National Assembly for Wales

Andrew Gwatkin, would you like to introduce yourself?

Bore da. Good Morning. Andrew Gwatkin, director of international relations and trade.

And David.

Just to say, I think there have been a lot of lessons learned from Qatar. Qatar was a truly spectacular set of events, in my opinion—2,200 events globally, 900 million people seeing Wales content, particularly the Urdd choir. Wales was put on the lips of billions of people around the world. I understand what you're saying about the preparations—Wales qualified very late et cetera. But since Qatar, I guess I would argue that Wales has been through a golden age of sport, not just in football, but in rugby and netball and hockey and other sports besides, and those preparations are—

Not rugby.

Okay. No, no—it's been through a golden age in the sense that our rugby teams have been playing in the world cup tournament. These are putting Wales on the lips of billions of people globally. So, we have been preparing for those.

For example, through the international strategy, we fund our strategic partners. We are always talking about the sporting events that are coming. The Euros—we've been talking about the Euros with our strategic partners, like Wales Arts International, like the Urdd, for the last two years, even before the qualifiers had begun. So, yes, I would argue those preparations are in place.

For example, this morning, we've seen the chef de mission announced as Gethin Jones for the Commonwealth Games Wales team. Fantastic news. We've already been in conversations with the Commonwealth Games team around preparations for that next year in Scotland, for example, and other tournaments besides.

That's great. Thank you so much. Diolch, David. Julie, you had a question as well.

Yes, diolch. Bore da. I was really pleased to hear you mention Kerala and the nurses from Kerala, especially as I've had such good feedback from the welcome they've had here and how well the Heath has managed them, in terms of making them feel part of everything here. So, I wondered if you had any other plans, similar sort of plans, to continue the link with Kerala or move further?

Thanks. For me, that was really important, and we had a really warm reception in Kerala when we were signing the MOU. It was interesting, because it was just a few years ago that they came here and made this offer. I think we've got to be really careful. The last thing I want to do is to take nurses away from a developing country. What was fascinating was learning that, actually, they deliberately massively over train. It is part of their economic strategy to send people abroad and get them to send money home. That's a part of their economic plan. So, once I was comfortable with that, then we could start the proper conversation.

Actually, Keralan nurses are really good. They have a great reputation. Actually, people around the world want these Keralan nurses. So, it's actually quite competitive. Part of what we were doing was saying, 'Listen, come to Wales.' One of the things that we offered was, 'Look, we'll look after you, we will put wraparound care around you', and I do think that that helped us to get that signature, to get that relationship going.

I'm so heartened to hear that that is working really well, because they are excellent nurses and they are integrating well. They are massively well respected. Where we go next is, 'Should we go beyond nursing?' Already, we're looking at what else we can do in terms of support for our medical services. I met somebody, for example, who's coming over to work in the cancer centre in Cardiff, who is hugely well qualified and is very, very excited about coming over. So, it's beyond nursing, it's going into other medical disciplines as well.

become known internationally for the well-being of future generations Act.

So, I can give you a line on that that says, 'Actually, yes, look at this: India's just taken it on board and there are 120 million people who are now going to be benefiting.' What I'm not going to do is ask these guys to go all around the world to ask, 'Have you ever heard of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015?' I just want to manage your expectations in terms of what you're going to get here.

I've been a Member here for 20 years, First Minister, so my expectations are well managed. [Laughter.]

Good, well stay in that place. [Laughter.] So, I just want to make sure that there's an understanding that—. Let's just be clear about how much detail you're going to get.

'If you haven't identified companies that can come, what's the point of you? If you can't do that, then there's a real question mark.' Andrew, I hope you're listening. [Laughter.] It is really important that there are outcomes. If they can't identify a couple of companies to send to Wales, there's a question mark over whether they're doing their job. I'm not up for having international officers for the sake of having international officers—they have got to achieve, they've got to deliver. And if they're not, then we will have to think carefully about what that looks like. I'm very clear about that.

But then there are other areas where, actually, we have been able to move on and to do different things. In Japan at the moment, for example, there's a huge amount of work being done. With the French embassy, we've done a huge amount of work, linking into UNESCO. There's a whole programme of work now going on with UNESCO, so it's not all about economic development, either. We have got to analyse. When there are opportunities, we've got to jump on them. So, I get why there may be a frustration here, because you're going, 'Well, how do we mark you?' And we're saying, 'Hang on a minute, we're going to jump over there because there's a football world cup going on.' We've still got the same amount of resources, so we've got to take resources away from somewhere to put them into the world cup.

The committee understands that very well, but the committee wants to know as well that the Government has very clear strategies for achieving its objectives, and objectives on which the committee can measure the Government's success or otherwise. And the committee has always been very supportive of the Government's work in this field. We simply want to know that you're succeeding, and we want to be able to say that, if necessary. And to do that, we need to have the objectives, the strategies, the results.

Look, if you just look at our exports: £370 million new as a result of our export efforts. There's something very concrete you can look at there.

Okay. Sorry, do you want to come in, Andrew?

Just to say that each of the offices has a really very strong focus on the business side, but obviously there are some that are now going wider, those with the multilateral relationships. And so you can see Brussels, you can see Paris, you can see New York having that extra remit. So, we're really clear with the offices what we would like them to achieve. In terms of the investment summit, as an example, I'm getting regular reports from each and every one of the offices about what they are doing to help us with the investment summit. They've all fed into the very long list of potential invitees, and they're all feeding in in terms of the day job.

