The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Paul Davies.

We move on to item 8 on the agenda, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on Brexit and the National Assembly for Wales. I call on Steffan Lewis to move the motion—Steffan.

Motion NDM6336 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Asserts itself as the national parliament of Wales.

2. Demands that all powers and resources currently exercised at the EU level within areas of devolved competence are to be exercised by the National Assembly for Wales after the UK leaves the European Union.

3. Further demands that the UK Government seeks the endorsement of the National Assembly for Wales for all future trade deals with the EU and other countries around the world in order to protect the interests of the Welsh economy.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I formally move the motion in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. This is a timely debate, coming as it does on the day in which we’ve had a Brexit-heavy Queen’s Speech, and in the week where formal negotiations between the UK and EU begin. It is also the week when the Welsh Government has elaborated further on proposals first announced in ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, the joint White Paper between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government on upholding devolution and creating shared governance structures between the devolved nations and the UK Government following our withdrawal from the EU.

Before going any further, Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to take the opportunity on behalf of Plaid Cymru to set the record straight following exchanges between the First Minister and my party leader yesterday on the issue of single market membership. Yesterday, the First Minister said, and I quote:

‘her party has already agreed that you can’t be a member of the single market without being a member of the EU. That is what we agreed, if she remembers’.

In the strongest possible terms, I want to place on record that that is not true, it has never been true, and it never will be true either. Plaid Cymru’s position, since the day after the referendum last year, has been for the UK to remain a member of the single market following our departure from the EU. On 21 September last year, we tabled a motion in this Assembly calling for such an outcome, which was, sadly, defeated, making this Parliament the first in these islands to back a so-called hard Brexit.

The position of the Welsh Government was that single market membership did not exist outside the EU. That is not a position shared by Plaid Cymru. However, both parties engaged constructively in a process that led to the publication of the joint White Paper, recognising that ‘full and unfettered access to the single market’, the preferred term of the Welsh Government, and ‘single market membership’, the common short-hand term used by almost everyone else, were potentially one and the same in actuality.

That is why, throughout the joint White Paper, a new term, ‘single market participation’, was adopted to accommodate both those positions. That provided the basis for respect and co-operation in the national interest. Llywydd, it is a matter of integrity for me that my position and the position of my party is not misrepresented, and it is a matter of deep regret that it was yesterday.

It is important because the issue of single market membership is now the defining issue of our time. A Tory minority Government in Westminster, with a bloodied nose after the recent UK general election, has provided all of us who seek to avoid a hard Brexit with an opportunity to ensure a future relationship with the EU that upholds our economic interest and ensures a continued political partnership with our continental friends and allies—an opportunity that seemed remote just a few weeks ago. Indeed, I very much welcome a piece published in yesterday’s ‘The Guardian’ by more than 50 politicians, calling for continued single market membership. Its authors included many from Wales, including Madeleine Moon, Stephen Doughty, Lord Hain, Ann Clwyd and Chris Bryant.

Our motion today reaffirms this Assembly’s commitment to the Welsh White Paper, which remains in my opinion the most comprehensive publication published in the UK for a future relationship with the EU, and the framework for defending the Welsh constitution. We note with deep regret that the UK Government to date remains unwilling to properly engage with devolved Governments and Parliaments for a Brexit that works for all. Indeed, it is a reflection of the unbalanced nature of this over-centralised and unequal union that the most important peace-time negotiations in history have commenced without full and proper negotiations between the nations of these islands having even been attempted, let alone concluded.

The UK Government’s wait-and-see approach I believe will be exposed very soon as being unsustainable, unfair, and unsatisfactory to the people of Wales. They cannot afford to wait and see when the fate of their jobs and their communities hangs in the balance.

Thank you very much. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies—Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 1—Paul Davies

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Notes the UK Government’s Policy Paper ‘The United Kingdom’s exit from, and new partnership with, the European Union’ which states that ‘we have already committed that no decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be removed from them and we will use the opportunity of bringing decision making back to the UK to ensure that more decisions are devolved’.

Amendment 2—Paul Davies

Delete point 3 and replace with:

Notes that the Prime Minister has been very clear that she wants a bespoke deal that works for the whole of the UK, embracing the most tariff and barrier-free trade possible with our European neighbours through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Diolch. We celebrate the fact that the National Assembly for Wales is the national Parliament of Wales and I’m pleased to move amendments 1 and 2, noting that the UK Government’s February 2017 policy paper, ‘The United Kingdom’s exit from, and new partnership with, the European Union’, states:

‘we have already committed that no decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be removed from them and we will use the opportunity of bringing decision making back to the UK to ensure that more decisions are devolved.’

The Prime Minister has been very clear that she wants a bespoke deal that works for the whole of the UK, embracing the most tariff- and barrier-free trade possible with our European neighbours. As the Prime Minister said in her January Lancaster House speech,

‘being out of the EU but a member of the single market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement…the “4 freedoms” of goods, capital, services and people.’

