The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Neil Hamilton, and amendment 2 in the name of Paul Davies. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected.

And that brings us to the debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. And I call on the First Minister to move the motion—Carwyn Jones.

Motion NNDM6374 Jane Hutt, Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the UK Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

2. Believes:

a) it is wholly unacceptable in its current form; and

b) all necessary steps must be taken to protect the interests of Wales and the constitutional position and powers of the National Assembly, including the publication of a continuity bill.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, the publication last week of the UK Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Bill represents a hugely significant moment in the development of the debate about the way in which the UK will leave the EU. There’s no doubt that we need legislation, to ensure the continued effect of EU-derived law after we leave the EU, but whether this Bill is what is needed is much open to question.

While the UK Government may have changed the title of the legislation, previously known as the great repeal Bill, this is a rare and, it would appear, isolated example of Government humility in its approach to Brexit. Once you get beyond the front page, there is little if any evidence of the Prime Minister’s supposed willingness, after the general election, to consult widely, and to listen to other views on the vital questions that face the UK. But there are many issues, of course, that I could raise here, for example: whether it is right, when the purpose of the legislation is purportedly to maintain the rights we possess by virtue of our membership of the EU, to scrap the charter of fundamental rights; whether clause 6, which would end any powers of the European Court of Justice on the day we leave, is a piece of political grandstanding, which has no place in what is portrayed as a technical piece of legislation—and there will be other things as well.

But I hope Members will excuse me today if I concentrate on the huge challenge that the Bill represents to the devolved settlement as it’s developed over the course of the last two decades. This is rooted, let’s remind ourselves, in popular consent. The 2011 referendum, for example, saw a large majority vote in favour of giving this National Assembly primary legislative powers. Despite the very clear and repeated warnings from myself, and the whole of the Welsh Government, that we would not accept any attempt to use EU withdrawal as a cover for a recentralisation of power, that is exactly what this Bill, as drafted, aims to achieve. It’s an attempt to take back control over devolved policies such as the environment, agriculture and fisheries—not just from Brussels, but from Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast.

Now, this matters—it matters because devolution is about having the opportunity here in Wales to determine for ourselves policies that are appropriate to Wales, and which clearly have the consent of voters here in Wales. We cannot turn back the clock to the age when a Government with a thin majority in Westminster, and no mandate at all from Wales and Scotland, could impose policies like the poll tax in the teeth of the opposition of the vast majority of elected representatives from Wales and Scotland.

The Bill seeks to put in place, with no limitations, qualifications or so-called sunset clauses, new constraints on this National Assembly’s ability to legislative effectively after Brexit on matters where we currently operate within legislative frameworks developed by the EU. If this Bill is passed in its current form, we will be prevented from legislating in any way that is incompatible with retained EU law. Existing EU law will be frozen, with only the UK Parliament being allowed to unfreeze it. In practice, this will provide a window for the UK Government to seek parliamentary approval to impose new UK-wide frameworks in devolved areas such as agriculture, the environment and fisheries.

Now, Llywydd, this is totally unacceptable and it strikes at the very heart of devolution. It’s the thin end of a very big wedge. If we accept this, how long would it be before the UK Government would start to argue for UK-wide frameworks for health and education on the basis of its unique role in representing the whole UK and the importance of devolution not getting in the way of a global Britain? After all, if the price that the United States demands for a quick trade deal is to give private companies enhanced rights to deliver NHS care, why should the National Assembly and the Welsh Government be allowed to stand in the way? That would be their argument.

Would the First Minister give way?

Yes.

Thank you for giving way. I wonder if he could share his views on why some elements of the Bill in its current form, from the UK Government’s perspective, includes sunset clauses. There will be an expiry on certain functions that are being conferred upon UK Ministers. But when it comes to devolution, despite the public pronouncements that this is just a temporary measure for the sake of good housekeeping, there is no sunset clause relating to the power grab on devolved areas of responsibility.

His observations are quite correct. I can’t explain their reasoning, but certainly it is right to say that there is no—. Despite what they have said in public, there is actually nothing in writing in the Bill that suggests a temporary basis for what they are proposing, and that, of course, is of great concern to us. The UK Government will argue that this does not constrain our freedom to act any more than is the case today—it just replaces the powers of the EU and the European Commission with those to be exercised by the UK Parliament and the UK civil service. But EU frameworks are developed on the basis of proposals from a European Commission that is not the creature of one Government, often after intense negotiation between 28 member states and the European Parliament, and they are independently supervised by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. What’s more, at the moment, in negotiations within the EU about, for example, the future of the common agricultural policy, we are guaranteed a role, through the memorandum of understanding, in shaping a UK position that reflects the needs of all parts of the UK, not just England.

Now, of course, having resolutely refused to listen to the very consistent messages—no-one can claim this is out of the blue—from myself, Mark Drakeford, and officials, about the complete unacceptability of any proposals such as those they’ve now made in the Bill, the UK Government now appears to be rowing back. Of course, I welcome that, but forgive me if I do so only cautiously. We’re told that the freeze is only an interim measure, though there’s nothing in the Bill that gives us any confidence that this could be relied on. We’re told that the proposals are intended to provide a window to build trust and give space for discussions to reach agreements on what frameworks are necessary after we leave the EU and what they should contain, and we are told that Ministers are keen to start these discussions urgently. Now, I’m not quite sure how holding a gun to someone’s head and saying that you don’t intend to fire it is expected to build trust, and, if the UK Government were serious about starting discussions on frameworks, I don’t understand why they’ve done absolutely nothing about it in the last six months since we made this proposal in our White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’—a White Paper, of course, jointly produced with Plaid Cymru.