Inward investment is one of those classics that, when it's successful, everyone claims it. When it's not, no-one's worked on it. But something like Vishay—everyone's claiming Vishay, and wonderful, they should. Everyone's worked on Vishay. But I remember Owen there saying to me, 'Should I keep pursuing them? Because I just can't get anything back.' 'Yes, Owen, it's a great opportunity. If you believe in it, do it.' And that's the beauty of having an office in-country, someone who can have the regular dialogue with the headquarters, and just getting Wales in there, in their thinking every single day. That's just one example.

Diolch, Andrew. I've got Lee and Heledd who want to come in on supplementaries, so I'll go to Lee.

Yes, I'm just interested in just testing this further, because you’ve said you're not interested in developing new strategies, but delivering the existing one. But it does seem to me that the emphasis has shifted. So, you've emphasised a lot the importance of the summit and inward investment, and the role of the international offices in delivering that. Well, that hadn't been a major emphasis of existing economic policy. It feels to me that inward investment has become more important, and you've created a summit. Well, having organised lots of conferences, conferences can take a lot of energy and deliver very little. So, it's interesting how you measure that.

And also, you're saying now the role of the international offices is about trade. Well, that hasn't been the sole focus of the international offices before. So, it seems to me you have developed policy quite a bit, without refreshing the strategy, under the guise of delivery. But it's more than just delivery, isn't it? This is a change of emphasis.

Well, I don't think there is. It's one of the three priorities. There are three priorities. One of them is economic development: we will grow our economy by increasing exports and attracting inward investment. It is one of the three named priorities. I'm not going to apologise for actually delivering on what it says. And it only says three things: raise Wales's profile, grow the economy and make us a globally responsible nation. So I don't think we've shifted at all. We've leant into it.

It feels like the globally responsible nation has been de-emphasised.

I don't think it has been de-emphasised. You should see the work we're doing in relation to the well-being of future generations Act. We're doing stuff in the United Nations. I spend a lot of time with these Indian people promoting the well-being of future generations Act. There is a huge amount of work being done everywhere. It's not one at the expense of another. There are lots of different things in different places being done.

Well, forgive me, you just said you've got limited resources, and if you put one resource in one place, it's less in another. So, you can't be, on the one hand, saying nothing has changed and, on the other hand, saying we have to shift it. You can't have it both ways there.

I was talking in that context about shifting resources into—

Yes, well, the principle is the same, isn't it? If you put more emphasis on one thing, there's less emphasis on another, by definition. 

Well, look—

And your emphasis, as you've said, is on an international summit.

It is on an international summit.

What do you expect that to deliver?

Well, we've got a lot of ambitions and we're doing a lot of work on it, and we're expecting it to deliver quite a bit.

Well, that's a lot of activity, isn't it, but what's it going to deliver?

Well, you'll have to wait and see, because we don't know until it's actually happened, but there's a huge amount of work.

What's the objective? 'Wait and see, we're putting a lot of work into it', is not quite strategic, is it? 

Listen, I'm not going to be pointing out chapter and verse here today about what our expectations are, but there is a huge amount of work being done to develop a pipeline of investment. Do you want to—?

Yes, please. A number of things. Firstly, the offices have never taken their eye off the ball on trade and investment. That has always been a core part of their work internationally, and the same for our team—a core part of our work. Even in the international strategy, we've talked about areas of excellence such as compound semiconductors, cyber et cetera, so that's always been a core part.

For the investment summit, we've got a very clear programme that we're already working up with the First Minister, where we're focusing on the areas of our economy that are identified, including in the industrial strategy, so working with UK Government as well, and so we will have very specific sessions. We've got already an invitee list. We've already had acceptances to just save the date, let alone actual invites going out. And so we're really clear on what we want to achieve. We're really clear on the types of businesses. We want C-suite in the room. We want those who can make decisions on investment.

With respect, Andrew, that's objectives about how to organise a conference, rather than what the outcomes of the conference are. So, what are the outcomes of the conference you're hoping for? 

I'll ask you just to answer that question, then we will have to move on.

So, investment, and, actually, one of the things I've made clear to Andrew is that what I don't want is for that to be the beginning of the conversation—that, actually, we need to be at least halfway through the process of landing investment when they come to Wales for the summit. So, the conversation about what investments are going to happen, it's not going to be the invitation to the conference that's the important bit—it's the lead-up to it. It's the conversations about, 'Right, we want you to come, but we want you to come and ideally be at least halfway through the process towards announcing investment.'

Okay, thank you. I'm going to move to Heledd. 

I have to say I'm really unclear of what the answer was to Lee Waters's question there. In terms of delivery, I understand that, but we also have a role, you'll appreciate, in terms of scrutiny, and that is incredibly difficult at the moment in this area. I'm also concerned, because obviously you can plan to be reactive, can't you? You could have resources set aside to be reactive, rather than having to jump. You mentioned jumping into different things, like qualification. It seems very scattergun, rather than strategic. That's my impression from the evidence I've just heard. How are you able to reassure me that's not the case?

Well—. Andrew, I'm happy to—.