She added:

‘It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all. And that is why both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the single market.’

‘Instead’, she said,

‘we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement.’

More recently, she’s also said we need to

‘ensure that we get the right trade deal so that farmers can continue to export their produce to the European Union but also…trade around the rest of the world’.

It is this and not hard Brexit that has been the UK Government’s stated goal throughout. Although, as the Prime Minister stated, if we threw away our negotiating position at a stroke by rejecting the idea of walking away with no deal, Brussels would think Christmas had come early. As the Chancellor said last weekend, no deal would be a bad deal, although one purpose-built to punish would be worse.

As negotiations now move forward, it is in the interests of both sides to recognise that there can only be two winners or two losers. The UK is the EU’s largest export partner, guaranteeing millions of jobs. It is overwhelmingly in the EU’s interest to agree a friendly UK-EU free trade deal. The UK is Ireland’s second largest trading partner in terms of value, and largest in terms of volume. In meetings with Irish Government representatives on Monday, the external affairs committee heard that the common travel area issue should be resolved without any real problem, and that Brexit would not close the time advantage of using the UK land bridge to access continental markets. As the Foreign Secretary said last weekend:

‘We can and must deliver on the will of the people. We can reflect the mandate of the more than 80% of MPs whose manifestos pledged them to support Brexit.’

‘If we get it right’, he said, ‘(and’, he said,

‘there is much more good will on both sides than you might think), then we can end up with a deep and special partnership with the EU; a strong EU buttressed by and supporting a strong UK—and still trading and co-operating closely with each other, too.’

‘We are going to deliver’, he said,

‘not a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit—but an open Brexit, one that ensures that the UK is still turned outwards, and more engaged with the world than ever before.’

The First Minister was correct. You can only be a member of the single market if you are a full member. Although both Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have insisted that Labour is formally committed to taking Britain out of the single market and the customs union, Labour’s shadow Brexit Secretary said last weekend that the option of retaining UK membership of the EU customs union should be left on the table. This is counterintuitive because it would prevent the UK from negotiating international trade deals outside single market membership, and, as we also heard in Ireland on Monday, you can leave the customs union and still have customs arrangements afterwards.

To restate, Welsh Conservatives want agreed UK-wide frameworks that respect the devolved settlement as funding schemes and initiatives are returned from the European Union. We therefore welcome confirmation, in notes accompanying today’s Queen’s Speech, that the repeal Bill, transferring existing EU legislation into UK law, will be a transitional arrangement to provide certainty immediately after exit and allow intensive discussion and consultation with devolved administrations on where lasting common frameworks are needed. I emphasise we believe those frameworks must be agreed. Thank you.

I thank Plaid Cymru today for bringing this important debate to the table. It follows the discussion yesterday on Brexit and devolution and, of course, it also gives us an opportunity today to consider some of the points that are in the Queen’s Speech. It’s nearly a year now since the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union. It was a decision that I think will create detrimental impacts for our economy and jobs in our nation.

Nawr, byddwn yn trafod rhai o ganlyniadau Brexit, flwyddyn yn ddiweddarach, mewn cynhadledd rwy’n ei chynnal yn y Gelli Gandryll y penwythnos hwn, pan fyddwn yn clywed ystod eang o arbenigwyr, gan gynnwys Syr Keir Starmer, yr Arglwydd John Kerr, awdur erthygl 50, a Neil Kinnock, cyn Is-lywydd y Comisiwn Ewropeaidd, ynghyd â llawer o arbenigwyr eraill ym maes busnes, yr undebau llafur a’r byd academaidd. Nid oes llawer o docynnau ar ôl, os hoffai unrhyw un ymuno â ni.

One thing that we will discuss in the conference is the way that the results of the election have changed the position. Now, I believe and hope that a hard Brexit is no longer on the table. I’m going to define a hard Brexit, because I think that’s one of the problems, that nobody quite understands what a hard Brexit means. I think that a hard Brexit is one that puts immigration controls as a priority ahead of all other decisions in the negotiations. I hope now that we will move towards a sensible Brexit, a soft Brexit, which puts jobs and the economy as the priority. But we can’t win this argument unless our parties co-operate and collaborate where that’s possible, and I’m pleased to hear that Steffan Lewis agrees with that. And I do think it is important that we do work together. We need to calm down the rhetoric if at all possible. This is a hugely important issue for our country. It puts the role of our nation and our people first. The fact is that we are negotiating with 27 other nations, the 27 against one, and although I feel passionately as a European, I feel even greater passion towards my own nation, and I do think it’s important that we get the best possible deal for Wales and for the UK.

