The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the name of David Rowlands, and amendment 7 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

The next item therefore is the debate on the implications for Wales of leaving the European Union, and I call on the First Minister to move the motion. Carwyn Jones.

Motion NNDM6289 Jane Hutt

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Reiterates its strong support for the Welsh Government-Plaid Cymru White Paper, ‘Securing Wales Future’—as a credible and comprehensive approach to protecting and promoting Wales' interests as the UK leaves the European Union.

2. Takes note of the letter sent by the Prime Minister on 29 March 2017 in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union, and the draft negotiating mandate published by the President of the European Council in response.

3. Further notes the UK Government's White Paper ‘Legislating for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union’, published on 30 March 2017, setting out its proposals for legislation to give effect to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union but believes the analysis of the inter-relationship between the current powers of the EU and the devolution settlement is deeply flawed.

4. Reiterates that constitutional and governmental structures following the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union must be based on full respect for the devolution settlement, and improved arrangements for the conduct of inter-governmental relations based on mutual respect and parity of esteem between the four governments in the UK.

5. Further reiterates in the strongest terms that any frameworks relating to policy areas that are devolved that may be needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the UK market must be agreed by consensus between the UK Government and all three Devolved Administrations and be subject to independent dispute resolution mechanisms. The starting point for such common approaches and frameworks must be through agreement and consensus.

6. Supports the Welsh Government in continuing to press the UK Government for direct participation in the negotiations on the UK's withdrawal from, and future trading and other relations with, the European Union, to ensure protection of distinctive Welsh interests.

7. Reaffirms its view that there should be no financial disadvantage to Wales arising from the UK's exit from the European Union, and calls on the UK Government to make a full and public commitment to that effect.

8. Notes the Welsh Government's commitment to report regularly to the Assembly on progress in relation to these matters.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, following the issue of the article 50 letter last week, the UK Government has published a White Paper legislating for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. We were given a copy 24 hours before publication, but no opportunity to respond in draft form. I have commented before, of course, on our frustrations about the process for dialogue within the UK. I regret that the UK Government has chosen thus far to operate like this. It doesn’t have to be this way, but, of course, the Welsh Government will stick up for Welsh interests. We want what’s good for Wales and, indeed, the UK as a whole. It’s correct to say, Llywydd, that parts of the White Paper are ambiguous and need to be unpacked. The central purpose is sensible, but I have very significant reservations on the devolved aspects, which I will come to.

Llywydd, we’ve long argued for a managed transition from EU membership to our new position outside. The great repeal Bill will convert EU law into domestic law across the UK at the point of EU exit two years from now, and that’ll provide continuity and certainty for businesses and employees, as we adapt to new circumstances. We will retain, at least for an interim period, convergence with EU regulation, and this means that exporters to European markets, for example, can carry on exporting in compliance with the necessary standards. Over time, of course, things may begin to change, though ensuring broad alignment of environmental and employment standards is likely to be essential if we are to retain full and unfettered access to the single market. But a transition phase is surely a sensible and pragmatic starting point.

Llywydd, the precise implications of the White Paper will not be fully apparent until we see draft legislation. So, at this stage, we urge the UK Government to share their draft legislative proposals with us at the earliest possible time. The UK itself will have to contend with between 800 and 1,000 pieces of secondary legislation, and we know that there will be primary legislation on both customs and immigration, with a raft of other Bills to follow. It’s more likely than not that this Assembly will have to manage a significant volume of legislation in the years ahead, with considerable implications for scrutiny time.

Llywydd, I want to turn now to the specifics of devolution, as described in section 4 of the White Paper. The White Paper says,

‘The devolved settlements were…premised on EU membership.’

We do not accept that, certainly not as a basis for current and future policy. I do not believe that, in 1997 and 2011, people had EU membership uppermost in their minds when they were considering what response to give to those two referendums. It’s also a misrepresentation of the facts, I believe, to pretend that the UK Government alone has exercised the UK role in formulating EU frameworks on devolved matters. I know that’s not the case, because I was part of the framework that was agreed in Luxemburg when I was rural affairs Minister. On the contrary, the UK Government was, and is, bound to work with the devolved administrations in formulating a joint UK position on devolved issues within the EU decision-making process, such as the common agricultural policy. That is the position while we’re in the EU. We can accept nothing less outside the EU.

Just on that point, does he not agree with me, therefore, that the White Paper does not, in fact, take that interpretation that he has just set out and with which I agree, but rather takes an alternative interpretation that it’s been the UK, i.e. the English Government, that has led on these issues?

Well, that’s what I just said. They take an entirely different view from the position taken by, I believe, the vast majority of Members in this Chamber and, indeed, this Government and Governments elsewhere in the UK. As I said, the impetus for devolution was unrelated to the EU. It’s a matter of fact and history that, when devolution began, we were in the European Union, and the settlement had to take account of that. It’s now a fact that we will exit the EU and, as we do so, we must develop new ways of doing business within the UK to ensure that no barriers to trade are erected within our own internal market. But that’s a very different proposition from accepting that the UK Government should replace the EU institutions when it comes to competences that have already been devolved. We see that as false logic. Devolution is based on the wish of the Welsh people to govern their own affairs. It’s been tried and tested at two referendums, and the UK Government needs to recognise that the impetus for devolution was and is unrelated to our EU membership. The UK Government cannot choose to accept the result of one referendum and fudge the result of the referendum we had in 2011.

We have to be ready to consider the potential for the Assembly to pass its own continuity legislation, as proposed by the Plaid Cymru amendment, but in our view, that should be a last resort. We don’t know yet how much legislation will be needed. Whether it can, in fact, be consolidated in one Bill or not, we do know that this will be an unsettling period for Welsh businesses and organisations, and they will need to receive comfort in that regard. So, with regard to amendment 7, we’ll abstain today, but only on the basis that it’s unclear as yet how much will be needed in terms of legislation in the future.

We do readily accept the need for common frameworks across the UK in certain areas. We’ve got plenty to say about this in the White Paper. The way to ensure that we have policy coherence, where this is needed, is for the four Governments together to sit down and agree frameworks. This has to be done through consensus, not imposition. I’ve said that many, many times. The question—

Steffan Lewis rose—

Of course.

Can he elaborate today, therefore, on what the Welsh Government’s deadline is for clarity from the British Government on its intentions in terms of the repeal Bill and the other legislation that will give the clear indication about whether or not this place needs to legislate on its own constitutional settlement?

It’s when we see the Bill itself. That will give us a better idea of what the UK Government is thinking. When we see what is the self-described great repeal Bill, then, of course, it will be available to this Assembly, and indeed the Welsh Government, to offer an opinion at that time. But I would expect there to be greater clarity, whether that is positive or negative, when that Bill is actually published.

The question is asked, of course: what happens if no agreement can be reached? We accept that, in those circumstances, there must be a backstop arrangement. We believe that the answer is an independent form of arbitration. I’ve said before that we need to ensure that if we have an internal single market with rules, that those rules are agreed, not imposed, and secondly that there’s an independent adjudication mechanism such as a court—it could be the Supreme Court—that polices the rules of that internal single market. We’re open to further discussion about this and what it might look like in practice, but what we can’t accept is that the UK Government should impose itself in areas like agriculture and fisheries, which are fully devolved, in accordance with the wishes of the Welsh people, as expressed through a referendum and legislated for by the UK Parliament itself. It’s further been suggested that there is a case for replicating, through UK legislation, current frameworks provided by EU rules in order to—it is said—provide legal and administrative certainty. If nothing changes, then we will exit the EU in March 2019—it is said—in accordance with the terms of article 50. There are genuine issues about workable arrangements as we transition from EU membership to life outside. That’s why we included a chapter on that in the White Paper.

We note that the UK Government talks about working closely with the devolved administrations, as they say they want to deliver an approach that works for the whole and each part of the UK. I couldn’t disagree with that. We want to work with the UK and our devolved counterparts on the basis of mutual respect and parity of esteem. The UK Government can help to build trust in two ways. First, it needs to recognise that—to adapt a well-known phrase—devolution means devolution; what is already devolved stays devolved. And second, that any measures designed as transitional should clearly be labelled as such through the adoption of sunset clauses. It’s hopelessly inadequate for the UK Government to make vague promises about potential future devolution and expect this Assembly simply to fall in line, especially when they’re talking about competences that we believe are already devolved to us.