Great. There are core activities that we undertake, things that are planned. Wales and Japan is a planned activity. Presence at Expo, the conversations we're having about renewable energy when we're there, the presence of the Cabinet Secretary—all of those are planned activities. And our strategic partnership network, that's planned, that's ongoing, and that's the thing that's able to adapt to new and emerging circumstances. So, if a team qualifies, we already have our team Wales, team Cymru, approach. It was developed during Qatar.

So, we've got both the planned activity that's ongoing as well with our relationships. So, we will be continuing that relationship with Ireland. We will have the ministerial forum—that's planned. We will have that in a few days, actually, shortly. All of that's ongoing and planned activity, so that is the bulk of our time and our resources put to that. But then when something emerges, such as the Euros now in the summer, using an existing network of key stakeholders, people who are absolutely fantastic at delivering with us together as a team, we're able to turn our hand to that alongside our core activity.

So, it's not a case of us being headless, jumping from one thing to another. There is a constant and core to what we do, and we're able to adapt. But, of course, we're a small team. We can't adapt to everything, and we can't do everything. And our budgets, similarly, are what they are. But the core budget that we dedicate to strategic partners, that's what we're using for the Euros. So, it's in place. It's just adapting.

May I say something from a global responsibility perspective and hopefully pick up on that and the other question as well? And that is that you'll see within the international strategy and the international delivery plan actions and commitments around, for example, multilateral engagement in the UN is mentioned, and UNESCO et cetera. But what has happened in that space is that big opportunities have emerged. So, for example, last year, when the UN held their summit of the future, looking at a declaration on future generations, when they decided to do that, clearly, Wales was the foundation for that work, and I think we should be really proud that we're influencing the UN, but we didn't necessarily predict that the United Nations were going to go down that route. The same with our commitment to work with UNESCO—that has transformed in the last couple of years, largely because of the efforts that we put in during our Wales in France year, but, building up those strong relationships, lots have emerged from that.

There are things that are planned out in terms of global responsibility that are carried through: our Wales and Africa programme continues to go from strength to strength, for example. But other opportunities have emerged: the fact that we bid to have, and we won, the circular economy hotspot in Wales brought hundreds of delegates last year from around the world to Wales to come and learn about our transformational story on recycling and beyond. And I think some of the policy innovations—. It's my view that Wales is seen as a global think in many areas, including an area that you'll be familiar with, in terms of transport. There's a real interest in some of the approaches we've been taking too in terms of active travel and transport. The amount of international delegations that want to come over and learn about our approaches to public transport, or to speed limits et cetera—. And the fact that those policies have been developed out of other international examples and are informing other international examples is really, really important. So, I think global responsibility has not diminished; yes, we've planned for it, but we're also ready to seize on opportunities as they emerge.

Well, partly because some of them are very interconnected. So, if you just take what's happening in India, there are so many different aspects that are happening in India, it's just difficult to go, 'Right, is it India, or is it well-being of future generations, or is it export, or is it—?' So, it's about where and how you—. I can see that it would be easier for you to say, 'Right, have you ticked that box, that box, that box?' But these are interconnected, they cover multiple actions and outcomes, so that's why we haven't set it out in in that way.

I think what we've got is is a team Cymru approach, and we have taken team Cymru's ideas into consideration when it comes to the delivery of the international strategy. Lots of the reporting is in the annual report, so they need to make sure that they've read that to begin with.

So, look, you've also heard from academics, and what they've told you is that it's quite difficult to monitor international relations work. So, this is not something unique to Wales. You try and assess the impact of the BBC World Service—you know, it's very difficult to measure it, but does it make a difference? Yes, it makes a huge difference.

Well, look, we've got a whole—. We've got lists of things, and, over the summer, we've committed that we'll go through the 270 or so actions, just to let you know what's going on. But I just want to manage your expectations in terms of how comprehensive that will be. We can give you a list of what's happening, what's being done, but we've got one person working on this, and, actually, I'd like them to be working on other things, but we will—. That's the real problem, that our resources are very curtailed here.

Okay. We have five minutes left of this session, so, obviously, there are lots of questions that we won't have reached, so we'll be writing to you with those questions, if that's all right. I'm going to bring Alun in on a very quick supplementary, and then I will go to Gareth for a final question. But I'll take Alun first.

I don't disagree about resources and the rest of it, but democratic accountability is fundamental—

No, no, I get that.

—to the operation of good governance, so we don't apologise for pressing you on these matters.

One of the things I'm finding, as we go through this session, is that I think the Government needs to structure its accountability in a more profound way. Because you produce the reports, I accept all of that, and you've produced a lot of good literature, and I accept that, and I don't challenge Government on that, and, like you, I want our officials to be out working, banging the drum for Wales and not sitting in front of a laptop writing reports for committees. I accept all of that; I don't disagree with you. However, you need to structure the accountability in a way that is accessible to the public and to ensure that we can understand what your objectives are, how you're going to achieve them, what your results are, and to do that in a more structured way than perhaps you're doing at the moment. That is my conclusion from what I'm listening to this morning. It might be useful to look at that over the summer, so, when you do come back to us next year—. We don't want reams of paper either, by the way, you know, but what we do want is to understand how the Government is spending public money and whether that public money's being well spent, and to hold the Government to account for that, and that's a fair and reasonable request to make.

