Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. This one-line motion has a very simple goal: it’s to bring some clarity to the current position in terms of the Government’s policy on Brexit. We’ve seen a policy that is confused, chaotic and completely lacking in any credibility. That obviously has incredibly detrimental consequences for the interests of the people of Wales as we face probably one of the biggest challenges that any of us have faced in our lifetime.

With the latest attempt by the First Minister, it’s not so much a case of a u-turn by the First Minister, but a pirouette every time he gets up on his feet. After the latest attempt to clarify, in the ‘Western Mail’, I was more confused than ever. Apparently, it doesn’t matter what we call it, so we can just make it up as we go along, which he frequently does. He, apparently, is in favour of access to the single market, not membership. Well, to quote the Institute for Fiscal Studies, access to the single market is a virtually meaningless concept. Every European country has access under World Trade Organization rules to the market et cetera, it’s the terms under which that access is provided. Single market membership, as the IFS has said, involves the elimination of barriers to trade in the way that no existing trade deal, customs union or free-trade agreement can offer.

It’s curious to me, and I don’t quite understand it, that the First Minister has aligned himself with the advocates of a hard Brexit—with UKIP and David Davis—against the First Minister of Scotland and the Mayor of London, both of whom are firmly for membership of the single market. He’s also, even more curiously, perhaps, aligned himself with Jeremy Corbyn, who has also come out against membership of the single market. This is what his rival, Owen Smith, said about that position, which is now shared by the Welsh Government:

‘Tens of thousands of Labour members and trade unionists will be worried to hear that Jeremy Corbyn appears to agree with David Davis that our membership of the Single Market is not worth fighting for.’

We’ve had this illusory concept, of course, of single market access without free movement presented as a policy, and yet, even in the last few days, we’ve heard the litany of voices—the people who will actually decide on the final Brexit deal—saying this is a geopolitical impossibility. Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the Commission, has said so in the last few days; Guy Verhofstadt, the lead negotiator of the European Parliament, who will have a vote on the Brexit deal, has said that, if the UK wants access to the single market, it must accept freedom of movement. The Visegrád nations in central and eastern Europe—four of them—have said that they will veto any Brexit deal that will prevent freedom of movement for their citizens. The Taoiseach of Ireland has said the EU will not allow free access to its single market without reciprocal free movement. And the Prime Minister of Malta—who, by the way, will be the President of the European Union, chairing the Brexit discussions when they begin—said, ‘I don’t think there’s a situation where one can discuss access to the single market without freedom of movement.’

The reality of this, of course, is that the current position of the First Minister of Wales is incredibly detrimental to Wales. We’ve seen the Japanese Government make clear that Japanese businesses in the UK invested here in the belief that they would be able to trade with the rest of the EU on the same terms as anywhere else in Europe. We would lose access to Horizon 2020 and Erasmus if we are not members of the single market, of the European Economic Area. I can’t understand it.

The reason that the First Minister has said he adopts this position is because of freedom of movement. And, again, I find this really strange, because, as has been pointed out in the Chamber, on 24 June, the day after the result, the First Minister, quoted on ITV and Wales Online, quoted on Julie Morgan’s website, said that one of his red lines was that we retain freedom of movement of people. That was on 24 June, the day after. I asked the Cabinet Secretary for finance when the policy changed; an answer did not come. I went back and checked the original press release, and it is true that the statement on the Welsh Government website—the third of the six priorities does not mention freedom of movement, from 24 June. But, one of the wonders of being bilingual, I checked the Welsh language version, which does, actually, under the third point, curiously, mention freedom of movement. Is this a case of a retrospective policy development? You change your mind, and therefore you go back and change the policy and the press notice that was put out at the time.

The Government, I understand, has now confirmed that they did change the original version of that press notice, which did include a commitment to freedom of movement, and that they forgot to change the Welsh language version. Not only misleading, but misleading and inept as well. What a combination to have as a Government at this time. I asked the Cabinet Minister when the policy changed. Well, we now know exactly, with precision. Because the original press notice, in English as well, maintaining a commitment to freedom of movement, went out at 9.20 a.m. on 24 June, and it was corrected by 10.04 a.m. So, in those 44 minutes, we’re led to believe—. Presumably, there was a Cabinet meeting, was there? Presumably there was a discussion with the other members of the Labour group, and with the Liberal Democrat member of the Government. Policy on a fundamental matter wasn’t brought to this Assembly; it was changed by diktat in 44 minutes. No way to run a Government on anything, least of all on probably one of the most important challenges that our people face in this generation.