The next item, therefore, is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) meeting on 22 February 2018, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement—Mark Drakeford.

Llywydd, thank you for the opportunity to make a statement on the latest meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee (European Union Negotiations)—the JMC(EN)—which was held in London on Thursday last, 22 February.  

The JMC was chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, David Lidington, and was attended by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, and the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as Michael Russell, the Scottish Government’s Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland’s Place in Europe, and myself. Northern Ireland was represented by civil servants, following the failure of the latest attempt to put a new Executive in place.

The meeting was constructive. It took place just ahead of the UK Cabinet committee meeting at Chequers intended to provide greater clarity about the Government’s positioning on the long-term relationship between the UK and the EU-27. Both Mike Russell and I gave clear and unequivocal presentations of our well-established priorities, stressing the importance of putting the needs of the economy at the head of that priority list and ensuring the rapid agreement of a transition phase, a step which, together with Plaid Cymru, the Welsh Government called for formally as long ago as January 2017. I also emphasised the importance of clear commitment from the UK Government to the engagement of the devolved administrations in the second-phase negotiations, particularly where these concerned devolved policy areas. I am glad to be able to report that the UK Government made a commitment to bring forward proposals in this regard for consideration at a March meeting of the JMC.

Llywydd, there was considerable speculation in advance of the meeting about progress on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill currently before the House of Lords. As Members here know, the UK Government has given commitments to both Houses of Parliament that it will work with the devolved administrations to bring forward amendments that might enable both the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly to give legislative consent to the withdrawal Bill.

While intensive work at official level has been under way for a number of weeks, we were disappointed that the UK Government was only able to put a proposal on the table very shortly before the Thursday meeting. This meant that we were not able to have the full and meaningful discussion of the proposals that the importance of this matter merited.

Nevertheless, all three Governments agreed that they shared the objective of reaching an agreement on these issues, and while the UK proposals fall some way short of what would be acceptable to either ourselves or to the Scottish Government, we agreed that they provide a basis for further discussion at political level in the very near future.

Mr Lidington sketched out in his speech yesterday some of the thinking behind the UK Government’s new proposal. I would like to acknowledge that the UK Government does appear to have moved some distance from its original position, particularly on clause 11. That original position was wholly unacceptable to the Welsh Government and, I believe, to the majority in this Assembly. However, as the First Minister said yesterday, we now need further progress that goes beyond warm words and which makes agreement possible. I remain hopeful that such an agreement can be reached and I will, of course, update Members as developments happen.

This is, Llywydd, also highly relevant to the fact that, as is now known, we have today also taken steps towards the introduction of our own continuity legislation. One of the reasons why there has been such frustration at the slow pace with which the UK Government has taken forward discussions on amending the EU withdrawal Bill is the implications of this slow progress on our own plans. We have been absolutely clear, and remain completely clear, that our preference is for a workable UK-level Bill. But, as is well known, and with strong support across this Chamber, very regularly articulated, for example, by Steffan Lewis, we have been working hard on a fallback option, both to provide legal continuity of EU legislation about devolved matters in Wales, and to safeguard devolution. We have come to the point where we cannot delay any longer if this legislation, even as an emergency Bill, is to have a reasonable opportunity of getting onto the statute book in time for us to be able to take the steps necessary to secure legislative continuity.

Our Bill, the law derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill, remains a fallback, fail-safe option. But it is, we believe, a robust, considered piece of legislation, which will do the job required if our preferred way forward—a withdrawal Bill that respects the devolution settlement—is denied to us by the UK Government. I continue, Llywydd, to hope, that the discussions at next week’s JMC will lead to a successful outcome, one that enables us to recommend that the National Assembly gives its legislative consent to the EU withdrawal Bill while it is still before Parliament. If we succeed in that endeavour, we will not hesitate to withdraw the Bill we will present here.

In summary, Llywydd, in the whole Brexit discussions, the Welsh Government remains firmly focused on the best outcomes for Wales. As we leave the European Union, the needs of jobs and our economy must come first. That process cannot and must not be used as an excuse to row back the boundaries of devolution within the United Kingdom, and the powers of this National Assembly, as confirmed in two referendums of the Welsh people, must be respected and protected. Our efforts remain constructively but unremittingly focused on achieving those ends.  

Thank you, finance Secretary, for your statement. The joint communiqué issued by you, by David Lidington for the UK Government, by the Scottish Government, and a senior civil servant from the Northern Ireland administration, following last Thursday's JMC on European negotiations, 

'noted the engagement that had taken place between UK Government and Devolved Administration officials since the previous meeting', and said,

'Engagement would continue with the aim of ensuring the Devolved Administrations were fully involved in developing the UK’s negotiating position, while respecting the UK Government’s role as negotiator.'

That, clearly, applies less to what you've thus far addressed and more to negotiations ongoing between the UK Government and the EU itself. Therefore, I'd be grateful if you could give us a little bit more information about what involvement the Welsh Government has in developing the UK's negotiating position, as articulated in that joint communiqué by you and others.

The same communiqué stated that the JMC discussed the EU withdrawal Bill and the proposal to amend clause 11, as you've addressed, noting that progress had been made but agreement had not yet been reached between the three Governments, or Northern Ireland, on the form of amendments, but discussions on further detail would continue. I welcome your confirmation that there will be a JMC meeting next week, I think you said, and you also referred to a meeting in March. So, perhaps you could just clarify that my understanding is correct.

