore, for the remainder of this meeting, we'll now move into private session.