I want to focus my remarks this afternoon on the implications of new customs arrangements for the national health service and other devolved matters, because whatever our differing views on the decision to leave the customs union and leave the European single market, we can all agree, whether we were leave or remain, or nationalists or unionists, that that is going to have consequences that we haven’t had to consider for some time. It is further complicated, of course, by the fact that if we have a situation where the new UK single market and the new UK customs union is exclusively administered by the UK Government, it is complicated by the fact that the UK Government, of course, acts as the Government of England when it comes to things like health. Therefore, there will be a legitimate concern, I think we can all agree, that a health policy and a health paradigm by the UK Government will also overlap then into future customs arrangements. So, I know we’re all excited with election fever at the moment; I’m going to try and see if we can have some sort of consensus about acknowledging that, whether intentional or not, future trade agreements, if not done concurrently between the Governments of the UK, could lead, inadvertently or not, to devolved public services, including the NHS, being disadvantaged.

When TTIP—that’s been mentioned several times, of course—was being discussed, concerns were raised legitimately then. The NHS Confederation specifically had an issue with the inclusion of controversial investor-to-state settlement mechanisms, which, of course, are normal in trade deals, but the nature of these bodies are crucial in terms of protecting public services. These cases are heard in secret, in private arbitration courts, and allow corporations to sue Governments that are attempting to make decisions based on their own political mandates. Famously, when Australia introduced plain packaging for cigarettes, the tobacco company Philip Morris used an investor-to-state dispute settlement clause included in the 1993 Australia-Hong Kong investment treaty to attempt to sue the Australian Government. Ultimately, their attempt failed, but not without many years of political wrangling.

It was the Europe-wide public outcry, of course, over TTIP that led, ultimately, to the inclusion of other mechanisms. The EU’s trade deal with Canada, CETA, includes some provisions that limit the use of these powers and some exemptions for public services. Although it’s far from a perfect outcome in CETA, the public anxiety about the impact that international trade deals can have on a nation’s public services is now changing the way that trade deals are being negotiated, and that’s something we’ll have to bear in mind for if and when the UK leaves the European customs union in full.

But, as I said, any future trade deals, we can all agree, will have a major impact on Wales and on our public services in particular. Yesterday, I listened carefully to an answer given by the First Minister to a question from the Member for Neath on this matter and, frankly, I’ve got to say, it’s not good enough, I think, from our First Minister, to be saying that Wales should have a voice in future trade negotiations once we’re out of the European customs union. We can’t simply be consultees on matters that are clearly devolved and within this legislature’s jurisdiction. The logical solution, constitutionally, in my opinion, if we’re going to be outside the customs union in particular, is for the federalisation of trade so that’s a shared competence between the nations and the Governments of the UK, overseen by a UK council of Ministers and accountable to all the Parliaments of the UK. Of course, this is why several federal countries that have their own customs arrangements—that is why they have federalised international trade rather than exclusively reserved it to the centre, because there will be, invariably, an overlap. As I mentioned earlier, with the complicating factor of the UK Government acting as the English Government on devolved matters, it makes even more sense to have a UK council of Ministers to oversee our shared interests when it comes to future UK trade deals. So, anyone can have a voice, and I’d ask the Welsh Government to drop that as their demand, because, frankly, that is pathetic. I hope the Government will reconsider the ambiguity in this area, because it’ll be crucial in ensuring that our public services here are protected in a way that is democratically expressed by people and the ballot box, rather than in the interests of international profiteering.