Questions now from party spokespeople. Welsh Conservatives spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, your responsibilities as Counsel General include both legislative programme delivery and performance of other functions in the public interest. A statement of opinion calling on the Welsh Government to retain the legislative duty for council tax notices to be printed in local newspapers, tabled by Mike Hedges MS, has secured cross-party support. This recognises that the provision of information via written means is important for many people. What discussions have you therefore had with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Cabinet Office regarding the Stage 3 Amendment to the Local Government Finance (Wales) Bill being tabled by Peter Fox MS on 9 July to retain this crucial duty, recognising, as the media sector tells us, that if this Bill is passed in its current form it could trigger a watering down of other vital statutory requirements for a whole range of public notices, as well as creating a postcode lottery with inconsistent levels of transparency across Wales—matters that would fall within your remit?

Well, can I thank the Member for the question? The issue of public notices is, of course, an important one. We do live in an age of modern technology and there are many ways in which notices are actually communicated, so it is perfectly proper and appropriate that reviews as to how information of such matters are made available and accessible to the public. It is not a matter on which I've been asked to advise; it is a matter that is properly addressed by the appropriate Cabinet Secretary that you've referred to.

Well, I'm concerned you've not been asked to advise particularly as to the impact that this could have on the digitally excluded, particularly older people and disabled people. But staying with the performance of other functions in the public interest and your wider responsibilities, I questioned you here last November over the research commissioned by the Welsh Government to prepare for the devolution of policing in Wales, following on from an earlier question, when I noted that the Thomas commission on justice in Wales report, on which you rely, makes only one reference to the key issue of cross-border criminality, and the only solution proposed is joint working across the four Welsh forces, in collaboration with other agencies, without any reference to the established joint working with neighbouring partners across the invisible crime-and-justice border with England. And when I visited the north-west regional organised crime unit, shared between north Wales and north-west England police forces, they told me that evidence given to the Thomas commission was largely ignored in its report. So, what update can you, therefore, provide now regarding the review you commissioned, and made brief reference to earlier, led by a former north Wales chief constable, where you told me that the key way forward is to wait until that evidence comes, to then consider it, evaluate it, and then we'll debate it in this Chamber?

Can I thank the Member for the important points that he's raised? They are important points. Can I say that since, of course, the Thomas commission—? Of course, the Thomas commission considered aspects of policing, and it considered a wide variety of areas. But the further work, of course, that was taken on is the work, the review, that was led Carl Foulkes, which made clear that there is no reason why, for example, close links could not be kept between Welsh and English forces after devolution. As you know, Carl Foulkes was the chief constable of North Wales Police, so he was very well aware of the various challenges. His review looked, for example, at the ways English forces worked with Police Scotland and with the Northern Irish equivalent—the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Can I say also that there have been considerable discussions that have taken place with the police and crime commissioners? Of course, there are a number of those. They have conducted their own research and their own work in this particular area, and produced their own reports, which, again, are very supportive of the devolution of policing. So, the information is there. The review led by Carl Foulkes is available to the Member. I hope the Member will take the opportunity to consider that report and to review it, and I'm sure these are matters where there will be further discussion in due course in this Chamber.

Thank you. Of course, it was senior officers, serving under Carl Foulkes, when I visited the regional organised crime unit, who raised those concerns with me.

Policing in Scotland and Northern Ireland are devolved matters there, but, for reasons of history, geography and population and, with crime patterns between England and Wales operating on a cross-border, east-west basis, the situation in Wales is entirely different. Unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, Wales has a heavily populated cross-border area with England, with an estimated 95 per cent or more of crime in north Wales alone operating on a cross-border, east-west basis, and almost none on an all-Wales basis. Why, therefore, is the Welsh Government devoting so much time and resource to devolution of policing and adult justice to Wales when it's cutting key budgets elsewhere, especially when the most senior Welsh Labour MP in Westminster, Shadow Welsh secretary, Jo Stevens, has again joined the Conservatives in rejecting fresh calls for the Welsh Government to be given control of policing and adult criminal justice, and Labour’s manifesto for the UK General Election does not include support for devolution of these?

Can I firstly say that I don't think the position with regard to Wales vis-à-vis England, vis-à-vis Northern Ireland and Scotland are entirely different? There are very many common areas. On the issue of cross-border operation, we have distinct police forces that operate with operational control within those particular police forces. They operate collectively across borders. There's no suggestion that the devolution of policing would mean that that would all stop and that nothing would happen. We have the devolution of policing in places like London and, of course, the devolution of powers relating to policing in places like Manchester. They also have quite significant borders, and so on.