Could you tell us whether there's also progress on the next JMC(P), i.e. a meeting with the Prime Minister and First Minister, on setting a date for discussions at that level to go ahead, or is it not felt that that's necessary at this stage given the complex position that you and your officials are already engaged in?

Yesterday's speech at Airbus Broughton by David Lidington, who, as you know, chaired the JMC(EN) meetings, said that we must protect the UK internal market whilst respecting devolution. He noted that eight out of 10 goods lorries leaving Wales go to the rest of the UK, highlighting the importance of the UK common market. He said,

'We will build on the future North Wales growth deal by also fostering opportunities between Welsh cities and the rest of the UK,' which was encouraging. He said that we'll protect the vital common market of the UK, but then said that four different sets of rules

'would only make it more difficult and more expensive for a cheesemaker in Monmouthshire to sell to customers in Bristol or for a cattle farmer in Aberdeenshire to sell their beef in Berwick-upon-Tweed.'

He added, therefore, that his proposal was to amend the Bill before Parliament to make clear that, while frameworks are being agreed, the presumption would now be that powers returning from the EU should sit at a devolved level, and I think that's what this house seeks. He said that Westminster would only be involved where, to protect the UK common market or to meet international obligations, there needed to be a pause to give the Governments time to design and put in place a UK-wide framework. Only yesterday, I note that the President of the British Veterinary Association responded to the UK environment Secretary's proposals in ‘Health and Harmony: The Future for Food, Farming and the Environment in a Green Brexit’, saying that,

'With all eyes on Westminster, we’d urge serious consideration be given to the coordination of agricultural policy across all four regions of the UK as we head towards Brexit.'

So, that's the impasse, I believe: the UK Government position, as articulated by David Lidington yesterday, and the ongoing concerns of the Welsh and Scottish Governments in particular about some devolved matters not passing directly to the devolved Governments. Therefore, can you tell us, specifically, what further movement, beyond the movement that's already occurred, you would like to see, or you need to see, in order to move matters forward in the context of the points you've made and the position outlined by David Lidington yesterday?

Finally, in reference to continuity—[Interruption.] I'm sorry, but this is an important matter; it's not something simply to score points, and I'm trying to avoid point scoring in this context. You state that your preference is for a workable UK-level Bill. You also rightly point out, or refer to, the amendments currently before the House of Lords, and that the UK Government has given commitments to both Houses of Parliament that it will work with the devolved administrations to bring forward amendments that will enable both Scotland and Wales to give consent to the Bill, which is your preferred outcome. Will you, therefore, confirm that it remains the case—I think you've said this—that, ideally, agreement on a withdrawal Bill or, if that fails, amendments through the House of Lords remain your preferred options, but, as you indicate towards the end of your statement today, because of the clock ticking, unless you lay a continuity Bill over the next week, you would miss the Royal Assent opportunity before a UK Bill itself would receive Royal Assent? Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'll try to take those questions in order.

Mr Isherwood is right that the JMC did discuss devolved administrations' involvement in phase 2 negotiations. We had discussed exactly this point during our meeting in the middle of December, where UK Ministers agreed that there would be the need for a different level of participation in phase 2 discussions, because direct devolved responsibilities will be at stake in them. It was agreed in mid December that officials would work together rapidly—that was the word used, 'rapidly'—to come up with practical proposals for how that might happen. It was particularly disappointing, therefore, to have no paper at last week's JMC that reflected any of that work. I said in my statement and I'll repeat it: I was nevertheless glad that the chair of the JMC, David Lidington, committed to the production of such a paper for a JMC during March. 

The second point that the Member asked was about the next meeting on the EU withdrawal Bill specifically. What was agreed at last week's meeting was that there will be a regular JMC during March, in which we will discuss the wide range of matters relevant to leaving the European Union that form the agenda of the JMC, but that there would be a separate political discussion focused entirely on the EU withdrawal Bill and an opportunity for us to be able to respond to the paper that the UK Government did table very late in the day, and which we were therefore not able to discuss with the sort of detailed engagement that we would have preferred. 

Is there to be a JMC plenary in March? Well, I hope so. Is it necessary? I certainly think it is. The JMC plenary has now not met since January of 2017, and if this is the mechanism through which the UK is meant to operate together, and the glue that keeps the United Kingdom together, then it really is not satisfactory that the First Ministers and the Prime Minister have not had that opportunity to discuss these matters in that formal setting. There is a date in circulation for such a meeting in the middle of March, but I have seen dates in circulation in January, in February and now in March as well, Llywydd, so I'm afraid we remain in hope rather than complete expectation that it will be delivered. 

Turning to the final set of questions that Mark Isherwood raised, he is right to say that the speech by Mr Lidington yesterday did move a step forward in relation to our clause 11 concerns. The UK Government's proposition now is that all those responsibilities that have been at this National Assembly and exercised through the European Union should remain here after Brexit, other than a small number that would be retained centrally while we continue to negotiate framework arrangements so that the UK internal market can continue to operate effectively. What we now need to do is to have a detailed discussion with the UK Government about some of the practical ways in which that would operate, and the key issue at stake remains that of consent. If there are to be a small number of matters retained centrally, who is to decide what those matters should be? Who is to decide for how long they will be retained centrally? Who will decide who will have access to those powers while they are not in the hands of this National Assembly?