Today we heard the Queen’s Speech and the priorities of the UK Government. The Prime Minister has said that she wants to see a Brexit that works for the whole of the UK, but how is that possible unless she’s spoken to Wales? There has still been no discussion with the Welsh Government on the great repeal Bill, although it’s contained within the Queen’s Speech today and I’m sure that a draft of it is available. I’m pleased to see that Carwyn Jones yesterday announced that the Welsh Government is now looking to prepare a continuity Bill in case the great repeal Bill actually has detrimental impacts for the Welsh Government. It’s crucially important that the powers that belong to Wales but were handed to the EU when the Assembly was established come directly back to this place. There is no mention in the Queen’s Speech today in relation to agriculture or fisheries that the Welsh Government has any role; there is just a brief sentence taking it for granted that new national policies will be introduced.

Just on that point, does she share my concern that the sentence in the Queen’s Speech that says that powers won’t be withdrawn from the Assembly isn’t any kind of solution to what will come from those powers that are now at the European level, and should come directly to this Assembly in the wake of Brexit?

I don’t think that what’s contained within the Queen’s Speech makes it sufficiently clear exactly where those powers will lie, and that they should come directly back to us here. The fact that she mentions and assumes that there will be a pan-Britain agriculture policy takes this Chamber for granted, and it’s not acceptable. I would like to ask the more enlightened Members of the Conservative party in the Chamber today to have a quiet word to explain to Theresa May how devolution works.

It’s interesting to see that the customs Bill and a Bill that would allow Britain to form its own trade deals is to be introduced. Now, we will only need these Bills if we leave the customs union, but I don’t think that Theresa May should assume that there will be a majority in Parliament in favour of exiting the customs union, and that’s why I am a little concerned. I have promised Steffan Lewis that I won’t be too malicious on this, and I don’t want to make an issue of this, but the third point in Plaid Cymru’s motion today—. Whilst I agree entirely that the Assembly should have a role in future trade deals with the EU, because, of course, it will have an impact upon us, I am not currently comfortable with the wording of the motion, which accepts the fact that we will leave the customs union, talking about deals with other countries in the way that it is currently worded. So, I hope that Plaid Cymru will accept the point I make for the reasons that I’ve explained. I don’t want to make a big thing of this, but that’s why I am slightly concerned that we are accepting that we are to exit the customs union. I don’t think we should do that. Thank you.

Of course, following on from that point, the paving legislation in the Queen’s Speech today, which referred to the trade deals—they created an entire department, of course, for this very purpose, so the UK Government is clearly still wedded to this path.

The point about the customs union is well made. It isn’t true, of course, that single market membership and trade deals are incompatible. Indeed, EFTA members—all of whom, effectively, by different mechanisms, are inside the single market, either through a bilateral arrangement in the case of Switzerland or through the EEA—are free to engage in agreeing trade deals, either collectively or, indeed, individually. Switzerland, for example, has just ratified a trade deal last week with the Philippines, and it’s open to other EFTA members to want to do that.

So, single market membership—we often hear from the hard Brexiteers that it would prevent the trade deals. Actually, single market membership doesn’t prevent trade deals from being embraced at all. The key point—

David Rees rose—

Yes, I will give way.

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I just want one clarification. We keep talking about single market membership. Is there a legal definition of single market membership, so we can be clear about what it actually means?

I don’t want to detain people on this point, because I think Steffan Lewis set it out very admirably. I almost feel as if I am in an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ moment here, you know, when I hear mature politicians actually refusing to accept the term that everyone else in the world uses, including European Union officials and including the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Actually, Full Fact, which did a laudable service during the election campaign, catching politicians out when they’re economical with the old actualité—they even said, ‘Yes, single market membership does exist. It is this—’. The single market is a binary—you’re either in it or you’re outside of it, and that is the issue. You can choose your own language, if you like. There, we were charitable, in Plaid Cymru, in coming up with this term that nobody else uses, by the way—’participation in the single market’—but what you can’t say is that single market membership doesn’t exist, because the entire rest of the world calls it that.

Let’s get back to the core—[Interruption.] Even Stephen Kinnock uses ‘single market membership’—you want to have a word with him. Let’s get back to the core point of the third paragraph of this motion, which is the voice of Wales. If there are going to be trade deals, who’s going to be listening to us? Of course, we have to contrast our situation with the situation that the Walloon Parliament was in—a member of the comprehensive economic trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. Of course, they were holding it up because of some concerns that they had back in February. What people may not realise is, actually, the same process has been followed in Canada, and it’s only in the last week that CETA has been ratified in Canada, because it had to go to every single province and territory, and Quebec was the last province to support it.

The same principle applies in Australia—the Singapore-Australia free trade agreement, for example, and the provision of mutual recognition of goods between Australia and New Zealand. All of the territories—the states and territories—of Australia had to agree to those agreements, and that’s despite the fact that section 92 of the constitution of Australia refers to ‘trade, commerce and intercourse’ between the states being ‘absolutely free’.

They recognise the importance, in a federal situation, of actually recognising the interests of those devolved state territories, and yet what we get from the UK Government at the moment is the promise of the return of the board of trade and Her Majesty’s trade commissioners—it’s back to the eighteenth century. I was almost wondering whether they’re going to bring back the East India Company as well.