Would the First Minister give way? I’m grateful. Just on that point, of course it doesn’t build trust when you don’t meet with Ministers and don’t have a JMC and so forth. But even if this Bill did have a sunset clause inserted into the devolved parts of it, would that be sufficient, in his view, to build that trust?

No, that would cut across what we’ve always said, which is that the powers should come to Wales and then all Governments should agree that those powers should be frozen, but, by consent, until such time as new frameworks are developed. The key principle here is consent, not imposition. So, ‘no’ is the answer. It wouldn’t be sufficient.

The joint ministerial council, whose job it is to oversee such negotiations, hasn’t even met since February due to the prevarication of Ministers in London. The powers that the UK Government wants to take over future legislative competence, though disproportionate and wrong-headed, were at least hinted at in previous UK Government statements and its White Paper. But, the Bill also contains a shock in respect of the so-called Henry VIII powers, which it’s proposed should be taken by Ministers to correct existing legislation to make it workable in the new context.

Now, those powers that the Bill proposes that should be vested in Welsh Ministers are limited and constrained in extremely unhelpful ways. The powers to amend directly applicable EU law or regulations, and the like, which account for most of the EU legislative framework for agriculture for example, are retained solely by the UK Government. Since UK Ministers want to retain their own powers in parallel to those of Welsh Ministers, to amend any legislation within devolved competence, it even appears that UK Ministers will be able to amend legislation within the competence of the National Assembly without being answerable to the National Assembly to explain what they’re doing and why. Once again, since the publication of this Bill we’ve been told that UK Ministers will only use such powers after consulting—consulting—with the Welsh Government and the National Assembly, but there’s nothing in what is an extremely complex Bill to say that, and even that would be insufficient. And if that’s really the case, I fail to see why it would be more difficult, in the case of EU regulations that need the same fix across the UK, for the UK Government and the devolved administrations to agree the most appropriate way forward and then each consult properly with their own legislatures. Surely, that is the democratic response and approach.

Llywydd, we’ve been very clear that we understand and support the idea of a Bill to provide clarity and certainty for citizens and businesses as Brexit takes effect. We accept, too, that there will be a need to make some amendments so that existing law is workable in the new context of the UK being outside of the EU. We’re willing to play our part in that. Our ‘Brexit and Devolution’ paper put forward a clear and workable approach to the question of how to ensure a level playing field across the UK in respect of policies where there are currently EU regulatory frameworks. That approach has received broad support in this Assembly and from academic commentators as well as from colleagues in Scotland. But, the UK Government’s response has been a mixture of bluster, condescension and disrespect. We need better than that.

We’ve still not been told whether the UK Government considers the approach that we’ve put forward workable, and, if not, why not. Why have they concluded that without even trying to move forward by agreement that that is what they want to do? In terms of process, the JMC(EN), which should have had a crucial role in all of this has not met since February and, as a consequence, has had no oversight of the development of the Bill. Moreover, the Bill has been developed without any proper consultation with the Welsh Government. Can I say, the Welsh Government was not involved in drafting the Bill? That is entirely incorrect. We have not had proper consultation at either political or official level, and it’s only very recently that draft provisions were shared with our officials on the basis that nothing would change. ‘This is what you’re getting and, incidentally, nothing will change as a result’. It’s hugely important that that is understood. The Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, as I said earlier on, have not been involved in drafting the Bill. I don’t believe the Secretary of State was trying to be deliberately misleading, but it shows how shambolic the internal communications within the UK Government are.

In terms of substance, as I’ve made abundantly clear, the Bill is unacceptable in its current form in the way it deals with devolution. When I wrote to the Prime Minister on 12 June—and I have not had a response from the Prime Minister to that letter—I urged her not to embark on a fight with the devolved administrations she did not need at a time when, as a UK, we faced unprecedented challenges. No response. There was a response from the Secretary of State, but the letter, with respect, wasn’t sent to the Secretary of State; it was sent to the Prime Minister and no answer was forthcoming.

Now, let me be clear: we will not hesitate to fight as hard as we can to prevent the unacceptable parts of this Bill from becoming law. We will not recommend to this National Assembly that it provides legislative consent to a Bill that fundamentally undermines our own powers. We will work across the Assembly and with the other devolved administrations to defend our devolution settlement. And, to this end, we are continuing intensive work on a possible continuity Bill, which we will introduce if the UK Government does not amend the withdrawal Bill in such a way as to address our concerns. This is not about trying to prevent, undermine or complicate Brexit. It’s about resisting an attempt to recentralise power to Westminster and Whitehall and turn the clock back to the 1980s. So, I ask the whole of the Assembly to support us in this fight to defend devolution and the right of this institution and all its Members to determine policies appropriate for the people of Wales and, therefore, to support this motion.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendment 1, tabled in his name. Neil Hamilton.

Amendment 1— Neil Hamilton

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Believes that the UK Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Bill proves no threat to the current devolution settlement.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch Llywydd. The First Minister frequently says that he accepts the referendum result, but, of course, he doesn’t really. He’s like those Japanese soldiers who used occasionally to be found in the Borneo jungles years after 1945 still fighting the war as though it had never been ended. This is another opportunity for the First Minister to grandstand on an issue where the Welsh people voted a different way from him in the referendum campaign. There is nothing in this Bill whatsoever that will reduce the powers of this Assembly or undermine the devolution settlement. What we’re doing via this Bill is actually devolving powers from Brussels to Westminster and, ultimately, to Cardiff, and devolving them from people whom we not only don’t elect and can’t dismiss, but can’t even name—the people who are the ultimate decision makers in the EU by opaque processes—[Interruption.]—opaque processes that are far removed from a democratic institution such as this.