We know, however, Llywydd, that powers mean little or nothing unless they are accompanied by the resources to match the policy. I haven’t forgotten—and the people of Wales won’t forget—that promises were made that Wales wouldn’t be a penny worse off as a result of exiting the EU. We will hold those who made that promise to that promise, because Wales gets around £680 million annually in EU funding. We do not expect that money to stick to someone’s back pocket in Whitehall. We expect that money to come to Wales. We expect that money to come to underpin our rural and regional economy and, of course, other programmes like Horizon 2020, from the point of departure from the EU.

Now, we do want to work constructively. We want a place in the next stage of negotiations. The future of the UK outside the EU is as much a matter for this Government and this Assembly as it is for the UK Government and Parliament. The UK Government now has a chance to live up to its rhetoric and genuinely move forward in ways that bind us together in the common cause of achieving the best EU exit terms possible—the creation of a reformed, dynamic, democratic UK outside the EU—but that will require a fundamental change of Whitehall mindset. If they grasp that chance, then of course we can look to work together as equal partners within the UK in the future.

I turn, finally, to the amendments put forward by UKIP. It will come as no surprise, I am sure, to those that proposed these amendments, that we will today not accept any of them. For most of them, the world is seen from a very different perspective if you are a member of UKIP than from our perspective. But one I will refer to now, before dealing with the others, perhaps, as I respond, is amendment 6, and that’s on the issue of tariffs. The amendment fails to recognise that tariffs are taxes on consumers. The cost of a tariff is simply passed on to the consumer of that good: £8 billion a year in tariffs is money raised by the UK Government from UK consumers, not from those who export into the UK. That is a tax of some £120 or £130 a year per head that would have to be paid as a Brexit tax, in effect, by each man, woman and child within the UK. We do not think that that is a sensible way forward.

Will the First Minister give way?

Of course I will.

Does he not understand that, simply as a matter of economic analysis, how those tariffs will fall in terms of the split between consumers and suppliers, and how much they get passed on, will depend on the competitive nature of that market?

The whole point of a tariff is to protect what is produced in a country. It is to impose a barrier against goods coming into a country by making them more expensive to consumers. That’s the whole point of a tariff. The imposition of tariffs—there are many different tariffs, that’s true—but the most stringent tariffs are on dairy products, at 40 per cent. There is no way that those tariffs will be absorbed by those who sell into the UK market. The cost will be passed on to UK consumers, and vice versa, as farmers from Wales and the rest of Britain seek to export into the EU. At the end of the day, the consumer always pays the tariff, and that would mean, in effect, a huge increase in taxation as far as consumers are concerned. It doesn’t have to be that way.

We have always said that there are a number of different options available that would mean that we can leave the EU—respecting the referendum result, of course—while at the same time avoiding our manufacturers and farmers losing access to a market of 500 million and gaining instead free access to a market of only 60 million. I don’t believe that’s in the interests of anybody, and that is something that I know the UK Government, in fairness, is keen to avoid, and something that we will support them in looking to avoid as well.

There are many challenges ahead. That much is true. This is a very complicated divorce. The people have spoken, and there is no going back to the referendum result last year, but it’s absolutely crucial that, as we look forward, we minimise disruption and we ensure that the growth of the Welsh economy over the last few years is not jeopardised over the decade to come.

I have selected the seven amendments to the motion. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, tabled in the name of David Rowlands. Neil Hamilton.

Amendment 1—David J. Rowlands

Delete point 1 and replace with:

Believes that the Welsh Government-Plaid Cymru White Paper, ‘Securing Wales Future’ lacks credibility on account of its unrealistically pessimistic assumptions of the alleged costs of Brexit.

Amendment 2—David J. Rowlands

In point 3, delete 'but believes the analysis of the inter-relationship between the current powers of the EU and the devolution settlement is deeply flawed'.

Amendment 3—David J. Rowlands

In point 5, delete 'must be agreed' and replace with 'should be agreed'.

Amendment 4—David J. Rowlands

In point 5, delete 'The starting point for such common approaches and frameworks must be through agreement and consensus' and replace with:

'Recognises that the conduct of the Scottish and Welsh Governments in continuing to fight the referendum campaign after the result on June 23 2016 renders such an outcome unrealistic'.

Amendment 5—David J. Rowlands

Delete point 6.

Amendment 6—David J. Rowlands

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that, should EU intransigence preclude a free trade agreement with the UK, the transitional costs of Brexit based on WTO rules would be significantly alleviated by the saving of Britain's £8 billion a year net contribution to the EU Budget, and a likely net revenue on tariffs on trade between the EU and UK of £8 billion a year.

Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I formally move the amendments down in my name.

There is little that one could disagree with in what the First Minister has just said. Clearly, we are going to be in a very different world administratively and legislatively outside the EU than within it, and I will say this right at the outset: that there must be no going back on the devolution settlement, and the powers that have been devolved to this Assembly should not in any way be eroded or obscured by whatever happens as part of the Brexit process. It is a matter of law what has already been devolved to the Assembly, and certainly agriculture and environment are going to be very important powers for us to exercise in years to come. It gives us greatly enhanced power in Wales to make for ourselves an agricultural policy or an environmental policy that better suits our needs. As the First Minister, and, indeed, the Government’s White Paper, together with Plaid Cymru, point out, there are many differences between the Welsh economy and the economy of the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular there is, as we know, a trade surplus in goods between Wales and the EU, whereas for the rest of the UK it’s very much the other way round.

But we can’t see this purely in a Welsh context because it is the United Kingdom that is going to be leaving the EU, not just Wales, and Wales has to see itself in the context of the United Kingdom, from which there are massive benefits in terms of fiscal transfers that it would lose if we were to take the nationalist position and become an independent nation politically. That’s not a dispute that we want to argue at length today. But what I want to say, as a result of this debate, is that the world is full of opportunities, not least for our own country to take advantage of them.

The First Minister referred to our amendment in relation to tariffs. We put this amendment down not because we want to move to a protectionist policy—we are a free-trading party. We think tariffs are a foolish way in which to try to protect your industries because, at the end of the day, all you do is institutionalise inefficiency and make yourself less competitive in the world. There’s a wealth of academic analysis that proves the truth of that.

The figures that are mentioned in the amendment are not our figures. They’re produced not, indeed, by a Eurosceptic body. They were produced by Open Europe, which was rather dispassionate and neutral on this issue and was actually in favour of Britain remaining inside the EU. The net effect of the tariffs that we refer to reflect the massive imbalance in trade between Britain as a whole and the rest of the European Union. We have a £60 billion a year trade deficit with the EU overall and, if we were to revert to WTO tariffs in two years’ time, on account of the intransigence of the European Union—. Because the British Government has made its decision perfectly clear: that it wants to see tariff-free trade, frictionless trade, between Britain and the rest of the EU after we leave. But, if the EU prevents us from doing that, then the impact will be felt more in terms of pounds on the European Union than it will be on Britain. If tariffs are introduced, then the net impact will be as described in our amendments. We will be very much in pocket.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

Do you believe the likely outcome for the people of the United Kingdom will be a tariff tax on goods?

Well, that assumes rationality on the part of the European Union negotiators. I very much hope that we will not have. I have to say that the evidence over the last week is not encouraging, with Chancellor Merkel wanting to detach negotiations on trade from other issues that divide us, which is not sensible given we have only a two-year timeframe within which to reach a trade deal. The gratuitous addition of Gibraltar to the negotiations is another irritant that is not likely to assist a sensible resolution of the arguments between us. But it must surely be massively in the interests of the EU, as well as for this country, for us to facilitate trade rather than to obstruct it.

Given that, for Germany alone, we have a £20 billion a year deficit in cars, just in that one sector, then it’s clearly in Germany’s interest, as the motor of the EU, to use its weight and influence to achieve the outcome that would be mutually beneficial—one of free trade. What goes for cars goes for all sorts of areas of trade between us, even in agricultural products, which the First Minister quite rightly refers to, because agriculture is a balkanised market all around the world. Even where we do have free trade agreements with other countries, very often agriculture is marked out as being different and remains subject to all sorts of trade restrictions.