We will go to the next meeting with constructive proposals as to how those questions could be resolved, and if they are resolvable, then Mr Isherwood had the sequence of events entirely correct. Our preferred course of action remains an agreed amendment that all three Governments could see put down at the House of Lords, and a Minister could come here and recommend to this National Assembly that legislative consent to the Bill could be provided. If we can't have an agreed amendment, we will continue to pursue the amendments that, jointly with the Scottish Government, we laid in the House of Commons and will re-lay in the House of Lords, and we will work as hard as we can to get those amendments passed. We have, we know, considerable support right across the House of Lords, including cross-bench peers, for our position. If we do not succeed there, then we have to protect the position against the day when this National Assembly would not be prepared to give its legislative consent to the withdrawal Bill. That's why we have to bring our continuity Bill forward as a fail-safe mechanism. The issue of getting it onto the statute book before the withdrawal Bill receives Royal Assent is indeed driving the timetable for bringing it in front of the National Assembly next week. 

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement and for the continued patience that he shows with some of these difficulties? Can I particularly thank him for confirming today that the Government is moving ahead with the continuity Bill, long advocated by my honourable colleague, Steffan Lewis? We are, in Plaid Cymru, very pleased to see that this is now a firm part of the Government's armoury—something that we thought should have been there earlier, it has to be said.

I shall return to that just in a second because I want, first of all, to ask the Cabinet Secretary about David Lidington's speech in particular, and what has emerged since the meeting of the JMC. I did find that speech somewhat frustrating and I felt it still demonstrated some of the bullying and threatening manner that Westminster has used towards both governments in Wales and in Scotland. A slight element of threat was there that if you don't behave, then we will retain these powers. I really want to put it in this way: the speech by David Lidington was peppered with reference to the common or internal markets of the UK—something that the Cabinet Secretary didn't mention once in his own statement. We've been part of a common market or a single market for 40 years now. It's had some difficulties and some people have disagreed very strongly with it, but it hasn't affected how we run our own internal mechanisms.

Surely, all that's needed to ensure that we have strong frameworks and agreed frameworks in the UK is a simple respect agenda that addresses all parts of the UK equally, and gives equal roles and weights and strengths to that. The weakness in that of course is England, not Wales or Scotland, but that is a matter for the people of England. If we were to achieve that, there is no-one here of any party that wants to hold back on strong UK frameworks on agriculture, the environment, social welfare or anything else. It's not necessary to hold powers that are now held in common at the European level, to hold them now at Westminster and not to roll those out, following the decision to leave the European Union, to all parts—constituent and constitutionally administratively devolved parts—of the United Kingdom. So, that's very much where Plaid Cymru comes from in this regard.

I understand that the Cabinet Secretary wants to keep his powder dry, wants to continue to negotiate with the Westminster Government, but I don't think he has an opportunity to get a unanimous view on the legislative consent motion here unless it is clear that the people of Wales do have those powers returned to them and that there is no veto, whether it's a short-term veto or a long-term veto, in the hands of Ministers in Westminster.

So, coming from that perspective, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary to clarify how he is now intending to work with the Government of Scotland, as Northern Ireland doesn't have a devolved Government at the moment? How he will continue to work—? I thank him for the work that he has done, and Michael Russell as well; the work has been very clear and has been jointly authored in some cases and has been more successful because of that, I think. So, how does he continue to ensure that does happen?

Can I remind him of what I did say about six weeks ago: you can't trust the Tories? I think we've been proven right, which is why of course you've gone for, now, the continuity Bill. Looking in particular at that Bill, which does give us that extra string to our bow, I do think that had it been introduced earlier, we may have quickened this process. I think we may have demonstrated more strongly to Westminster that we were taking this very seriously, but, you know, we are where we are.

Can the Cabinet Secretary just give the assurance to the Assembly that he does think, assuming we do approve emergency measures next week, that we can deliver this Bill in time not to be overtaken, if you like—or undertaken, whichever way it will be—by the EU withdrawal Bill, so that it will still be a viable option and could still be used in that regard? Can he just say as well that he has had talks with his colleague next to him, the Counsel General, about how such a Bill may, if necessary, be defended in the Supreme Court, if it does come to a lack of agreement between this Government and the Government in Westminster?

Presiding Officer, thank you to Simon Thomas for the questions.

I didn't mention, he is quite right, the business of the common internal market within the United Kingdom in my statement because the position of the Welsh Government has been, from the very beginning, that we entirely understand the need for an orderly transfer of EU law into the domestic statute book in a way that will allow the United Kingdom to operate effectively into the future. In many ways the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's references to this yesterday are simply to put up a straw man. They are to point to a problem that simply does not exist and then to try to use that to justify the way in which they argue that only they are capable of using powers in a way that would allow that effective functioning to continue. We completely disagree with them on that point. We have said from the very beginning that we would, of course, come to the table completely constructively with the devolved responsibilities that we exercise to look to find agreed ways to make sure that the UK can go on operating successfully into the future.

I am prepared to consider a position in which the best way to give the legislative underpinning to some of those frameworks—might be achieved—would be for the powers to be held at Westminster while that legislation is being enacted, but what I am not able to agree to is a position in which the powers that we would temporarily surrender in that way could be done without our agreement. If it is done with our agreement and with the Scottish Government's agreement and with the UK Government's agreement, then there is a pragmatic case for doing things in that way. The UK Government has to be willing to operate with a greater level of trust and respect, Simon Thomas said, than it has up until now, and veto powers that say that, in the end, only they are to be trusted simply isn't to live up to the way in which devolution has developed over the last 20 years.

