As I said in the debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill here on 18 July, the Bill is needed to ensure that the statute book is able to function on the day we leave the EU. It’s technical in nature, making inoperable legislation operable, 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, thereby ensuring that Welsh businesses, including farmers and steel producers, can continue to trade with the EU immediately after the UK leaves the EU. I therefore very much welcome your agreement that it makes sense for EU law to be converted into UK law on this basis and that legislation to enable this to happen is best enacted for the whole of the UK in the Westminster Parliament. We also, like you, have always accepted that there will be areas of policy that will require agreement across all four Governments to ensure that outside the EU we do nothing to inhibit the free flow of trade within the United Kingdom.

But then you move on to say, however, that the Bill

‘represents a fundamental assault on devolution’, which very much reflects the comments you made on the day the Bill was published, when you described it as a, quote, ‘naked power-grab’. Why did you say that at that point, given that the next day you stated that the Welsh Secretary had assured you that you and he would work together to make the situation acceptable, and that assurance had actually already been given to you before you’d issued your ‘naked power-grab’ statement?

You state that a constructive alternative would be for the UK and devolved administrations to agree common frameworks where needed in the interests of the UK as a whole and, of course, we agree with you very strongly on that point. Clause 11, you’ve referred to, will freeze the Assembly’s current powers to pass laws after exit day, but the Bill also provides a mechanism for unfreezing or releasing these powers to the devolved legislatures at a later stage through Orders in Council. However, it doesn’t—[Interruption.] That’s a statement of fact; I’m simply giving a statement of fact. However, as I’m sure you will also agree, it doesn’t include what has become to be called—[Interruption.] That’s what it says. It doesn’t include what has become known as the ‘sunset clause’, and that’s something we also regret because we believe that we do need agreed, UK-wide frameworks that respect the devolved settlements in devolved areas such as agriculture, fisheries and environment, and also potential areas of dispute, such as areas of competence over trade, employment and, of course, areas such as state aid. Therefore, I proposed in July that we could look at a model that stated the restriction on devolved competency could end when common agreed frameworks came into force. What is the First Minister’s view on that as a model, given both his concern about the absence of, quote, ‘a sunset clause’, but also the risk that this could lead to imposition rather than agreement of the frameworks that we all apparently seek?

As I stated at the end of the July debate, let us responsibly go through the Bill, identify the amendments we can all agree upon—and clearly there are some—and engage with the UK Government and Parliament to introduce them at the Second Reading. My party’s heard nothing from you since then, First Minister. Could you tell me why we haven’t engaged together where there is some common ground and perhaps useful joint working might have helped take things forward?

I’m also advised by the Welsh Office that the issues I’ve raised with them, which reflect the comments I’ve already made and reflect key topics raised by the devolved administrations and key stakeholders in Wales, will certainly be fed into the next stages of the Bill, but they also told me there’s been a significant amount of engagement with officials in the Welsh Government and UK Government over the summer. Could you give us a little bit more detail on that engagement and the extent to which it is related to the concerns you’ve highlighted and the movement that apparently has existed between the two sets of officials, to seek a way forward on this? Thank you.