Even in the case of lamb, for example, we actually have a trade deficit in the UK in sheep meat. Therefore, although for Wales this is a massively important issue for agriculture, because we export such a huge proportion of our production of lamb, in the UK as a whole, which will be negotiating for us, we have an opportunity to ensure a sensible outcome.

I see the red light is on, Llywydd, and I’ve not been able to develop my argument because I was seduced by Rhianon Passmore into going down an avenue that I hadn’t intended to. But the main point I want to make is that this is an opportunity for us and not a threat. It’s a challenge, of course, but life is full of challenges. Any business worth its salt knows it has to change. Nothing ever stands still. Let us grasp this opportunity and make the best of it for the people of Wales.

I call on Leanne Wood to move amendment 7, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 7—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to bring forward a continuation (Wales) bill in order to uphold Wales's constitution and convert into Welsh law all European legislation related to devolved policy areas.

Amendment 7 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the amendment in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Plaid Cymru believes that the act of leaving the European Union will have a profound effect on Wales as a nation. Last week, we witnessed two major events that will enable the UK Government to take Wales and England out of the European Union. The fact that only two parts of the UK want to, and are definitely going to, leave already speaks volumes about the tectonic changes that are taking place, and it demonstrates that we in Wales must protect and defend our national interests. We cannot be a silent bystander or spectator. We must use whatever leverage we have to create our own voice and to carve out a distinct position if Wales is to have its own future, distinct and different from that of England.

Both the article 50 letter and the repeal Bill White Paper refer to Wales. But, to Plaid Cymru, the UK Government isn’t acting as if Wales exists at all. Plaid Cymru continues to give its strong support to the joint White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, as the most comprehensive outline of the Welsh national interest for the Brexit process, but we don’t see enough evidence that the UK Government has listened. We are not convinced that, to date, consultation has been genuine.

The article 50 notification makes clear, once and for all, that the UK Government will take us out of the single market. The question for us now is what a free trade agreement will look like and whether it will include tariff or regulatory barriers. Will there be some sectors of the Welsh economy that face tariffs and others that don’t? Business doesn’t want this uncertainty. Employers will need to know the playing field well in advance of Brexit taking place.

Llywydd, perhaps the greatest challenge arising from the UK Government announcements last week is the future as to how the UK works internally. The original motion recognises this to some extent, and the Plaid Cymru amendment today confronts that challenge and offers a solution: a continuation bill for Wales to uphold our current constitutional status. That constitution has been endorsed by people in Wales as recently as the 2011 referendum. The common EU frameworks are discussed in chapter 4 of the UK Government White Paper. Those frameworks are the foundation upon which this Assembly operates. The replacement of those frameworks with new arrangements to protect the UK single market is a recipe for a Westminster power grab.

The repeal Bill White Paper gives the UK Government the power to create new UK frameworks. They say they will consult with the devolved Governments, and, at best, they will work intensively with them, but we aren’t here to be consulted with. As the First Minister has already said, Wales already co-decides the UK position on EU frameworks. These responsibilities rest with Wales and they are for us to share and negotiate, not for Westminster to impose. That’s why Plaid Cymru wants this continuation bill. We should act in the most decisive way possible to make sure that the balance of power within this state does not shift even further towards Westminster, and I would encourage the Welsh Government to look seriously at this option.

If you share our analysis, then I urge you to take action and support this amendment. This can’t be a last resort. We have a relatively small window of opportunity here; don’t delay in taking it. Don’t wait for the Tories to change their mindset and don’t abstain. Please back Plaid Cymru’s amendment on this today.

Llywydd, we will be opposing UKIP’s amendment. They offer nothing whatsoever in terms of protecting the Welsh national interest. They would delete the need for agreement and consensus between devolved and Westminster Governments. They also talk of EU intransigence at a time when Wales needs friends and allies in the rest of Europe. And isn’t it interesting to note that UKIP is the only party talking about the referendum in their amendments today? Why do UKIP seem so obsessed with the referendum? Is it, perhaps, because they have no vision whatsoever beyond that result? And we’re still waiting to hear their plan. The debate has moved on. [Interruption.] It’s now about securing the Welsh national interest during the negotiations ahead of us.

The original motion today describes and analyses that situation. There’s nothing in that motion that we can disagree with; it’s just a description. On the other hand, the Plaid Cymru amendment proposes action. A continuation Bill is the next immediate step we should take to secure that position. Future UK frameworks covering the single market, agriculture or any other fields that interact with devolution must be co-produced and co-decided. As far as the Party of Wales is concerned, nothing less is acceptable and I would urge the Chamber to support our amendment today. I’ve run out of time, sorry.

I’m very pleased to take part in this very important debate today. It makes absolute sense for the powers in the devolved areas that lie in Europe, such as agriculture and fisheries, to be transferred back to Wales. I think there’s absolutely no case for the UK Government to in any way take back any of those powers, because I think, as the First Minister said in his introduction, that these powers have been devolved, a referendum has been won, and I agree with the First Minister that EU membership had no role at all in the votes in the devolution referendums. In her letter, the Prime Minister says that the UK Government

‘will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.’

I think it is very important that this issue is cleared up as soon as possible because the Prime Minister is obviously hinting at what may be the outcome for Wales, but there also is the hint of holding something back as well. So, I think it’s really important that this is cleared up because it’s very hard to see, if the powers didn’t come back to Wales, where on earth they could sit in the UK Government because it’s not possible to recreate the Welsh Office. All of the Secretary of State’s powers were transferred to the Welsh Assembly in 1998 and devolution was won and the transfer took place. It would be ludicrous to add Welsh functions on to the equivalent English departments for agriculture and fisheries, for example. So it makes absolute sense for them to come to Wales. If, of course, as a result of negotiation, additional responsibilities do come to Wales it is essential that the money comes as well.

It’s obviously more complicated where a field is not devolved, like scientific research, for example, which I wanted to refer to, where there is a lot of devolved spending by the Welsh Government, but responsibility is with the UK-wide research councils. Obviously, this is the same in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Of course, the UK is a net beneficiary. It’s absolutely key that Wales does not lose out on any of this funding. I repeat, as others have said today, we were promised that we would not lose one penny by leaving the EU and we do expect to see that promise fulfilled. There are key figures in the UK Government who are negotiating on this who campaigned strongly to get out of the EU and they said all these things, and we do have to hold them responsible to make sure it happens. Of course, there are key figures here in this Assembly who also campaigned for us to leave the EU and I think they bear a heavy responsibility for this and we expect them—those people who did campaign so strongly—to make sure that this does actually happen. I think this is absolutely vital.

In my constituency, research funding is a key issue so I wanted to mention that, but I also wanted to mention, before I finish, the real importance of human rights and the hard-won rights that we have gained from Europe. I know that the Government is committed to making sure that the same laws apply, including equality laws, at the point of the UK’s exit from the EU. Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee has recommended that the great repeal Bill is an opportunity to make real the Government’s promise to give the same or better protections on equality after Brexit, and recommends there should be a clause in the great repeal Bill saying that there should be no going back on equalities. Maria Miller, who is the chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, said:

‘If the Government wants to maintain the current level of equality protection for vulnerable groups including pregnant women and disabled travellers’— there’s been a news report on issues there today—

‘it must take active steps to embed equality into UK law.’

‘There are two concrete priorities which the Government should focus on: first, to include a clause on equality in the Great Repeal Bill saying that there will be no going backwards on current levels of equality protections, and second, to amend the Equality Act 2010 to empower Parliament and the Courts to declare whether new laws are compatible with equality principles.’

I think it is absolutely essential that we keep all those hard-won rights, that we keep all the equality rights that we have got, that they are embedded in the law, and I think we must make absolutely certain that happens. So, as I said earlier, I think there’s a heavy burden on some of our Assembly Members to make sure that Wales does not come out of this any worse. I urge everyone here in the Chamber to use all their influence to make sure that we do manage to survive.

Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister formally notified the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. As her letter began, the decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the EU

‘was no rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans.... the United Kingdom wants the European Union to succeed and prosper…. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe—and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends across the continent.’

