The next item on our agenda’s the statement by the First Minister on ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, transition from the European Union to a new relationship with Europe. I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Lywydd. Well, we’ve now published our detailed policy statement on the UK’s exit from the European Union. Our position has been drawn up jointly with Plaid Cymru, through our liaison arrangements, and, therefore, carries substantial support in this Assembly—and I hope that there is much in this document that will command the support of other Members too. The wider the consensus that can be established in this Assembly, the more powerful will be the message from Wales in protecting our interests.

Llywydd, the paper makes six main points. The first is that we should continue to have full and unfettered access to the single market. According to HM Revenue and Customs, two thirds of Welsh exports go to countries in the single market, so why on earth would we voluntarily surrender access to it? Currently, we have full integration between the UK and the single market. After we leave the European Union we should aim to retain that integration fully, or as much of it as we possibly can. There are different ways in which this could be done, but the essential point is clear: our businesses need continued participation in the single market so they can continue selling their products without competitive disadvantage in Europe.

We also believe that the UK should remain part of the customs union, at least for the time being. This enables free-trade arrangements with more than 50 other countries beyond the EU and there is no good reason to turn our backs on that. The possibility is mooted that the UK may, over time, form new trading relationships with other major economies such as the US, India and China. Such agreements might be worth having, but subject to detailed consent. We might welcome them, but the content of such agreements would be absolutely crucial. But at this point, we must be pragmatic about Wales’s interests. All the available evidence shows that developing new trade agreements is painstaking and requires long-term effort, certainly between five and 10 years. And that’s when things progress smoothly and new governments continue the same line as their predecessors, which is by no means a given. So, while we support the exploration of new trade opportunities for our businesses, we want to protect the markets we already have. If better opportunities arise in future, let’s look at them with an open mind, but we see no advantage now in dismantling clear current benefits in favour of a wing and a prayer.

We do accept that concerns about migration were part of what motivated some to vote ‘leave’, and this is our second point. I want to be very clear: EU citizens play a very positive role in Welsh life, and I want their status to be clarified urgently. In future, we will still need to recruit from Europe for jobs in shortage areas and this is the key point: migration from the EU must be domestically managed and linked explicitly to work. We need clearly enforced laws to ensure that migrant workers are not exploited or used by unscrupulous employers to drive down wages or to lower terms and conditions for workers. We believe this is the basis for a balanced approach that links migration to jobs and good properly enforced employment practice that protects all workers whatever their country of origin.

Thirdly, Wales receives some £680 million annually from EU funds. During the referendum, voters were assured by ‘leave’ campaigners that Wales would not be one penny worse off as a result of leaving the EU. This Government intends to hold the UK Government to account for that promise and I trust we’ll have the backing of the whole of this Chamber in that mission. The people who sent us here will expect no less.

We will, of course, be leaving the major EU programmes and responsibility for managing agriculture and the countryside, and for regional economic development, will fall to us here in Wales. It is vital that those responsibilities are properly resourced and we look to the Treasury to maintain our spending at current levels. There are some smaller EU programmes that contribute significantly to our well-being for which we may potentially remain eligible outside the EU. These include Horizon 2020, money to stimulate research and innovation and Erasmus, which enables student exchanges.

Wales shares a maritime border with Ireland and the ports of Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke Dock are crucial and at the front line of any changes. We are particularly keen that we remain eligible for the Wales-Ireland strand of the EU INTERREG funding source. The sums of money are quite small in relative terms, but the programme helps to create dynamic co-operation between the maritime border regions of Wales and Ireland. This co-operation will become more important, not less, in the future. We enjoy excellent relations with our Irish neighbour and we attach a high value to building on our mutual and neighbourly interests in the years ahead. As I and others have said many times: we are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.

Our fourth point is on devolution and the future of the UK. Powers that have already been devolved to this Assembly and this Government must remain devolved. Let us not forget that our powers are also the result of two referendums of the Welsh people and we will oppose any attempt by the UK Government to grab such powers to itself. We recognise very readily that some areas of policy will require agreement across all four governments to ensure that, when we are outside the EU, we do nothing to inhibit the internal market or the single market of the UK—the free flow of trade within the UK. This will require mutual respect among the four governments and willingness to develop the machinery that will enable us to form such agreements, including independent arbitration. Leaving the EU provides an opportunity to renew and reinvigorate democratic practice in the UK and that opportunity must not be squandered on a leaden centralisation that will only serve to foster resentment and undermine the long-term strength of the union.

The decades of EU membership have produced a legacy of benefits covering many aspects of life, and this is our fifth point. Workers enjoy a range of employment protections and the quality of our environment has been greatly improved. As we leave the EU, we aim to protect these improvements to everyday life in Wales, and we will oppose vigorously any attempt to cut corners and create worse conditions. Our Wales is a country that values people and we want to enhance the quality of life for all our citizens.

The final point we make in our document is the need to negotiate a period of transition, so that current arrangements can apply for a period after the UK actually leaves the EU, presumably around the spring of 2019. It is not yet clear whether agreement on the UK’s forward relationship with the EU will be fixed according to the same timetable as agreement on our departure from the EU. But there are many variables here and we will have to see. But, in any case, businesses, public bodies, farmers, universities and many others will need time to assess new realities as they become clearer. For this reason, we believe a transition period is necessary, so that everyone has time to prepare for the new circumstances, and we believe this should be an early negotiating priority for the UK.

Llywydd, I believe that this White Paper represents a coherent and detailed position towards EU negotiation that protects Wales’s interests and provides a sound and plausible framework for the UK as a whole. I hope all Members will consider it in detail. It is my intention to schedule a debate in a couple of weeks’ time, which will provide an opportunity for us to demonstrate support for the Welsh national interest. We are leaving the EU—that debate is over—but I urge all Members to approach the terms of EU exit with Wales’s interests clearly in mind.

Finally, Llywydd, we have already heard from the Counsel General this afternoon in response to today’s Supreme Court judgement. It is right that the National Assembly should have an opportunity to debate the trigger legislation for article 50, and it is our intention to timetable such a debate in Government time at the appropriate time.

First Minister, thank you for your statement today. I do believe that your last comments in particular about reflecting on the contents of the White Paper are correct. It is a point to debate, it is a point to discuss, and I do hope that each Member will look at it constructively and either offer an alternative, or, obviously, support some of the sentiments in the paper. I make no bones about it; on this side of the Chamber, there are pieces of this White Paper that we will find common ground over. It cannot be right that we end up at loggerheads debating and discussing such important issues, and if we can reach a consensus, Wales’s voice is far greater for that consensus.