The First Minister in his introduction to his speech today mentioned the charter of fundamental rights. This is a very good case in point. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, this, by the way, was the document that the then Minister for Europe, Mr Keith Vaz, described as being of no greater binding force in law than ‘The Beano’. He said that in 2000, and yet the European Court then decided that it was actually binding in European law upon us, and yet Tony Blair had said quite categorically in 2007, ‘Let us make it absolutely clear that we have secured an opt-out from the charter’—an opt-out that was illusory. So, what the First Minister is doing, of course, is trying to accommodate himself to a decision made just over a year ago of which he did not approve.

The Bill says, in clause 11, that there is nothing that this institution was able to do before exit that it will not be able to do in future. And yes, of course, there is a period of transition. The First Minister is always saying that the process of delivering Brexit is so complicated that we need an extended period of transition in order to bring it about. Well, that is, to an extent, right, and that is what this Bill proposes. The Prime Minister has said on many occasions, and other Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Wales, have said many times that there is no intention on the part of the UK Government to undermine or detract from the devolution settlement. On 29 March this year, the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons,

‘no decisions currently taken by the devolved Administrations will be removed from them.’

Now, that is a categorical statement, and I see no evidence whatsoever for saying that the Prime Minister did not intend that to be carried out and nor does she now. Indeed, it’s fanciful to imagine that a cataclysmic change of the kind that the First Minister fears could possibly take place today. He complains that we can’t trust the Government. Well, we can’t trust the House of Commons and the House of Lords as the houses of Parliament. Well, that is true of the existing devolution settlement. It’s always been possible for the United Kingdom Parliament to repeal all the devolution statutes if it wants to, but nobody seriously expects that consequence ever to arise, certainly not in our lifetime. So, this is a wholly illusory manufactured crisis for temporary political advantage as the First Minister sees it.

The process of withdrawal from the European Union is going to be complicated because of the volume of legislation that has been generated by the EU, usually by wholly undemocratic means, over the last 44 years. European Union regulations—which originated in the Council of Ministers, it’s true, voted on by the Council of Ministers, but over which we have no direct control from the legislative institutions of the United Kingdom—apply to Wales. At least now, by devolving these powers temporarily to Westminster and, ultimately, to Cardiff, it’ll be elected politicians who are answerable for the decisions that are taken, and we will have a means of participating in the process. I do accept that the First Minister has a point in saying that there should have been proper consultation between UK Ministers and Welsh Ministers in recent months. He’s absolutely right to say it, and I do believe it is disrespectful to the Welsh Government and to this Assembly for them not to have done so, but, nevertheless, I don’t think that we should confuse that with the political reality that the British people, and the Welsh people, voted to leave the European Union on 23 June last year, and there has to be a legislative process to bring that about. Because of the volume of legislation and the complexity of legislation that is concerned here, it is impossible to make all the detailed changes in the short time that is available to us before the end of the two-year period—

Member of the Senedd:

Will you take an intervention?

I’m afraid I can’t. I’m over the time already and I have to sit down. So, what I would say to the First Minister—

You said it. [Laughter.]

Yes, what I would say to the First Minister—in conclusion, Llywydd. What I would say to the First Minister, in conclusion, is: get with this, rather than trying to fight against it, because you will not be taken seriously if you carry on trying to resist a process that is inexorable and that the Welsh people themselves have voted for.

Amendment 2—Paul Davies

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Recognises that the parliaments and assemblies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the modern democratic settlement of the United Kingdom and should be fully engaged with the future makeup of a vibrant UK post-Brexit.

Amendment 2 moved.

I’ll just conclude that by saying let’s find solutions together. The European withdrawal Bill ensures that, so far as possible, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before, providing the maximum possible certainty and continuity to businesses, employees and consumers across the whole UK that they will not be subject to unexpected changes, and ensuring that the statute book is able to function on the day after we leave the EU. The Bill is therefore technical in nature, rather than a vehicle for major policy changes—making inoperable legislation operable and giving both UK and devolved Governments a time-limited power to correct laws by secondary legislation that would otherwise not function properly once we left the EU, with powers going to the Welsh Government to make changes in devolved areas, and UK Ministers only able to make changes on devolved matters with consent.

This Bill will ensure that Welsh businesses, including farmers and steel producers, can continue to trade with the European Union immediately after the UK leaves the EU. The Bill also recognises that the UK as a whole must be able to guarantee EU principles in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. The same rules and laws will apply to businesses and the same rights to workers as we leave the European Union. Although the Bill would ensure retained EU law the day after leaving the EU, this will only be in a holding pattern within a transitional arrangement that will provide certainty after exit and allow for intensive discussions with the Welsh Government, National Assembly and other devolved administrations and legislatures on common frameworks to, for example, ensure that there are no barriers to working and trading within the UK and no risks to agreeing future trade agreements. As a result of—

Will you give way?

Hefin.

Can I just ask him to reflect? The UKIP amendment seems to be more supportive of the Conservative Government than the Conservative amendment. [Laughter.] Could I ask what sort of argy-bargy went on within the Conservative group to agree it?