We do continue to work closely with the Scottish Government. Of course, there are fundamental differences of political outlook between the Government in Edinburgh and the Government here in Cardiff, but on this issue we identified very early on that we had a strong identity of interests. We've done our best to work constructively together and we've done that in every way we can: the First Minister writing jointly with the First Minister of Scotland; the first ever joint governmental event at the House of Lords, so we were jointly able to brief Members of the House of Lords; we continued to work together on those aspects of the agenda where we have a strong identity of interest at the JMC last week, and I expect that we will continue to do that for as long as that identity of interest continues.

I think I can provide Simon Thomas with an assurance that we will bring forward a timetable next week where, if the National Assembly does agree to an emergency procedure to consider the law derived from the European Union Bill, we would be in a position to complete its consideration in front of the National Assembly in time to secure Royal Assent before the EU withdrawal Bill is in that same position, and of course the Counsel General is closely concerned with all the debates that go on inside Government on this matter to make sure that the Bill that we present to the National Assembly is the strongest and most defensible Bill that we are able to put before you.

The finance Secretary will know that I do not shrink from being coruscating in my criticism of Welsh Government where I think that is necessary, but also, being fair-minded, I'll be unstinting in my support when I think the Welsh Government is in the right, and I welcome the statement that we've heard from him today and I would like to say that I think he's displayed the patience of Job in his negotiations with the UK Government. It's a curious paradox that, when the British Government is negotiating with the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government, drawing out of them concessions from an unsustainable position is like drawing teeth with a pliers, and yet in their negotiations with the Commission in Brussels they appear to be completely toothless. The Brexit negotiations, whether they be with the EU or with the other parts of the United Kingdom, have been a total shambles.

Does he share my perplexity that the UK Government has handed to the opponents of the Brexit process a weapon by creating an unnecessary dispute in this particular instance? The whole point of leaving the EU is that it is a devolutionary process; it is restoring to elected politicians at the levels that are appropriate the powers that, ultimately, belong to or derive from the consent of the people, and it would be quite wrong for the UK Government to retain powers or seek to retain powers that have been devolved to Wales as a result of other referenda where the will of the people has been expressed. It may be inconvenient for the UK Government to recognise this fact and, because England is so dominant by population in the United Kingdom, perhaps English politicians find this rather difficult to understand—or some English politicians do, anyway. But, as Simon Thomas said a moment ago, fundamentally, this is a question of respect due to institutions that have been set up following a democratic process, of which Brexit is an extension.

I would like to express again my perplexity at the dilatoriness of the UK Government in coming forward with proposals to amend the withdrawal Bill given that they had, in principle, agreed to bring those amendments forward. It's quite unacceptable that these should be slapped onto the table within hours of the meeting of the JMC—and nobody can give proper consideration and therefore have a meaningful discussion to such proposals given that timing. This is not a surprise that these amendments are necessary, and it's quite inexplicable that the UK Government should have been so dilatory in coming forward with them.

Of course, we all know, as everybody agrees, that there will have to be, and it's certainly desirable to have, UK frameworks for matters such as agriculture, but, during the referendum campaign and subsequently when I've addressed meetings with farmers up and down the country, I have advocated the Brexit process on the basis that this will give us the opportunity to create an agricultural policy that is tailor-made for the interests of Wales, Welsh farmers and Welsh consumers. So, I'm utterly perplexed by the failure of the UK Government adequately to understand the nature of this process. So, I support the proposal to introduce an emergency Bill into this Assembly. I think that this is necessary as a tactic, at least, to force the UK Government to recognise the reality of the situation, that the Welsh Assembly is a legitimate expression of the views of the Welsh people and our purpose here is to ensure that the devolution settlement is respected by the UK Government and that the Brexit process should not be used to undermine it.

Well, of course, Mr Hamilton is right: we have profound disagreements between the position taken on the whole business of Europe and leaving the European Union, between the position taken by the Welsh Government and the position that his party—as he himself has regularly outlined it here on the floor of the Assembly. But, in the ecumenical spirit of his contribution this afternoon, let me make two or three points: first of all, I think it is a sobering conclusion that has to be drawn that the UK Government has struggled so much to carry out negotiations with its very closest neighbours here inside the United Kingdom at the point when it's about to embark on trying to conclude the most complex negotiations with 27 other European states. Successive UK Ministers tell us just how easy this is going to be, just what a breeze it's going to be, to get all the agreements that they say are necessary as we leave the European Union, yet they have failed to be able to come to an agreement on a matter where—and I definitely do agree with what Neil Hamilton said here—a dispute was unnecessary from the very beginning. The very first time David Davis, as the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, said at a JMC that there was to be an EU withdrawal Bill, I said, on behalf of the Welsh Government, that we agreed that it was important that that Bill was brought forward and we wanted that Bill to be a success, because the Bill is about an orderly transfer of law that we have relied upon as a result of our membership of the European Union into the law that we will need the other side of Brexit. And picking a quarrel with a group of people who were on your side in that endeavour has been mystifying to me when the UK Government has its hands full—so very full you might say overfull—with trying to navigate and negotiate all the other complexities of leaving the European Union. I think that in many ways that does explain the dilatory nature of their response. It's a Government overwhelmed by the task that it faces and it struggles to find the time and the energy and the effort that is needed to pursue matters, which, when they're not pursued, become really difficult problems that could have been resolved far more easily.

