Constitution, Justice and External Affairs Committee

Moving on to item 4, then, I propose in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix) that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the meeting in order to discuss matters relating to the internal business of the committee. Are Members content? Members are content.

Croeso'n ôl. Welcome back to this public item. We'll be taking evidence as part of our inter-institutional relations agreement inquiry. Can I welcome to the meeting Dr Hedydd Phylip from Cardiff University and Dr Elin Royles from Aberystwyth University? I understand that this is the first time you've come to committee to give evidence on the IIRA, so diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you for joining us. Members do have a number of questions, so we're going to take it in two sections, if that's okay. We're going to look at the overall structure first, and then the external affairs aspect. We do have quite a few questions, so we'll get started straight away. I'm going to bring in Gwyn Williams MS first.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much. My name is Gwyn Williams. I'm the MS for Gŵyr Abertawe. I just wanted to ask quickly, if that's okay, about your opinion on the balance between Government confidentiality and inter-parliamentary transparency, and how this should be struck in the new IIRA.

Who would like to start us off?

I'll be making my contribution in Welsh. I do think that this is a challenging issue. It is an issue where we need to give serious consideration to inter-governmental relations. When we look more broadly, we know how challenging it is in terms of the willingness of different Governments to provide information to legislatures, be they regional or national, in terms of inter-governmental matters, particularly when they relate to external affairs. I think an effective compromise has been reached here in this agreement. The focus is on the role of Ministers and on formal inter-governmental structures, and there is specific recognition of confidentiality.

There are some cases that I've come across in my research where you think, 'The Senedd would have liked to have known more about this and it would have been a positive thing for the Senedd to better informed'. Generally speaking, I think elements such as the way the Senedd can scrutinise Ministers in oral evidence sessions can bridge some of those gaps. I think there is that difficult compromise in terms of what can be shared in writing and the use of ministerial scrutiny sessions. And of course, there have been some cases in the previous Senedd where there was perhaps an unwillingness to appear before committees on certain issues such as international relations. So, I think it is a combination of what is available in writing, alongside the ability of the Senedd to call Ministers to provide evidence and to question them in more detail on certain issues.

Thank you. Sorry—I'll hand over to your colleague for a response now.

Diolch. I completely agree with everything that Elin has just said, and also just reflect on the fact that I would argue that it's probably for the Government to defend its position on confidentiality and for the Senedd to encourage the Government to be as transparent as it can in its dealings and its communications with you. So, I would be strongly in favour of encouraging a wording that gets you the most bang for your buck, if you like. And then, if there are concerns on the side of the Government about a particular meeting where certain things can't be shared, that those are then made clear in the correspondence that you get, or assurances made that some details can't be shared at this point in time but that they would be forthcoming later.

I think transparency at the end of the day that can give you a full picture of what's happened is what we're aiming for, and so that might be something that can only be achieved towards the end of a process that has led to maybe a legislative consent motion or secondary legislation being put before you or a conclusion of inter-governmental discussions. But I think at that point we would want to see how those things developed over time. I think the onus really is on the Government to be able to defend that position of confidentiality and that wording within the agreement that encourages the most transparency possible is what we should be aiming for.

Diolch. I'm just going to bring Sarah in, before I bring Gwyn in on a second question.

Diolch. Some of it quite often uses the phrase 'not practicable'. Rather than that being used quite often, when we see that notice was really slow or information was minimal, is there something in the wording that we could have so that, where it's not practicable, that should be by exception?

I think that's an interesting concept. I would worry that, with 'by exception', we're going maybe a little bit too far in the other direction, so that maybe what we're looking for is confirmation of that practicability, even, in the correspondence. Maybe you've seen the examples of the information that we get—sometimes it's just a sentence saying that these three issues were discussed. And then it doesn't even say, 'At the moment we can't give you any more information because of concerns about confidentiality'. Even acknowledging those concerns in that documentation would assist, I think, in the scrutiny of those discussions. So, I think it's about thinking about what you receive out of the agreement and how we can encourage the fuller picture to be unravelled—if not then, over time.

Gwyn.

Before we move on to the next question, if I could say that I'm happy to hear that you're both on the side of freedom and that we understand what is happening rather than there being too much confidentiality. So, I'm very grateful for that.

I'll move on to the second question. Considering some of the structures in the previous IIRA don't exist anymore, what inter-governmental structures should be within the scope of this IIRA?

It's true that this inter-institutional agreement was agreed before the new inter-governmental structures were established. However, it is quite heartening that, despite those changes, we have had correspondence in relation to the IIRA that has recognised those changes in the inter-governmental arrangements. Of course, I'd encourage an up-to-date wording in the IIRA that relates to the new inter-governmental structures, but I'm heartened by the fact that we've managed to find out about those meetings, despite the out-of-date wording. I would maybe encourage the committee to think more broadly, and instead of naming specific committees you want correspondence from, thinking more broadly about the nature of inter-governmental discussions and whether we want to name things—formal, informal, ad hoc, bilateral. So, think about things so that it encompasses more than just the new inter-governmental structures, but that we are able to get the totality of interaction and engagement between the Welsh Government and the UK Government.