Well, wait and hear the rest of my speech. I haven’t discussed this with the UKIP group. [Laughter.] The UK Government expects there to be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration. Because the Bill affects the powers of the devolved administrations and legislatures, the UK Government will seek the consent of the devolved legislatures for the Bill.

It is regrettable that the First Minister described the Bill as, quote, ‘a naked power grab’ last Thursday, and then said the next day that the Welsh Secretary had assured him that they will work together to make the situation acceptable when this assurance had already been provided before he issued his ‘naked power grab’ statement. As a UK Government source in Wales confirmed last Thursday, his initial response was completely different to what they were seeing in talks behind the scenes.

However, I hope he will support our amendment, which recognises that the Parliament and Assemblies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the modern democratic settlement of the United Kingdom and should be fully engaged with the future—

Will you take an intervention, please?

[Continues.]—make-up of a vibrant UK post-Brexit. I’m sorry, I’m time limited. I’ve already had one intervention.

The UK Government intends to work closely with devolved administrations to identify areas that do not need common frameworks and which could, therefore, be released from the transitional arrangement. Beyond that, however, we do need agreed UK-wide frameworks that respect the devolved settlement. After all, if frameworks are agreed, there will be no constitutional problem. Although this Bill does not take back existing competences from the Assembly, there is, as we heard, no end date for the restriction on devolved competency created by the retained EU law model it will introduce. The UK Government argues that this would remove incentives for Welsh Ministers to agree a UK framework. In contrast and in reality, however, we know that both the Welsh Government and this Assembly have consistently called for an agreed framework. There is therefore no reason why the Bill could not state that the restriction on devolved competency would end when common agreed frameworks come into force. Further, although international agreements in the devolved areas of agriculture, fisheries and the environment are reserved to the UK Government, the principles applying to these areas must provide a foundation for future agreements on common frameworks between the Governments of the UK as a basis of any free trade agreement.

It is therefore essential that this Bill should address these and other matters, and I therefore welcome confirmation from the UK Government that on the issue of amendments, the Bill’s Second Reading is scheduled for Westminster’s autumn term, specifically to allow devolved administrations the time to go through the Bill in detail during the summer. So, let us responsibly go through that Bill, identify the amendments that we can all agree upon, and engage with the UK Government and Parliament to introduce them at the Second Reading. Thank you.

This debate takes place with a matter of urgency. We should be under no illusions about the UK Government’s EU withdrawal Bill—what was called the repeal Bill. It’s nothing less than an attempt to tighten London’s grip on Wales. Leaving the European Union is a matter of deciding how to implement a referendum vote. We must all remember that there have also been two referendums on devolution, and in both 1997 and in 2011 my party fought tooth and nail as part of those campaigns, both of which were successful. People in Wales have voted twice to empower our own Welsh democracy and our own national institutions. The EU withdrawal Bill overrides and overrules those votes in a way that is unacceptable.

Where frameworks for the operation of a UK market must exist, they should be co-decided by the devolved Governments. We have a clear interest in agriculture, in environmental protection, in structural funds and in other areas of regulation that benefit people in our society. The Welsh voice in deciding how new frameworks and returning powers operate must be heard loud and clear, and those powers should not be intercepted by Westminster and placed in some kind of indefinite holding pattern where our only defence is to trust the goodwill of Whitehall.

We are relying on the Government’s word that this will only be a transitional arrangement. As we’ve heard, there is no sunset clause in the Bill for retained EU law falling under devolved competences. Neither is there provision in the Bill to allow devolved administrations to come to a formal agreement with the UK Government. All of those issues, it would appear, will be subject to bilateral negotiation and will be resolved at the discretion of the UK Government.

So, what can this Assembly do in practical terms? The inclusion of a continuity Bill in this motion is crucial. Plaid Cymru believes that it is essential that we have such a Bill to protect the constitutional status of Wales. It deserves to be repeated for the record that my colleague Steffan Lewis first advocated this Bill back in November 2016. This was before the UK Government repeal Bill White Paper was published. Even before the UK Government’s intentions become obvious, Plaid Cymru believed that steps should be taken to ensure that those EU regulatory frameworks could be retained in Welsh law. We took that view because we anticipated what the UK Government’s intentions would be. Those intentions were clarified in the UK Government’s repeal Bill White Paper, passed this last spring, but it’s fair to say that Plaid Cymru saw this threat coming.

So in backing this motion, Plaid Cymru is strongly of the view that this country would be in a stronger position today if a continuity Bill had already been laid. But we are where we are, and so it is essential that this Bill is developed and published now without further delay. In supporting today’s motion, Plaid Cymru urges the Welsh Government to go ahead and publish that Bill.

The motion also makes it clear that there would be other steps if the UK Government continues to go down this route. Every parliamentary, governmental and legal avenue must be pursued in order to hold them to account. We cannot have a specific type of EU withdrawal whereby this National Assembly, our future Welsh Parliament, is undermined or belittled, and I know that other devolved countries feel the same. It’s worth considering and acknowledging that these technical and constitutional issues may well not be the talk of the pub, the street or the workplace. That’s fair enough. But people in Wales do expect their country to be respected and to be listened to. Taking back control must mean powers coming to Wales, and for us it has to mean that Westminster must treat this country with the respect that we deserve.