The First Minister promised to deliver this debate on this issue. It is therefore regrettable that the Welsh Government motion instead begins with reference to the Welsh Government-Plaid Cymru White Paper, despite this already having been debated here and having been overtaken by events since. As I said in the 7 February debate on this—.

Will you take an intervention, Mark?

Yes, of course.

I thank you for taking the intervention. Are you therefore disappointed that the UK Government has actually not responded to the Welsh Government’s White Paper to show how it’s been included in the considerations for the negotiations?

Unfortunately, the timing of the Welsh Government’s White Paper came after events, as you were following rather than leading.

As I said in 7 February debate on this, although their White Paper

‘calls for full and unfettered access to the EU single market, and although EU rules make this impossible after border control is restored to the UK, this is not inconsistent with the UK Government’s desire for a free trade deal without membership.’

‘We will continue to attract the brightest and the best, allowing a sovereign UK to determine and meet the workforce needs of our economy and society, be they engineers, scientists, health professionals, carers or farm workers. But the voice of the people was clear; there must be control.’

The UK Government is closely engaged with a high-level stakeholder working group on EU exit, universities, research and innovation, to ensure that the UK builds on its strong global position in research and innovation excellence after leaving the EU. There is already agreement between the UK and the EU that guaranteed rights for EU citizens living in the UK, and for UK citizens living in the EU, will be a priority for the negotiations. The Prime Minister stated that supporting integration and social cohesion means fully respecting and, indeed, strengthening the devolution settlements, but, she said, never allowing our union to become looser and weaker, or our people to drift apart.

Speaking on the article 50 process in the House of Commons, she expressed her expectation that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making powers of each devolved administration. Although uncompromising on core principles, the EU draft negotiating guidelines have flexibility to allow for a deal acceptable to both sides. In response to that, the UK Government reiterated that it is seeking a deep and special relationship with the EU on trade and the many other areas where we have shared aims and values, and that it is confident that such an outcome is in the interests of both sides.

As the Assembly’s chief legal adviser briefed yesterday, when we leave the EU, restrictions on the ability of the devolved administrations to legislate in areas not reserved to the UK Government will disappear. The Labour-Plaid Cymru White Paper calls for a UK framework to provide legal underpinning for effective regulation of issues such as the environment, agriculture and fisheries, which are heavily governed by EU law. And the great repeal Bill White Paper outlines a holding pattern to deliver certainty on exit day by preserving repatriated law, and allowing the UK Government to work with the devolved administrations on UK frameworks.

As the National Farmers Union states, an agricultural framework should prevent unfair competition between devolved administrations, and secure and protect adequate long-term funding for agriculture. And the Farmers Union of Wales has urged the Welsh Government to be ambitious in reviewing EU-derived legislation that adds unnecessarily to the bureaucratic burden faced by farmers.

The UK economy was the fastest growing G7 economy last year. A survey published yesterday found that global central bankers favour sterling over the euro as a long-term stable reserve investment.

When our great union of UK nations sets its mind on something and works together, we are an unstoppable force. No-one in the UK or the EU—

Member of the Senedd:

Will you take an intervention?

No, I’m sorry.

[Continues.]—wins if everyone ends up weaker from this process. So, let us condemn and reject any single-issue bandwagon-jumping enemy within who seeks to undermine the development of a new relationship with the EU in order to weaken and divide our islands and destroy our United Kingdom, whether they’re in Scotland or whether they’re simply mimicking their heroes from Scotland. With optimism, we can embrace this opportunity to build a dynamic, global future, but this will only happen if Carwyn’s doomsday cult climbs off its one-trick pony.

If anyone ever wonders why I’m a Welsh nationalist, they should listen to the comments of the previous speaker. Llywydd, it was correctly foreseen by many that the UK repeal Bill or related legislation might pose a threat to the current constitution of Wales in terms of our competence as democratically mandated by the people of Wales in two referenda. The concern is based on the fact that, if the UK withdraws from the European single market, as intended by the UK Government, then, for the first time since 1973, there will be a UK internal market and it will require frameworks in order to operate effectively. Of course, in 1973, there was no devolution and a new UK internal market will inevitably have frameworks that impact upon devolved policy issues.

The Welsh national White Paper makes constructive and practical proposals for how such frameworks can be established through a UK council of Ministers, with each Government of the UK acting as equal partners and agreeing between them shared frameworks where appropriate. At present, where European frameworks impact upon devolved functions, a common UK position is agreed among the Governments of the UK before a European council meeting, and that common, pre-agreed position is presented.

Paragraph 4.2 of the UK Government’s White Paper on the repeal Bill, published last week, misrepresents that current practice and it does so as a pretext for centralising powers over the UK internal market at the UK level. We know that much because the Secretary of State for Wales last weekend said that the governance of the UK’s internal market is reserved to Westminster, and, upon leaving the EU, UK frameworks would be determined at Westminster and divvied up afterwards to different levels, as they in Westminster see fit. The devolved administrations will be little more than consultees on matters that are clearly under their jurisdiction already.

In pre-empting this, the Welsh national White Paper, on page 28, says, and I quote:

‘We await sight of the detail UK Government’s Bill to inform further thinking about whether the Parliamentary Bill adequately reflects the devolution settlement. If, after analysis, it is necessary to legislate ourselves in the National Assembly for Wales in order to protect our devolved settlement in relation to the Bill, then we will do so.’

Llywydd, it is my view and that of my party that the devolution settlement has not been adequately reflected in the UK Government White Paper. Indeed, that is recognised by the Welsh Government in point three of their motion today, and it is now necessary for this National Assembly to legislate. I do not underestimate the work that will be required to achieve this, but, given that it is the intention of the UK Government to bring forward their repeal Bill by mid-September, the window of opportunity we have to act is very limited. Within a few months, we may have lost not just the opportunity to act; we may have lost responsibilities that have been entrusted to us by the people of this country.

I urge all Members here on all sides who believe in a genuine family of nations in these islands, and who want fair governance of the UK’s internal market, to uphold the provision of the Welsh White Paper by supporting our amendment today calling for a continuation Bill. Whether we were ‘leave’ or ‘remain’ last year, and whether we are nationalists or unionists today, we all promised the people of Wales that we would not allow this country to be worse off either financially or in terms of powers. Let us deliver on that commitment to them today by backing Plaid Cymru’s amendment.

Let’s be clear about one thing, that there is little to celebrate—nothing to celebrate in fact—about the actions of the UK Government in the last couple of weeks. The only virtue of serving the article 50 notice is that it puts to bed the question of whether or not we are embarking on a process of leaving the European Union. What we now have an opportunity to do is to fight for the kind of Brexit that we want in Wales’s interests, and, unlike Mark Isherwood’s somewhat partial recollection of the paper between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru, I think that sets out a very clear direction of travel for the kind of Brexit that we want for Wales.

But we also need, in tandem with that, to be addressing the kind of Wales that we want to be after Brexit. For those who campaigned to leave, leaving the European Union was the first step, not the last word. And they have a very different vision of Wales and of the UK than most of us in this Chamber. We’ve heard Philip Hammond talking about a new economic order, and Theresa May arguing for fundamental change as a result of the decision. The majority in this Chamber do not want to see that, and vast though the task is of handling Brexit, we all need to engage in that bigger battle against those values as well as that version of Brexit and argue for the kind of Wales that we want to be beyond that.

Turning to the issue of the Plaid Cymru amendment on the continuation Bill, this comes down to a question of powers and a question of funding. In a sense, the proposal for a continuation Bill is an alternative to putting our faith in the UK Government to protect our interests in the European repeal Bill. It would have the effect of putting into Welsh law the body of EU law in relation to devolved areas, giving Welsh Ministers the right to amend that in technical terms and asserting the right of this Chamber as a body of accountability and also asserting its legislative competence. In a sense, it would be a made-in-Wales version of the repeal Bill, designed to protect the Welsh devolution settlement. It seems to me, for reasons that other speakers have already given, that that settlement is very likely to need protecting.