I said here in the Chamber in the last week or two, Llywydd, that, at last week's meeting, David Lidington was to be the fifth chair of the JMC on European negotiations, in a body that has been going for less than 18 months. That just tells you something about how difficult it is to create a momentum in that forum, because the key individuals have been changing so rapidly. And that's why we didn't have a paper tabled that would've allowed for a proper discussion at a point in the process where that would've allowed that to happen. That's a step backwards from where we were in the autumn, where the JMC was conducted on a more orderly basis, where we had agendas, where we had papers, where we had minutes, where we had a room that we could be sure that we would meet in that didn't change as we were in the train between Cardiff and London. Last week's meeting—constructive as it was—represented a step backwards from the stability that we'd seen in the autumn. Nevertheless, we press ahead in the way that I've described. Our job is always to try and be as constructive as we can to find ways of coming to an agreement, of bridging positions that are not in the interests of either the United Kingdom or of Wales, and the Welsh Government's part in all of this is always to try to look for ways in which difficult situations—even ones that need never have happened—can in the end be successfully resolved.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement this afternoon, and I must say that I continue to be in awe of the Cabinet Secretary's relatively sunshine disposition. I can't imagine what a frustrating and painstaking process this has been, yet he always seems to get the word 'constructive' into a statement about the JMC(EN), although trying to find anything constructive can sometimes be a challenge, but that's something I very much admire about the Cabinet Secretary.

Obviously, I very much welcome the decision to go ahead to publish a continuity Bill, not because, as the Cabinet Secretary says, it's desirable but because it is the right thing to do, it is the measured thing to do, and, in fact, it is the necessary thing to do if we want to preserve the will of the people of Wales that was expressed in two referenda, not just to establish a Parliament for Wales but to have a Parliament for Wales with the powers that we enjoy today.

I also would be interested to hear the Cabinet Secretary's views on whether he believes that the mishandling—shall I put it politely—on the part of the UK Government of the relations more generally with the devolved Governments is a conspiracy, or is it incompetence? I keep going from one to another; I can't believe at some points that a Government could possibly be so incompetent, but then I listen to some of their Ministers and then I can quite easily believe it.

I also think that as well as this being a necessary step to legislate pre-emptively, if necessary, in terms of our constitution and preserving it, that, actually, this is an important moment for this National Assembly and for the national character of Wales, because, if we have to press ahead with emergency legislation to defend our constitution, then I hope that it'll mark the beginning of the end of Wales being perceived as the pushover of these islands, and that any Government in Westminster in the future, of whatever colour, will think twice before they start pushing us around and believe that they can play hard and fast with our constitution.

I'd like just to have clarification from the Cabinet Secretary in terms of the future discussions that are being planned for the JMC(EN), particularly next week. The word 'negotiation' is thrown around a lot these days, for obvious reasons, but, in terms of the bar that the Welsh Government has set in terms of what would be acceptable in an improved EU withdrawal Bill, can he just reassure this Assembly that any negotiation will not amount to Wales being stripped of powers, that there is a need for discussion and a need for collaboration and negotiation, but that he is prepared to push through this legislation and that it won't just be enough for Westminster to move a little bit, that there would have to be a fundamental change to the legislation as far as devolution is concerned?

Also—my colleague and friend Simon Thomas touched on this in his contribution, but the Cabinet Secretary and the Scottish Government have been so busy firefighting the potential damage of the withdrawal Bill, I wonder whether he can update us further on any progress that there might have been in terms of common frameworks. It's something touched on by other Members too. Because, if we don't have a paradigm shift at the UK Government level when it comes to the withdrawal Bill, I fear that we definitely won't get one when it comes to future frameworks, although there was talk in the past that there had been some progress, at least a concession that frameworks could be jointly composed and jointly agreed, which was a landmark moment for the Westminster Government. But I'd be very interested to hear from the Cabinet Secretary if there's been any further discussion on those common frameworks.

Just finally, does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that discussions such as this, and agreements between the devolved Governments, should have concluded long before a group of people met at Chequers to decide our fates without our country being represented in that group?

Can I begin by saying just how good it is to have Steffan Lewis participating in discussions of this matter here this afternoon and how much I think the contribution that he has made up until now and again today helps us to think our way through some of these very complex and important matters?

So, I agree with him that I think our continuity Bill, the law derived from the European Union Bill, will be a measured piece of legislation, and it is a necessary piece of legislation to protect the interests of devolution, albeit that it remains, as I've repeatedly said this afternoon, not our first choice, but a fallback position that we have to have been able to articulate and take forward.

How do we understand the position of UK Ministers? Well, it is a perplexing matter. Undoubtedly, incompetence plays its part, at least in this way: as I say, my impression of meeting the UK Government is that the whole business of leaving the European Union has come as an enormous shock to the system. The lack of preparation for this eventuality, the huge struggle to mobilise the intellectual effort, the people you need, the sheer grasp of detail that lies behind so much of all of this—you get the impression of a system that is almost always in danger of being overwhelmed by the task that it has. But there are some voices in the UK Government—and, as Steffan Lewis will well know, it is by no means a Government that speaks with a single voice, but there are elements in that Government who are unreconciled to devolution. While they may have got a form of words that they're given to use, deep down they believe that devolution is something that the Westminster Parliament was good enough to give us and can take it away from us as soon as it becomes an inconvenience to them. And I don't say those are a majority of voices, but there are people you meet in the UK Government for whom it is clear that the profound change that devolution has brought about in the constitution of the United Kingdom has simply passed them by, and they do believe that to step out of the European Union is to step back in time, and that they will somehow be able to recreate the United Kingdom that was there before we ever joined. This is an important moment in our history, of course. If the National Assembly agrees to the procedure that the Government will propose next week, we are going to spend the month of March as a legislature having to be directly engaged in the complexity of the continuity Bill, and that will require efforts right across this Chamber to make sure that Bill is as good as it possibly can be.