I'm not arguing with that; I absolutely get that.

So, structure the accountability.

Which is why we have committed, over the summer, there will be—. We'll go through the 270 actions and set out—

Let's structure it—structure it in a better way.

Just so that it's clear and more transparent—. There will be some things in there that we haven't been able to achieve, because the world has changed, but what I get is we should be accountable for those things, and we should be able to explain that, and that's what will happen over the summer.

Let's have a conversation about structuring it.

Yes. And that's fine. But, just to manage your expectations, we've got one person working on this. One person. If you want us to have more people, let's just be clear: I'll have to take them away from other things that you want us to do.

A good structure and a good process will save resources.

Yes.

Right. Okay. I think that it probably would make sense for us to leave this here and to take a shorter break, if that would be all right. If we took a five-minute break, and then went into the general scrutiny session, with your permission, would that be all right? 

Sure.

Okay. We will now take a five-minute break and then we will be reconvening at 10:43.

Can I ask you, First Minister, if you look at your Cabinet responsibilities for international relations, and how that has differed, firstly, in how you undertake those responsibilities at Cabinet level as First Minister compared with when you had the ministerial portfolio of international relations? What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of both of those approaches?

Well, there are advantages and disadvantages. Clearly, the disadvantage is that I don't have as much time to devote to it. The advantage is that, actually, generally, in international relations, people want to see the First Minister, and there's an opportunity, and you are able to command more attention if you present yourself as a First Minister, and more people—. Just, for example, one of the things that I've tried to do since I became First Minister is—. I remember watching—. The previous First Minister spent a lot of time—. You'd get a lot of ambassadors coming to the door, and they'd all want half an hour of the First Minister's time. And there are a lot of ambassadors in Britain, and they all need to tick the box that, 'I've spoken to the First Minister of Wales,' and I just thought, 'Hang on, this is quite a lot of time that's being taken up here. We need to manage this much better.' So, one of the things I've done since I became First Minister is to say, 'Right, actually, you work to our agenda. So, we'll come to London, and I will host a reception as First Minister, and all the ambassadors will be invited. We will host another event in Cardiff, where we will set out a visit programme, where you can see all of the great things we do in Wales, and if you want to come outside of that, if you're not in our top category of people that we really want to focus on, you'll have to see somebody else.' So, I'm just trying to manage how we do things, so that we control the agenda, rather than other people. And I think it's fair, then, to say, actually—. I think we had one ambassador that asked if he could meet me on the day that we'd organised for all the ambassadors to come together, and he wanted to meet separately. No. No. So, it's about managing and being able to control better, because I'm the First Minister, and being able to make sure what we're focusing on, 'These are the countries that really matter to us. Let's create a relationship.'

And speaking of those countries that really matter to the Government, could you talk us through, please, how many international bilateral agreements the Welsh Government has in place, or if you could write to the committee with that information?

We've got nine bilateral agreements at the moment: Basque Country, Brittany, Baden-Württemberg, Flanders, Ireland, Oita, Quebec, Silesia. And we've also got a friendship relationship with Birmingham, Alabama, and we've got Catalonia in the pipeline. So, those are relationships we have at the moment. Obviously, some of them are closer than others, and they're all slightly different, and it's horses for courses. We'll see where it is that we can progress things. I'm not really interested in relationships that just are on paper. So, we actually have had a few countries knock on our door, and areas knock on our door, and say, 'Can we have an MOU?' And we've said 'no', actually. It's really difficult to say 'no', but if you don't, it just means that you're playing to somebody else's agenda all the time.

Diolch. I think Alun wanted to come in on a very quick supplementary. 

No.

No. I misinterpreted, Alun was just smiling at me. Apologies.

Thank you. I just wanted to explore Wales's relationship with the US in a geopolitical context, and the political make-up there, and what relations or what sort of strategy and communications that the Welsh Government currently has with the United States. 

The key thing to remember is that, actually, we've got a lot of investments from the United States in Wales, and there are a lot of jobs dependent on American companies—about 40,000 people. So, this is an important relationship. Whatever the political differences, we've got to remember that we need a relationship with the people of the United States and the businesses of the United States. So, we've got a network of offices, and our approach in relation to the international strategy and our priorities hasn't changed as a result.

Do those political differences make any sort of barriers in terms of relations from a Welsh Government perspective? Or does the duty override that in a way? Obviously, you allude to the American people, but in terms of how that relationship goes with the Government, how do you take that sort of disparity there? 

Don't forget, foreign affairs is not devolved. So in terms of our relationship, that is done through the UK Government. I think what we're trying to do is to lean in to some of the opportunities that may arise as a result of the political fallout. So, for example, I attended the Wind Europe conference in Denmark recently, and a lot of the investors there were saying, 'Actually, we are now interested in speaking to you because the philosophy and the approach of “drill, baby, drill” in the States means that we're getting out of there, and we're looking for other places to invest.' So, we've got to take advantage of the opportunities, and that's certainly what we're trying to do.

But to sort of be devil's advocate in some ways, we've seen tariffs on steel, cars as well, although our car-making industry has depleted very much so over recent decades, which I don't necessarily agree with, but we still make Morgans, which are very much sought after in America as in Britain. So, in terms of those trade tariffs and those political differences, how do we recognise that and say, 'Well, we're advocates of Welsh steel', but how do we make sure that, on that global scale, we can make that resonate? 