Is there a concern, if the definition is too broad, that too many structures come within the scope of the IIRA, then? Perhaps we should be defining some of them, or is it good enough to say that we're accepting the majority of them?

I'll respond in Welsh. I'm certainly of the opinion that we need to identify the new structures within the new IIRA. But I wouldn't want to miss out on important meetings that take place where we see Governments coming to decisions on certain issues, but because of a technical issue within this agreement, that we wouldn't be informed of them. So, I don't believe that too much information is what we should be concerned about; what we should be concerned about is not getting enough information. Then the onus is on you, as a committee and the Senedd more broadly, to use that information that you receive as a result of this agreement in day-to-day scrutiny, so that the Government understands that there is value in communicating with you on these issues, and that there are implications of not doing so too.

I think that one of the strengths of the previous agreement were the main features that were established, namely the emphasis on formal structures, for example, that have then enabled a response to the changes in inter-government relations, and what's been implemented since the review of the inter-governmental relations. But what we see is that there's a tendency of inter-governmental relationships in the UK to not use formal structures. So, there is a need to be flexible to be able to include within the remit any committees that are held. We see Andy Burnham using the National Economic Council to bring Governments together, rather than the main IGR structures. We also see the Council of the Nations and Regions being included, and things such as the British-Irish Council, which has already been noted.

Another element I wanted to raise with you as a committee is that the focus has tended to be on the vertical elements, the relationship with central Government, but also, of course, what we're seeing with inter-governmental relations is something more horizontal, and how much attention is being given to any formal meetings with devolved Governments that aren't going to include the Westminster Government. That's a more obvious likelihood this term, and within the remit of what exists already in the agreement, you can foresee that coming under your role of scrutiny and the role of Government in corresponding with the Senedd, in terms of meetings and so forth. So that is another element, a new element. So overall, I think it's important.

I think one thing to raise as well is that one of the most complex things—. I've looked more at the EU, and in that area, for example, Welsh Ministers had the right to give input into the UK-EU Partnership Council, but they were only observers. Quite understandably, the Welsh Government, in the last term, decided not to send Ministers to the Partnership Council because they were sitting there not saying anything. But because of that, it has been more difficult for the Senedd to scrutinise EU issues in that remit, because it's happening at a level that involves the officials. So, I think there's a question to ask there about where things go when the emphasis is on engagement at the officials' level, because the focus at the moment is completely on those areas where Welsh Ministers are involved in formal structures, but there's so much going on underneath that. Of course, there's scope to discuss it, but sometimes that ministerial element isn't very clear at all, and that makes it more difficult for you as a Senedd to be able to have a full understanding of what's happening.

Okay, diolch.

Thank you very much. I'm grateful to you for that response, and the fact that flexibility is important to you, it's very important to me too, and that we should be open as a committee and as a Senedd.

I will hand back to the Chair now, having completed my two questions. Thank you.

Diolch, Gwyn. Sarah.

Diolch. I'd like to come back to the wider terms of the current IIRA and have your view on how effective that is to enable scrutiny.

I think I may have touched on your question already. I think that the broader terms are very useful indeed. I think that they have been agile for the past period in terms of focus. I've raised some questions now as to the implications of not having Ministers as part of it. Of course, the formal emphasis is important, but there is a great deal happening below that level too. Also, things like the reporting process have been quite clear as a process in terms of what you have been asking for.

I've seen less evidence of committees being informed beforehand that inter-governmental meetings are going to take place, and giving an opportunity to consult. What we've seen is greater compliance with the other elements of reporting back, after those meetings have taken place, and providing information. I think that there are some elements in the minutiae, for example, that which Hedydd has referred to already. Perhaps there's a tendency for some Ministers just to say, 'Well, these are the three things that were discussed', whilst the agreement asks for further detail, it requires more detail in terms of what points were raised in relation to Wales and so on, and what issues were raised. What we are seeing is an inconsistency across those reports on committees in terms of those kinds of issues.

So, there was a set of correspondence provided to the last Senedd quite late in March 2026 on many of these inter-ministerial fora. If you just look at some of those, you will see these differences, examples where it says, 'This happened', and then a communiqué issued by the Westminster Government that perhaps doesn't provide you with much information, but then there are also examples—. For example, there was one from Mark Drakeford, having attended a finance meeting, which was very, very detailed. I think what that shows me is that within the quite clear remit that is set out, the level of compliance and what that provides to you as a Senedd in terms of information isn't always consistent. Generally speaking, I wouldn't say that we necessarily need to improve what's there, what we need, perhaps, on that element is more consistency in terms of the level of information provided.

I can only agree with what Elin has said in relation to the consistency point. There's a real variety in the breadth and the quality of the statements and the correspondence that the Senedd has received in relation to the variety of meetings that are held. Equally, the prior notice is either not forthcoming or with a couple of days. That does nothing if the committee has already met for that week, for example. That doesn't give anyone the chance to even send a letter. So, that is something that I think could be looked at.