Let me finish what I say to Steffan Lewis by confirming his belief in my ability to be optimistic, because as far as common frameworks are concerned, then there has genuinely been a great deal of detailed work that has gone on at official level since that process began. There have now been over 20 of what are called deep dives involving the Scottish Government, ourselves, the UK Government and civil servants from Northern Ireland, and there are up to another 10 or so still planned for the month of March. So, it is demonstrating the point that's been made around this Chamber this afternoon: that we are quite capable of coming together and solving these common problems by sitting around the table and acting constructively without the need for a big stick to be waved at us and told that we can't be trusted to get these things right. We're doing it all the time, and successfully. What it is throwing up—and Steffan Lewis I know will be interested in this and will be wanting to think about it—what all that work is throwing up is a need for a set of governance arrangements that underpin them all. If we were to be able to agree on a framework approach to aspects of agriculture, for example, how can we all have confidence that, a week later, having agreed it, one of the parties to that agreement might not walk away and do something that was beyond the agreement? How could we be confident that, six months into an agreement, when something else is emerging, there are proper mechanisms for that new issue to be alerted, for discussions to resume and, if necessary, for disputes to be arbitrated? And right across the discussions on frameworks, there's a sense that the UK in future needs stronger governance mechanisms through which its component parts can come together, transact business, and keep the show properly and purposefully on the road. I think that is a big challenge that is emerging from the framework discussions, and we will have to persuade the UK Government to find some of the energy necessary to address that issue alongside everything else that it has to think about. 

Cabinet Secretary, I welcome very much your statement and the tabling, or the proposed tabling, of what we'll call for now the continuity Bill—a very important step forward. I also listened to David Lidington's speech. I have to say that I was somewhat confused by some of the messages that were coming out of that, particularly with regard to what seemed to be an attempt to create distance between Wales and Scotland, and the sort of implied threat in respect of overriding Sewel that seemed to be there. Nevertheless, I think we have to recognise that this has been the most tortuous process, almost like extracting teeth, dragging the UK Government kicking and screaming to accept the reality of the UK constitution. And it seems almost as if David Lidington is almost like the substitute brought on at the end of a soccer match, doesn't it, in an attempt to salvage something from the game.

I think the point that Steffan Lewis made is probably the most important one, and that is whether there is a genuine change in attitude capable of being detected. Because it seems to me that there's still a grave risk that although we can win in this area, or we can achieve satisfactory progress in this area, there are still a number of major elephants in the room, to take John Morris's old phrase. Firstly, the issue of JMC reform. Now, I know we'll be discussing the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report tomorrow on that, but that is a fundamental area that has to still be resolved, and where there's need for a change in attitude from UK Government. The second one is in terms of the financial autonomy of this place, in respect of those former EU funds. Because, on the one hand, we can achieve what we want in respect of the devolved powers, but at the end of the day, if there is control over the finance that should be coming to this place, they can be undermined—and secondly, as we know, in respect of the consequential legislation that's under way at the moment, in particular with regard to the trade Bill. Now, I understand why the Cabinet Secretary will be reluctant to take on too many battles at any one time, but these matters are all interlinked, and what we don't want is a situation where we are just going from one battle to the other onwards; there has to be genuine cultural and political change from the UK Government in order to achieve the consensus that is necessary for the post-Brexit era.

Llywydd, overriding Sewel would be a major constitutional issue. I don't like using the word 'crisis', because it's bandied about too often here, but the UK Government has never been in a position where it agrees that the consent of this National Assembly is needed to a piece of legislation, and then if it didn't secure that consent, to go ahead anyway. And if it were to find itself in that position, it has found itself in some of the most difficult constitutional depths.

I agree entirely about the need for JMC reform—it was the last point I was making to Steffan Lewis. It is difficult to engage UK Ministers in the need for that. Their reflex action, whenever anything is said about the need for reform and governance arrangements, is to say, 'Oh, you're looking for a federal United Kingdom'. They've been reading Mr Melding's thoughts on this matter too assiduously, it seems to me. But it's not a real engagement with the issue; it's just a reflex way of trying to sort of brush past the points that are being made, and in the end that will not do. The United Kingdom, the other side of Brexit, will need a more powerful set of institutional arrangements through which it can continue to operate successfully, and the JMC does not provide the blueprint for that in the longer term.

Of course Mick Antoniw is right about financial autonomy. Those discussions do not form part of our discussions on the withdrawal Bill, and they haven't featured heavily so far in the JMC. I give him an assurance, however, that I certainly have raised them with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as has the Scottish finance Minister, and we continue to pursue the points that he made there. Those who voted in Wales to leave the European Union did so on a promise that, at the very least, Wales will be not a penny worse off than we have been as a result of our membership of the European Union, and that promise has to be delivered.

Finally, Mick Antoniw was absolutely right to point to the interlinked nature of the trade Bill and other pieces of legislation we expect at the UK level with the EU withdrawal Bill. It's part of the reason why I think we've put such effort, and indeed such patience from time to time, in trying to get that Bill right. Because if we can get those things put right in the withdrawal Bill, then I think the solution that we craft there will cascade into the trade Bill, the trade Bill will be amended in the same way, and we will have solved the problem not just for the withdrawal Bill, but for legislation that will follow, and that's why we think it's worth putting in the effort we have to get that right.