Both the original White Paper and the paper we saw last week describe powers coming to Wales ‘where that is appropriate’. What neither of those two documents say is that powers will come to Wales in accordance with the current devolution settlement. Now, you might argue that a continuity or continuation Bill in relation to the devolved areas might be seen as a first step rather than as a safety net, and I suppose that is the case in some ways, unless you reflect on the fact that, in this Chamber, it’s not just about the powers that we have, but the funding that we have, and that, actually, is a much bigger question.

We focus on receiving our powers from statute and that’s right, but we still receive our funding, basically, on the basis of a handshake. We know that Barnett is broken; we’ve known that for a long time, and though the fiscal framework takes forward issues around reflecting need and independence of adjudication, that is not enough. Surely, what Brexit has done is throw into stark relief that now is the time to put our funding on a statutory basis, both in terms of the baseline funding—what we get through Barnett—but also on a fair deal for European funding, for the lost European funding.

I think we need a funding statute—a kind of small constitution, if you like—that sets out the obligation to fund, the principles on which we will be funded, which would be redistribution and reflecting need, and the judicial mechanism for resolving disputes between different parts of the UK. Most modern states find that pretty natural. The UK Government finds it something that they have to struggle with, but I think, coming out of Brexit, the one thing that people do understand is the importance of funding for the future of Wales, and I think—

Will the Member give way on that one?

Yes.

Would the Member agree, just on that point, that what he is, in fact, advocating, is a federal system for the United Kingdom?

I don’t know if it’s a federal system, but I’m advocating a system that has a statutory fair funding mechanism to protect Wales. And I believe that, coming out of the Brexit argument, people understand the need for that, and we should argue for that future.

In June 2017, the citizens, by a small but sufficient majority, said two things, I think, to us. They did not want to remain part of European governance. I know we hear often about we’re still European—of course we are, and we’re part of that great cultural inheritance, but we did vote to remove ourselves from European governance and we will face consequences for that.

Secondly, I think they said that we need to take care much more of those left behind. It was a huge message, shared in many western societies, it has to be said, but it seems to me that message is that our society’s not cohesive enough, and many people feel they don’t get a fair deal. This has been a particular crisis, really, to have hit since the financial difficulties of 2008, which sparked the great recession, and it’s this bit we really need to concentrate on as we, in the National Assembly, get to grips with Brexit, because it’s our whole governance at the moment that many people feel is not producing at the level it needs to produce, so we must remember those that are left behind.

So, a small majority voted to leave the European Union, but I think for all of us unionists in this Chamber—and I respect those that are not—we must realise that it will require a large majority to rejuvenate the UK’s union. This is not about preserving Britain, it is about rebuilding Britain, and that work will require great vision, generosity, and an awareness that we now need a new relationship between the UK’s nations. We are in a very different position to the one we were in in 1973, and that is certainly the case, and, indeed, this is why, broadly speaking, I’m prepared to back the idea of a council of Ministers to take forward now the JMC process and make it more predictable, formal, and much more at the heart of our governance arrangements. I have to say I’m an optimist in terms of—I think a lot of the language is fairly austere at the moment in terms of ‘we must protect our patch’, and in this time of great change and uncertainty we don’t fully trust our other partners, be they in Scotland, London, wherever, and I think we need to get over this. We need to think of what functions we need. We need to ask ourselves what is required for the UK market to operate, not just over the economy, which, broadly, is not contested, but over areas like agriculture and the environment.

We need to be very, very cautious about what we wish for, because I think any argument that is basically saying that current competences, which were examined a few years ago in that foreign office study, and basically decided that what was at the EU level was appropriately at the EU level—. To argue that those current competences that underwrite the European frameworks that we are now leaving, that those competences go from the supra-state level straight down to the sub-state level without stopping in-between—really, I think we need to be cautious about these very purist arguments that remind me of the medieval church’s debates on the nature of the hypostatic union; I mean, you missed the big picture. We need the UK to work as an integrated—

Will the Member give way?

[Continues.]—enterprising market. Yes.

I think the point is that the powers are already here now and they are pooled at the moment to European Union level, and, when we leave the European Union, the powers will remain here. There isn’t a repatriation of powers; we have competence in these fields now. It is not a matter of them being transferred to London or Brussels or Cardiff, or wherever else; they are here now, that is the fundamental point.

Well, a wise civil servant once told me that the true test of maturity is the ability to live with paradox, and I really think that we must recognise that what—. You know, the great truth here is that in 1997/8/9, when we moved to decentralised Government and devolution in this country, the framework was that we were within the girdle of the European Union. No-one thought at that time—apart from our friends to my right, and it was a distant dream then—that we would leave that framework. That was the foundation, really, of the devolved settlement, and had that not then existed, I think very different arrangements would have been required in terms of the environment and many other policies. But you are right, one can read it the way you do, but I don’t think functionally it gets you very far, because you’re basically saying, ‘Yes, we want all these powers, we may give some of them back to the—

No, we have them. We have them already.

Well let me just use the language as I choose.

‘And by the way, what we do want London to have are all the obligations to finance the policies that we will now put in place.’ Frankly, if we don’t have functional competences at the levels we need them, which has always been the pro-European argument—now you’re a little Brexiteer in saying, ‘No, no, we’ve got to go micro and get everything back and defend it’. We need to pool these things; we need to work effectively.

But here I do—and I conclude on this, because my time is running out—we do need effective, inter-governmental structures. And it is something that the UK Government is going to have to work very hard on, and sincerely on, and with great vision, and with give and take. Thank you.

I’m delighted to follow David Melding. I apologise to him for my inability to engage in the debate over the hypostatic union of the medieval church. Perhaps we can discuss offline.

Can I say that I hope that the process of the two-year withdrawal will help bring people together, within our United Kingdom and within the Assembly? I believe that the article 50 letter, as delivered by the Prime Minister, was a masterpiece of diplomatic language. I don’t know whether the First Minister has been convinced that it’s better than a straight, ‘We hereby withdraw the United Kingdom under article 50 of the treaty of the European Union’, but as a diplomatic piece of setting the basis of our discussions and our desire for a wide-ranging trade and security—and beyond—relationship, I felt it read in a very compelling way.

I think there was—

David Rees rose—

May I just carry on for a little while?

I think there was probably much to and fro between the UK Government and the European Council in terms of seeing each other’s drafts and commenting, and already a degree of, if not of negotiation, at least mutual feedback. That doesn’t appear to have happened with the devolved administrations, and I share some of the First Minister’s regrets about that. But he must understand that there is no Government in Northern Ireland, and that the Scottish Government is an SNP Government whose leader is committed to breaking up the United Kingdom.

I urge him once more to protect the interests of Wales: please seek substantive, wide-ranging, bilateral discussions, in private, between the Welsh Government and the UK Government, to try and push some of these issues in the interests of Wales. I’d also encourage him to take up Julie Morgan’s plea that not just UK Ministers but key Members of these Assemblies, who have made commitments or at least suggested certain things would happen for the benefit of Wales outside the European Union, particularly on the financial side—I would urge him to work with those people who campaigned for ‘leave’, not just those who campaigned for ‘remain’, including those who may have influence with the UK negotiating partner.

I’m encouraged by the draft negotiating mandate that came back from the European Council, as well as by the article 50 letter. It refers to the fact that negotiations under article 50 will be conducted as a single package. It then says that the framework for the future relationship could be identified during the second phase of the negotiations under article 50, as soon as sufficient progress has been made in the first phase. And yes, financial discussions are part of that, but there’s a whole range of issues, including the rights of EU nationals in this country, which we’re very keen to settle and push forward and show good progress on. So, I think the link of those is encouraging.

I also think, in terms of the role of the European Court of Justice—. The relevant paragraph on that is paragraph 16:

‘The withdrawal agreement should include appropriate dispute settlement mechanisms’.

But the council then refers to these ‘bearing in mind’ the union’s interests, and the ECJ, which I think is something we can work with in discussing what would be an appropriate settlement procedure.

We then have the section on Gibraltar, which there’s been a lot of coverage of. I actually think people may be missing quite a key implication of this paragraph 22 of the negotiating mandate: that, after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, no agreement may apply to Gibraltar without the agreement of Spain.