[Inaudible.]—I appreciate this is straying slightly outside the remit of this committee, and would go into the Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee's remit a little, but if there's something that you'd like to say.

Sure. There are opportunities for us to try and influence, and certainly when I've had meetings with Jonathan Reynolds and with the Prime Minister, it's been really important for me to set out that, actually, the impact of the tariffs on Wales is proportionately greater because of the concentration of goods that we export compared to the services. So, we export about 63 per cent—in terms of total exports, 63 per cent of them is in goods to the United States. In the UK, it’s about 37 per cent. So, proportionately, we're harder hit. And so those companies now are paying 10 per cent as a tariff, and that is problematic. And it's important to make those political points.

Thank you. I think Julie wanted to come in on a supplementary. 

Yes, I absolutely agree that we need to have the relationship, and it's so important to us. But, in terms of the offices, have you had any sort of feedback about whether it has made any difference to their day-to-day work and their access to people that they need to deal with? Has there been any feedback of that nature? 

I've had no reports of lack of access as a result of any changes. In fact, actually, the offices are more engaged to find out as much as they can about tariffs and how that might impact for Welsh businesses. We've been feeding that in to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning, her trade policy advisory group, but also a special group that we've set up to give some intelligence on tariffs and how that impacts on businesses. So, we've asked the offices to turn their hand to that, but we haven't seen any access issues, no, and, in fact, our inward investment work is as strong as ever.

So, it's, in fact, improving. 

We're making always huge efforts on the inward investment from the US. It's a very big donor market for us, particularly on tech, particularly on the west coast. At the moment, we're not seeing any change to that commercial relationship. But, of course, we are very much close to Welsh businesses to understand the impacts for them in terms of tariffs—the 10 per cent plus the 25 per cent and beyond.

I think it's probably also worth emphasising that it's a very split society in the United States now in terms of divisions and, actually, there are opportunities for us also to lean into some of the values that are important to us. For example, we've really lent into the peace petition, and we've just come to the end of the peace petition centenary, but that was an opportunity for us to really build strong relationships with a particular kind of group in the United States. So, we've got to lean into the things where we think we may have common cause and common values as well.

Thank you. 

Okay. Thank you. Gareth. 

No. 

No. Okay. 

Thank you. Taking this forward a little bit now, in terms of priority relations, you have welcomed, and in the Welsh Government as well, I think, there's been general welcome for the new agreement with the EU and the reset with the EU. I think that reflects where people generally are at the moment. But the Welsh Government and successive First Ministers have resisted establishing a strategy for EU engagements—a forward-looking strategy—and, I have to say, I regret that. I think a strategy would provide both the Welsh Government with a focus and also us with an ability to hold you to account for that.

But I'm interested now as to how you see us moving forward, because a number of us will be in Brussels next week talking to EU institutions, and the rest of it. And I think if I were to characterise the approach of the Welsh Government over recent months, it's been very passive, been quite reactive. It doesn't feel that the Welsh Government is always on the front foot on some of these matters. We know that Derek is doing sterling work in Brussels maintaining the relationship with the institutions. But it feels that the Welsh Government hasn't been as proactive as perhaps it could be and has not been linking different issues together to create a sense of purpose. Do you think that would be unfair?

First of all, there's been a lot of negotiating in relation to that new UK-EU agreement, and our officials have been influencing that. Most of the priorities that were set out in that agreement, particularly the sanitary and phytosanitary standards agreement, are all things that we were asking for and we've been engaged with. And it's been really helpful, actually, having somebody who's Welsh leading on that, because there's an empathy and an understanding.

Yes, I appreciate that.

So, all of that has been really helpful. I think what's going to be more difficult, maybe, for us going forward is that—and it was interesting speaking to the Swiss ambassador last week—what happens is you finish up negotiating multiple agreements. It's a never-ending negotiation. That is the price of Brexit. That's probably where we're at, and the difficulty with that is that—. We're not completely in the driving seat here as well, don't forget. For the EU, I think that the world has changed slightly and they're more ready to engage with us now than they were before.

But I think there are opportunities, for example, in relation to defence, where there's a real opportunity now, if we've got access to that—and the fact that eight out of 10 of the top defence companies in the world have a footprint in Wales—for us to bid into those things. So, I think what we're trying to do is to go into the areas where there are opportunities, especially with that big picture approach that's going on. I hear what you're saying, though, in terms of, 'Where's your strategic plan?' Some of that is difficult because we're not in the driving seat. 

But we are in Wales and we understand Wales's needs. Nobody else is able to understand Wales's needs like the Welsh Government. That is self-evidently the case. I agree with your analysis, as it happens. I think we are heading towards the nightmare scenario of Switzerland or Norway, and we both know the huge number of diplomats that exist from both those countries in the EU in never-ending negotiations. And I don't think anybody wanted that, but it is where we appear to be. I accept that. But that makes the need for a strategy even greater, of course, because when you are approaching constant negotiations, you need to have an idea of where you want to be, because otherwise you end up being where other people want you to be. And I think we do probably need to reinforce the office in Brussels as a consequence of this, and as a consequence of the shared analysis of where we're going, because we don't have the access to documentation and to people that we used to have as members of the EU. So, we've come from participants to lobbyists, in lots of different ways. So, we probably do need a strategy more now than we've needed before.