That brings me to the top of the statement, where the First Minister talks about the wider consensus that can be established across the Assembly, which makes for a more powerful message from Wales. I do bitterly, bitterly regret that the First Minister chose not to even enter into any discussions whatsoever with this side of the Chamber. I accept that those discussions might have hit a quagmire and might have gone nowhere. Equally, they might well have progressed, and there could be have been a set of principles—[Interruption.] It’s all well and good the nationalists over there going on, and I’ll deal with your comments later, but it could have been very beneficial. As the First Minister’s statement points out, when this Chamber speaks with one voice, that voice is far greater, it is stronger and it is clearer. So, regrettably, I do regret that the First Minister didn’t choose that course, certainly in the early days, to explore some of those options. And I would be grateful to understand why the First Minister did not choose to explore those avenues when the offer was made to him to explore what assistance could be had, as in my message to him on 24 June about exploring the possibility of working together to find solutions to some of the problems and issues that could be thrown up by the result of the referendum.

I’d also like to ask the First Minister in particular—. When we’re talking about the single market, and access to the single market, no-one want to see restrictions on trade, whether that be on a global platform or on a European platform. But it is a fact that the people of Wales and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. And by being a member of the European Union, you were entitled to be a member of the single market. Now, some of the tenets that underpin that single market around immigration are problematic if you’re looking to invoke access to the market, or participation in the market. I’d be grateful to understand how the First Minister sees either membership, participation, or access, because the document talks of all three when it’s speaking about the single market and the ability for Welsh companies and Welsh opportunities within that market.

It moves on then to define about jobs and, in particular, how one of the solutions that the First Minister and Plaid Cymru put forward to get over the immigration question that, for some people, was central to their vote in the referendum, was the ability to control immigration. Now, the First Minister has put the proposal forward about people should have a job or they should be allowed into the country for a period of time to find a job. I’d be grateful to understand what the First Minister would determine classifies as a job to allow access into the United Kingdom. Because this is really important when deciding if this option actually stacks up or not.

Then, it goes without saying that we will all fight within this Chamber to secure Wales’s share of resources, to make sure that our higher education sector, our rural economy and, indeed, structural funding can benefit from that money coming into Wales. There is no argument there, and we will work tirelessly with anyone in this Chamber who shares that sentiment. It is vital that a positive message is put forward that, when that money is allocated, we will start to use that money to move us off the bottom of the league tables, which has blighted the Welsh economy on so many fronts. But what is important is, actually, if we are to secure a fair share of that money—and maybe even an increased share of that money—that, on these areas, we do look at a UK-wide framework in debating and discussing how that money can come to Wales, and, indeed, to other parts of the United Kingdom. I’d be grateful if the First Minister could reply as to what his views are on a UK framework when it comes to agriculture, when it comes to structural funds and when it comes to HE funding, because I think, again, that’s a very important area to consider as to how we actually get the money recycled around the United Kingdom.

I do believe the paragraph on constitutional arrangements is most probably the most important paragraph in this statement. There is a huge amount of work to be done to work out how the United Kingdom will govern itself and will run itself post the Brexit negotiations. I endorse the comments that David Melding and others in this Chamber have talked about, and, actually, there is a direct impact that we can have here, if we actually engage positively and seriously in this really important area of post-Brexit negotiations.

I can understand the passion and I can understand the commitment that many in this Chamber have to try and discuss things that reside outside of this Chamber, but, actually, on constitutional arrangements, we can make a massive impact. Again, I would like to hear from the First Minister how, running in parallel with the negotiations on Brexit, he sees the Welsh Government and, indeed, this White Paper, informing how we might be able to get to the point where those arrangements would be robust, would be long term and, above all, answer the question in a post-EU United Kingdom—that we have those arrangements in place. We’re only talking 730 days once article 50 is triggered—it is a very short period of time.

The other point that I think is a really critical point in this statement is the transitional arrangements. Now, we can focus on the transitional arrangements around leaving the EU, but it is important that we reflect on transitional arrangements within the UK itself. So, we look at what transitional arrangements might be needed to be put in place, not just with the EU, if that’s what’s required, but how those transitional arrangements would work in a devolved United Kingdom. And, again, little or no time—from what I can see in the paper, and, indeed, in the wider discussion—has looked at that particular aspect of how it might or might not need to work, depending on how those negotiations will work out.

As I said at the top of my statement, I do bitterly regret that the First Minister shut the door on co-operation. But, from this side of the house, we will continue to work with colleagues in Westminster, who are on point in these negotiations, to make sure Wales’s best interest is served. And I welcome the access and I welcome the commitment from my colleagues to work with Welsh Conservatives in this Chamber to secure what is in the best interests of Wales once these negotiations are concluded.

I listened carefully to the comments of the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. Can I say that it didn’t strike me that there was much in terms of common ground between us? I don’t know what his view is in terms of the future of the UK, apart from the fact that he says that the UK should look outwards. We all agree with that, but beyond that, we’ve no idea what his view is on transitional arrangements, what his view is in terms of access to the single market, and what his view is on what kind of relationship we should have with the EU. I’m interested in those views, but I’ve not heard them. It is unfortunate, given the constructive tone that he’s adopted today, that he described on Twitter the publication of the White Paper as the publication of the latest copy of ‘The Beano’. Now, he can’t, on the one hand, say that and then, on the other hand, suggest that this is a serious discussion—[Interruption.] They didn’t know that on his backbench. I can see that—that’s what he said. [Interruption.] Now, let’s have a mature debate about this because I don’t—[Interruption.] I don’t think it’s compatible with a genuine desire to work together when that kind of use of phrase is in place, but, you know, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt to see what ideas, indeed, he comes up with over the course of the next few weeks.

With the single market—[Interruption.] No. With the single market, one thing he has said, which troubled me, is that he implied, or he said in the article that he wrote for ‘The Sunday Times’ that we are over-reliant on the European market. Now, I’ve never known anybody to say, ‘We need to sell less in a market.’ Far from it—we want to make sure we sell more into the European market, and, indeed, other markets around the world. So, I cannot agree with him that we are over-reliant on a market that we sell 67 per cent of our products into, and 90 per cent of our food and drink as exports. We should be looking to increase our share of that market, not decrease it.

He has talked about freedom of movement. I believe that the model that Norway has adopted provides an interesting model, as far as we are concerned. That is a freedom of movement to work—we are already have it—and they are participants in the single market. So, it is possible to have that model of freedom of movement and yet still be part of the single market.

He also talks, as others have done, about access to the single market and how important that is. His own Prime Minister said that she was looking for the fullest possible access to the single market. I agree. That is hugely important. So, she’s left herself enough room there to develop an argument on both sides of the fence. The one thing I have to say to her—and Members fall into this trap every time about people being allowed into the UK—the UK will not have a border. How many times have we got to investigate this? When I raise this with Whitehall Ministers, they have no answer. The reality is that if you wish to enter the UK, get into Ireland, and then you can get in without any check at all. So, the idea that the UK can introduce borders, which was suggested at the time of the campaign last year—I don’t want to re-fight that; that’s finished—is not true. It’s just not going to happen, because unless you have the co-operation of the Republic of Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland having the same immigration policy, which it will not do because it will be part of the EU and will have freedom of movement, then, actually, it’s not possible to monitor who comes into the UK and who doesn’t. So, there needs to be co-operation with other countries. There needs to be co-operation with the EU, ironically, for the UK to control its own borders; otherwise it can’t control its own borders. So, that will be an important consideration as we go forward.