The trouble with this Bill is that it isn’t about withdrawal from the EU, it’s about withdrawal from the devolution settlement. Let’s be clear: it would have been perfectly possible for the UK Government to present a Bill that takes us out of the European Union whilst also respecting the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. But what the Bill does in truth is that it exposes two things: firstly, unfortunately, the vulnerability of our devolution settlement, and secondly, that we are still tied to what is by now a totally outmoded view of parliamentary supremacy. We have a situation where the UK Parliament is legislating to give powers to Welsh Ministers. Now, we recognise—and the external affairs committee in its deliberations recognised this explicitly—that time constraints and practical limitations might mean that is a necessity. But the UK Government, if it’s acting on behalf of this Chamber in taking those steps, should do so in accordance with the requirements and considerations of this Assembly, and there is nothing in the Bill that provides for that.

Parliamentary supremacy is a concept for another age, and in this democratic age, where the people of Wales have expressed a clear view in a referendum that this body should have primary legislative powers, this should not be set aside by the UK Parliament in any respect, and it certainly should not be set aside by UK Ministers. Yet that is what the Bill does. In doing so, it take us way beyond even that idea of parliamentary sovereignty, giving UK Ministers the ability to amend devolved legislation democratically passed in this Assembly—in fact, contrary to what Mark Isherwood said, without the requirement for consent. It is no surprise to me that the Secretary of State for Wales is such an enthusiast for this Bill. It turns him into a viceroy, in fact.

We are looking at a situation not just where this Assembly has powers taken away or legislation amended by UK Ministers, but where it is at a disadvantage against what is the English Parliament when acting in relation to reserved matters. The Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Assemblies cannot change the pre-Brexit legislation that they must comply with, and yet the English Parliament, piggy-backing, in effect, on the UK Parliament’s parliamentary sovereignty, is not constrained in that way. So we have a fundamental unfairness built into the provisions of this Act. What possible justification could there be for us accepting that lack of a level constitutional playing field?

Finally, on the question of a continuation Act, I hope that the Government will bring that forward as soon as humanly possible. I think it’s an opportunity for us to assert our view of the powers that we retain in this place, but it’s also an opportunity for us to assert an alternative vision, and one that isn’t principally based on that outdated idea of parliamentary sovereignty but on constitutionality and subsidiarity.

Let’s be clear: Labour and Plaid’s proposals regarding Brexit, including this continuity Bill, are an attempt to remain in the EU in all but name by those who campaigned to stay in the EU and are not willing to accept the result and voice of the majority of Welsh voters. But the ‘remain’ side seem to forget their line of attack at times. In one breath, they’ll say that leaving the single market is unjustified as the lack of a detailed referendum question means that no-one knows what the public’s opinion is, yet in the next breath they claim they know that people didn’t vote for more controls on immigration. Labour and the other remainers are also very fond of the argument that our nursing, social care, veterinary and other sectors are dependent on migrant labour, but that reliance is home grown, caused by successive governments in the UK and Wales failing miserably to fund the training for our own people to do this work.

The First Minister, in his debate with Nigel Farage, made it clear a number of times that a vote to leave the EU would mean leaving—leaving—the single market. Can the First Minister and the other remainers in this place not for one second just accept that perhaps people did hear what he had to say about leaving the single market, but simply disagreed with him? [Interruption.] No. Mr Jones used to think—and still thinks—that many of the decisions about Wales would be better made by a European civil servant than his own Welsh Labour Government. Whilst I agree with him that important decisions should not be left to Labour, I do not think they should be left to the EU either. Labour have messed up everything that has been devolved to this place so far, whether it’s education, the NHS or housing. But this is a matter of democratic accountability, and the ability to sack those who make bad decisions. If the out-of-touch, complacent decision maker, who has no understanding of what life is like for the average person in Wales, consistently makes mistakes, people can stop voting Labour and let someone else have a go, but only on matters devolved to here, or in general elections for issues that are still UK competencies.

The proposal of a continuity Bill is yet another example of Labour deciding that they know best and ignoring the will of the Welsh people: that we will want to stay part of the UK, having some decisions made at a UK-wide level, but to leave the EU. Labour and Plaid want us to remain in the EU and the continuity Bill is their way of dealing with the offence they felt when it was clear that the electorate didn’t agree with them. Labour are ignoring the wishes of the voters simply because the voters ignored the wishes of Labour. Carwyn Jones and the other remainers in this place cannot in one breath say that the general election was not about Brexit, as he did before polling day, and then use the result to say the voters rejected true Brexit afterwards.

However hard the other parties try to bend the election results to fit their own ideology, you cannot deny that the majority of Welsh people agree with UKIP when the discussion is about Brexit. The First Minister mentioned it would mean leaving the single market, and the propaganda booklet sent out by the Tory Government on behalf of the ‘remain’ camp made a reference to leaving the single market on a majority of its pages in its scaremongering. If you say we cannot know exactly what people were voting for because the question lacked details, then we must default to the simplest assumption, that the vote to leave was exactly that: a vote to leave entirely. If a voter had wanted to retain any part of EU membership, be that freedom of movement or membership of the single market or anything else, they would have voted to remain. But they didn’t. The people wanted out, with all the consequences that entailed.

The continuity Bill—a step towards retaining membership of the single market, in my opinion—including all of its rules and submission to the European court—[Interruption.] We will see. We’ll see. The people didn’t vote for the EU to continue making our laws through the back door via a continuity Bill. The Welsh Labour Government say they stand for working people, but the decimation of all that has been devolved to it is a betrayal that shows the only thing Labour and Plaid politicians actually stand for is election. Thank you.