I think the question, really, is whether with, for example, starting the process of the devolution of aspects of justice, policing and modern policing play a significant, integrated role with a broad range of devolved functions, and that the operation of policing will perform far better by devolution. I think that is the view that the police and crime commissioners—all four police and crime commissioners—have come to, and I think the broader Opposition isn't there. In terms of priorities, as we move towards greater devolution, policing will have a certain place at a particular time. For me, at the moment, the most important areas in terms of work that is going on will be the devolution of youth justice and probation.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. Counsel General, you're on the record as being a strong supporter of the Hillsborough law that would place a statutory duty of candour on public authorities and public officials, and there is a commitment, of course, by an incoming Labour administration to enact that Hillsborough law. Hillsborough Law Now, who have led the campaign over 30 years, say this on their website:

'It's time for a law that will criminalise lying to the British public,' and indeed, the draft law does that. It says:

'A public servant or official commits an offence if he or she intentionally or recklessly...misleads the general public or media'.

Do you support the creation of that offence, Counsel General, and would it apply to public servants here in Wales? Would an LCM be necessary in that case, and would you support it on that basis?

Well, firstly, in terms of Hillsborough, I very much support the issue of a duty of candour. The issue has been not so much with elected representatives, but it has been at the level of what information, at the early stages in terms of public servants and so on, that has arisen, as to, I suppose, appropriate information being made available and disclosed at a very early stage. So, the commitment by the next Labour Government to a Hillsborough law is something I very much recognise. I think it's important that we don't confuse the issue of criminalisation of lying with the duty of candour. You will know very well that my view is that I completely agree with you in terms of the fact that I think steps need to be taken in terms of honesty, integrity within public life and, indeed, within public service in elected representation. I think the question is: how do you actually achieve that in a way that actually works, is actually effective, does not have unforeseen consequences, and that does not undermine the constitutional integrity of this Senedd? So, I very much welcome the work that is under way and the commitment that has been given to legislate on the basis of recommendations in due course to be made by the standards committee in respect of the issue of recall, but I believe that the issue of dealing with deception as well is something that would be most effectively dealt with within that framework and within that legislation, which would avoid what I think might be very serious unforeseen or unintended consequences.

I think the Counsel General is having the debate that we will be having next week now, but I'll happily—

You started it.

Well, no, I was actually asking about the Hillsborough law. I actually was quoting directly from the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill that was passed on Second Reading in Westminster unopposed, supported by all parties, drafted by Andy Burnham. That is the Hillsborough law that the Labour Party has now committed to bringing into law, and it actually does apply in all nations of the United Kingdom, and it does create a new criminal offence for public officials in misleading the general public or media.

The next set of questions does take us into the territory that you invited me into. Why do you think, if you support that—? I presume that you do, Counsel General, that you support that element, because it's in the law. Why is the civil service code insufficient to deal with this issue, and why do we need a new criminal offence in regard to public officials, and how could we create circumstances where public officials are held to account, to a criminal standard, in cases of deception, whereas politicians, to whom they answer, are not?

Well, because, firstly, in terms of the Hillsborough law, which I do support—and, of course, we do wait to see the full drafting of that legislation and, indeed, of course, the full scrutiny of that particular legislation—that is a different thing in terms of the constitutional issue of parliamentary privilege, which I think is a fundamental cornerstone of the way our four Parliaments actually operate.

Now, the question for me is: what is the most effective way of delivering an objective? Is it through the introduction of a law that criminalises the issue of deception in the way in which the Amendment that you proposed suggests, or is there a more effective way? I have to say, at this stage, I remain unconvinced that the proposal you put forward is actually workable, although it does not have very significant adverse potential impacts. And if that’s the case, is there a better way of achieving it? I think there is a much better and a much more effective way of achieving both the issue of recall, and in terms of dealing with the standards of conduct within the Chamber, whilst also preserving parliamentary privilege.

I’ve been avidly reading Labour Party manifestos over the last few days; it happens in election time, doesn’t it?

One of the other commitments that is actually very germane to the point that the Counsel General has just made is a commitment with regard to the Scottish Parliament to introduce absolute privilege, comprehensively, on a par with Westminster, because the Counsel General will be aware that in the case of the Scottish Parliament, and in our case as well, there is only very limited privilege; it only applies in the case of civil defamation. Now, that commitment is made in regard to the Scottish Parliament. It isn’t in a Labour Party manifesto as regards this Senedd. Is it the policy of the Labour Party that they will be introducing absolute privilege on a par with Westminster for this Parliament, as they are proposing to do for the Scottish Parliament?

The Member raises, I think, a very important point, because the issues has arisen in regard to Scotland, as you know, because it was less a privilege. There was concern when it came to being able to scrutinise Government because of various events that occurred some while back in there, and as I understand it, that is a matter that is there because it was felt necessary that the full extent of parliamentary privilege was necessary to enable Scottish Parliament to carry out its duties. My own view and my own understanding is exactly the same will apply to Wales, but as I understand is written, I think, in more detail somewhere within the manifesto that all Parliaments should have equal privilege, and therefore, the full extent of privilege that applies in Westminster would equally apply in respect of Scotland, but also in respect of Wales as well. That’s my understanding, but that’s what I would want to achieve and I think it would be a illogical for it to be developed in Scotland and not to be in Wales as well.