In terms of resources, it is important that the resources that we currently have are retained. It is also important that those resources are controlled by the people of Wales, through their Assembly and their Government, and not controlled elsewhere. It is a fair point to say that, in some areas, a UK-wide framework would make sense. Animal health is one area, and state aid is another. If there are no state aid rules, it’s a free-for-all. There would be nothing to stop us throwing money at Cardiff Airport to try and shut Bristol down. I have no doubt that Bristol would complain about that, and, from their position, quite rightly so. So, there will still need to be some kind of framework across the UK when it comes to dealing with issues like state aid. But the key issue is this: those frameworks are not there to be imposed by Whitehall; they are there to be agreed by the four Governments. If we look at agriculture, DEFRA will look after the interests of farmers in England. They always have done because they have the biggest voice—that means the cereal farmers, it means arable, it means large-scale dairy. They aren’t as interested, in the main, in hill farmers, and I say that as somebody who has dealt with DEFRA for many years under both parties. I’m not making a party-political point. I think that is a mindset in Whitehall that is difficult to avoid. I would not trust DEFRA to produce an agricultural policy for the whole of Britain. So one, possibly, that could be agreed as a framework: yes. One that is imposed: absolutely not.

So, the next question is: how, then, do we create such a mechanism constitutionally to get that agreement? Well, actually, it has already existed in the past. When I was in my first tenure as agriculture Minister, we would meet every month, in London, the four Ministers, to agree the UK's line at the forthcoming European Council of Ministers. We were not all of the same party, and yet we were still able to actually agree what the position should be, and that model has continued. Now, that worked for agriculture. With a mature approach and with sense on all sides, there is no reason why that can't be used as a model for the machinery of the UK.

The JMC doesn't work. It's not going to be fit for purpose in the future. We cannot have a situation where, for example, if there is a dispute between a devolved Government and the UK Government, the UK Government is the ultimate arbiter. That can't be right. If we have a dispute with the Treasury, it's the Treasury that decides that dispute. There must be an independent process of dispute resolution. Now, to me, that means not having a JMC, but a council of Ministers, a British council of Ministers, where the four Governments look at common areas of interest and policy and look to get agreement. That is the way to ensure that we conserve the internal single market in the UK and yet protect the position of the three smaller nations within the UK itself, and ultimately protect the union, because let's not pretend that the UK itself is not under pressure as a result of Brexit, because it is. We've seen what's happened in Northern Ireland. It's not unrelated to the Brexit issue, I can assure him of that. We're seeing what's happening in Scotland. We must be careful to make sure that old ghosts of the past do not come back to haunt us as the UK leaves the EU.

On his final point, on transitional arrangements, I entirely agree. I've spoken to people who’ve been involved in trade negotiations, and they all say to me that it takes two years to agree to start the negotiations, let alone get to a position where they are agreed. And those transitional arrangements will be hugely important to enable our exporters, not just to access the European market, but the 50 countries that the EU has free trade agreements with, all of which would fall if we have no transitional arrangements, leaving us, effectively, on our own.

Ultimately, my great fear is this: that as the UK talks about free trade and globalisation, the rest of the world is going in the other direction, America particularly, and these are issues that we have to consider very, very carefully. I'm echoing the point that was made by David Melding, and I think it's absolutely right; this will require very, very skilful handling, given the fact that what was correct in June last year is no longer correct as far as some of the world's biggest economies are concerned.

I was pleased and encouraged to launch this White Paper with the Government yesterday, and whatever differences the parties here have on public services and the day-to-day business of scrutiny, on the matter of leaving the European Union, it's essential, in as far as we can, that Wales speaks with one voice and creates a position that reflects the Welsh national interest. This is too big a question for one party to decide. For us in Plaid Cymru, the opportunity to influence and shape this White Paper was one we were keen to take. Through a process of negotiation, we've been able to raise the profile of a number of our key priorities.

Before asking some questions, I'd like to outline some of those points from the First Minister's statement. I welcome that there is now preference for continued single market participation and a range of ways that this can be achieved. There has been a lively debate about this, but the preference that has emerged is that we need to protect those two thirds of exports that go to the single market and that we need to avoid tariffs and other barriers.

I welcome the continued principle in favour of the free movement of people. I'm pleased that there’s a commitment to have current spending levels for EU programmes protected, not least the vital agricultural funding that sustains our farming communities, our rural life and our Welsh language. There’s also a strong message that there must be no rollback whatsoever of devolved powers. There must be no downgrading of workers' rights and environmental protections. And on the question of devolved powers, we've already heard today how the issues around the Sewel convention are seen by the courts as political rather than legal, and this would suggest to us that, following the passage of the Wales Bill, we need to start the debate on the next constitutional phase as soon as possible. As Simon Thomas said in the last discussion, let's bring an end to this colonial rule.

First Minister, I'm pleased most of all that Wales now has a plan. In the absence of anything concrete from Westminster, in the absence of any idea at all from those who led the ‘leave’ campaign, Wales now has a plan based on evidence. And I’d say to those of you, especially those Brexiteer politicians who were critical of this campaign—produce your own plan. If you don’t like our solutions, then produce your own.

I want to focus my questions on the implementation of the White Paper and the negotiations. My understanding is that the next JMC is in February. Is that meeting a forum for European negotiations? Will you be holding bilateral meetings with the relevant devolved Ministers ahead of that meeting? And if we are to take the UK Government’s commitment to engagement in good faith, will there be opportunities to work directly with UK Government Ministers?

On a wider level, as the process around article 50 unfolds, Plaid Cymru wants to see as much co-operation as possible between Wales and the other devolved countries. There will be shared interests on a range of matters, particularly on the issues of EU regulations and protections. It’s central to our belief that the detail as to how we leave the EU should not be made in London or made in Westminster, but that there should be a genuine four-country approach. The Welsh voice has been strengthened significantly by the multiparty support of this Assembly, but to strengthen that voice at a UK stage, there should be close co-ordination with those other administrations. Can you therefore confirm that you will be working with the other devolved administrations and could you please tell us what form that will take?

Turning to the process of EU transition at home, here in Wales we need to ensure that the different interested sectors in our economy are informed and fully briefed on the Welsh negotiating position. The UK Government is likely to take much more notice of our position if business, farming, higher education and all of those other sectors affected by this are communicated with and invited to publicly support this plan.

The plan needs to go wider than the Welsh Government or Plaid Cymru. It needs to be understood by the whole of Welsh society, including those who voted to leave the European Union but who might well prefer continued participation in the single market. Will you therefore ensure that the different interested bodies and firms in Wales are informed and briefed on the negotiating position and that they’re invited to show their support for it in a public way? Diolch.

Can I thank the leader of Plaid Cymru for her comments? Good work was done between our parties in terms of developing the Government White Paper. I can assure her that the next JMC plenary meets on Monday, 30 January. As part of what takes place around the JMC plenary, it’s quite normal to have bilaterals. I last spoke to the Scottish First Minister just before Christmas, but I fully expect to speak to her over the course of the bilateral over the course of the next week. Also, of course, it’s quite normal for bilaterals to be held with UK Government Ministers as well. I had a meeting, by phone, with David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, last night.