Also, if you draw the comparison with the position of the Scottish Government, who have been publishing papers and position papers on all sorts of different elements of this—. What that does, of course, is to establish a very clear understanding of the position of that Government, but it also enables stakeholders and people in Wales, who we seek to represent, to understand as well what steps are being taken, what's being done on their behalf. And it enables a debate to take place in Wales about these matters, as well as between diplomats and between officials. So, I think the need to be more proactive is something that is probably becoming something of an emergency. So, the question I have for you is, how do we move from this passive part of a UK delegation approach to taking a more proactive Welsh strategic approach?

Well, look, I think the focus on that EU-UK agreement, that's what's been absorbing all the time. But I take your point that actually, now, where do we go next is something that we will need to consider. A lot of this is in the space of economy and all—. But what we do need is a joint overall Welsh Government approach to where do we want to head with this. I take that point, and I think—.

I'm grateful to you for that. There are a number of issues I'd like to—. It might be easier if you write to the committee in response to some of these questions. The approach individual Ministers are taking—. How often do Ministers visit the institutions in Brussels? To what extent are they ensuring that Wales is a part of the conversation there? So, it would be useful if we could understand a programme, whether there is a programme of visits, whether that's a proactive or reactive programme of visits, from individual members of the Cabinet to Brussels. We'll accept written answers to all of these.

But also then, in terms of taking forward the common understanding agreement, there are two areas there where I think there's a general acceptance that we need to go much further. One is one of the issues that this committee has addressed in previous years: improvements for the situation of touring artists and cross-border creative work—the position of Creative Europe, and the rest of it. And the second then is a relationship with Erasmus+. Now, the Welsh Government's been very clear on both those matters. So, I'd just like to understand—we are where we are today—has the Welsh Government started work, or will the Welsh Government start work, in order to progress movement on both those issues?

I'll ask Andrew to answer some of those as well. But, just in terms of a proactive engagement, actually, there are a lot of Ministers who have engaged very actively. Rebecca, I know, has been very active. But it's not just about Brussels. There are also bilateral relationships. So, for example—

I accept that, but I'm talking simply about the institutions, in this question.

Sure. Yes. Absolutely, yes. But I think it's just probably worth noting that Huw Irranca has just come back from Latvia, for example, to learn about, 'Right, how do they do the bottle return scheme?' So, it can't just be about—. And sometimes, it's those bilateral relationships—

No, but the question—. Minister, I accept that we do need to discuss the international relations. I accept all of that; I don't have an issue with it. But this question and this here is quite narrow: it's simply about the institutions.

The institutions, fine. Well, we can give you a list of who's been over when. And just in terms of touring artists, we've made it very clear to the UK Government what our position was on that, and the same thing with Erasmus+. I don't know if you can expand.

Yes. In the Interministerial Group on UK-EU Relations, it has been very much raised, several times, and also in our work in Brussels, through both Derek, who, as you say, is doing a fantastic job—

Yes, absolutely great.

—and also the whole office there, who engage regularly. And also, in terms of the impact for the cultural sector, in terms of the membership of our trade policy advisory group—. So, we're refreshing that membership so that it is reflected as a sector and the impact of the changes for them, and how we can then feed that in with our work with the Department for Business and Trade as well.

Okay. Thank you.

Could I ask—? In terms of working with the UK Government, could you talk us through, please, whether opportunities have improved, or the situation has improved, in terms of informing UK foreign policy, international relations, since the general election? Because, as a committee, we've been very aware of the frustrations that successive First Ministers have felt with how difficult that has been.

It's definitely improved. It's improved quite a lot. So, I'll ask Andrew because of the day-to-day relationships, but Andrew assures me that things are getting better. Listen, we can always do better, and we are pushing them in terms of 'What are you doing for us?' constantly, but, Andrew, would you like to—?

Yes. Our operational work with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has absolutely improved. There's been a new strategy director; we have regular contact with her, and she's really excellent. The devolution unit, similarly, has really, I would say, upped the levels of contact with us, and then in post as well. So, we're seeing more and more ambassador designates visiting. We've just recently had the ambassador designate for France to come to see us. We've currently got a fantastic ambassador in France, obviously with lots of roots and affinity with Wales, but the new ambassador has already really shown that he wants to continue that relationship. So, I would say the working relationship with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is absolutely improving.

Thank you. But just before I bring Alun in on a supplementary, can I check that that's—? At an official level, that's very encouraging to hear. Could I just check that is reflected ministerially as well?

Yes. It's not unhelpful to have two people in the Foreign Office team who are Welsh. So, those kinds of relationships do help, so that you can actually pick up the phone and they have an understanding. So, we probably need to make that a bit more formal, because they won't always be Welsh. But, actually, starting that relationship has been very helpful. The other thing just to underline is that we do have these meetings now, these nations and regions meetings, with the Prime Minister, and he's always keen to share with us the latest developments in terms of international relations and international conflicts, as they are now, so, that's not something that ever happened before either.

Okay. That's great. And just quickly before—I promise, Alun, I will bring you in—. There had been planned an international relations concordat to look at, post Brexit, situations about how the four Governments would work together. That hadn't materialised. Is there any update on that? Is that still being progressed? 