But as Elin has said, sometimes it's not quick off the ground, but there is consistent correspondence after inter-ministerial meetings. But as I said earlier, there's a real lack of consistency as to the content of those letters and a lack of a complete picture being depicted in relation to what's discussed and what are the implications of those discussions for the Senedd for policy making, for law making. I'm more interested to work out how we get this information that allows Members and the general public to understand how decisions are made, why they are made, and how then we can hold people account for those decisions that are made. And thinking, therefore, about how those discussions feed into the other things that you do here, so, thinking about secondary legislation, thinking about primary legislation, thinking about legislative consent memoranda. There are very often inter-governmental discussions that are fed into those instruments in some way or another, and we only find out about that when those instruments are introduced, and it's not consistent that we find out how those instruments came about, to the extent that we know that they are the product of inter-governmental discussions, but we only know that, really, by piecing it together, piecing the jigsaw puzzle together, and making a few assumptions.

It would be really helpful to work out, when inter-governmental discussions are ongoing, what they are working towards. It's not just a policy area; is there guidance that they're working on? Is there secondary legislation that might be tabled in each of the legislatures to roll out this policy? Legislative consent is a really significant research area of mine. It's been a concern of your predecessor committee. We're seeing legislative consent memoranda coming thick and fast again this term. How are those discussions happening? Why are we getting these instruments through? I presume that there are inter-governmental decisions being made, but, again, we don't get told about that in those letters.

So, what I would like to see is thinking about this agreement, what we're asking for in the agreement, in the round, and how it assists scrutiny. Because it really necessitates you as Members, as committees, to pick up the baton, use the information that you get, and then chase that up, and then do the same thing when you get LCMs, do the same things when you get legislation coming through. How does this relate across the border? How does it relate to inter-governmental discussions? Are the decisions being made here restricted by agreements made inter-governmentally or not? These are all things that people deserve to know, because it gives us the full picture of how devolution works. So, yes, thinking about the thing in the round, where this agreement fits into that picture, I think is really crucial to the next steps.

Definitely. We had that experience on a committee yesterday of the difficulty in scrutinising an LCM when you don't have enough information to do so. So, I'd be interested in how you think that we could edit the terms of a new agreement to ensure that there is better consistency and a better standard of information provided.

Well, I would echo what I was saying about a reference to legislation, so thinking about outputs. So, are there discussions about secondary legislation? Are there discussions about common ways of working? Are there discussions about primary legislation? Is that primary legislation going to come through Westminster with an LCM to follow, or is that legislation going to come in each of the devolved places? I would really want a better link to be made between the outputs that we might be seeing and the content of those discussions, as a starting point.

I think that a number of the problems that you've raised are very likely to come up because it's informal discussions at civil servant level that are going to be discussing drafting and the implications of LCMs. So, for me, the gap exists because the emphasis here is on high-level formal ministerial relations, so the criteria in terms of what comes to you doesn't include those crucial informal elements. And I think what you suggest in terms of if there are legislative implications for Wales, or implications for competence in Wales, would be very useful as a way of extending the scope of the information that should be shared in order to enable the Senedd to be better informed about what's coming down the line.

Just finally from me, coming to that point of scope, are there any, in your view, any key gaps and suggested further areas for inclusion?

I think you want to talk to us about international relations and external matters, so I think that brings the work done by the external affairs committee, or the committee that had the external affairs remit in the last Senedd, into this as well. I think that's a relevant element as well. And as I've said, I think, from the wording, that there is a scope already to consider cross-Government relations. I think that element is interesting and important, and that you would see it, for example, in other countries. But I'm not clear that there's a need to change the remit to do that, because the emphasis on the inter-governmental, on the ministerial, is going to capture that anyway. It's just a slightly different way of thinking, but perhaps I'm wrong. But, yes, I think that's an element that could be interesting: what happens between the devolved Governments and what are the implications of that for legislating in Wales and so on.

Yes, I would completely agree that matters arising under the trade and co-operation agreement, certain external affairs questions, which I'm sure we're going to get to in just a second, are something that we could think about. Also, I think reference to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and common frameworks would be beneficially made somewhere on the face of the agreement, just because of the significance of those interactions with how the devolved project is able to go forward. And the nature of the discussions that occur between Governments on those issues could have a significant impact on the work that you do, so I think it would be beneficial to have greater information shared specifically on those issues.

Oh, sorry, Lynne.

Yes, I just wondered what you thought 'good' would look like, in that, obviously, there are the formal set piece inter-governmental meetings, but there are many, many meetings between Ministers that aren't within that sort of context, and some of them are very informal bilaterals. What would you think 'good' would look like in terms of having some sort of feedback to the Senedd on those? And obviously, from the Government's point of view, there are issues of confidentiality and things that wouldn't be shared between Ministers if they thought all the feedback was going to be given to the Senedd. I just wondered if you thought there was a good place to land on this.

Well, I think that there are a few things to consider, right? Maybe on those less formal things, it's less about, 'Can you tell us before you have a phone call and then after you've had a phone call?' Maybe it's more about a commitment to report every few months on the kind of engagement that's been had and on the topics discussed. So, it's less about wanting to have an eye on—. We wouldn't want to interfere with the way inter-governmental working was going, but equally I think it's completely acceptable to understand basically how devolution works—this is what we're talking about—and so how decisions are made. Because if those early discussions then lead to more concrete things, I think it's right for the Senedd to want to be able to understand the nature of those relationships, and for the general public and stakeholders and civil society.