I think this was always going to be a tough negotiation, but the way I read it is that we are moving decisively towards agreement. And I have to say, in terms of how this will be viewed by the historians, I think it will be seen as a classic federal-type discussion, because, whatever you think about the UK Government, it is not treating the devolved administrations—unfortunately, as they term it—but the devolved Governments as anything but fully fledged Governments over their sphere of—let me use a polite word—interest rather than sovereignty. We've not in any way been treated like local government, and I don't want to disparage local government, but there are real interests in constitutional principles here and they are now playing out. I welcome in general the Cabinet Minister's tone and, as I said, I do envisage that agreement will be reached and, therefore, the continuity Bill will become redundant. Obviously, on this side of the house—let's be frank—we're uncomfortable about this emergency legislation, both here and in Scotland, but it's part of a wider landscape and I don't want to be distracted by the reasons for that. We need an effective settlement here and the EU withdrawal Bill is the best way to do that.

I agree with Steffan Lewis—and I've said this from the very start—that the heart of this is the shared governance that has to be agreed so that we can run UK frameworks. And that's not just UK Ministers getting it—some have always got it, others struggle, and I can list the departments of state that I think don't do as well. But, frankly, it's also the civil service culture in Whitehall that finds a lot of this process difficult. Most of running the frameworks will be behind the scenes with your officials and the officials in the various departments, and the great capacity we will have in terms of Whitehall will still be necessary to run these frameworks, obviously with our full participation and that of Scotland and Northern Ireland. But they're going to stand in the place, in many ways, in which EU officials stand in the Commission and we feed into that. So, there's a level there as well.

I think I'm going to lose the Llywydd's patience in a moment—

Never. 

Can I just—? Because we've had a very interesting statement. I think the CLAC report that we'll discuss tomorrow is one of the best reports CLAC has ever produced and we do some heavy lifting or, if I can change the metaphor, we get pretty dirty down in the engine room. But tomorrow's debate I think is very significant and that really is about the governance arrangements we will need for shared governance.

And can I finally say that I hope the Welsh Government is thinking carefully about how the legislature here will scrutinise the Welsh Government's work ongoing in shared governance? Because we do not want the equivalent of the rather closed system they had in the EU about how governments get together and agree. We need the like of the legislature to hold you to account for what you decide and gain through those procedures in the future. 

Well, Llywydd, I absolutely hope that the Member is right that we are on the threshold of reaching an agreement. I agree with him that settling this matter through a withdrawal Bill that respects devolution is the right and best way to do it. Again, if we're looking to be optimistic, David Lidington I think is one of those UK Ministers who probably does grasp the idea of shared governance, because as Minister for Europe he chaired the JMC on Europe over many years. The JMC on Europe is a far more effective piece of government machinery, where the devolved administrations have come together with the UK Government four times a year in advance of the Council of Ministers to share ideas and perspectives on what will be discussed at the Council of Ministers, and devolved Ministers have represented the UK level, from time to time, in those discussions. So, I think there is some sense of optimism there that Mr Lidington is a Minister who has seen that work and seen it work effectively. 

I think David Melding is absolutely right about the civil service and it's why I think those deep-dive discussions on the frameworks have been so important, because they have brought UK civil servants into the room with people from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in a way that they probably have not had that opportunity previously. They've been using the set of principles that were agreed at the JMC back in the autumn and it is as a result of those discussions that they themselves are concluding that the need for a framework for future Governments and therefore through to the United Kingdom is so important.

I'm really grateful to Members of the CLAC committee for the detailed work they are doing. There is no great either appetite or, certainly, there is no available energy elsewhere to do the heavy lifting that is required, to do the thinking of how this is to happen in the future. And the report of that committee will, I think, be genuinely influential in shaping thinking, not just here and with the Welsh Government, but in our ability to use the arguments and the thinking through of the different ways in which this could be done that that report grapples with that will allow us to use it to be influential elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement and your update on your discussions at the JMC. What's striking from this statement and the responses and questions is that you're seeking to be constructive but that's not being reciprocated by the UK Government. But I will welcome the commitment by the UK Government to involve devolved administrations in the second phase of negotiations at the forthcoming meeting. And, of course, you are told that you will have a paper in advance of that meeting, but you didn't get a paper in advance of the proposals that you received at the JMC, and I think that demonstrates, as has been said today, a lack of respect and trust—or is it just thoughtlessness? Are we the 'any other business' in terms of these important negotiations? Because, obviously, what's come forward is not acceptable. The proposals could indeed set us back in terms of devolution, so I do welcome the news that the continuity Bill will now be commenced, and thank Steffan Lewis for helping to position us so effectively.

Two questions. One: from your discussions at the JMC, can you clarify why the UK Government is not prepared to accept the Welsh and Scottish Government amendments, which they've had before them for so many weeks and months? They would provide the best way forward, rather than setting us back at this late stage with the centralising proposals, were you able to make the case, indeed, to discuss the amendments at the JMC. And secondly: yesterday, we received evidence at the external affairs committee on the impact of Brexit on equalities in Wales. What's clear is there's a fear of loss of the EU charter of human rights, loss of EU funding, loss of influence on equalities in Wales, which are underpinned by EU legislation such as workers' rights and the employment accessibility Bill. Can you clarify how those who have an interest in providing evidence on the impact of Brexit and the fear of loss of those powers could contribute and engage with the continuity Bill, which, of course, would provide legal continuity of EU legislation about devolved matters in Wales?

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

I thank the Member for both those questions. I want to say, again, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the JMC has been a better forum since the autumn of last year than it was previously, and that there has been constructive talk by UK Ministers. What we have to see now, as the First Minister said yesterday, is a move away from the warm words and into the actions that are necessary to secure consent. Why is the UK Government not prepared to accept our amendment? Because they are fearful. Because they do not believe that devolved administrations can be trusted to come to the table in the way that we say we will and to reach agreement. They want to have, always, a veto power in their pocket, because they believe that somehow they are the only adults in the room. And that is such a problematic place from which to start, particularly when it is so directly contradicted by the facts.

As far as equalities issues are concerned, I can give the Member complete assurance that the Welsh Government, and, indeed, the Scottish Government to, take regular opportunities through the JMC to hammer home with the UK Government that leaving the European Union cannot be used as an excuse to erode those citizenship rights that we have secured as a result of our membership of the European Union, and that includes a huge raft of gains that we've made in the field of equalities. I was able to discuss all of this with a group of third sector organisations with whom I meet on a six-monthly basis and where the Welsh Government's approach to Brexit is a standing item. We will look, even in an emergency timetable, to make sure that interests beyond the Assembly, who have important things to say on these matters, can have an opportunity, probably most often through the established machineries we have in those circumstances, to continue to influence our thinking in this regard.

And finally, David Rees.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement this afternoon? I'll try and be as brief as possible because I actually have the opportunity to question the Cabinet Secretary next Monday in the committee meeting, and we'll go a bit deeper then. I'll try and focus purely on the JMC today, and not the continuity Bill, although I agree with Simon Thomas and Steffan Lewis on the issues they both raised in relation to that.

In your discussion at the JMC—clearly, you've talked about the EU withdrawal Bill very much, heavily, but it is a question of what discussions you had about the transition period, because that is clearly an important step. All I see at the moment are the delays being enforced by the issues on the withdrawal Bill knocking us back on those discussions, and the ability to actually be partaking in the decision making in the negotiations for phase 2 being delayed. As Steffan Lewis pointed out, last week we saw the Cabinet—or a part of the Cabinet—meeting privately in Chequers, with nobody from the devolved nations representing them. It seems to be another mechanism by which our input is being ignored, effectively. So, can you tell us where you are on that? And have you got guarantees that we will be in the rooms when negotiations on phase 2 take place so that we can actually have our say in the areas that are important?

On the issues of frameworks, you've mentioned 20 deep dives so far—10 more to come next month. You're optimistic; perhaps I'm cynical. Is that another way of simply saying at the end of it, 'Oh, look, we've done so much, we don't actually worry about the powers because it doesn't affect that many areas'? I just think that the UK Government are working away that way. But you talked about the frameworks and who decide on those frameworks, but can you confirm as to what discussions you've had about who will decide upon who will take the actions on the frameworks? Because when it comes to agreeing a framework, where will those actions be taken, and will that be with consent as well?

I thank David Rees for those questions, and for the work that he and this committee have done in this area. When I was in front of the House of Lords for a briefing session, the fact that his committee had met with parliamentary Brexit committees was very well recognised. The work of the committee has undoubtedly had an influence in making sure that Welsh views are clearly represented and understood.

As far as the transition period is concerned, it was discussed at the JMC. I said to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that he needs to get on and make sure that the transition agreement is reached at the March council, and that it's not in the UK's interest to fail to reach an agreement in March because, if it's put off until the next council, our position will be weakened, not strengthened, by that. He did agree, as he'd agreed at a previous meeting, that a speedy resolution of transition matters is very important.

There is a big day coming tomorrow, as David Rees will know, when a document is likely to be agreed at the Commission, which will attempt to translate into legal understanding the agreement that was reached back in December at the end of phase 1 negotiations. That will shape the nature of transition. So, transition is very important, and the UK Government needs to make the necessary compromises to get a transition period agreed.

As to phase 2 negotiations, as I said, we were hopeful that there would be a paper at last week's meeting. It didn't materialise. Again, there have been some constructive things said by UK Government Ministers about recognising the need for greater involvement in that phase of negotiations, but we do need to see the practical proposals that they will come forward with to make that happen.

As to deep dives, I recognise that there will be some people in the UK Government who will be attracted to the idea of saying that, because the deep dives have all gone on, and the discussions have gone well, there's really no problem here at all, and, you know, 'Forget all this nonsense about clause 11; look how successful these things are being resolved.' I'm afraid we would have to say that that is in spite of, rather than because of the withdrawal Bill formulation, and I think that deep dives confirm our position on all of this: that proceeding by consent and by agreement is possible—eminently possible—in the United Kingdom, and the law should be constructed in a way that reflects that.

How the frameworks are to be put into action takes us back to the very interesting discussion we've had this afternoon and the paper that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee will be discussing tomorrow, because it is about the underpinning governance arrangements that can give everybody confidence that if you reach an agreement on a framework, there are ways in which those agreements can be translated into action and the interests of all parties to it can be properly protected because there will be a rule book within which we are all bound and we are all bound equally. Then I think we can be optimistic that those frameworks will be capable of translation into action and successfully go on protecting the proper operation of the United Kingdom.