I’m all for the politics of the united front, and this is a front where we have to join forces, because we cannot allow a situation where our legitimate and distinct economic interests are ignored by the centre.

From looking around the Chamber today, I think we’re suffering—apart from Plaid Cymru and UKIP—with Brexit weariness. At least we’re here to engage in the argument.

We have no difficulty, of course, in supporting Plaid Cymru on the first two points of this motion. As I’ve said many, many times before, the Brexit process should not in any way be used to undermine or to row back on the devolution settlement, which the people of Wales have voted for twice in referenda. That would be a betrayal of everything that we stand for.

But point 3 is totally unrealistic. The difference, of course, between Canada and Australia is that in their federal systems, they don’t have the massive imbalance of populations that we have in the United Kingdom between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Where England is 85 per cent of the population of the country, it’s inevitable in those circumstances the United Kingdom Government is not going to accept what this motion asks for. Therefore, I simply can’t understand why it’s being put forward. All that you do in those circumstances is to undermine the good point, which is that of course the interests of Wales should be properly considered and taken into account by the United Kingdom Government, because they are inevitably different from other parts of the country, in particular in agriculture as we know. The import/export position in Wales is different from the United Kingdom as a whole.

Even though we’re massively in deficit with trade with the EU—we export to them £250 billion a year of goods, they export to us well over £300 billion. So, 7 per cent of our UK GDP is accounted for—only 7 per cent, and 93 per cent is trade either internally or with the rest of the world; let’s keep it in perspective, I say that to Eluned Morgan—then there’s a bigger percentage of our gross national product that is consumed by what we purchase from them. That is our bargaining counter with them.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Can you accept that it is vital to focus on what we can do and where we can try to influence? When you say that we are in a huge deficit, we in Wales are not. We have a surplus.

I said that a moment ago. To carry on debating on the basis that the United Kingdom has the slightest possibility of adopting this policy is a complete and utter waste of time and actually undermines the good points that we could make. That is the burden of what I want to say in this debate.

The idea that single market membership, however defined, is going to be a runner is, again, not practical politics. Why are we flogging this dead horse? We would be in the single market on that basis but unable to take part in the decision-making processes. That, in a sense, is worse than what we’ve got now. Not only that, but we would be making a financial contribution, which was one of the arguments for leaving the EU in the first place. We contribute, as we know, net, every year, £8 billion, and a very significant part of that would continue to be paid if we were members of the single market, even on the basis of the Swiss model or the Norwegian model, both of which are very different, of course.

Switzerland is free to—and has done, in fact—enter into a free trade agreement with China, whereas the EU has been wholly unable to agree one in the last 50 years. You look down the list of the 56 countries that the EU have trade agreements with: they include Jersey and Guernsey, for example, Andorra, Montenegro and San Marino. They don’t have any trade agreements with any country of any serious size in the world apart from South Korea and Mexico.

Will you take an intervention?

I don’t think I’ve got time, I’m sorry. The great opportunity that lies for us in being outside the customs union is that we can enter into trade agreements with the major players in the world. It is difficult; it takes time, obviously, to enter into free trade agreements. We don’t have that possibility when the details of those agreements have to be agreed with 27 other member states, which is why the EU has been incapable of entering into these. Canada is coming up but how long has it taken to negotiate that? There is now not going to be a trade deal with the United States, but we can agree one. The United States is vastly important to the Welsh economy because they’re our biggest single national export destination. So, this is the freedom that we have as a result of being outside the EU.

I’m surprised that Plaid Cymru continues to fight this battle, which was lost a year ago. Yes, of course the British Government should talk meaningfully on a regular basis to the Welsh Government, but if all the First Minister does is to carry on banging on about something that the British Government is never going to agree to, what is the point of those discussions? If you want to succeed, go with the grain and not against it. I’ve urged him therefore to involve Andrew R.T. Davies and myself in a common approach to the United Kingdom Government, because, after all, this is a battle that we have fought and won. I’ve been fighting this battle since before most of the Members opposite there were born, having joined the Anti-Common Market League in 1967. And, of course, I want the outcome for Wales that they want, but at least the method that I employ is one that has a ghost of a chance of success, whereas theirs has none whatsoever.

Now, with the Brexit referendum, article 50, the great repeal Bill and the Wales Act 2017, there’s been a lot of political uncertainty and dangers for us as a nation in all of this. Everyone talks about respecting the result of the referendum, but what is missing is the need to respect the decision taken by the people of Wales in 2011 and the decision to have more powers for this Senedd. People in Wales didn’t vote to give up those powers, but with the Wales Act 2017, we have seen the roll-back of those powers—193 issues reserved to Westminster, taken back to that place, in addition to all of those things related to those issues, however weak those links may be. Without forgetting the Henry VIII powers also, where UK Government Ministers can change legislation made in this place without telling us.