Again, this is kind of what we're talking about with this agreement. This has an inherent benefit for Members in their scrutiny work, but also has a really important piece to play for transparency wider than that, for the general public and civil society as well. So, there might be something there about periodic reporting. It's difficult for us to give a name to it because we're not in those rooms, right? So, these informal discussions are things where you have to hope you get the name right, so that Ministers are able to understand when they need to tell us about it, kind of thing. It's tricky, the language, I agree, but I would then go back to my earlier point about needing to follow this stuff up in scrutiny sessions and in the scrutiny of the different instruments that you see, so that, over time, the idea is that you get a full picture of these discussions.

Dwi'n meddwl buaswn i'n bod bach yn fwy caredig. Dwi'n meddwl fy mod i ychydig bach yn wahanol i ti ar y pwyntiau hyn. Dwi'n meddwl bod yr elfennau anffurfiol, y cysylltiadau rhynglywodraethol, efallai jest yn rhywbeth i'w gadael i ddigwydd, ar ryw lefel. Dwi ddim yn meddwl ein bod ni angen gwybod bob tro maen nhw'n cael galwad ffôn. Ac ai beth dŷn ni ei angen ydy mwy o wybodaeth ar y materion yna pan mae yna oblygiadau cyfreithiol o ran llunio deddfwriaeth neu oblygiadau i rymoedd a chymwyseddau Cymru? Ac os dŷn ni'n trio cwmpasu'r holl elfennau o'r trafodaethau rhyngweinidogol, dwi'n meddwl efallai byddai yna lot—. Wel, buaswn i'n gobeithio bod yna lot yna. Y risg ydy bod yna ddim digon o drafod yn digwydd, a beth fyddem ni eisiau ei weld ydy mwy o ddeialog. A dŷn ni ddim eisiau llesteirio deialog chwaith drwy orfod adrodd.

Felly, dwi'n meddwl fy mod i'n parchu elfen o gyfrinachedd rhai o'r cyfarfodydd yma. Buaswn i hefyd yn gofyn ichi, 'Beth ydy "da"?' Dwi'n meddwl ein bod ni'n dechrau o le da iawn byth bynnag. Wrth gwrs, dŷn ni'n adnabod materion fan hyn i'w datblygu ymhellach, ond mae sail dda iawn wedi cael ei gosod yn barod gan y cytundeb yma, a mireinio, dwi'n meddwl, rydyn ni'n ei wneud. Ac mae o hefyd yn fater o orfod ymateb i natur cyd-destun cysylltiadau rhynglywodraethol ym Mhrydain, sydd ddim yn ffurfiol iawn, lle dyw'r strwythurau ffurfiol ddim yn cael eu defnyddio, ac mae yna lot o bwyslais ar anffurfioldeb. Felly, mae'n eithaf anodd cael hyn yn hollol i beth dŷch chi'n chwilio amdano fo fel deddfwrfa, dwi'n meddwl.

Diolch. We've got Josh next. I know we've picked up on some of this already, haven't we, Josh?

Yes, I think the formal and informal part has been dealt with, so moving on to—. Do you consider the current notice and summary requirements under the current IIRA are adequate for effective Senedd scrutiny? In particular, should advanced notices set out not simply the broad issues to be discussed, but the Welsh Government's objectives for the meeting? And should post-meeting summaries clearly state what outcomes were secured and what further action was agreed?

If I use the example that I know most about, namely European matters, I think, for some of the issues that were facing the previous Senedd, there was no European strategy. There wasn't a clear outline of what the Government's priorities were, and so it was difficult to know where things were going in general. So, I think that having a strategy or a clear idea of what the Government's intentions are as a starting point is a lot of assistance to be able to think, 'Okay, well, what are the implications of inter-governmental relations in this?'

What we also saw with the European element was that not much notice was given to Welsh Government anyway in terms of meetings. And therefore, even though the necessity was there—. This was really in the early days of inter-governmental relations, under the agreement that came into force in 2022. They sometimes only had a couple of hours before they knew that a meeting was going to be held. So, I'm not as worried about strengthening the duties in terms of giving notice beforehand. What I think is vitally important is the duty to report, because what is difficult to understand with some of these things is: what were the Welsh Government's priorities going into a meeting? To what extent did the UK Government listen, and what has happened since? That process is really difficult to see. It's difficult to see in a European context specifically, because, of course, it also relates to an external body—the European Union. But I think that process of trying to identify the extent of the influence, what the main requirements were, the main priorities, to what extent they succeeded in having a voice and to try to influence the Government's position, and what came from that—that's really difficult. And so I think that any way of strengthening—and we've referred already to the detail of the reports that are published—is important.

I've made comments there on the process in general, but I think there are specific elements regarding the European involvement too. Given that the trade relationships with the EU are so important as well, there's a lot of interest in understanding fully to what extent Welsh Government can influence, and that's extremely difficult at the moment. Some elements can perhaps strengthen in this context, but the wider context and the inter-governmental process is making it more difficult.