Now, that phrase would be otiose, unnecessary, unless it were considered that agreement would be by qualified majority, at the European Union. If it is to be, as the First Minister is afraid, a mixed negotiation, post-exit, that would leave the unanimous agreement to member states, and, potentially, of regional parliaments, then there would be no need to give that specific protection to Spain, who would already have a veto over such agreement.

So, I think it is encouraging that the European Union is looking at those trade and related arrangements post Brexit as potentially being negotiated by qualified majority. And I think the fact that these negotiations, at least after a bit, can proceed in parallel is good, to the extent, say, the Canada agreement was a mixed agreement that had to go the regional parliaments and be unanimity. But the mixed elements in any trade agreement we could potentially deal with with article 50, and the trade one would be where the European Commission had exclusive competence. So, again, that would be by qualified majority voting. I think that does make agreement potentially easier.

I also think it’s interesting that the EU is saying that it’s the successor to all the agreements. Even where we as 28 or 27 member states negotiated on behalf of the EU because it lacked legal personality, the EU says, well, that’s its agreement and it doesn’t bind us. So, for example, on the WTO EU commitment in terms of the quota free of tariff for New Zealand lamb, they are implying that that’s a matter for the EU, and they want us to take our share of international agreements, but that’s for us to agree with them, and isn’t something that they consider to be binding on us. So, I think that’s promising.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

Finally, like the First Minister, I don’t want to see tariffs, but on most standard economic analysis, it is just wrong to say that the whole of any tariff is borne by the consumer. You have a demand and supply curve, and as the price rises, consumers buy less, so that squeezes out marginal supply, with the remaining supply being at a lower price from the overseas supplier. Now, how much of that tariff is increased price to the consumer, and how much would be a reduced price for the supplier to hold on to their share when there’s actually less being supplied in the market, will depend on the dynamics of the market. But I really am optimistic we will see a free trade deal that doesn’t see tariffs, and I hope the First Minister will work with everyone in this Assembly, as well as the UK Government, and continue to look at this all in a positive way.

I will make some comments that are relevant to the whole of Wales, and then look at my constituency of Anglesey. We’ve all heard people discussing the importance of taking back control. What we’re not clear about is what exactly we’re talking about: what kind of control we’re talking about, and what will the cost of that be. The risk that we face in Wales now is that we could lose control as a result of the UK Government’s intent through the great repeal Bill, and we’ve heard some of my fellow Members discuss that already. For example, I’m very concerned about the agricultural industry in my constituency if the UK Government do what they’ve threatened to do in terms of European framework powers, taking them to themselves—temporarily at least—with no pledges in the longer term, rather than doing what is just, and constitutional, in my view, and is crucial for our rural economy and our rural communities, namely to ensure that the Welsh Parliament continues to have full responsibility on issues in this area, an area that is clearly fully devolved.

But I will mention one other area where control will be lost as a result of the issuing of the article 50 letter: not losing control for constitutional reasons or legislative reasons, but because of the practical implications of the kind of Brexit that the UK Government seems intent on seeking. Anglesey is the main port for trade between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Over three quarters of the trade on lorries between Europe and the Republic of Ireland passed through Welsh ports, and 79 per cent of that went through Holyhead port. Over 2 million people passed through the port: hundreds of thousands of cars and thousands of buses. I hope I’m painting a picture of just why the port of Holyhead is so important to Wales and so important to the island of Anglesey, where hundreds are directly employed in the port, and far more in businesses related to the success of the port. My concern is that the UK Government is voluntarily losing control of the prosperity of that port by deciding to give up its membership of the single market and the customs union. If, for obvious reasons—to save the peace process—we need to secure a soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, that wouldn’t be the case between Wales and Ireland, and Holyhead/Dublin would be a hard border, quite possibly. There would be a major temptation to develop direct links from the Republic of Ireland to France—routes that currently exist at the moment, of course. Now, I am gravely concerned as to the impact of turning Holyhead from the swiftest and easiest route, and the most efficient route between Europe and Ireland, into one of the most difficult.

In the White Paper drawn up jointly between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government, we attempted to state what kind of control we would wish the UK Government to retain in terms of the relationship between Britain and Europe in the future. Playing a part in the single market is close to the top of that list, if not on top of the list. I don’t want to leave the European Union—I never would. But as that is the direction of travel, we do have to seek mitigation measures, and the single market is crucial to that, and we must continue to put pressure on for that.

To conclude, I will turn to the continuation Bill, which is the subject of our amendment. The First Minister said that he thought that a continuation Bill should be a last resort in terms of securing the constitutional future of Wales, and ensuring that the Parliament of Wales express in legislation our expectations that leaving the European Union wouldn’t undermine our ability to take action on behalf of the people of Wales. He added that we would have to wait for the great repeal Bill first. I will say this: surely now is the opportunity and the time for us to take action, because we can’t wait to see if the UK Government is going to act in a way that reflects the needs of the people of Wales, because the signs currently aren’t there that the UK Government will do that.

I thank the Member for giving way. Would he also agree with me that it’s even more a matter of urgency that we legislate as soon as possible because the UK Government’s on record as saying it will not publish a draft of the great repeal Bill? So, whatever is published and whenever it is published—by mid-September—we will not have the time to respond to it, at least legislatively.

The Member certainly emphasises, again, the narrowness of the window that we have in front of us.

Mae Ysgrifennydd Cymru, rydw i’n meddwl, i gloi, wedi ei gwneud hi’n berffaith glir nad oes ganddo ddiddordeb mewn cynrychioli barn Cymru yn y Cabinet, ond yn hytrach mai ei rôl o ydy cyfathrebu wrth Gymru beth mae’r Cabinet yn Whitehall wedi ei benderfynu ar gyfer Cymru, p’un a ydy hynny er ein budd ni ai peidio. Bachwch ar y cyfle yma, Lywodraeth Cymru, i osod ein stondin deddfwriaethol ni. Gwarchodwch yr hyn sydd gennym ni. Unwaith y bydd y ‘repeal Bill’ ar y llyfrau statud heb ddeddfwriaeth i’w herio fo mewn lle yn y Senedd yma, mi fydd llinell amddiffyniad Cymru yn un denau iawn.

Colleagues have already highlighted this afternoon that, after much walking through the darkness, the UK Government has actually, finally, come to a point where it’s now getting on with the outcomes of the referendum on 23 June. However, that referendum, as we all know, only said one thing: that we had to leave the EU institutions. It did not determine the terms on which we leave and it did not discuss the new relationships with the other 27 member states. This is why it is important now to get our objectives on the agenda, as the process about that begins.

I’m disappointed that, prior to this point and the invocation of article 50, the Westminster Government’s handling of this matter has not shown sufficient respect to the institutions of the devolved nations in moving forward, even though the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government both submitted their own proposals for consideration. It’s now critical that the UK Government delivers on its stated commitment to fully involve the devolved nations. This needs to go beyond merely meeting with Ministers through the JMC, or the JMC(EN), but actually taking on board what each Government has put forward and involving Ministers from devolved nations in the negotiating process, where appropriate, and creating a new constitutional mechanism for our nations.

This was highlighted in the report by the Exiting the European Union Committee, published only today, in, for those who want to read it, paragraph 10 and paragraph 13—have a good look at it—but also a report from the Lords Constitution Committee published in March, which states, and I quote:

‘This will mean that the UK Government and the devolved administrations will need to manage new interfaces—and potentially overlapping responsibilities—between reserved matters and devolved competence in areas where the writ of EU law no longer runs. The UK Government and devolved administrations will need to agree, before Brexit, how those new interfaces will be managed.’

In other words, everyone is saying, except the UK Government, ‘We need a constitutional structure that is based upon statute, not simply upon a good handshake.’ Llywydd, there are some in the UK Government who actually accept devolution. Some even get it, but too many don’t and have a belief that everything must be driven by Westminster and Whitehall. We must do all we can to actually collaborate strongly with our colleagues in other devolved nations to ensure the UK Government delivers on its words and sentiment in both the article 50 letter and the great repeal Bill White Paper. They say it; let’s make sure they deliver on it.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the Welsh Government’s White Paper also placed the economy at the top of the agenda, and understandably so, because we need prosperity across this nation and the ability of Welsh businesses to trade without barriers—whether financial or regulatory—is critical to allow it to grow. And manufacturing plays a great part in the Welsh economy, more than any other nation in the UK—it’s actually 16 per cent of GVA. And so, we must ensure that a difficult divorce, with the WTO Brexit rules, does not happen, because it would mean crippling tariffs placed upon our exports.