Now, with the great repeal Bill, that consultation paper with the blue cover, saying, in paragraph 4.2, that Westminster—

Thank you for the intervention. As a fellow member of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, I’m sure you realise that there is no way to bring forward any subordinate legislation in Westminster that impacts on this place without this committee discussing it, and introducing a report to this place.

Henry VIII powers—you clearly need to read them in detail.

To return back to the consultation paper on the great repeal Bill, paragraph 4.2 says that Westminster is to take powers back from Brussels, with the risk that they will retain those in devolved areas. Having seen powers rolled back in the Wales Act, we are at risk of losing further powers under the great repeal Bill—agriculture, environment, transport—

Yr Amgylchedd: fel hyrwyddwr rhywogaethau’r flwyddyn dros y morlo llwyd—amser cinio eto—mae fy ffrindiau dyfrol newydd yn poeni’n fawr ynglŷn â Chymru’n colli pwerau amgylcheddol a fu gennym yma ers blynyddoedd, pwerau rydym am iddynt aros yma am flynyddoedd. Dyna beth rwy’n ei glywed oddi ar greigiau Pen Pyrod.

In these areas, therefore, the discussions and negotiations with Europe are on a Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England basis. That’s what happens in the devolved fields: the four nations. It always has been the case and it should continue in that vein. And with the great repeal Bill, there is a convention from Westminster of consulting with Wales and Scotland in devolved areas prior to legislation, but with the Wales Act, the use of the word ‘normally’ is crucial, because one could argue, with the great repeal Bill, that it isn’t a ‘normal’ case. Therefore, Westminster wouldn’t have to discuss these issues with us.

And Theresa May stated, to quote:

Ni chaf fy nal yn wystl gan unrhyw weinyddiaethau datganoledig neu ‘genedlaetholwyr ymrannol’, pwy bynnag yw’r rheini.

That was last October. The political landscape has been transformed, clearly, for her in a frightening way, and since the general election also. She’s expected now to work with the devolved nations and not to roll back powers from this place to Westminster.

A vote was won here in the Senedd recently to get a continuity Bill in order to keep hold of all of the European legislation in those devolved areas, and to retain those powers here in Wales—to keep the grey seal happy—a continuation of the current situation, therefore. Agriculture, the environment and the regulations of those fields already sit here in this Senedd, and we need a continuation of that, not to see those powers rolled back to Westminster. A continuity Bill is therefore required. Thank you.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, two weeks ago, on the Wednesday before this month’s general election, I had to explain to the Chamber that the Government would be unable to support some elements in a detailed Plaid Cymru motion on Brexit, because at the time I said that I thought it was very important that, as we entered the post-election period, we stick to the fundamental case that we set out in ‘Taking Wales Forward’, as agreed between our two parties. Today, the Government side will vote for this much tighter motion because we believe that it articulates some shared Welsh interests, and I was very glad to hear what Steffan Lewis said in introducing the debate about the way in which our joint White Paper continues to represent the best statement of our joint view.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I should be clear that the Government would not support either of the two Conservative amendments. They appear to have been drafted as though the general election had never taken place. Indeed, they reflect the position of the Conservative Party more generally, trapped in the headlights of a car crash of their own making. It is simply not good enough to repeat the position taken by the Prime Minister in the days before she threw away her majority. That position was put before the electorate on 8 June. We were told that it was the key question that had motivated the calling of the election, and when the public has decided otherwise, the UK Government cannot simply cannot carry on, as the Conservative Party amendments to this debate do, as if nothing had happened.

Now, the motion before the Assembly asserts our democratic credentials in representing Welsh interests. It reaffirms our long-held position that devolved competencies exercised at the EU level remain, as Dr Dai Lloyd just articulated, and with all the authority that he brought from his friends at the end of Worm’s Head—that those competencies remain here in the National Assembly once Brexit has taken place. Last week, the First Minister published our paper on Brexit and devolution. The document makes it clear that, as we have repeatedly emphasised, after we have left the European Union, powers already devolved to Wales remain devolved. And let me be absolutely clear with Members that we will oppose any attempt by the UK Government to reclaim any powers over areas of devolved competence for itself. And that is a position that we have articulated—

Will you give way?

Yes, of course.

Simply, given your current comment there and your earlier comment in your first referral to the amendments, and amendment 1—amendment 1 commits that no decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be removed, and talks about the opportunity of bringing more decision making to the devolved level. From what you’re saying, you don’t oppose that, and surely, in recognising amendment 1, you’d be acknowledging that commitment.