I welcome this much-needed debate in light of the publication of the EU withdrawal Bill, formerly known as the repeal Bill, formerly known as the great repeal Bill. From the outset, of course, Plaid Cymru has no issue with the principle of an Act that transfers into the jurisdictions of the UK all EU laws and regulations, so that on separation day we do not fall over a cliff edge. Plaid Cymru’s preference for that process, though, was for an immediate negotiation to commence after the referendum between the Governments of these islands to agree on a legislative framework so that EU laws could be transferred domestically in a way that upholds and respects the constitutional arrangements of our nations. This could have been concluded before article 50 was triggered, of course.

There are several clauses in the EU withdrawal Bill that cause great concern, but of special concern are, obviously, clause 11, relating to devolution, and clauses 7(1) and 7(2). Clause 11 should come as no surprise to anyone, sadly. It amends our constitution to ensure that our Parliament has no competence over EU regulations that would otherwise automatically fall within our competence upon separation day. Notice was given to us of this intention in the UK Government’s White Paper. In that White Paper, they intentionally misrepresented current arrangements for the agreement of EU frameworks as a means of laying the groundwork for the power grab that they now intend to formulate in law.

Llywydd, I remember much celebration in this Chamber at the time of the last Wales Bill becoming an Act due to the enshrining of the Sewel convention in our constitution. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has removed any doubt, if any exited, that it is simply not worth the paper it is written on. Westminster is supreme, and two devolution referenda in Wales can be trumped by just one single clause in one Westminster Bill.

But, as unacceptable as clause 11 is, we should not lose sight of clauses 7(1) and 7(2), and I would urge the First Minister not to be distracted by just clause 11 as the standalone. Even if clause 11 is removed, the powers delegated to UK Ministers in 7(1) and 7(2) are so far reaching and broad that UK Ministers can issue regulations and, indeed, amend or repeal any law, as they deem fit, passed by any Parliament in the United Kingdom in order to mitigate any failure or deficiency, as they see it, in retained European Union law.

That allows for the imposition of new bodies, new policies and new regulations on matters that are the responsibility today of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly. These powers, as well, I expect will be used to amend elements of the 759 international treaties that the UK will no longer be a direct party of from separation day onwards. Of those 759 treaties, 34 relate to food and agriculture, 69 to fisheries, 65 to transport, 202 to regulatory co-operation and 295 to trade—all of these either wholly or partially within the current Welsh constitution.

I welcome the fact that today’s motion commits us to the publication of a continuity Bill for Wales, and I don’t underestimate for one minute the significance of that endeavour. I’m disappointed that a framework Bill for a continuity Bill was not published last year—who knows, it might have raised the political stakes to a level where the UK Government might have thought twice about publishing the nonsense Bill that they published last week.

The Welsh Government has previously, of course, published an alternative Wales Bill with a clear political objective, and a continuity Bill could do something similar, as well as address the practical benefit of providing clarity and continuity for Welsh citizens, key sectors of our economy and communities after separation day. Not to do so—not to proceed with a continuity Bill—in my opinion would be a dereliction of our duty to uphold the expressed wishes of the people of Wales in terms of how they decide they want to be governed. We waited 600 years for home rule. We cannot allow it to be eroded within the next six months by a mob in Westminster with no mandate to do so.

Let me in the first instance reiterate UKIP AMs’ total and unconditional commitment to having any devolved powers that return from Europe passed in total to this Assembly. However, I find it quite incomprehensible that there are two parties in this Assembly that have become so vociferous with regard to this land grab of powers that are to be devolved to the UK from Europe, when they were quite content to let those very powers reside in Brussels ad infinitum. This despite the fact that there are only—

Will the Member give way?

Of course.

I’m grateful to him for giving way. He will know, of course, that at the moment, at the Council of Ministers, Welsh Ministers address the European Council of Ministers and European frameworks are agreed jointly between member states, with devolved Governments having a role. Under this wonderful partnership of equals that we have in these islands, our Government will not have any say in any future UK regulation or framework that they decide to impose upon us.

Well, wait a minute. There’s only one in 27 as far as the Commission is concerned with the UK Government in Europe, and the Commission, as you know, makes all the decisions with regard to powers that will come out of Europe and affect the Welsh people.

This despite the fact—and I’ll go on to make this point—this despite the fact that we had only four representative MEPs in an undemocratic Parliament in the EU, as opposed to 40 representatives in Westminster, a democratic Parliament—most of whom, I’ll point out, are Labour MPs. And all this against the backdrop that over the last term of the European Parliament, all of the 14 amendments to European Acts laid down by UKIP, which would have benefited Wales, were voted down by Labour and Plaid MEPs purely through party political prejudice. I’m afraid the rhetoric of both Labour and Plaid on these matters rings conspicuously hollow.

About a year ago—a year ago next week—I took part in a debate on the Country Land and Business Association stand in the Royal Welsh Show with the leader of UKIP, Neil Hamilton, where I set out very clearly that Plaid Cymru does agree with the need for UK frameworks as we leave the European Union, and wanted to work in building up those frameworks for agriculture, fisheries and for the environment. But, let’s be clear: this Bill does not deliver a framework; it delivers an imposition. Nothing betrays the motives of those who wanted to take us out of the EU better than the manner of us departing from the EU, because they have taken every opportunity not to resolve matters, as the Conservative Party claims, not to resolve uncertainties, but to create confusion, to sow and disguise their lack of a plan, their lack of ambition and their lack of ideas, and, simply put, to grab power back from this Parliament.