I noticed UKIP’s amendment 6 highlights that they want to say, ‘It’s £8 billion; we can use the money.’ I just think that’s an excuse to actually justify why they can’t deliver on their promises of £350 million a week going to our public services. They want to hide the fact they can’t do it, and therefore they’re now saying, ‘Oh, let’s get from the EU another £8 billion or so.’ So, that’s something we need to address very clearly. The White Paper’s priority, actually, is for unfettered access, and it’s one that we should all embrace. We know that—. We understand that free trade agreements are important, but we also must understand the EU-27 position as well, because very often we talk about our position, but there are negotiations.

Mark Reckless talked about the ‘mastery’ of the letter on article 50. I saw a veiled threat in that letter about security. I don’t call that ‘mastery’; I call that ‘threats and intimidation’, and that’s not good negotiation.

Can I just say, almost all my speech was dedicated to the draft negotiating mandate, and I identified about three or four things that I thought were really positive, and actually could allow a good negotiation in our mutual interest and showing respect to the EU position?

I take that point, but when I asked to intervene on the point he raised at the very beginning, he didn’t allow me to have one. So, I took the chance now to tell him what I think about it—quite clearly.

Now, we understand there are risks. There are risks because we’re leaving. We must address those risks in the coming negotiations, and I believe strongly that the direct involvement of Welsh national Government Ministers in those negotiations will be important. We have to move forward. I’m conscious of time, so—. On the amendment, I wish you’d actually said we would actually ‘prepare’ a Bill, not ‘lay’ a Bill, because I think the preparation of one is, at this point, important. It’s semantics, but it’s important semantics. The laying of a Bill, perhaps, at this stage is presumptuous because we haven’t seen the Bill yet. We haven’t seen the Bill yet. We need to see that. But I won’t deny that preparation is important in that situation.

The UK Government has a mandate for us to leave the EU, but no mandate to use Brexit as an excuse for change in ideological approaches in the way in which we look at our economy and our public services. As they negotiate our exit and our future relationship, they must accept constitutional structural changes, and they must ensure that the interests and priorities of the devolved nations are actually not ignored.

Thanks to the Government for bringing today’s debate. I thought the First Minister raised some reasonable points today, and in a balanced manner, and it hasn’t actually been as heated today, which is perhaps a welcome development—but maybe that will change. [Laughter.] After Brexit, the UK will need an independent arbiter to rule over issues such as legal competence and what is being called ‘the UK internal market’. It’s been suggested that, ultimately, the main arbiter could be the Supreme Court. The First Minister has said before that, in constitutional terms, the UK Government can’t be both judge and jury. I’m sure most of us in UKIP are not too frightened of our own UK Supreme Court being the ultimate constitutional arbiter. We are also keen on empowering the Supreme Court, which is why we in UKIP want Brexit to encompass the UK’s departure from the European Court of Justice. Hopefully the First Minister agrees with this outcome.

The First Minister says that what is devolved must stay devolved. This sounds reasonable. The problem is that the issue of legal competence has been rather fluid—rather nebulous—in the post-devolution world. For instance, the Trade Union (Wales) Bill is currently being discussed by the relevant Assembly committee, of which I am a member. We are being urged by the Welsh Government Minister, in this case, to back this Bill even though he accepts that legal competence in this area will revert to the UK Government after the Wales Bill becomes law. So, these things are rather fluid and are not written in stone.

The demand that every penny lost from EU funding to Wales must be replaced by UK Government funds: Julie Morgan raised this today, quite rightly. We agree with this demand, and we always have done. But Jeremy Miles did make a constructive suggestion today, and he saw an opportunity—. Oh, he’s gone, but he did make a constructive contribution, I felt. He saw in Brexit an opportunity, in that it could be a chance to put Welsh funding on a statutory basis, and that may be worthy of exploration in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. And finally, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, as usual, this debate is held with that fallacious concept that the European Union and its governing institutions has been a huge benevolent factor for the countries it holds in its sway. The European Union has, in fact, proved itself to be to the advantage of just two groups of people: big business and the political elite. If you challenge the veracity of that statement, just ask the views of Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, where unemployment is running at some 50 per cent, and whose only hope for work is to emigrate. I won’t ask you where they tend to emigrate to. Time after time, we see the political ambitions of the European politicians put before the well-being of the working people of the EU. You may argue ad infinitum about the commercial consequences of Brexit from the EU, but the truth is that the European Union has been an economic disaster for many of its members. We have members of the European Commission making decisions in the full knowledge that they themselves will in no way suffer financially from those decisions. I wonder how many of them pause to contemplate the appalling spectacle of the Greek pharmacist setting himself alight because their policies had caused his financial ruination.

Time and time again in this Chamber we’ve heard arguments that ‘They will not allow this’ or ‘They will not allow that.’ Well, who is the ‘they’ you talk about? [Interruption.] Well, politicians, of course. But I reiterate what I’ve said in the past: it will not be politicians—

You’re a politician.

[Continues.]—for all their posturing, who will decide on the terms of our exit from Europe; it will be the businesses of Europe who will decide, and it is those that will demand that there is free and unfettered access to our markets.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course, David.

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Do you agree that the end outcome of any negotiations has to be put before the council, which is all the heads of state—politicians; has to be put before the Members of the UK Parliament—politicians—

Absolutely.

[Continues.]—and also to the UK Government—politicians? So, actually, it’s politicians that will make the decision, not what you’re saying.

Well, just listen to the next few paragraphs and perhaps you’ll change your mind on that, David.

I don’t think so.

Anyone who believes otherwise—[Interruption.] Anyone who believes otherwise has no understanding of international trade. Governments don’t sell goods to other nations; businesses sell goods to other nations. It is merely the function and duty of every Government to remove as many impediments to that trade as possible, and that, at the end of the day, is what the Governments of Europe, and hence the European Commission, will be forced to do. If we are to debate the European Union, let’s not look at this institution through rose-coloured spectacles, pretending that it is an institution without huge drawbacks. Its policies have had catastrophic consequences for a large part of the population of Europe. The true pragmatists among us recognise that a divorce—any divorce—from Europe is preferable to being manacled to a union destined to slip further and further down the tables of economic trade.

Thank you very much. I call on the First Minister to reply to the debate. Carwyn Jones.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thank Members for their varying contributions to the debate. If I could begin, first of all, with the leader of UKIP. I’m not keen, in the course of my response, to rehash some of the discussions we’ve had before, but to deal with some of the newer issues that have arisen. First of all, there are great dangers that the UK Government will try and use Henry VIII powers in order to avoid scrutiny by the UK Parliament, and indeed to prevent this institution from taking its own action with regard to Brexit, and that is something that would subvert democracy, to my mind, actually—to avoid that kind of scrutiny.

On the issue of the market, we have to remember that the European single market is one of the world’s biggest markets and it’s on our doorstep. If we were looking for a new relationship with the EU, it would be the first market we would look at, because we have a land border with it, and will continue to do so in the future. Yes, free trade agreements with other countries may be important, but Australia and New Zealand are not going to replace the European single market in terms of what it’s worth to us.

Nobody argues for tariffs. I’ve not heard anybody argue that tariffs should be imposed. I don’t agree, necessarily, with Mark Reckless’s view that tariffs somehow can have minimal effect. Some will have more of an effect than others and the more inelastic the demand for a product, the greater the effect tariffs will have. The stronger the brand of a product—for a German car manufacturer, I don’t think they’re particularly concerned. They know people will continue to buy BMWs and Mercedes even if the price goes up, because people want to buy them because of the brand. The consumer will pay the price as a result of it. But he will know that the whole point of a tariff is to make foreign goods more expensive in a domestic market in order for domestic goods to appear cheaper to the consumer. So, therefore, it is a tax that consumers have to pay if they’re going to buy goods from outside of that market. The worry I have is that if there is no agreement in an incredibly short time frame—by, really, the autumn of next year—then tariffs appear by default. No-one wants them, but they appear by default at that stage, so we end up in a situation that’s unsatisfactory for all involved in these negotiations.