So, there's not much movement on that. So, the framework is there; we know what should be happening. What's happened is the UK Government has come in now with this new proposal, which is the nations and regions. What we haven't worked out yet is how they work together, if they merge, so that conversation we still have to have.

It's very much on that subject I wanted to come in on, actually: I do agree with you about the importance of having Welsh people in various offices. I remember the director general of DG MARE, of course, was a Welsh speaker, and the fisheries negotiations were far easier for that reason, for us. So, that does help, but it's, of course, accidental, isn't it? You can't plan it ahead. And it is important, therefore, as we structure our relationship with Europe, we also structure our relationship with the other Governments of the United Kingdom, and we actually work with a UK voice, but speaking with different accents and emphasising different things.

Now, I know you will share my disappointment that the UK Government has breached a manifesto commitment on the repatriation of powers to Wales in terms of the replacement for EU funds, and I'm not going to push you on that this morning, you'll be relieved to hear. But those sorts of clear promises made by the Prime Minister, which have been broken, it appears, from the spending review last week, mean that we need a structured relationship in a way that perhaps helps us manage areas where we do have disagreements, or a different emphasis, shall we say. So, is it possible for you to potentially write to the committee with a view on how a concordat can be developed, and to ensure that we have a means of working with the other UK Governments in a collaborative and co-operative way, but where Wales's needs are emphasised? Because it's quite clear to me that the decision announced last week in the spending review does not emphasise the needs of Wales.

Well, just to make it clear that I am not accepting that what was put in that report means—. The way it's been interpreted is—. So, I've had a categorical assurance from the Secretary of State for Wales that this will be decided and managed by the Welsh Government. This was a commitment—

Okay. I very much welcome that.

—this was a commitment by the Prime Minister—

It was.

—on the stage of the Labour Party conference—

I was there.

—and I have made it absolutely clear that we will be holding their feet to the fire on this. So, you know, I'm actually more confident that we're going to get to the place that I want to be, because I have been given those reassurances. It was something I made clear in a meeting as well in front of the Chief Secretary of the Treasury last week as well.

I very much welcome that.

Andrew.

Very much taken into consideration. They're the types of conversations that we're having in Brussels and the types of conversations we've been having with UK Government as well. The sector itself feeds into us very regularly, and correctly. And so—. And it is really important to us. So, absolutely taken into consideration, yes.

Yes. I just wanted to explore what your assessment, as First Minister, and as a Welsh Government—you know, what sort of democratic mandate the Government thinks it has to have in discussions with the EU. Because I've asked you before, in previous questions, that—. Wales, and, indeed, the UK, voted to leave the EU in 2016. I didn't see that as a single referendum; I saw that as three referendums. We had one in 2016, we had a general election in 2017, where the Conservatives returned to Government, and then we also had the 2019 general election, which the Conservatives also won. And I saw no reference to—

You also had 2024, where you were wiped out.

And I saw the 2024 manifesto, where there was little reference to—

Okay. We might be straying slightly outside the realms of our scrutiny.

So, in terms of what democratic mandate the Welsh Government thinks it has, in comparison with reality and what the people of Wales want it to do, there seems to be a disparity going on, doesn't there? So, that's my question.

Thank you, Gareth. I think this will be quite a straightforward answer.

We have a mandate from the Welsh public. It was in the last election. That's the mandate.

You mentioned 'taken into consideration'. What does that mean exactly? Because these are recommendations from a scrutiny committee. How has it influenced? Are there any updates in terms of the recommendations made, or would you be able to provide those in writing afterwards?

I was going to suggest maybe providing that in writing so we can show you how we have taken that and translated that into the work that we are doing. Is that okay?

Tech, energy, life sciences, relationship with the Ireland-UK chamber of commerce, a greater focus on co-operation on offshore energy, improving the resilience of trading routes—you all saw what happened in the storm over the winter, so there's a Holyhead port taskforce—greater collaboration between regional and local authorities within Wales and Ireland, shared learning on respective languages, build stronger links between universities, and cultural links. Those are the main headlines. So, we're looking forward to welcoming the Tánaiste on 3 July, and we'll be basing that in Swansea.

Or is it David? Who's been working on this?

I'll probably be stealing David's thunder here, so I'll probably pass to David, but through that person embedded, we had a report from that person. It was really helpful to us. We've also worked with other organisations, such as Global Welsh, who I know gave evidence to you recently. We had two contracts with Global Welsh, in which we were working on diaspora who were in the business community. David, over to you in terms of that, because I don't want to steal your thunder.

You have stolen my thunder, but that's fine. We learned a lot from that secondment to the global affairs unit in Ireland, particularly around having quantitative approaches to diaspora. It wasn't necessarily the right way, following the Irish model, and the Irish are seen as the global leaders in this area. So, we've learned that, and we've started to think about that approach.

As Andrew said, we have worked with Global Welsh on a range of things. We've obviously taken note of their report, but as a Welsh Government, we've worked with them in events, for example, they've done in London and elsewhere, perhaps more recently, and diaspora features as a common part of our work. And not just, for example, Welsh people who happen to be overseas, but the affinity diasporas of people that have perhaps studied in Wales or got some connection to Wales. For example, we've seen in America that a lot of people feel that connection to Wrexham. 