The problem with the amendment, and the problem with what the Member has just said, is the deep ambiguity that lies behind that statement. As we’ve already heard in this debate, the Queen’s Speech today has a sentence in it that appears to act in precisely the opposite direction, saying that there are to be national arrangements in the fields of the environment and agriculture that cannot be achieved without taking away from this National Assembly responsibilities that are already devolved to it. We have made crystal clear to the UK Government, both before and since the general election, that if they choose to go down that route—and we have explained to them why there is absolutely no need for them to go down that route, because we will be prepared to come to the table and discuss ways of achieving sensible UK-wide arrangements without them acting in that way—but if they choose to do it, there will be a fight on their hands. It is a fight that they do not need to have, but it will be, Dirprwy Lywydd, a fight of their own making.

Now, we say that devolution is an established part of the UK constitution, and that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU must therefore respect and reflect the reality of devolution. The First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister last week. He stressed that the repeal Bill—interesting to see that the word ‘great’ has disappeared from the repeal Bill, in line with the more modest ambitions of Mrs May—but the First Minister made it clear to the Prime Minister that the—[Interruption.] Humility—that is what lies behind the absence of greatness. The First Minister made it clear that that Bill must fully respect existing devolution settlements and, as I’ve said, that the Welsh Government stands ready to work constructively and positively with the UK Government to help frame the legislation to achieve just that. I have spoken directly with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union since the general election, and once again, I laid out our position on that matter, and both Simon Thomas and Eluned Morgan are right to sound a note of concern about how that is now represented in the Queen’s Speech.

In a document that the First Minister has published, we propose the establishment of a UK council of Ministers for discussing and agreeing such frameworks. The policy document ‘Brexit and Devolution’ makes it clear that a UK council of Ministers could be utilised to gain agreement on areas where reserved powers and devolved powers are interconnected, and devolved administrations have a strong interest in UK Government policy, even when that policy is not formally devolved. UK-wide discussions and agreement in some aspects of non-devolved policy will be needed in order to ensure that policies have legitimacy across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Of course.

Just at this point I’d like to intervene rather than reply, because I think this point is important. He’s talked about the relationship between himself and his Government and the other Governments in the United Kingdom, and how that might be re-established. Can he give some assurances that there is any sign from Westminster at the moment that they are re-engaging with Welsh Government Ministers, that ministerial meetings are taking place, bilaterals are taking place, quadrilaterals—whatever is needed to get a shift on for some of these discussions that we need to have?

Well, that machinery of Government is resuming. As I said, I’ve spoken myself directly to David Davis, I have a call with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tomorrow, and I’ve come directly to the Chamber from a meeting of the JMC Europe, in which I represented Wales—Scottish Ministers were involved, and a series of UK Government Ministers were around that table as well. It’s not the absence of machinery, Dirprwy Lywydd, which has been frustrating over recent months, it is the spirit within which that machinery has been conducted, and that’s what we need to see altered.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I hope you will just allow me to deal finally with the third point in the motion, because it’s an important point that Eluned Morgan raised and I want to make sure that the Welsh Government’s position is clear in supporting the motion. Because this part of the motion refers to future trade deals, it’s an example of a policy area in which, while non-devolved, there is a direct Welsh interest in it, given the inter-dependencies with key aspects of the policy and regulatory context for devolved areas, such as steel, agriculture and fisheries.

We’ve made it clear that full and unfettered participation in the single market is our top priority. That’s fundamentally important to us in Wales, and we continue to believe that the UK should remain part of a customs union, at least for a transitional period, and we’ve been unconvinced by the UK Government’s arguments for leaving. I understand, of course, that remaining part of a customs union would mean, for as long as we were within it, that there couldn’t be any trade negotiations between the UK and other countries around the world. It’s in this context that we support the Plaid Cymru motion. We’re not accepting that trade deals with other countries is preferable to a continued membership of a customs union, but if we’re unable to be in that position, then the motion reflects where we would need to be.

Llywydd, let me end by saying that I want to stress that I believe the position we outlined in the White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, continues to represent the right approach to secure the best outcome for Wales. It’s a document that has not simply stood the test of time, I believe it is more relevant today even than on the day that it was published, and its ability to influence events is stronger today than it was back when we first published it. I look forward to continuing to argue for it with others in this Chamber who are of the same mind.

Thank you very much. I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to the Cabinet Secretary for closing the debate in a consensual manner, and I will return to some of his points in a few moments’ time. But the purpose of the Plaid Cymru debate today was to ensure that we keep a focus here in Wales on what is crucially important for Wales, for Wales’s economy and for our communities. We do that without any apology that there is another Brexit debate. There are eight Bills related to Brexit in the Queen’s Speech, so I can tell you, if you’re sick and tired of Brexit by now, then there’s far more to come over the next two years from the Westminster Parliament.

But we propose and move this motion because we believe that the political situation has changed, because the UK Government, and the Conservative Party specifically, went to the country just two months ago—just two months ago—seeking a mandate for the kind of Brexit that they wanted to see. And what was that Brexit? It’s been called a hard Brexit, but it was set out very clearly in the Lancaster House speech. It was a Brexit that left the European Union, yes, but also left the single market and exited the customs union. Plaid Cymru is of the view that we should remain within both of those institutions, and that is what’s been agreed between ourselves and the Labour Party in the White Paper.