I completely agree. I really like that idea of thinking about what the Government policy is—do you already know about it? And if you already know about it, then you have a good inclination of what they might want to discuss in that meeting. So, what becomes more important are the outcomes and whether you get a good summary. And we've already discussed the kind of weaknesses and the summaries that we've had to date, or the lack of consistency, then, in the content of what we've already seen, and then, yes, the lack of Government policy, or lack of clarity in relation to what the Government might want in a certain policy area. That makes that warning, and the content of the warning, even more important then, doesn't it, because you want to have an idea of what they might discuss, and the significance of those meetings.

In relation to the kind of less formal interactions that exist outside of the proper structures, I think we could probably make a good best guess as to why they're there, why the Governments are in the room, in relation to the structures of the inter-governmental relations review, the inter-ministerial committees, because they are standing committees. It may be more useful to press for pre-warning of more ad hoc structures, because something would have triggered those engagements, something would have triggered the need for bilateral or inter-governmental meetings outside of those structures. And so I would argue that maybe notice of the intent, why are they meeting, in that respect is maybe more significant than the kind of clearer structures in the inter-governmental, inter-ministerial sphere.

I said earlier about the quality of the summaries. I would probably, here, say a word about how we make sure that we know what's been communicated. And so I think there is a job of work to think about what happens to the products of the inter-ministerial, inter-institutional agreement when you receive them. So, we know that they feature on the committee agendas. It would be for a policy-specific committee to take notice of the correspondence in relation to individual policy areas, and this committee has this wonderful oversight job of working out how things are working in the round.

This information, on the Senedd website, and elsewhere, is not always very clear. I would advocate thinking about being able to kind of thematically sort this information, making sure that information in relation to inter-ministerial meetings sits alongside other information that you receive, so that the good work of the agreement is then not lost in the quagmire of webpages. I'm a bit of a geek; I love spending a lot of time on the Senedd website, but others maybe don't. And so I think greater signposting of the information that you do have would also really assist in the scrutiny process, and in appreciating what you have, so that, again, going back to that cyclical way of looking at things, when you do have a Minister in front of you, when you have a policy in front of you, you also, as Members, know where to go to to find that information that you need to perform that better scrutiny.

Diolch. John.

Thank you. Could you please expand on the requirement for new inter-governmental agreements within the IIRA, please? Is there any requirement for new agreements within the IIRA?

I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean. Do you mean the update of it, to take into account the review of inter-governmental relations, or—?

I assume you've already covered part of this, but is there anything else you think should be covered by the IIRA?

Perhaps we have covered this already, because what we have said is that there are some main features in terms of which fora should be included. And what we've said is that we think that there is sufficient flexibility to capture any new fora.

Personally, I think that the clarity in terms of remit more generally is the important thing, so that we can respond to any changes that may occur in inter-governmental relations as they happen, rather than thinking, 'We have to have everything listed and down on paper.' If we decide on the extent of what we want—is it just things with a ministerial focus, or is it just things that have formal structures and so on? So, I think that's the important thing, because we could have a very long list and probably something else would come up.

At the moment, there is no good consistency in terms of the way the main structures are used, or, quite often at the moment, what we see is the main meeting within the new structure being added to another meeting with a small footnote, rather than, perhaps, strengthening those central structures. We can't control how inter-governmental relations are operated by central Government, so the most important thing is to have something broad enough to encapsulate everything, I think.

Yes, I would agree with that. I would also say that at the start of the IIRA, there's a section that's not part of the IIRA, but it refers to the communication of information in relation to statutory instruments made by the UK Government in devolved areas with the consent of the Welsh Government. I think this is a really important facet, a really important element, and that an addendum at the start of the IIRA is, I think, weak. So, I would encourage Members to think about moving that to the body of the agreement as testament to the importance of that process, because the UK Government enacting any sort of legislation in devolved areas is something that we would want to have an eye on, because that allows us to have a better picture, as I said before, of how devolution works. So, a commitment, a real commitment, to that information should be on the face of the agreement, as opposed to in the addendum beforehand.

Having said that, I know that information has been trickling through quite well, so it's not necessarily a comment on the quality of the information that we have been getting under the agreement, but more of a reflection on the importance of that element, and that we wouldn't want to lose that in a future draft.

Okay. Thanks, John. Lynne.

I wanted to talk a bit more about record-keeping, not from the Senedd point of view, but from the Government point of view. There is a website, but I understand not all information is on the website, so it's just really to get your comments on how that could be improved.

So, the Welsh Government's website includes this agreement and focuses on the annual reports on inter-governmental relations, and I think they are useful as well—we haven't referred to those—because what we get from those is this great oversight of how everything is going, as a whole, within the detail. I think they play an important role. They give an opportunity for the Government of the day to provide a taste to us. Of course, they are not going to tell us everything directly, but we do get quite a good feeling of where the tensions arise, where the difficulties are.