We're looking at diaspora in its broadest sense, and you will see through the ministerial engagements that we've had overseas, through St David's Day, or through our other moments, there have been diaspora elements to that. So, diaspora is always part of the work we do, but it is something we're thinking about, how we tailor the approach going forward, based on that learning from Ireland. But it was an important learning period for us.

Are there any planned further secondments, or are there currently secondments and ones here from Ireland to Wales as part of that agreement?

There isn't a formal secondment as such, but because of the relationship we have with Ireland, there's a regular discussion and flow of information and sharing of information across different policy officials, particularly around energy, for example, as an area where we have shared a lot of information, a lot of policy expertise. Clearly, there's been a lot of collaboration and co-working as a result of the Holyhead taskforce, following the storm Darragh damage, et cetera, so there's been a lot of sharing of information there, but in terms of formal secondments, not at this stage.

Can I just ask specifically on the diaspora work? I'm interested in the relationship the Government has with the Global Welsh organisation. This is a civil society-led organisation; you mentioned you had some contracts with them. It does feel, and the evidence we had from Walter May compounded this feeling, that there's some sort of friction here, that the Welsh Government seems to view this in a very aloof sort of way, and can only be dealing with it if it contracts it, rather than taking advantage of this organically developed organisation and working in partnership with it. Can you help me understand why we're not doing more with Global Welsh?

The contracts that we had with Global Welsh were specifically on trade and invest work, so on the business side, and what Global Welsh has done is very admirable; it's fantastic to have built that network. The ask in terms of support is well beyond what I would be able to do. It's a lot of money, frankly, and I understand the need, and I understand why that would be the case, but someone coming to us, spending that amount of money, in terms of business leads—. I have a team that is getting business leads. We have chosen collectively not to pay for lead introducers, so we would need to look at that very carefully as to whether that would be a sensible use of public funds, or whether we should be spending it in a different way.

It's interesting, that cultural viewpoint there, of seeing the Government needs to own these relationships, rather than partnering with civil society bodies that have their own networks: 'We have people who can do that. Why should we pay somebody else to do it for us?' Because it's certainly possible that Global Welsh will not be able to continue; it's a small effort, relying on a small number of people. Surely that would be a more effective way of reaching out, rather than constantly doing it through civil servants. You see it as a large upfront cost, when you have people yourselves doing it. But there's a different model of doing it, isn't there? But the relationship we seem to have struck with them is, 'We are the client, you're a contractor. Why should we give you money to do activities that we could be doing ourselves?' Actually, the whole point of engaging with a third sector body is they can engage in a different way.

It's a way of doing it, but the ask would be to spend more money on that than I spend on our current operational budget for an inward investment team. Without going into too much detail, these are choices, but with the budget that I'm given, the choices that I have to make are to spend on an existing team that does good work and has a proven track record and brings in leads and brings in inward investment that actually lands—. And I'm not saying that Global Welsh wouldn't be capable of that too. I absolutely admire the work that has been done by the organisation and the report that they had in terms of the brain drain as well. It's very admirable, the work that they're doing.

If I had double the budget, I would have no problem with this conversation at all, but I don't have double the budget. I have what I have and I have an existing group of people who are all salaried by the Welsh Government who have a proven track record of delivering inward investment. So, they have an operational budget, for which I have responsibility, but it's the money of the people of Wales, and I spend it on a team that we have in-house that delivers for us. But there are other ways of doing it, absolutely.

I think the other thing to bear in mind is actually they have great connections all over the world. The last thing I want is for them to provide us with leads that we then don't have the capacity to follow up. So, you have got to think about our capacity, and that is more damaging than anything else, I think. So, going out and saying, 'I gave you a lead and you didn't follow up', I think that is really damaging. So, you've got to remember that they just hook back into here, but who are they hooking into and what's our capacity there? So, that's part of why I think we've just got to be really careful, because we've seen that in the past, where people have said, 'I gave you the contacts.' You did the PPE stuff, you had hundreds of people coming in saying, 'I can do this, I can do that, I can do that.' Somebody has to sit there and analyse: can they do it and what are we going to do about it? That's quite a lot of work.

Sure. Okay. Thank you.

Diolch. We are into our final three minutes of the session. There were a few other areas that we were hoping to delve into, so we will be writing to you with those further areas, if that's all right, but there was one question that I know Heledd wanted to ask. 

We've all watched the horror scenes in Gaza. It has been truly horrific to see people suffering on that scale. Obviously, we've wanted to demonstrate our solidarity, and we've done that through making a £200,000 contribution to the DEC appeal. Those donations were made during the temporary ceasefire, and the money was spent generally on food, medical and clean water supplies. The issue for me is what do we do next. At some point, things will settle down. It's taking a very long time. But what can we do as a Government after that? There have already been conversations between the social justice Minister and the appropriate authorities in terms of could we send some medics over, could we send some humanitarian people over. But now is not the time to do that, because they're not letting anyone in. But the conversations around that have already started. 

There were a few other areas of questioning, as I indicated, that we didn't get a chance to raise with you, so we'll write to you with those, if that's all right. But thank you to the three of you very much for the evidence that you've given us this morning. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

I nominate Heledd Fychan.

Right, okay, it's unanimous.