I’m concerned about agriculture, because, as was rightly said by the leader of UKIP, agriculture has a special place in the hearts of people. People are particularly protective of agriculture, and it is often the case that agriculture is excluded from free trade agreements. Can I make it absolutely clear that we would not under any circumstances accept a free trade agreement that excluded the ability of our farmers to sell into their biggest market? Ninety per cent of what we produce that is exported goes into the European market. We would not accept any barriers to trade with regard to that.

But I do urge those who wanted to leave to move beyond re-arguing the referendum and to come forward with plans of their own. The supreme irony at the moment is that those of us who wanted to remain are actually taking forward plans to leave whilst those who wanted to leave don’t quite know what happens next. Some have ideas, some don’t—I don’t want to put everyone in the same category—but I do urge all those leavers to come forward with a plan rather than saying, ‘Well, the referendum result has happened, and therefore we must leave.’ We need more than that.

In terms of the continuity Bill, look, I have no objection to continuing discussions on this. For me, what I would want to know is: what would the Bill do? Is it a declaration rather than a Bill? What would the shape of the Bill look like? And how would we avoid such a Bill being overwritten, in effect, by Westminster anyway, as a result of the great repeal Bill? So, let’s continue with those discussions. We’ll continue to abstain today, but in terms of—[Interruption.] In a second. In terms of the principle of such a Bill and what it might deliver, I think there are further discussions to be had.

We note very much—everybody in the Chamber notes—that the First Minister is not ruling out a continuity Bill, although perhaps we should call it the great continuity Bill; if there can be a great repeal Bill, there can be a great continuity Bill. But it should be there as a backstop, because surely the first thing we need to do is to see whether the UK Government is genuine in its desire, set out in that vague terminology this week, to achieve a good outcome for the UK and for Wales with that parity of esteem. If that is the case, we do not need a great continuity Bill; we just need to get on with it for the good of the people we represent.

I’m more than happy to help with the discussions or the Bill itself, and to see what such a Bill might deliver. I have to say, in terms of the issue of the single market, I made this point to the Prime Minister that if we have rules for an internal UK single market that we did not have a role in drawing up, then we will do our best to drive a coach and horses though them. We will look to avoid them. We will have no sense of ownership of them. If there is no court—and the Supreme Court will do fine in terms of being the court that polices those rules—then how on earth will the UK Government enforce the rules anyway, because it would have no legal powers to do so? Absolutely right: the Supreme Court should be the adjudicator rather than the arbiter in that regard. It’s fairly easy to do, and it’s something the UK Government should accept pretty early on.

In terms of what Mark Isherwood said, I do remind him that the Welsh Government White Paper predates the UK Government White Paper, not the other way round, and again, he said ‘border control’. There’s not going to be any border control. We will have an open border with the European Union in Ireland. There will be no control at that border, and that issue is yet to be resolved. I’ve heard some say, ‘Ah, well, we thought Ireland would leave as well.’ It’s not going to happen. The people of Ireland are not known for taking their cue from what the UK does, and that issue is still unresolved. So, I do urge people—when they talk about controlling our borders, it’s a myth. It’s an absolute myth. Because, unless we are prepared to accept the political consequences of a hard border on the island of Ireland and all that entails, then that issue is not something that is going to happen.

Will the First Minister give way?

Of course.

I do acknowledge your White Paper was before, but it was only one week before, and I suspect theirs was at more than final drafting stage by then. But, in terms of the border, that matter is addressed in the UK Government documents, and it’s also been acknowledged in the response from the European Council. So, whilst recognising the need for the border around the rest of the UK to be compliant with proposals, the Irish border situation is recognised by all parties.

Yes, it’s recognised as a problem—that’s the issue. I do remind him that the White Paper was not drawn up in a pub one night between two parties. There was a great deal of work involved in drawing that up as well, and it did pre-date the UK Government White Paper.

The reality is that, as things stand, when we leave the EU, if somebody wished to come into the UK without being detected, they’d just come through Ireland. There is no check at all. That is something that is yet to have a resolution. Nobody wants to return to a hard border, but it is a problem I pointed out before the referendum, and it’s a problem that still remains.

In terms of the UK drifting apart, that’s exactly what I think will happen if the UK Government doesn’t wake up to this—that tensions will be created where the UK Government steps on the toes of devolved administrations, so the UK itself falls apart. That doesn’t need to happen, but that is something the UK Government must be wary of as far as the future is concerned. That means there must be a deal, to my mind, that is ratified by the four Parliaments. Why should it be that the Parliament of Wallonia will have a greater say over Wales’s relationship with the EU than the Parliament of Wales will have? That makes no sense at all. Where is the democracy in that?

I do say to him that, often, people say to me that red tape will be cut as a result of Brexit. I never have any examples of what that means, but he says it. Again, I say to him: in 1997, when we had the referendum here and a similar result happened, I did not call those who voted against the establishment of devolution ‘the enemy within’. I do urge him to reconsider his comments—48 per cent of people voted to remain. It was an honest view. They’re not the enemy within in the UK itself. They had their views. They’re not in some way traitors to their country—[Interruption.]—which is the implication of what he said.

I’m running out of time, I’m afraid, Dirprwy Lywydd; I’m trying to deal with a number of these issues.

There were a couple of interventions, so I will give you some extra time.

Okay, right. Steffan Lewis made the points that he did. He mentioned the issue of the single market. I don’t believe that the issue of the single market is reserved. Developing David Melding’s points, the UK relinquished control over certain agricultural powers in 1973 to the European Community, then the European Union. It then relinquished all its other agricultural powers to this Assembly. It cannot say, on that basis, that powers coming back over agriculture go back to the Westminster Parliament. The reason why I say that is this: our devolution settlement says quite clearly that agriculture is devolved. There are no caveats. It does not say that powers that are currently held by the European Union would revert to the Westminster Parliament if those powers were to return. Perhaps we shouldn’t expect it to; it’s silent. On a reserved-powers model, where there is silence, the presumption must be in favour of devolution, and that is the way that I read it. I respect his views hugely, but that is the view that I take on that, with the reserved-powers model in place.

In terms of some of the other issues that were raised—. I don’t agree with Mark Reckless. He sees the reference to Gibraltar as something that is to do with a move towards qualified majority voting. In fact, I take the exact opposite view. The fact that it’s mentioned is a way of trying to provide assurance for Spain in terms of tax competition, in order for Spain to support any future deal. So, I take the exact opposite view to him there on that.

Rhun ap Iorwerth raised an issue—. We have before, in this Chamber, talked about the potential loss of trade if it’s seen that Northern Ireland is an easier route into the Irish Republic in terms of trade, and what that would mean for Holyhead, Pembroke Dock, and, indeed, Fishguard. He raises the point, quite rightly, that there is trade between Ireland and France. It’s a seasonal service, which runs in the summer, into Cherbourg and into Roscoff. But there is a danger there that freight operators going to Ireland will want to avoid Dover at all costs, because of the problems with getting through Dover and then problems with getting through Holyhead and the other Welsh ports into Ireland, therefore losing trade on the French routes as a result of that.

David Rowlands, finally—. David, I have to say, the European Union is not an extension of the Third Reich. It contributes £680 million a year to the Welsh economy. Unemployment is not 50 per cent in southern Europe. The UK was desperate to join the European Community—desperate, because the UK's economy was tanking at that time. We need to make sure that doesn't happen in the future. We know the people decided that we should leave the EU. Actually, David, if business had had its way, we’d still be in the EU, because British business wanted us to stay in the EU. And I say to him: it's not businesses—[Interruption.] It’s not businesses—[Interruption.] It’s not businesses who will decide what the nature of a free trade agreement is; it is Governments. German car manufacturers don’t have a seat at the table. They do not determine what their Governments do; their electors do. So, more than anything else, it is hugely important not to give an impression of arrogance, saying, ‘The EU needs us more than we need them.’ We need each other. We need each other to ensure that we have peace on the continent, we need each other to make sure that we have trade, we need to make sure that we share a common purpose to increase prosperity and equality across this continent, and, whatever happens with Brexit, that is something that this Government will continue to do.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item, then, until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.