We will, of course, work with Scotland. Scotland will have a different end point to us, but many of the interests we have are in common. Northern Ireland is more difficult—it was difficult even before the events in Northern Ireland because of the fundamentally different views held by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Now, of course, there are no heads of Government in Northern Ireland we can actually meet with. There may be opportunities to meet with Northern Ireland Ministers; we’ll see what representation they bring with them to the JMC plenary.

She’s right to say that the detail on how we leave must be worked through by all of the four nations of the UK. That is something the UK Government has said, so far, will happen. We have to wait and see whether that will indeed happen as a result of their words.

In terms of EU transition at home, there is a council for economic renewal on Thursday. There will be the opportunity there, of course, for questions to be asked at that forum by those who are members of it, in terms of the White Paper, and then, of course, consideration will be given as to how we disseminate the contents of the White Paper as widely as possible.

The White Paper itself is a genuine contribution, I believe, to the debate. It doesn’t seek to attack anybody or any Government. This is the most fundamentally important issue that the UK has faced for many, many years. It is hugely important that the White Paper forms a central part of the thinking not just of the UK Government, but the central thinking as to how Wales can prosper in the future with the circumstances that we face.

Can I welcome the statement and, in particular, thank the First Minister for the amused courtesy with which he greeted my presence at his press conference yesterday? From the thunderous look on the face of the leader of Plaid Cymru, I don’t think she was quite so pleased to see me. It was important, I think, that I should be there, because it was an opportunity in addition to today to probe the First Minister on parts of the plan, in particular in relation to migration.

I have to say that I echo the sentiments of the leader of the Welsh Conservatives earlier on that neither his party nor mine has been involved in any discussions with the Welsh Government on how to help take Wales forward in the context of the new reality of Brexit. Particularly in respect of migration, the statistical annex shows that 86 per cent of the people of Wales think that immigration into Britain should be reduced—86 per cent—and yet the leader of Plaid Cymru yesterday, at the press conference, said that she didn’t think immigration was a problem at all. [Interruption.] So, the section of this plan about migration, which the First Minister acknowledges in his statement was the reason why many people voted ‘leave’, is hobbled from the start by his alliance with a party that is in denial about the whole process. It seems, therefore, rather quixotic that he should give such importance to a party that is in denial about the reality, yet he ignores the parties on this side of the house that, after all, were on the winning side of the argument.

I hope that he will agree that although the advanced billing for the arrival of my colleagues and me in this Assembly was that we were going to be disruptors and beyond the pale, we have done our best to play a constructive part in the proceedings of this institution and want to play a part, so far as our political differences allow us to do so, in the process of getting the best outcome for Wales from this process. Therefore, going forward, if he will involve us, insofar as it’s not inconsistent with what the Welsh Government’s political objectives are, I hope that he will do so.

As regards the section of the plan on migration, he did say to me yesterday that he thought that the Norway model was the way forward, but that doesn’t address any of the concerns of the public about uncontrolled immigration from the EU. There are 450 million people outside Britain in the EU who have a legal right to come here for work and residence. If we adopted the Norway model, that would be completely unchanged, because Norway is actually in the Schengen agreement, of course, and therefore has even less control over its borders than Britain has at the moment. Under current EU law, which is applicable in Norway, EU citizens not only have the right to accept offers of jobs in Norway, but also the right to go there in order to look for work. In effect, they can take their dependents with them; therefore, that aspect of his plan is no plan at all, because it doesn’t even begin to address the problem of control of our own borders.

As regards the statement in relation to the customs union, I find that rather bizarre at a time when the President of the United States, our largest individual national trading partner in Wales—yes, the United States is a nation, and it’s our largest single individual nation trading partner—that we rule out the prospect of doing free trade deals with the rest of the world, which is 85 per cent of the global economy. Considering we’ve already had approaches from Australia, New Zealand and many other countries to explore trade deals— other countries that have existing free trade or favourable trade arrangements with the EU, and we are part of those arrangements now—why should we find it so difficult to be able to continue them? The talk of five to seven years of negotiation may well apply to the EU, where you have to get the agreement of 28 countries to a document, but when we’re negotiating bilaterally, everything becomes much simpler, especially when we’re negotiating with countries that are far more spiritually in tune with us and our view of the world than many of those to whom we’ve been shackled for the last 40-odd years in the EU.

I’d like to ask the First Minister one question also about the unremitting gloom of his plan and the statistical basis upon which many of his assertions are based. On page 9 of the document, it says that there is strong consensus among mainstream economic forecasters—which I wouldn’t agree with—that

‘replacing Single Market participation with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could result in a UK economy up to 8 – 10% smaller than would otherwise have been the case’.

I can’t understand how that could possibly be the case, because if we had no exports whatsoever to the EU, then that would take out 11 per cent of our GDP. So is he actually predicating his plan upon the likelihood that we’d be doing no trade with the European Union at all? Is he expecting there to be a wall built down the middle of the English channel? How could it possibly be the case, given that half of our trade under WTO rules would not be subject to any tariff at all with the EU, and the average tariff under WTO rules would be 3.5 per cent, how could this statistical basis possibly have any credibility?

The last point that I have to make is in relation to the future and the UK Government ensuring that Wales should have every penny of what we currently get of British taxpayers’ money through the EU. In this respect, I am 100 per cent in support of the Welsh Government’s position, and we will do everything we can to ensure that Wales does get its fair share of the proceeds and benefits of Brexit, which include not only the money that we get at the moment via Brussels, but also the Brexit dividend of the £8 billion a year of British taxpayers’ money that is currently being spent in other parts of the EU. So, in that respect, again, there’s everything for us to play for here, if we advocate our cause in the most persuasive way, and the best way to do that is to establish the consensus that the leader of Plaid Cymru claimed that she wanted to see across this Chamber and to involve all the parties that are represented here in this process, so that we can, as far as that is possible, and surely in this aspect at least we can all agree unanimously that Wales must get as much out of this as it possibly can.

Well, the leader of—. Well, let me start at the end. I welcome his support for us ensuring that Wales does not lose out on a penny of funding. As I say, he did turn up yesterday at the press conference. I think he thought that I was going to have him thrown out; I did not do that. He tried to ask a question. I think he thought that I would ignore the question; I did not do that. I take the view that it’s better to have people in there and pull their leg, rather than throw them out. But I do appreciate the fact that he came. As I said, he didn’t have far to come—we know that—but nevertheless his support was noted.

First of all, it is right to say that there is a perception in our country that immigration is too high. The reality is different. We know that 79,000 EU passport holders are resident in Wales. Even though we don’t know the figure, I suspect that a substantial number of them are actually Irish and, as a result, are counted as EU passport holders. Seventy one per cent are working here, the other 29 per cent are not. Most of those are students, in reality, and we don’t, surely, want to see fewer students coming into Wales and the UK. They provide our universities with a substantial amount of both brainpower and money, and effectively they subsidise the system for those who are from Wales.