This is going to be one of the most important Bills that the Westminster Parliament will consider for some decades. It’s certainly an important Bill for us to consider, but let’s take an overview of the Bill. If we are parliamentarians here, and I hope we all are, then the fundamental principle is that Parliament makes the law and Government administers the law in line with Parliament’s views. Admittedly, from time to time, you delegate powers to Ministers through specific delegated legislation, but what’s striking about this Bill is the potency and scope of the powers given directly to Ministers. These include the famous Henry VIII powers that not only seek to amend or repeal retained EU law, but other Acts of Parliament and Acts of this Parliament as well. That goes way beyond what is demanded of any piece of legislation to leave the European Union in an orderly fashion.

It was the House of Lords Constitution Committee in a recent report that said it feared the Bill, when published, would effect ‘a massive transfer’—their quote—‘a massive transfer’ of power from Parliament to the Government. That is precisely what this Bill does, but not just from the Westminster Parliament to the Westminster Government, but from this Parliament to the Westminster Government.

And when was the last time that a piece of statutory instrument was rejected by the Westminster Parliament? When was the last time that these pieces of delegated secondary legislation were actually scrutinised and rejected by Westminster? Well, I’ll tell you when: 1979. That was the last time that a statutory instrument was rejected. We have rejected statutory instruments here, but that’s the last time Westminster rejected them. So, you’re giving all this power to Westminster Ministers with no control; in effect, no parliamentary control. And, of course, the Bill raises real issues here, and here I think the best thing I can do is quote from a public law analysis of the Bill. And I quote to start:

‘At the moment, devolved legislatures are forbidden from doing things that breach EU law’— that’s written in to our fundamental Wales Acts of course—

‘even if the thing they wish to do concerns a subject-matter that is devolved. When the UK leaves the EU, by default that restriction will go—in effect causing powers to flow from Brussels to the devolved capitals…. But’— the analysis continues—

‘the Bill erects a diversion, providing that repatriated powers, even when they relate to devolved subjects, will instead go to London.’

That’s not a Plaid Cymru analysis. That’s not a Labour Party analysis. That’s a public law professor analysis of what this Bill actually does. And that’s why, of course, we need clause—well, I don’t need it—but that’s why the Conservatives want clause 11 in the Bill. If the Bill didn’t do anything, if leaving the EU didn’t repatriate these powers directly to us, why put clause 11 in there? You only put clause 11 in there because you know damn well what’s going to happen when we leave the EU. Those powers won’t stop at number 10 or number 11 Downing Street, or anywhere in Whitehall; they’ll come straight down the Thames, through the Cotswolds and straight down the Severn to us. That’s what will really happen. That’s why clause 11 is there, because the Conservative Government know what would happen.

Let’s just turn very briefly to the environmental impact of this. If we allow this Bill to go through in its present form, it will be Michael Gove that will decide on environment and agriculture here in Wales. GM crops, currently not allowed in Wales through the EU framework, could easily be decided through this framework. Neonicotinoids, the bee pesticides banned since 2011, could easily be allowed. Michael Gove wants to bring them back, he wants to allow bee pesticides to be sprayed; he could do that under this framework. Air pollution—which we fought against here in Wales—the Conservative Government has a very poor attitude towards air pollution and could easily override the European Court of Justice rulings that have saved and helped clean up air pollution here in Wales. And bovine TB, which I raised with the First Minister on Friday, is part of an EU-agreed programme for the eradication of TB. If the Westminster Government thought it would be better for a trade deal to have a cull of badgers throughout Wales, it could easily do so under this Bill. This Bill is a real threat not only to our constitution, it’s a real threat to our daily lives.

I call on the First Minister to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. Listening to Simon Thomas there, he gave some very concrete examples of what can happen—what will happen, indeed—if the Bill remains as it is. Much of what the Bill contains, I would agree with. Much of what Mark Isherwood said I agree with, in terms of what he was advocating: namely, no change; certainty—I agree with; making sure that there is not a sudden change when we leave the EU; and making sure, of course, that there can be, where appropriate, UK-wide frameworks in the future. I don’t disagree with any of that. It’s the way it’s being done that’s the problem. At the heart of this Bill is a rejection of the principle of consent and an acceptance of the principle of imposition. To put it crudely, what this Bill has at the moment is a proposal that England can do what it wants, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can’t. Now, it’s either one rule for all or no rules at all. Surely, it has to be that way.

There will be some, I’m sure, on the Conservative benches who share my disquiet. Today, I can understand why they feel now’s not the time to express those views. But, can I say, this is not a scenario where we are trying to oppose something without having put something else forward as an alternative? We’ve done this for weeks on end. We’ve said to the UK Government: we understand the need for continuity, we understand the need for certainly. Let’s make sure—as Simon Thomas says, clause 11 wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t for the fact that these powers come straight to us—let’s all agree we will not change things until we are all agreed. That is the mature partnership approach that should be taken in the UK now. Rather, the UK Government’s taken the approach that the UK Government is supreme and everyone else must simply follow along. But the UK Government has said that it wants the consent of this legislature. Now, that consent cannot be conditional. It cannot say, if we do not give consent, ‘Well, actually, we’re going to ignore you.’ It’s not the doctrine of limited consent—an extension of the Brezhnev doctrine. This surely is an example where there should be proper consent. I want to work with the UK Government to get to a point where there can be consent, but we are not in that position yet.