But beyond those annual reports, there would be scope to include the information regarding all the inter-ministerial meetings they attend, and that the written statements that are released as a result of this agreement are included here. You suggested, Hedydd, that the Senedd, perhaps, could put them all in one place, but there is the same potential for the Government to do so. Central Government, for example, has one website on inter-governmental relations, and what you have there is each one of the inter-ministerial group committees and so on, and that structure, and you can go to each one of the communiqués from there. There is a value in having one website on the Government side as well that would then encompass all of these things.

Perhaps we will come on to talk about international issues, but one of the issues that the previous committee discussed, in looking at the international element, was identifying the gap in terms of information on external agreements with other countries. And again, there should be ways of bringing all of these together, either as part of the same website or somewhere quite close to that, so that the elements beyond Wales can be encompassed in one place and are accessible and visible.

I agree with that. Having this stuff accessible is half the battle because it's not transparent otherwise. So, it's completely fair to think about whether it's a conversation between the Senedd and the Government as to where this stuff is housed. I think there's a role for both websites, if I'm honest, because of the scrutiny element for the Senedd, but definitely for the Welsh Government. It's a bit surprising—it's not surprising in the context of how these things are usually done—but it is surprising given that this work is done to produce this information, and then it surely is a small thing to then make sure that it's uploaded and accessible on the website.

Okay. Thank you. You referred to the annual report and you said you think that that has some value. I just wondered if you could tell us a bit about how you think that could be built on and improved?

I think that it's the scrutiny around them that's most important. I think that there's a lot of basic information in these kinds of reports. We've talked about some of the detailed issues around elements related to legislation. Is there scope to strengthen the position there, as long as there's assurance that there is an effective way of scrutinising those reports? What we've seen in practice, for example, is that scrutiny of the First Minister sessions was a forum that was used effectively by the previous Senedd, for example, in order to scrutinise these issues. But we need that consistency that every Minister should, or rather every Minister and the scrutiny of the First Minister sessions, for example, should be willing to discuss in detail these issues.

Yes. I don't want to say I'm negative about the annual reports, but maybe I'm a little bit more pessimistic about them than Elin. I mean, they call them 'annual' reports, but we haven't always had them annually and 'annual' can mean up to a year later. So, that in itself, for me, is a little bit problematic, especially if we think that what the report is doing is, essentially, summarising the information they already have. I don't quite understand why it takes a whole year to summarise all that information and then put a paragraph at the start saying, 'How do we feel about inter-governmental relations right now?' I'm being a little bit flippant, but, again, it's about what we're asking. It's definitely about how we're scrutinising it and how we're following up with the Government about these things, but I would expect an annual report to be that—to be annual. And if it is a summary, then I would like, maybe, a better understanding, really, of how that whole picture is looking, because it refers generally just to the inter-governmental discussions. I talked a lot about outputs earlier in the session and I do really want to know how these things relate to legislation, how they relate to LCMs, how they relate to statutory instruments, so that we get the full picture and how effective those discussions are so that we are able to really understand how things work.

Thank you.

Okay. I'm going to move on to the external affairs element. I'm just mindful of time and we've got a couple of Members who haven't had a chance to contribute, so I'm going to change things around. I'll bring Darren in first, then Nick, and then Sarah if we've got time, if that’s okay? Darren.

Can I just ask you about the recent summit in Cardiff, which was an example of inter-governmental discussions? Obviously, the Senedd wasn't informed far in advance about those discussions or the nature of the discussions; a copy of the communiqué was only shared with Members of the Senedd afterwards. Do you have any views on whether that was in keeping with the spirit of the inter-institutional agreement that is currently available?

Well, it's difficult, isn't it, because the title is 'inter-institutional agreement', but what it's traditionally been about is inter-governmental relations between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. But we've talked a lot today about those other elements, those other relationships, and so maybe what we need is an inter-institutional—. We're kind of renaming the tin so that we have a broader concept of the things that we expect to know about and the reasons why we want to know about them. So, the reasons why we want to know about them is because they might affect policy-making decisions and the ability of this Senedd to scrutinise and to legislate. So, I want us to be really clear about the differences in the constitutional significance, if you like, of inter-governmental relations between the UK Government and Welsh Government, and also other sorts of inter-governmental discussions that have different sorts of implications. They are significant, but they are different constitutionally. And so, maybe an inter-institutional, an IIRA, that kind of has two chapters, if you like, would better reflect those two elements. I don't know if that's helpful.

Yes, I mean, you touched earlier on, and so did you, Dr Royles, about the importance of the EU relationship as well, going forward, and making sure that that's incorporated somehow into a future IIRA. But, obviously, there are bilateral agreements between, sometimes, regional Governments and the Welsh Government, or national Governments and the Welsh Government beyond the UK, but it took everybody by surprise the fact that a summit had been convened. It didn't just happen overnight; clearly, it had been planned for some time. And actually, alongside the summit, of course, there was published a co-operation agreement between the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which, again, was sprung upon everybody and has not been subject to any kind of scrutiny since. It just seems to me to be wanting in terms of the levels of scrutiny available to the Senedd because of the lack of discussion and courtesy, really, from the Government, to inform anybody in advance of those discussions or what was going to be on the agenda. So, do you agree with Dr Phylip about the need for an IIRA to encompass such meetings—ad hoc meetings I think you referred to earlier on, as well—about the need for those to be encompassed in any future agreement?