Now, nobody said to me on the doorstep, ‘What we need are fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer students from other countries.’ No-one—no-one—said that at all. And so the freedom of movement to go to a job, I think, is a perfectly rational, sensible position to take. It’s operated in Norway: if you do not have a job in Norway within three months, then you have to leave. Now, those are actually what the rules say, we believe. The UK has interpreted the rules more liberally than other countries, but that is the case in Norway, and that is a system, I believe, that most people in Wales would see as sensible and would support.

He talks of free trade deals. Now, to me, replacing a free trade arrangement with the EU with one with New Zealand is not a fair exchange. The EU has 500 million people, New Zealand has 4.8 million. It’s not a big market. What New Zealand does have is the capacity to wipe out Welsh farming. So, any free trade deal with New Zealand that takes away quotas or tariffs kills Welsh farming, end of. I do not trust Whitehall to even recognise that point, apart from one or two Ministers. Australia is not a big market. Of course, they’d like to have a free trade deal with the UK; the UK is much larger than them, so of course it’s going to benefit them in the longer term. I don’t blame them; that’s exactly what I would do if I was in their situation. Bear in mind the UK has no experience of this; it’s been over 40 years since the UK negotiated anything. New Zealand is far more adept and far more experienced at negotiating free trade arrangements and agreements than the UK is. So, we have to be very careful that we don’t end up negotiating with people and getting the raw end of the deal because of our own inexperience. And so, that is something we must consider in the future.

He talks of the US. Did he not listen to what the US President said? He said America first, America first. America is no longer interested in free trade. It’s only interested in protecting its own interest. That’s where America is in this period in its history. I do not believe for one second that any kind of free trade agreement with the US would lead to anything other than a benefit to the US and a disbenefit to the UK. How else could Donald Trump possibly sell it to his own people otherwise? And so, we must be very careful of what the US would want. Would it want—? His party was dead against TTIP, but now he’s advocating a free trade agreement with the US. He was dead against it at the beginning of last year. What’s changed? Are we to see a situation where, for example, public services like health and education are to be privatised and US companies allowed to run them? I saw Nigel Farage endlessly campaigning against TTIP—‘Don’t have a free trade agreement with the US’, he said. So, what’s changed? All of a sudden, the US is flavour of the month. There is a certain lack of consistency in terms of what UKIP has said.

He asks the question about the shrinkage in the economy through tariffs. He forgets that through our current membership of the EU, we have a free trade agreement with 50 other countries, not just the EU, so we have access to those markets as well—very, very big markets of which China is one. So, actually, we lose that free trade arrangement with China unless it’s renegotiated in record time. That’s why our economy will shrink. Surely, nobody can argue sensibly that the imposition of tariffs is a good thing. What would that mean? It would mean, for example, that our food and drink would face a tariff possibly of up to 50 per cent going to its main market. It would mean, yes, that tariffs would be imposed on goods coming into the UK, but who pays those tariffs? The public. He does. I do. All of us in this Chamber. It’s not businesses that pay tariffs; it’s members of the public. It would see inflation go up. We import half of our food necessarily; we could never be self-sufficient in food because of our climate and our geography. We would see many, many things become more expensive for those who can least afford those things. And it’s from our position—. Well again, you see—. Dear me, trying to talk to UKIP—. Does UKIP not understand that if there is no deal with the EU, WTO rules apply? That’s it. Okay? There’s no question about it; they’re automatic. The UK wants to join the WTO according to UKIP—fine—whereas at the same time saying you’ll ignore the rules of the WTO. It doesn’t work that way. If you’re going to say you’re going to ignore the rules at the beginning, you’re not going to get in in the first place. And so, let’s have some realism about the debate as well.

So, on the basis of what the leader of UKIP has said, I don’t think there is much common ground that we could have agreed on at this moment in time. But, nevertheless, I echo what the leader of Plaid Cymru has said: we’ve put our cards on the table, let’s see the other ideas; let’s see detail on what the other ideas might be. It’s no good the leader of the Welsh Conservatives saying, ‘Our position is what the UK Government’s position is’. Develop your own position. You’ve got plenty of people on your backbenches who have enough brainpower to actually be able to do that. Develop your own position. Let us know. Let’s see you argue the case. Put forward a case rather than saying, ‘It’ll all be all right on the night.’ The same for UKIP: put forward a detailed plan of your own so we can see it and we can debate it. There is no detailed plan. The detailed plan is basically this: ‘It’ll all be fine. We don’t need to do any work. It’ll all be fine. The EU will come running to us.’ The same as the German car manufacturers. We saw what happened when Owen Paterson went out to Germany last week. The German car manufacturers and businesses stared at them and wondered what on earth they were talking about. Realism. We have to have realism and we have to have contributions to the debate.

There comes a time when people have to step out onto the pitch and actually make sure that people understand what they can do. It comes down to others to get off the sidelines. ‘Get off the sidelines’, I hear the crowd shouting, ‘get on the pitch and show us exactly what you want to do.’ You earn the right to criticise when you develop your own position. You haven’t earned that right yet.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement? I warmly welcome this White Paper and I’m also very pleased that the Welsh Government has worked with Plaid Cymru to develop this. I think that the threat of Brexit is so immense that it is going to be essential for all of us who want to put the interests of Wales and our communities first to work together. I’ve got two particular questions. As the first Minister knows, my constituency is very dependent on manufacturing, in particular on automotive. I welcome the commitment in this document to maintain the widest possible access to the single market, but can I ask what other steps the First Minister intends to take to ensure that the automotive sector is protected, including how he intends to raise the needs of the automotive sector in his discussions with the UK Government?

Last week, I attended a conference at Swansea University to look at the implications of Brexit on children and young people in Wales. Concerns were expressed at that conference that so far there seems to have been fairly little consideration at Government level of the implications for children and young people, and I’m sure that you’re also aware that many young people feel very angry that a decision so crucial to their futures was taken for them by others voting in the referendum. I welcome the commitment in this document to ensuring the views of children and young people are listened to, but can I just ask for some more detail, please, on how the Welsh Government intends to make this a reality going forward?

Well, firstly, in terms of automotive, automotive is particularly dependent on the European market—particularly. So many automotive operations in the UK are part of a European operation: Ford is one, Toyota is one, Nissan is another one. It’s been said that we should look for alternative markets. The Ford engine plant doesn’t have an alternative market; it can only export to the EU. It’s got nowhere else to export engines to apart from the EU, so anything that interferes with its ability to export can only be bad for that plant because it’s got nowhere else to go, in reality. It’s the same for others who provide components, seats for cars—these are integrated European operations. We must make sure that the UK isn’t seen as an offshore island, divorced from the main market, rather than as part of the main market but perhaps with different arrangements.