It is true to say that various UK Ministers have written to us and said, ‘We want to work with you, get your consent and get agreed frameworks.’ Well, two things strike me: first of all, why wasn’t this done before? Secondly, why isn’t it on the face of the Bill? None of this is on the face of the Bill. There’s nothing on the Bill about sunset clauses in terms of clause 11. There’s nothing in the Bill about making sure that this is simply a holding pattern for a temporary period. It’s indefinite, and that’s the problem. What is being said by UK Ministers is not what we see on the face of the Bill, and what is said must appear on the face of the Bill to make it remotely palatable.

I listened carefully to what Neil Hamilton said. He has, in this Chamber, been consistent in his view that those powers that return from Brussels should come here. But now we hear his support for a middle man, in effect—that powers should be kept in London, becoming the new Brussels for a while, and then come here. Why? Why shouldn’t they come here in the first place? They’re our powers to begin with. They’re our powers that’ll be returning to us. Yes, it’s right to say we’re not losing powers in that sense, but these are powers that, by right, should come to Wales. So, why should they go somewhere else first? That is the argument. I regret that he seems to have changed his position on that and has become closer to the Conservative Party view on this.

As I said, if this is temporary, why doesn’t it say so on the face of the Bill? And it doesn’t. We must guard against that. Unless it’s in writing, why should we take it at face value? The other thing that we must remember is that there is no restriction at all on the UK Government here. It can do as it sees fit, not just for England, but for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as well. That cuts across the fundamental principle of devolution, and is not something, clearly, that we could support. There are grey areas. Simon Thomas has referred to them. What happens if in trade negotiations there is a requirement to do something with regard to animal health? What if, in a trade deal, as I mentioned earlier on, there is a requirement that we should have to privatise parts of our health service in order to make a trade deal palatable to another country? There are grey areas, which is why it’s so important that, in order to avoid this kind of conflict in the UK, we work together from the very start, and the principle is established from the start that we work in partnership for the good of all the four nations, and not just thinking that all the power and all the wisdom rest in Westminster. We know that isn’t the case.

With regard to the continuity Bill—quite right to say that Steffan Lewis was the first one to raise it. I was unpersuaded at the time. I couldn’t see what it would deliver. He persuaded me. I give him that credit. And it is right to say we’re moving forward with the Bill. We’d look to publish a Bill. We aim to publish in the course of the autumn. It’s not without complication, I have to say. It’s not clear how complicated a Bill like that would be, but it is something, as I’ve said, that we would look to do. We would prefer it if the UK Government were to accept amendments that we would draft as a Government in the UK Parliament. That then, of course, would obviate the need for a Bill, but, clearly, we have to keep that as part of our armoury, if I can put it that way, in order to preserve the powers of the people of Wales and the institution that they themselves have elected.

I have to say to Michelle Brown, yes, the election was about Brexit. Her party took 1.8 per cent of the vote—1.8 per cent of the vote. They rejected without question—without question—the version of Brexit put forward by UKIP, and UKIP—your leader, Paul Nuttall, if anyone remembers him—said that the election was about ensuring there was no backsliding on Brexit. And look what happened to you. The public did not agree with the position that you took because of the vote that you had. And I have to say I’m disappointed to hear a member of UKIP go weak-kneed when it comes to defending the powers of this institution. The whole UKIP argument has been, ‘We want to bring powers home’. That, in fairness, has been their argument, but it doesn’t count as far as Cardiff or Wales is concerned, there has to be some kind of stopping off point, and that shows, of course, that their view was always about bringing powers to London and not necessarily to Cardiff. It’s a shame, because that’s not where they were a few weeks ago. Now, we see, I’m afraid, UKIP’s true colours.

Steffan Lewis is right to talk about the other clauses. It’s not just about clause 11. There are other clauses, as he mentioned, that wind their way, that knit their way, through the entire Bill, which we must be aware of. And I have to say, as far as David Rowlands is concerned, the European Parliament is no less democratic than the UK Parliament. It’s elected in the same way, so there’s no difference between the ways that these Parliaments are elected. This is not—I’m not going to persuade them, let’s face it—. This is not about preventing Brexit. This is about making sure that, when Brexit happens, the rights and powers of the people of Wales, as voted for in a referendum—as voted for in a referendum—stay with the people of Wales. This is what this is about. This can be achieved, accepting, of course, the need for UK involvement in some areas, by agreement and by partnership. What could be more mature, more sensible, more democratic, and more rational than that? And that is the view we’ll be putting to the UK Government. Let’s see if they are able to live up to the words that they have put to us so far.

I would like to be in a position where we get to a point in the Bill where the Bill could potentially be recommended to the Assembly. We are a long way from that position—a long way from that position. It can be done, but the principle of consent and the principle of the democratic legitimacy of this Chamber and this nation have to be accepted as part of those negotiations. If that is accepted by the UK Government then, to quote David Davis yesterday, let’s get down to business, let’s make sure that, when Brexit happens, we have a proper decision-making mechanism between the Governments of the UK, we have a proper way to take decisions, we have an independent adjudication process to examine those decisions, and let’s look to the future as a UK that is a true partnership of nations, and not a UK that apparently thinks that its constitutional present is based somewhere in the 1950s.

And so, today, as Welsh Government, and, indeed, others in this Chamber, have echoed, we look forward to taking the word of UK Ministers to make this Bill acceptable not just to the Government but to the Assembly, to make sure that, when Brexit happens, the rights of the people of Wales are preserved.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.