But more importantly still, the people—not just the people of Wales, but people from across the UK—said that they were against the Brexit that Theresa May wanted to push forward. It’s true that one couldn’t discover exactly what kind of Brexit people wanted to see through the election of a hung Parliament, but it wasn’t the kind of Brexit that would destroy the Welsh economy and Welsh jobs. By now, of course, we have seen the u-turn that’s happened with the Chancellor now talking of protecting jobs, the Chancellor talking about keeping some sort of customs regime, and the Chancellor talking about a transitional period—something that wasn’t on the Conservative Party’s agenda prior to the election and something that has totally changed. That’s why Plaid Cymru believed that it was important that the Assembly should restate, if not unanimously, but certainly in terms of a party majority here, that these are the principles that we should base the Brexit negotiations on.

We are strongly of the view that all the powers and resources currently exercised at the EU level within the devolved competencies should be exercised by the National Assembly for Wales after Wales leaves the European Union. I was quite fond of Eluned Morgan’s concept that these powers had been lent to the European Union and should be returned. That might not be legally accurate, but I think we understand the concept in her remarks. That’s why the pledge made in amendment 1 by the Conservatives and in the Queen’s Speech—something that we’ve heard in the past, if truth be told—that powers will not be removed from the Assembly, well, that’s nowhere near enough for us. And it shouldn’t be enough for any party elected to the national Parliament of Wales, because that pledge not to withdraw powers from us doesn’t answer the question of what will happen to those powers that are released at the EU level and then should be returned directly to Wales in our view.

Hoffwn droi at rai o’r cyfraniadau unigol i’r ddadl yn awr, a dweud yn gyntaf oll fy mod yn meddwl bod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi ymdrin yn ddigonol—yn fwy na digonol—â’r pwynt yn ymwneud â’r undeb tollau a’r pryderon a oedd gan Eluned Morgan. Hoffwn gofnodi bod safbwynt Plaid Cymru yn union yr un fath â’r safbwynt a nodwyd gan Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, a chredwn y dylem aros yn yr undeb tollau, am y tro o leiaf. Ond pe bai trafodaethau i fod—mae hwn yn bwynt pwysig: nid oes gennym ddewis ynglŷn â hyn; Llywodraeth San Steffan fydd yn penderfynu hyn—pe bai’r trafodaethau hynny’n digwydd, yna does bosibl na ddylem fod yn rhan ohonynt a chael llais cyfartal â chenhedloedd eraill y Deyrnas Unedig yn y trafodaethau ar gytundebau masnach.

Dywedodd Neil Hamilton fod hyn yn afrealistig, oherwydd bod yr enghreifftiau a roddodd Adam Price, boed yn Awstralia neu Ganada, yn wledydd o fath gwahanol gyda gwahanol wladwriaethau gofodol a gwahanol boblogaethau. Wel, mae 13.6 miliwn o bobl yn Ontario a 146,000 o bobl ar Ynys Tywysog Edward—ni wyddwn fod y Tywysog Edward wedi cael swydd fel ynys, ond dyna ni. Dyna’r gwahaniaeth go iawn, rwy’n meddwl: yng Nghanada, mae’r ddwy ohonynt yn daleithiau; roedd gan y ddwy ohonynt lais cyfartal yn y cytundeb masnach a luniwyd gan Ganada i fod yn gytundeb masnach ar gyfer Canada. Felly, nid wyf yn credu bod ei ddadl yn dal dŵr. Ac rwy’n credu bod dadl Neil Hamilton a dadl Mark Isherwood yn rhannu ffynhonnell gyffredin, rhaid i mi ddweud. Mae sylfaen y ddadl yr un fath. Y sylfaen yw ein bod yn wlad wych, y DU, mae’n anghredadwy pa mor wych ydym ni, ac felly bydd yn rhaid i’r Ewropeaid hyn lunio cytundebau â ni. Wel, nid yw masnach yn gweithio fel yna. Crybwyllodd Adam Price y gallai fod yn rhaid inni fynd yn ôl i’r ddeunawfed ganrif. Wel, ewch yn ôl i’r bedwaredd ganrif ar bymtheg; ewch yn ôl at Disraeli. Beth a ddywedodd Disraeli am fasnach?

Nid egwyddor yw masnach rydd. Dull ydyw.

A phan ddaw’n bryd inni drafod ein perthynas â’r 27 o wledydd Ewropeaidd eraill sydd ar ôl, bydd ganddynt oll ddulliau y bydd angen i bob un eu harfer, a bydd egwyddor masnach rydd, nad yw mor egwyddorol â hynny beth bynnag, yn cael ei haberthu o bryd i’w gilydd ar allor realiti gwleidyddol. Dyna pam ei bod yn bwysig i lais Cymru gael ei glywed yn y trafodaethau hyn, ac nad yw’n cael ei wanhau mewn unrhyw ddull na modd.

Dywedodd Eluned Morgan ei bod yn pryderu y byddwn yn dal i wynebu effeithiau economaidd difrifol o’r penderfyniad i adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Nid hi yw’r unig un. Mae Mark Carney yn credu y byddwn yn wynebu effeithiau economaidd difrifol. Rhybuddiodd yn araith Mansion House ddau ddiwrnod yn ôl yn unig fod gwasgfa ar gyflogau ar ei ffordd o ganlyniad uniongyrchol i hynny.

Ac mae’n bwysig. Wrth i’r morloi gyfarth o Rosili, mae’n bwysig hefyd ein bod yn diogelu nid yn unig yr economi, ond y safonau a’r amddiffyniadau a hawliau gweithwyr sydd gennym ar hyn o bryd fel aelodau o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Nid oherwydd ein bod eisiau gwneud hynny yn syml am eu bod yn bodoli, ond oherwydd ein bod yn credu bod Llywodraeth Geidwadol wedi’i chynnal gan y DUP yn gweld y rhain fel pethau sy’n barod i gael eu cymryd oddi wrthym. Ac mae’n rhaid diogelu Bil diddymu, a fydd yn eu cadw dros dro yn unig efallai tra bod y Ceidwadwyr a’r DUP yn gweithio ar fanylion yr hyn y byddent yn hoffi ein hamddifadu ohono o ran ein hawliau, yn y cyd-destun Cymreig. A dyna pam y mae morloi Rhosili—a morloi Sir Benfro yn ogystal, os caf ddweud, sy’n cael eu diogelu lawn cystal gan Dai Lloyd rwy’n siŵr—yn iawn i alw am Fil parhad yn awr, rwy’n credu: ein bod yn datgan yr hyn rydym yn ceisio ei warchod yma yn ein Cynulliad ein hunain.

Roedd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet yn dyner iawn ac yn eithaf hael, rwy’n meddwl, yn ei agwedd at y modd rydym wedi gosod y ddadl hon—nid yn unig y cynnig ynddo’i hun, ond cyd-destun y cynnig. Ond rhaid i mi ddweud hyn, gan fynd yn ôl at yr agoriad a’r sylwadau manwl iawn, wedi’u dadlau’n dda gan Steffan Lewis, nid ydym wedi clywed eglurhad clir, mewn gwirionedd, o safbwynt Llywodraeth Cymru yn awr. Rydym yn gwybod beth oedd yn y Papur Gwyn, ac rydym yn derbyn hynny, ond mae gwleidyddiaeth yn newid—rwy’n derbyn hynny—a gadewch inni fod yn onest, nid y Ceidwadwyr yn unig a newidiwyd gan yr etholiad cyffredinol, fe newidiodd y Blaid Lafur hefyd. Rydym yn wynebu math gwahanol o Blaid Lafur bellach.

Felly, ble rydym yn awr? Ac nid wyf yn credu mai dadl yw’r lle iawn i ddatrys y mathau hyn o fanylion. Mae’n gwestiwn diwinyddol i ryw raddau. Ond rydym yn awyddus i gael y drafodaeth hon oherwydd ein bod eisiau deall ble, yn awr, pan fo gennych dros 50 o ASau Llafur a gwleidyddion o bwys, ac arglwyddi, sy’n dweud, ‘Aelodaeth o’r farchnad sengl ydyw’ pan fyddant yn ysgrifennu, ynghyd â Cheidwadwyr eraill, ‘Rydym am barhau’n aelodau o’r farchnad sengl’—rhywbeth y gall Plaid Cymru ei gefnogi—ac eto ni allwn gael y Prif Weinidog i ateb Leanne Wood a dweud, ‘Ie, aelodaeth o’r farchnad sengl.’ Ni allem ei gael i ddweud ‘cymryd rhan’ yn yr union ffordd y mae’n ei ddweud yn y Papur Gwyn.

Rwy’n credu bod hynny’n rhywbeth sydd angen ei ddatrys, gan fy mod hefyd yn meddwl bod yna lawer o waith i’w wneud ar ran pobl Cymru yma, ac rwy’n meddwl yn sicr fod mwy nag un blaid yn y Cynulliad sy’n gallu gwneud hyn, a cheir unigolion o fwy na dwy blaid. Rwy’n meddwl bod yna unigolion mewn mannau eraill a allai fod â diddordeb mewn symud hyn ymlaen hefyd. A hoffwn ein gweld yn cydweithio cymaint â phosibl ar y materion hyn, ond er mwyn gwneud hynny, mae’n rhaid i’r Prif Weinidog ei hun roi ymrwymiad clir iawn ynglŷn â’r hyn y mae’n ceisio ei gyflawni ar ran Cymru.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any member object? [Objection.] Therefore we’ll vote on this item in voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.