As far as children and young people are concerned, I think there’s quite a dangerous divide in society at the moment. We all know it, but it’s particularly stark between older people and younger people, whose views are very, very different on Europe. My 16-year-old, she was quite stunned by it all, thinking, ‘Well, this is normal; why would we leave the European Union?’ Her view reflects—she’s not particularly political, despite her father, but she and many other children expressed that same view; youngsters expressed that view. It’s hugely important, then, that they are able to do that through the forums that we have. We have, of course, the commissioner, who can also represent the views of children and young people, and it might be something the commissioner might want to look at: how do you engage children and young people in this debate in the most effective way possible?

Thank you, First Minister, for the White Paper and your responses to questions today. I’ve a couple of questions for you myself and the first is your comment that in future we will still need to recruit from Europe for jobs in shortage areas. I absolutely don’t disagree with you that people need to come into the UK, into Wales as well, to meet those job shortages—you named some in your earlier answers—but I wondered whether you can clarify whether you think EU citizens should have preferential treatment in meeting that need. I think there’s an argument to be made that they should, but I’d like to hear what your argument on that is.

Secondly, I just want to add my voice to those who’ve regretted that this wasn’t a fully inclusive process in preparing this document. More than any other party in Wales, I think we represented the views of the Welsh people, insofar as we represented a range of views; we were not representing a single view. As such, perhaps we would have been a useful partner at the table in these early discussions, and I think it is worth remembering that, in terms of popular vote, both ourselves and Plaid Cymru had roughly the same amount of votes and, in excluding us from the table, you have excluded in these early stages those people who voted Conservative in the Welsh Assembly elections. Having said that, there are things in this White Paper that I think that we can agree with and I’m glad to have the opportunity now, even though we should have had it earlier. Having said that, as the Welsh Government is later than the other nations to the table in bringing forward a position, I wonder whether it mightn’t have been worth your waiting just another couple of days until the report of the external affairs committee was produced. That is a cross-party group that has taken and scrutinised, through cross-party means, evidence from third parties, and, as a result, produced a cross-party agreed report. That would’ve helped you, I think, persuade others in this Chamber that you have been more inclusive than you have been, because that report has not been used in an attempt—you’ve not had the opportunity to use that report to influence what you’ve put into the White Paper. Thank you.

In terms of preferences given to EU citizens, if you look at medicine, for example, it’s the same regulatory environment, so people would be used to working in the UK environment, because they’re used to working in a common EU environment, so I suppose they would have an advantage in that sense. The fact that there’s common recognition of qualifications is important. Now, one of the issues amongst many that have to be resolved is: will there be that common recognition in the future? Will UK doctors be able to work in Europe? The others, of course, the small ones, the ones that appear small, that we have to look at, are things like: will you be able to drive abroad on a GB licence? Will you be able to drive abroad on GB car insurance? Will you be able to drive abroad and enjoy European health insurance card cover? And, if not, will your premiums go up? There’s a lot of yapping from behind on the UKIP benches, but that’s the way it used to be. That’s the way it used to be: you couldn’t drive outside the UK unless you had a different international driving licence. I remember it. Secondly, your car insurance didn’t cover you if you drove outside the UK: you had to ring up the insurance company to get the cover. Now, unless these things are sorted, we’ll just go back to that and these are things that they don’t even think about in terms of the detail.

But, anyway, in terms of the other issues that were raised by the Member, Suzy Davies, can I suggest that, before we seek consensus across this Chamber, she might want to seek consensus in her own party? Because I know that, within her party, there are widely different views as to what the future should hold. And here’s my challenge for the Conservatives: come together, have a consensus in your own party, and produce your own document. Then, once you’ve produced your own document, we can talk. At the moment, it’s like talking to several headless chickens all at once. We have no idea what your position is. We have some of you who are even beyond UKIP, others who are very much in favour, or would’ve been very much in favour, of EU membership. My challenge to you is: why don’t you actually get together and sort out your own problems and your own tensions, before complaining that you’re outside of the process? And then you’ll have a situation where you can be listened to better.

The other point is this: nobody—. One of the things that—[Interruption.] There was a man on the touchline in Bridgend years ago, and all he did in games was shout out, just once a game—‘Ydy buddy bar’, he said. No-one knew what he was saying; no-one knew what he was saying at all. He was a character; no-one knew what it meant, but everyone could hear him. That’s the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. No-one knows what he’s saying; all they can do is listen to the clanging of an empty vessel. I say to him again: there’s no point him sitting there, having a go at everybody else when he hasn’t got off his behind to produce a Brexit plan himself, drawing on the people he’s got in his own group. Then, we can start, perhaps, to take him seriously.

The other issue, of course, that we don’t see here or don’t listen to—hear, rather—from the Conservative benches is criticism of the content of the White Paper itself. We’ve heard criticism of the process, but no-one has said—. Points have been made about migration, but, actually, what do you disagree with in the White Paper? What do you disagree with? Now, there’s a challenge: if you can come up, in the consultation on the White Paper, with areas where you disagree, then let’s hear it, rather than chuckling, shouting, and not actually contributing to the debate. So, my challenge to you is: yes, we’re more than happy to work with other parties, but it’s incumbent on other parties to work out what their own position actually is amongst themselves, rather than arguing amongst themselves, in order for them to present a united front in working with other parties. I’m afraid the Welsh Conservatives are nowhere near that at the moment.

I welcome today’s statement and I’m very pleased that Wales has a clear, reasonable and creative voice on this vital issue. I’m very pleased that Plaid Cymru has played a central role in this. Could I also agree with the comments of the Torfaen Member? This is such an important issue that it’s vital for us to come together for the benefit of our nation.

Of course, at the core of this is our economic benefit and interests and our constitutional interests as well. In the very brief time today, I’d like to focus my questions on the aspects of the White Paper where the Government and the Assembly have the authority to act immediately. For example, page 26 mentions creating a constitutional convention to redraw the British constitution to be a more federal system. Is it the intention, therefore, of the Government to propose this formally in the joint ministerial committee on Monday, or perhaps in the future? Or is the First Minister considering going further and having his own summit and inviting the other Governments in order to start the work on the constitutional convention?

Page 28 broaches the issue of this Assembly legislating if the great repeal Bill in Westminster does interfere with the Welsh constitution. We had evidence yesterday in the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee by the Cabinet Secretary for finance, who said that the Welsh Government lawyers were discussing the process with the Westminster lawyers at present on the great repeal Bill. When does the First Minister believe that we will see political intervention, or political collaboration, between the two Governments?

Page 23 notes the importance of renewing our relationship with the Republic of Ireland. I’m pleased that the First Minister mentioned this in his statement as well, and drew attention to the future of our ports, and the INTERREG project between the two nations. When does he intend to start the process of renewing our relationship with the Republic of Ireland? The Assembly has powers, and the Government has powers, already to have that kind of relationship. Is he intending to meet the Taoiseach in the near future to achieve this? In the same section, on page 23, there is a wish to strengthen Wales’s profile on the international stage. Could I ask the First Minister to publish a draft international policy that is comprehensive so that we can discuss it in this Assembly? It could focus on trade and attracting investment to Wales, but also a vision for a broader, outward-looking Wales, drawing attention to the political context as we leave the European Union.