Three things, if I can try and be brief. First of all, I think that the element of reporting on committees is more important than having prior knowledge of committees. In a lot of federal countries, we wouldn't be in the same mindset. We think of IGR just as being up and down, whilst IGR actually works in both directions. For me, as regards interpretation, I was reading this and thinking, 'Well, no, this incorporates both elements. This already encapsulates this potential'. So, I don't necessarily think that we need two IIRAs. You can have all of that included in the same agreement. The question, for me, around the meeting held in Cardiff was: were they there in their ministerial capacity or not, or was it party leaders that were coming together? That's what will catch a body such as yours out in terms of what level of reporting should be expected in that context. But there is great potential to scrutinise that kind of event if they are there in their ministerial capacity, and so you should expect to have reports on what happened. So, my understanding is that what we can already encapsulate that, although we haven't been thinking in those terms because we're just thinking about this vertical level all the time.

I mean, I accept that an attempted defence about the summit being convened was that it was between political party leaders, rather than Governments, but we do know that, alongside the summit, there was this other agreement that was also put on the table. And, obviously, there have been bilateral agreements with Ireland, Baden-Württemberg, Quebec, and all sorts of other places. My own personal view is that they should be encompassed within the agreement.

Can I ask you a little bit, as well, just about the UK emissions trading scheme, which is, obviously, quite a moot point at the moment, because of the pressure that industry has been facing from energy costs. That's not specifically referenced in the IIRA, but, clearly, the Welsh Government has a seat at the table within the UK emissions trading scheme authority and can influence the decisions that are taken by the UK as a whole, with the individual seats around that table, in terms of the direction of policy on that. Is that something that you think should be subject to the IIRA, with regular reports in advance about the issues specifically to be discussed? There are legislative implications—

Hedydd has already raised the common frameworks, and the common frameworks are part of the inter-governmental structures. So, my understanding is that the remit of the IIRA is broad enough to include that, and certainly notice should be given beforehand, or there should be correspondence with committees about what's happening. This is where I think we could get quite stuck, in asking, 'Do we want to list everything?', or, ultimately, if the common frameworks are in place, and so forth, then these will be part of what the expectations are from the Senedd and what the Government reports on.

I think I mentioned earlier the common frameworks. If I'm remembering correctly, the emissions trading scheme does have a common framework element. So, in reference to what I said before, I think common frameworks are significant enough in terms of how they frame inter-governmental discussion to warrant explicit mention in a new revised IIRA, which would then encompass discussions like those that you just mentioned.

And one final thing, if I can come in with this: obviously, the current agreement places lots of obligations on the Government, but not a huge number of obligations on the Senedd itself, right? It's all about the Government sharing information with the Senedd. You've already referenced that it's difficult sometimes to navigate even the Senedd's website, and how it's scrutinising the outcome of the things that are published by the Government and the information that's been shared by the Government. So, two questions about this. Obviously, the Senedd itself has inter-parliamentary relationships with all sorts of different bodies. To what extent do you think that they ought to be also a vehicle for inter-governmental scrutiny or inter-parliamentary scrutiny of the Governments, if you like, that also interface with those inter-parliamentary bodies? And secondly, we were discussing earlier the status of the agreement and the fact that it's effectively an agreement that is negotiated between a Senedd committee and the Government, and that there's no seal of approval, if you like, from the Senedd as a whole to say that the Senedd subscribes to the agreement in full. Do you think that it's important that that should take place at some point in the future? So, the endorsement and then the inter-parliamentary relationships that we have, and how they can help the scrutiny process.

I'll take your second question first. As part of that scrutiny cycle thing that I was talking about earlier, I think it's really important to have buy-in not just from this committee but from all committees. There's a policy-specific aspect to all of this, and then there's that oversight thing. So, we would want to see good inter-committee relationships in relation to how the IIRA is working, going forward, and how committees are using that information in their scrutiny. We would want to see evidence of that rolling through and on the website, and so on and so forth. And there's nothing, I don't think, stopping you from introducing a motion as a committee or as a Member to approve the IIRA; that would, of course, strengthen it. But I can't imagine that Members would have an issue with the content of this: 'Oh no, don't give me any more information.' I don't think they'd have that reaction to it. So, I would wholeheartedly say 'why not?' to that question.

On inter-parliamentary relations, thank you for the question. It's something that I'm really, really passionate about, and I think it's imperative. This is the start of a new Senedd, an opportunity to get the inter-parliamentary forum back up and running. It didn't meet last year; it met in 2025 previously. It has been an informal ad hoc meeting between parliamentarians. It has slightly lacked direction. Inter-governmental working is one of the things that has been most discussed in the forum, but it lacks the capacity to do scrutiny, if you like, and that's normal because it's an ad hoc arrangement. I gave evidence to the Scottish committee this time last year and said the same thing. There is a job of work to be done for the Parliaments to get together to work out what they want to see out of inter-parliamentary working, what works for them in terms of the individual parliamentary traditions of each of the legislatures to get the most out of that forum, because everyone's short of time, it requires a little bit of travel and it requires some thinking as to how we make the most out of that. But I don't see a negative in inter-parliamentary working. The extent to which it can be actively used for active scrutiny, I think, is a moot point. And that just requires parliamentarians from each of the legislatures to get their heads together to work out what's possible, what the resourcing implications are, and so on and so forth. But I'd be really happy to come in and talk to you about inter-parliamentary relations to death at another point in time, if you want.