Finally, many objectives in the White Paper are to do with keeping Wales part of projects that are open to non-EU member states, and many of them are to do with issues that are devolved. Therefore, what discussions is the First Minister intending to have in the near future to keep Wales, for example, a part of schemes such as Erasmus+ and Euro-Plus?

Could I finish by thanking the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for finance for their collaboration and co-operation over this recent period so that we could come together to create a national White Paper and, by doing so, project a clear, national voice at this very important time for Wales?

In terms of the White Paper, arrangements will be made to present the White Paper officially to the UK Government. That’s something we’re looking at at present. In terms of collaboration with other Governments—well, with Northern Ireland that isn’t possible at the moment because of the current situation there. With Scotland, historically the Scottish response has been, ‘Well, we’re considering an alternative pathway, namely independence, so there’s not much point collaborating on a constitutional convention’. We hope things will change, but that was the situation in the past.

In terms of what happens in the JMC, well, of course, the JMC itself is the place where discussion happens, or will happen, on projects such as ERASMUS+, Horizon 2020 and INTERREG, ultimately. We’ve already signalled that these will be something that we would wish to remain part of. In terms of Ireland, I will be going to Ireland in the next few weeks to meet with the Taoiseach. We have a close relationship with Ireland itself, and we must ensure that that relationship remains in place. I will also be visiting the United States at the end of next month. I always tend to go to Washington on St David’s Day, and that will be the case this year as well. The United States is a crucial market for Wales. They are the biggest investors in the Welsh economy and it’s crucial that that investment continues, bearing in mind the comments made by President Trump last week.

In terms of things having to change, at the moment it’s very difficult to attract investment from any company that wishes to be involved in manufacturing because they’re not sure what kind of access they will have to the European Union or the European market. There are some companies where that isn’t a factor—engine maintenance companies, for example, or companies working in parts of the market where it isn’t necessarily crucial to them. That, of course, is where we have to look, at the moment, in order to attract investment, because of the fact that there is that uncertainty as to what the nature of the relationship between the UK and the European Union will be in future. But the point I’ve always made is that Wales is still open for business, and we still visit countries. A number of Ministers will visit a number of nations on St David’s Day to sell Wales. One of the things we want to ensure is that people don’t get the impression that our doors are closed in terms of investment. Although there is uncertainty at the moment, we still welcome investment that creates jobs of the highest quality here in Wales.

Yesterday, the First Minister described his White Paper as balancing the message that the Welsh people gave us with the economic reality. It implies that the Welsh people don’t understand their economic interests or reality, that they somehow suffer from some false consciousness and must defer to the First Minister for their better economic interests. He says that, together with Plaid Cymru, the Welsh Government will speak for Wales, but on this issue, they don’t speak for Wales. Do they not understand—[Interruption.] Yes, we do. Fifty-three per cent of Wales voted to leave the European Union and are ignored by the First Minister, who prefers to team up with Plaid Cymru in a coalition of losers who told the Welsh people to vote ‘remain’ but were ignored by 53 per cent of those people who better understand their interests than he does.

Now, one thing we do learn from this paper is quite why the First Minister’s position has been so incoherent. From going from immediate demands for maintaining free movement to reversing that, what we see is that he’s been trying to nail down a common position with Plaid Cymru, but that joint position has the consistency of blancmange. He refers to full unfettered access to the single market and then goes on to say that that is referred to in the document as ‘single market participation’. But ‘single market participation’ is a weasel phrase: it is meaningless. It should be taken no more seriously than ‘The Beano’.

In her comments, Leanne Wood, initially refers to continued participation in the single market. Yet, she then goes on to extol the paper because it upholds the principle of freedom of movement and, therefore, full single market participation. We saw this in the motion that Plaid Cymru had last year calling for us to remain in the single market, on which the First Minister whipped his troops to, with us, vote down as inconsistent with the message of the Welsh people that freedom of movement had to end. He then, more recently, signed up to their amendment supporting membership of the EEA and/or EFTA—frankly a pathetic formulation that is utterly meaningless. It’s carried on in this document—and he wants us to refer to the document. In this paragraph, he says there are various options that

‘might involve UK membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), of which the UK was a member prior to joining the EU, and through this continuing to form part of the European Economic Area (EEA)’.

It is not through EFTA that Norway and Iceland are members of the EEA. They are members of the EEA because they joined it. Switzerland is in EFTA but it is not in the EEA. That is because the EEA is a very, very different thing from EFTA. EFTA is a free trade agreement. The EEA implies accepting an entire body of law and the ECJ’s determination of that law and it also implies going to our domestic economy. He talks about EU regulation, and yet when we export to the EU we must obey their regulation. But should we also obey all that regulation over our entire domestic economy of people who don’t export and should the ECJ have the final word over our laws? Those are the key questions, and a reference to ‘participation in the single market’ or ‘joining the EEA and/or EFTA’ is, frankly, a joke.

The opposition leader referred to ‘The Beano’. It was actually Keith Vaz, as a Labour Minister for Europe, who first referred to ‘The Beano’ in the context of the Charter of Fundamental Rights—it would have all the potency of ‘The Beano’—until actually it was interpreted to apply directly to all our laws. He cannot decide either what a common position is with Plaid Cymru, and has this pathetic phrase ‘participation in the single market’ to cover up those gaps—or is it to cover up his own lack of understanding? He’s unaware that Britain is a member of the WTO. He refers to the EU having a free trade agreement with China. Where on earth has he got this idea from? Does he not understand that TTIP is not a free trade agreement? It is agreement behind closed doors with corporate interests for a single regulatory space in which it’s illegal to sell anything unless it follows that single regulation set transatlantically without reference to our democratic Assemblies and Parliaments. He needs to determine what his own position is, rather than seek simply to cover up the position through a desperate desire to hug Plaid Cymru as close as he can on this issue. Actually, the only people left out of that are those who used to vote for his party—the 53 per cent of Wales who voted to leave—and many, many of those, instead of voting for his party when their opportunity comes, will vote for ours.

How grateful we all are to Mark Reckless for coming to Wales and telling us all, we poor people, what we didn’t know before. How marvellous it is that we have his wonderful brain power to tell us that we are all wrong and he's absolutely right. It’s beyond parody, the position that he took. Let me just quote two things at him. First of all, the Norway model that he disparages: ‘The Norwegian model is the preferred model’ said Arron Banks—Arron Banks, the money man behind UKIP. That’s what he said. They’re not my words; they’re the words of his own party. Daniel Hannan said the same thing—the Norwegian model. I remember the debate. I remember the debate in the referendum when people were told, ‘Don’t worry, we can have the Norwegian model,’ and the myth has been perpetrated that, somehow, this was a vote for a hard Brexit. It isn’t.

His party has no councillors in Wales at all. I can promise him that if he thinks Labour voters are going to follow a former Conservative MP into voting UKIP, then he needs to rethink his position, despite his obvious intellectual superiority. Can I remind him that the UK begged to join the European Community? It was desperate to join, and I don’t want to be in a position ever again in the future where the UK is desperate to join anything. That’s why it’s so important that we manage this process properly and effectively.

He said that the position we’ve taken was like blancmange. I have no idea what that metaphor means, but what I do know is that the position he’s taken is full of holes, like a Swiss cheese—that’s a better metaphor. It’s all basically this: ‘We will leave the EU, and the EU will fall at our feet.’ Can I suggest to him that that is the most naive position that any politician could possibly take in this Chamber or elsewhere?

Can I also talk about some of the other issues that he raised? This is the fundamental problem I have with the point that he makes on EU regulation. He is right: if we sell to the European market, we follow Europe’s rules, but if we sell in the UK market, we don’t follow them. So, in other words, the UK market will be provided with goods of less quality—shoddier goods—because the standards in the UK will be lower than the standards anywhere else in the world. That means that UK exporters won’t be able to export and the UK would be back in the position it was in in the 1970s when much of UK industry had the reputation of producing rubbish. We don’t want to be back in that position again. We want to make sure that the UK and Wales are an economy where people see we produce goods of the highest quality, priced fairly and, of course, goods that are produced at a premium for those premium markets. What he suggests is a future where the UK sits on its own—a protectionist future—and seeks free trade agreements with countries that have no interest in free trade agreements.

I beg him: show some realism. Show some realism. If you want to criticise, you have a perfect right to do so, but produce your own plan. Don’t just say, ‘This is all wrong, and what we say is all right.’ I have seen no plan from UKIP at all. He chucked the brick through the window; we’ve got to pick up the pieces. At least help to do it, rather than stand on the pavement on the other side criticising the people who are trying to do it. Now, I’m sure we are enlightened by the vast superiority that he displayed to us in the Chamber, but I say this to him: we will, as ever, as will Plaid Cymru, through this White Paper, defend the national interests of Wales, and I’d urge him to do the same.

I’m not going to dwell on the wider issues that have been discussed ad nauseam here today. Some of the differences have been quite wide. I want to focus on an area where there may just be scope for some more agreement. In saying that, as I open these remarks, can I welcome, in this respect, the considered tone of R.T. Davies in this regard? In referring to chapter 7—it’s the area of constitutional reform post Brexit—it’s one that clearly has piqued the interest of the committee that I chair. In fact, First Minister, I’ve got no doubt that an invitation will be winging its way to your office to come and speak to us, both about the proposals and the practicality of taking them forward, and perhaps, as well, the possibility of gaining some wider consensus on what are some quite bold proposals within there—not all of them are new; we’ve seen some of them reiterated by the Welsh Government and by other parties here before—but to bring them together in this document, and to suggest, actually, that there may now be not only a necessity of taking some of these proposals forward, but also the opportunity in taking them forward to heal some of the divisions that have—as we have just heard, and are still remaining out there in the country at large—arisen because of the EU referendum. Now, that’s an interesting area that I think we might be able to develop some consolidated thinking, some collective thinking, and maybe some agreement on.

You refer in chapter 7 to those deep divisions and that one way of taking this forward might well be to revisit the issue of a constitutional convention that would look at the relationship amongst the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and the relation of the devolved administrations to the UK Government and the UK Parliament. You say quite clearly that, in your belief and the belief of this White Paper, the UK should be remodelled around new, more federal structures.

You put forward the idea that you want to play an active part in taking forward the right structures to exist in this post-Brexit framework, and you recognise that there will be a need for a UK-wide framework, but in so doing you set out clear principles. I’d like to ask you perhaps for some more detail in respect of that. Your principles are the free consent of the three devolved legislatures and administrations to participate on equal terms with the UK Government. You see the UK Government representing the interests, in this respect, of England. And you see a model that retains at least the current levels of flexibility for those devolved nations and regions. Finally, the third point is that there needs to be robust and genuinely independent arbitration mechanisms to resolve any disputes.

Now, those are clear principles. I think it is worth all Assembly Members considering whether we can explore those and whether there is a degree of consensus around support that goes beyond the White Paper itself, because I think that would help take forward the right framework.

A couple of other points. In respect of international trade negotiations and competition policy, you note that

‘managing these policy areas will require much more serious and intensive inter-governmental mechanisms and…structures than those currently in place’ and that you look to proactively seek to develop those with a new political and constitutional landscape.

You refer to the Joint Ministerial Committee and the need for a complete overhaul in the view of this White Paper, and you propose there that it should be rebuilt into a UK council of Ministers, covering aspects of policy for which agreement of all four administrations is required—again, on that equality; on that parity between those.

Finally, the other point that is of great interest, of course, is your proposals here on the great repeal Bill and what that could do in terms of areas of devolved competence and why this—looking at the structure post Brexit, and in the transition period—is so important. So, there is plenty of constitutional meat in this White Paper. We would welcome, as a committee, the opportunity to quiz you more on this in addition to what you’ve been able to say today, and to appear before us at the earliest possible opportunity, and to see whether these measures that you propose are practical, are workable, are achievable, and could indeed have a wider consensus within this Chamber as well; because, surely, that is in the best interests of Wales.

I thank my colleague for those comments. At the heart of this is the issue that will face us over the next few years, and that is that Brexit must not be done in such a way that, as Britain leaves the EU, in future Britain no longer exists because the UK is fractured. We must make sure that those divisions are healed. There is no better way to make things worse than for Whitehall to try to take powers from the devolved administrations or to interfere in the internal devolved affairs of Wales. I do not believe the UK will survive that kind of approach.

So, we do need to make sure that the UK's machinery adapts to the reality of the twenty-first century. That does mean submitting to a system of independent arbitration where there are disputes. The point’s been made that, well, if we're within the single market, we may be subject to the judgments of the ECJ, but the reality is that we will still be subject to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. We will certainly be subject to the World Court. If we enter into a free trade agreement with any country, then we surrender an element of sovereignty, because we will surrender that sovereignty to an independent arbitrator. The ECJ is simply, in many ways, an arbitrator in a series of agreements. And so, if the UK has 50 free trade agreements, it will have 50 different arbitration mechanisms for dealing with those agreements that would override the UK Parliament. Again, it's not something that's been thought through as far as free trade agreements are concerned. And so, for me, what we need to work on is: to establish what is in effect a UK council of Ministers; to strengthen or build on the existing machinery of the JMC; for Whitehall to accept that, in fact, there are many areas in the future where there will need to be agreement not imposition—in farming and fisheries. Fisheries access is a major and complicated issue in terms of where access is granted, how much quota Wales will have, and, indeed, what sort of boats will have that quota, because Welsh fishing interests are entirely different to Scotland's and, for example, the north-east of England’s. All these issues will have to be resolved. They can only be resolved through a proper mechanism where resolution and agreement can be achieved, where there is an independent arbitration system outside of the UK Government and the Treasury, and in doing so, I believe that will help not just to preserve the single market of the UK, but help as well in terms of good relations between the nations of the UK itself.

I thank the First Minister.