As well as that body, there's the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and all sorts of other engagements, aren't there?

I think I would perhaps differentiate there between the fora where UK Parliaments can come together for joint understanding as to how inter-governmental relations work, and the potential there also for joint scrutiny, and also, if you like, there are the international relations of the Welsh Parliament. That's slightly different—through the CPA and so on. So, perhaps you need something slightly different for both. But I do think that, for example, with the relationship between the UK and the EU, we do see gaps in the influence of the Welsh Parliament, and that relationship with the Westminster Parliament and inter-parliamentary scrutiny could be very useful in tackling that. So, that's another element in this bigger jigsaw, if you like.

Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch. I'm just mindful of time. I want to bring in Nick, and then maybe if I ask Sarah just to think about anything we haven't covered in her final questions.

Diolch yn fawr. It's been touched on previously, but one of the things I understand the last committee raised most frequently with the Government was being notified of international treaties. I just wondered whether you think that international milestones should be included within the scope of the IIRA, and perhaps are there ones that are more significant than others that should be included.

I think that one of the Senedd committees in the previous Senedd, the international relations committee, had done a lot of good work that would be useful here, so I would engage with that more, because they placed an emphasis on reporting regularly.

I think there are two elements: one is reporting on international relations. I think, in taking a historic perspective, that didn't used to be so much of a problem. I think it's a problem that's emerged in the last few years. I went through my old files and found something from Carwyn Jones that provided quite a clear summary of some of the main international relations and links that had a memorandum of understanding. I think there is a place for that, but also, I think that that committee raised questions regarding placing more clarity and expectation in terms of scrutiny of international activity—that there is a focus on reporting and on realising the objectives of the strategy. So, I think that's one element: how can you assess that element.

There was also the financial scrutiny of the Welsh Government's work—is that something that's worth including specifically in an element of an agreement like this, so that you do have clear reporting and feel that you can scrutinise effectively. I think, in general, it's been good practice when there are regular reports on what Ministers that have an international remit are doing internationally, so that there is some way of having some assurance that regular reporting will happen in that sphere.

So, there are three elements, I think: there's reporting on the outcomes of the strategy, that financial element, and also that you have a good oversight of what they're doing—to what extent are there new agreements ongoing, to what extent is there a development in those relationships, or do some of these memoranda exist as a piece of paper and not develop at all. That's a consideration. So, I think there is scope to formalise elements of these because of some of the experiences in the past where a Government has been less willing, or some Ministers less willing to report and be open with the Senedd.

I think I'd refer to my previous comment about thinking about different chapters within the IIRA. The first element in relation to inter-governmental relations is one, and then there's the international element, which is, again, rooted in slightly different constitutional territory, if you like. Again, I wouldn't want us to put it all into the same pot; I would want to see different chapters, recognising the fact that when the UK Government comes to an international agreement that's legally binding, and then has to be implemented and will have real implications for the way devolved lawmaking can happen, it's different then to a bilateral agreement between Wales and the Basque Country, which is more of a commitment on—. It doesn't have the same legal implications, because of the constitutional realities. So, I would want to make sure that whatever we're asking for in the IIRA can recognise the different constitutional implications of whatever agreements. But of course, if agreements are being made that then have an implication for decisions that are made here, then it's right that the Senedd be notified of them.

Diolch.

Diolch, Nick. Sarah, anything to finish off?

Yes, just quickly. I love that point on chapters. I think that that's quite an interesting way to put it. And I understand that what you were pointing to earlier was not having an exhaustive list of points that could limit us. But I think I would be interested in your view of the specific inclusion of any international agreements entered into by the Welsh Government and whether that would be relevant.

Yes, certainly. So, are they memoranda with nations? For example, the relationship with UNESCO is being formalised a lot more now. Well, is there some sort of agreement related to that? I work at a university and the university has to report regularly on the nature of its own agreements and contracts with other universities. So, it would make sense that you would need a clear process of knowing the content and status of Welsh Government agreements with any other organisations. And if we want to make that point, if this Senedd also has a memorandum or an agreement with another Parliament, then that should be visible and transparent in terms of the terms of that.

If there are agreements being made that influence how policy is being rolled out and limit or allow certain things, then it's right that the Senedd be informed of them. But I'd echo what I said about the different quality of those agreements. They're not international trade deals, because the Welsh Government doesn't have the capacity or the ability to do that constitutionally. So, I just again want to make sure that we know what we're asking for and that that is reflected in the IIRA.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, both. You've given us a lot of food for thought. I think there's a real challenge there for us in terms of Sarah's last point and getting that balance right between keeping things broad enough to be flexible but not being too limited by this. So, that's something that can shape the discussion for us going forward. So, diolch yn fawr, both. We'll make sure you get a transcript in terms of accuracy as well. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch.