I therefore call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motions. Mark Drakeford.

Motion NDM6672 Julie James

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales, in accordance with Standing Order 26.95:

Agrees that a government Bill to be known as the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill and to be introduced in the Assembly be treated as a government Emergency Bill. 

Motion NDM6673 Julie James

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales, in accordance with Standing Order 26.98(ii):

Agrees that the timetable for the government Emergency Bill to be known as the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill will be as set out in the Timetable for consideration of the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill laid before the Assembly on 27 February 2018.

Motions moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. The UK's exit from the European Union represents the most significant and demanding challenge, constitutionally, legally, economically, that we in Wales have faced since the advent of devolution. The uncertainty that surrounds both the process and the outcome has the potential to cause enormous damage to our nation. It is the scale of the challenge, the continuing uncertainty, the rapid movement of events and the potential dangers surrounding Brexit that form the backdrop to the motions that have been tabled before this National Assembly this afternoon. Llywydd, these are highly unusual times, and it is the nature of these times that explains the highly unusual proposition that the National Assembly consent to an emergency Bill. 

As set out in the statement that was tabled alongside the motions, the Welsh Government has accepted, ever since June 2016, that the outcome of the referendum takes the United Kingdom out of the European Union. But the vote to leave the EU was not a vote to reverse devolution. It is this Government's duty, and I believe that of this Assembly, to ensure that, in the act of leaving, the interests of Wales and its people are given every possible protection. 

Will you take an intervention?

I will.

In the negotiations and the JMC meetings that you have with the UK Government, will you give us an undertaking that you won't sell Wales short? And so will you only agree to withdrawing this continuity Bill if the EU withdrawal Bill either protects or enhances this devolution settlement?

Llywydd, of course I never go into any discussion looking to sell Wales's interest short, and I'll continue to work with colleagues elsewhere in the United Kingdom to make sure that the EU withdrawal Bill can be put in a position where we could recommend it to the floor of this Assembly, and if we can't achieve that then we will make no such recommendation to you.

Llywydd, the Bill in front of the Assembly, should it be agreed today, does not aim to frustrate Brexit, it does not aim to delay Brexit; rather it embodies our recognition that legislation is required to provide legal stability and continuity as the UK withdraws from the European Union. It is critical that the statute book ensures clarity and certainty for citizens and businesses during this unprecedented period of change.

It has long been the view of the Welsh Government that legislation on a UK basis would be the best way of achieving continuity, stability and certainty. It has therefore been a huge disappointment that the UK Government's European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which should have been the vehicle for ensuring that legal continuity, has instead been drafted in such a way that it undermines the existing devolution settlement and is itself a source of instability and uncertainty.

The prohibitions and restrictions that it places on the powers of this Assembly and the Welsh Ministers to legislate on matters that have long since been devolved to us are simply unacceptable. The powers it provides for the UK Government to take control of laws and policy responsibilities that are devolved are equally unacceptable. Since the UK Bill was introduced last July, the Welsh Government has worked tirelessly to see it amended so that it properly respects the devolution settlement. The UK Government has been given every possible opportunity to come to an agreement on this issue and to accept either the amendments that we published in conjunction with the Scottish Government or bring forward suitable amendments of its own. Indeed, it promised to do just that in December of last year. Here we are in March and still nothing.

So, Llywydd, although, as I reported to the Assembly last week, progress has been made on this matter in recent weeks, we have not yet reached a point where we can be satisfied that the withdrawal Bill will be amended so as to meet all concerns. We are therefore left with no choice but to bring forward our own continuity Bill, the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill, the LDEU Bill, which both ensures the law in Wales remains fully operable after exit day and provides that decisions about devolved laws are made in Wales and by this Assembly, hence the need to bring forward a Bill and to do it on an emergency basis.

Having given the UK Government as much time as possible to make the necessary changes to its Bill, we have left the introduction of the LDEU Bill to the last possible moment, but that last possible moment has now arrived. Implementation of the Bill will require a substantial, indeed a wholly unprecedented, volume of legislative action on the part of the Welsh Ministers and the National Assembly. The limited time left between now and exit day means that the application of the normal Bill procedures would defeat its own object by leaving too little time for implementation once a Bill had been passed.

We also need to allow space for Parliament to respond to the Assembly's voice on this matter. Should the Assembly decide to pass this Bill, it will demonstrate the strength of feeling in Wales that those decisions on preparing devolved legislation for Brexit are a matter for the National Assembly.

Will the Cabinet Secretary take an intervention?

I will.

I'm listening with great interest and, obviously, I support the general principle of what he's setting out today, but emergency Bills are sometimes not good law because they're taken through to meet a particular objective and don't necessarily stand the test of time. Should an emergency Bill such as this contain a sunset clause? 

Well, Llywydd, I hope that the Bill has a sunset clause built into it in the sense that I still hope that we will reach an agreement with the UK Government and with the Scottish Government on amendments that we could jointly see put down in the House of Lords that would render the continuity Bill unnecessary because we would have achieved our objectives by an alternative, and we have always seen it preferable a route. However, I am always going to be keen to listen to points that Members make about this Bill and ways in which it could be further considered should the Assembly decide today to allow it to go forward on an emergency basis and with the timetable that that requires. The timetable that we propose allows space for dialogue between legislatures to continue and for Parliament to reflect on the strength of feeling in Wales and, therefore, to take the steps necessary in respect of the EU withdrawal Bill.

Now, Llywydd, of course I recognise that bringing forward the LDEU Bill as an emergency Bill is less than ideal, and that's why I say that, again, our preference remains to have a UK Government Bill that respects devolution, and we will go on working to that end until every possibility of its successful amendment is exhausted. But the UK Government's failure to act to address our concerns means that the LDEU Bill is now required urgently. If it cannot be treated as an emergency Bill, it cannot be brought forward at all. The cost of not doing so could be very high indeed: the fundamental undermining of the current devolution settlement.

As to the timetable motion, I ask Members to support it because it is necessary to get the Bill into scrutiny and onto the floor of the Assembly as soon as possible. Once we have a timetable, then I will listen very carefully to what Members say about it, including what is said this afternoon, but, without a timetable, this Bill is stuck without a starting line; the train will never leave the station, and its whole purpose is defeated before it has begun. I therefore ask Members to agree to the use of the emergency Bill procedure and to the proposed timetable to get the formal process under way.

More broadly, Llywydd, the decision to publish the Bill in draft last week means the discussion of its contents has already begun. I was grateful for the opportunity to answer questions in front of the EAAL committee yesterday. If today's motions are agreed, formal introduction of the Bill will follow tomorrow. On Monday next week, I will attend the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, where the Bill will be scrutinised. On Tuesday, the whole Assembly will be able to debate the substantive controls of the Bill against the Stage 1 motion. But, Llywydd, none of that can happen unless agreement can be reached today to the use of the emergency Bill procedure and its associated timetable. I therefore ask Members to support both motions so that this vital work, work of great urgency and high importance, can begin. 

I start by saying where we do agree with the Welsh Government on this side of the Assembly, and that's as has been outlined in a statement, and I quote,

'It remains the Welsh Government’s view that the best approach to this issue remains an amended EU Withdrawal Bill which can be given legislative consent by the National Assembly.'

And I do agree that this should be approached on a UK basis with the full and proper consent of the National Assembly for Wales and, indeed, the Scottish Parliament. I also agree with the Welsh Government when they say, and I quote,

'The costs of legal uncertainty and a lack of continuity would likely be considerable.'

I think, in all this, we do have to, as best we can in a complicated area, seek the clearest line possible. May I also note, Presiding Officer, your determination on competence and that that was not straightforward, as it was recognised that there are significant arguments both for and against legislative competence existing for this Bill? A typically wise and balanced judgment, if I may say so.

Where we take a different approach from the Welsh Government is that the proper check and balance here—and it is a great test of the devolution settlement, I agree with that—is in the LCM procedure. We do not believe that an EU withdrawal Bill can successfully proceed without the consent of the National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. It is an appropriate device, the LCM, and it is one that gives us the constitutional protection that the Minister is seeking, in my view. I give way.

I thank the Member for giving way. Do you agree with me, therefore, that, earlier this year, there was unanimous support for a continuity Bill for the Welsh Assembly? Can you just give me an indication as to what's changed from just over a month ago to now, when there is still a continuity Bill?

There wasn't unanimous support. There was a take-note motion that we did not want to divide the Assembly on because, in the tactics of this, we have been keen that the Welsh Government's attempts to negotiate effective frameworks and effective framework governance get the maximum support from the Assembly. So, we took a very pragmatic decision, but that was not a decision to approve a continuity Bill, and we now have a continuity Bill before us. And I will make some remarks of where I do think it's important we speak with one voice here.

Therefore, I have to conclude that the Welsh Government's decision to introduce this Bill can only add very considerably to legal uncertainty, and that is not going to be in the best interests of the people of Wales, organisations and businesses in Wales. As I said, the appropriate lever—and it is a huge one—is the LCM process.

Can I just make some practical observations, Presiding Officer, about scrutiny? As you have said, these are not straightforward matters, which is another way of saying they would need extensive scrutiny to ensure that we are acting in an appropriate way and are legislating rigorously. Arguments exist on both sides. The situation in Scotland is that they've taken a different approach, and this could well result in a referral to the Supreme Court, and that itself will add to any level of uncertainty we may face.

So, I have to say that, for these reasons, we urge caution, given the ambivalence that currently exists over this whole matter. But the biggest objection has to come back to how we would scrutinise an emergency Bill on such a major constitutional matter. Just reflecting on the timetable, it would be so lightning fast that scrutiny would only be cursory, where it was possible at all, over a certain number of limited areas. Next Tuesday we would have Stage 1, the Tuesday following, 20 March, Stage 2, and the day after that, 21 March, Stages 3 and 4.

We have to make a decision today on whether to invoke an emergency procedure without an explanatory memorandum. The Minister is right: we have had the Bill in draft, but, you know, there is an explanatory memorandum, and it's been withheld. I do not think that adds very much to these proceedings, and, Presiding Officer, it may be something we want to look at in terms of Standing Order reform, that, in the exceptional circumstance of an emergency procedure, the explanatory memorandum has to be laid then. I know at the moment it's difficult and it's done on introduction, but this has not been a process where we've had maximum opportunity, at this stage at least, to make a sound judgment.

Can I just conclude—

Will you take another intervention? I can see the time is very short.

I will if the Presiding Officer—

Thank you very much. Is it not the case, though, that this legislation in emergency form would not perhaps be necessary had the UK Government responded to our demands from Wales to take into account the needs of Wales moving forward after we leave the European Union?

Look, there's no way around this. What's been proposed today is that, in whatever it is—20-odd days, or less actually—we would pass some form of continuity Bill. It's going to take nine or 10 months through the Westminster procedure, and we're supposed to do it in 14, 15, 16 days or whatever. I think you need, Rhun, if I may be so bold to say, to look at the big picture here. We should not be making in this fast and furious way constitutional law.

I do want to conclude very quickly on the outcomes that we do need to achieve, and those are UK frameworks accepted everywhere—Scottish Government and Welsh Government—and that there needs to be effective shared governance on frameworks accepted in Scotland and Wales. That's the real battle we're having with our colleagues in England who are not, perhaps, as familiar with some of these concepts as we are, and there we've given the Welsh Government every practical assistance.

Finally, to achieve the legal certainty and full rigour that we need, we have to proceed on a UK basis and work through a UK withdrawal Bill that gets the consent of the National Assembly. With regret, we will not be supporting either motion on this matter this afternoon, Presiding Officer.

Today, we vote on introducing the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill as a Government emergency Bill. This fulfils Plaid Cymru's call for the introduction of a continuity Bill and it's a significant moment for our nation and our response to the EU withdrawal process. This Bill provides the most significant leverage we have as a country in this debate at this present time.

I'd like to take you all back to 8 November 2016. That's when the idea of a continuity Bill had its genesis—when it was first proposed by Plaid Cymru as a way of preventing a Westminster power grab. This was before the introduction of the UK Government's EU withdrawal Bill, and demonstrates that those of us on these benches predicted that there would be a threat to those powers returning from Brussels. And now, more than a year later, we're finally in a position where this continuity Bill is going ahead. This has only happened because of relentless advocacy in favour of the Bill, and because of the UK Government's failure to provide a solution to the real problem of a Westminster power grab. They've failed to satisfy the Welsh Government or the Scottish Government. It's important to note that in both Wales and Scotland, support for a continuity Bill is not just from the Government; in both cases, it comes from a majority of the Parliament. This is not just about Executive power and the power of Ministers; this is about the whole Assembly. It's about Welsh democracy and the successive votes in favour of devolution and law-making powers.

Plaid Cymru will, of course, be voting in favour of both motions this evening. But, Llywydd, I am of the view that it is unfortunate that the vote tonight will not be unanimous. We will still have a clear and overwhelming majority of Assembly Members in favour of this Bill, which is positive, but as David Melding has already conceded, a much stronger message is sent when all parties are united. The legislation does not depend on supporting or opposing the principle of leaving the EU. This is not about that. I would welcome voting alongside the other opposition parties on this after the Member's legislative proposal received unanimous support earlier this year. But despite this, we must now move forward with an effective two-thirds majority in support of this Bill, which represents a strong vote of confidence in favour of protecting Welsh democracy.

Llywydd, I agree with the argument that the emergency procedure could've been avoided, but that is now too late. Plaid Cymru would've supported this Bill being introduced much earlier; we wanted that to happen. But introducing the Bill under emergency procedure is better, in our view, than having no Bill at all. At this stage in the EU withdrawal process, there is no convincing argument for sitting back and allowing Westminster to intercept the powers that are already devolved. We have learnt the hard way, time and time again, not to trust Westminster. How many promises? And Westminster has already ignored a legislative consent motion from this place on police commissioners. Any devolved powers that are to be shared on a UK or GB basis must be co-decided by the Governments of the UK. We urge the Welsh Government to hold fast to that view and to resist any attempts to try and override the decisions of this Assembly in the courts.

Llywydd, to conclude, Plaid Cymru continues to call for a continuity Bill and will vote in favour of today's motions. We will always, always protect our hard-won democratic institutions and our national democracy—always.

My view of this Bill is formulated against a background—and I think the overriding priority, constitutionally, is that we respect the will of the people, and that referenda, even though they may not, in form, be legally binding, are certainly morally binding once Parliament, whether it be at Westminster or here, has put on the statute book the legislation that gives them legal force—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Do you accept that the will of the people as conveyed in the 2011 referendum on powers should also be respected?

Well, the leader of Plaid Cymru has anticipated my next sentence, because that's exactly what I was going to say. There is a natural meeting of minds between us; we're on the same wavelength.

I was about to say that that applies as much to the EU referendum as to the two referenda on Welsh devolution. And although I took a different view of devolution at the time, I accept the will of the people and I will do my best, as I hope I've done in the time I've been in this place, to make it work. I see advantages that can come to Wales from it. Very often, this is true in life; that there are advantages as well as disadvantages, however much we might not want something to come about.

I struggle to understand quite why the UK Government has put us in this position today. We do have a Cabinet that is dominated by people who wanted to remain in the EU, and so one part of me wonders whether this is all part of a general sabotage of the whole process—to try to create as much friction as possible, which undermines the objective that I want to see achieved. But I think that the cock-up theory rather than the conspiracy theory is generally to be found in Government, and so I prefer to put it down to their natural incompetence.

But it is, I think, deplorable that the lack of understanding at Westminster—I think this is what came out of David Melding's speech—the lack of understanding at Westminster that he seems to think is there, and I agree with him, is responsible for playing down the results of the referendum that gave rise to this place coming into existence. We have to accept the reality that Wales does now have its own Parliament, has its own Government, the same as in Scotland, and consequently, when we are out of the EU legally, the frameworks that will be desirable, if not absolutely necessary, in many respects, in relation to powers that are devolved to make life more convenient for us all, have to take proper account of the views of the Welsh people, as represented in this place and the Government that is elected from amongst us. That seems to me to be a wholly unexceptionable statement of constitutional affairs.

I agree with what's said in the statement that was published on 27 February by the Welsh Government, that

'the Bill’s principal objective is to ensure, as a general rule, that there is continuity in that the rules and laws that apply in devolved areas immediately prior to exit and those applying immediately after exit, thereby providing certainty for citizens, businesses and other organisations.'

That's plainly in everybody's interests. Therefore, I can't really see why this should get in the way of the Brexit process. I did have a suspicion at first that it was a ploy to try to make the process of leaving more difficult than it need be, and perhaps even to frustrate it altogether. I have, some time ago, abandoned that fear, and I accept the bona fides of the Government in this respect that this is a genuine attempt to force the UK Government to the table to do the decent thing that all parties in this house, even the Conservative Party here, accept should be done—that the EU withdrawal Bill should be amended to bring about the result that we all want to see achieved.

So, this is not about a great issue of principle, this debate. We all agree on the general principle and the outcome we want to see from the Brexit process. So, if this does have the effect of forcing the UK Government to speed up the process of bringing that about, I think it would be a very good thing. The UK Government, at the end of the day, does have the power to steamroller over us. We know that. So, what this seeks to do is to make it more embarrassing for them than it would otherwise be if they're put in that position. That's as much as we can do, and on that basis I'm more than happy to lend my support to the Welsh Government in this rather unlikely rainbow coalition and become somewhat of a poster boy, as I understand it from reading the Scottish press, amongst Scottish nationalists, and with Nicola Sturgeon, as a result of what I said here just a few weeks ago. This is not a position that I ever thought possible, let alone desirable. But there it is; we have to accept plaudits in life, where they're given, even from the most unlikely of sources.

So, on that basis, I will be supporting the Government in putting the Bill through this Assembly, and I hope common sense will very shortly be found at Westminster.

Llywydd, can I first of all commend the drafters of the Bill and the considerable skill and work that has gone in? This has been an incredible learning curve for them, but it shows the resources and the skill that exist within this legislature.

Can I also say that I agree with very much of what David Melding has said? He has raised all the correct constitutional points in terms of our role, in terms of scrutiny of powers, and the way in which Government operates. I make no criticism at all of the points that he has raised, other than that the area where I do disagree with him, which is that I don't think we're in a position where we can afford to sit back and do nothing. I think that takes us back really to the starting point of what the dilemma is, where the dispute arises, where the problem arises. And it goes back to, really, the initial understanding of what the true constitutional nature of devolution is within the context of the UK constitution.

There is no doubt, in my view, because I think it is upheld by nearly all the constitutional and legislative committees, from the House of Lords, the House of Commons, in Scotland and in Wales, which I think, by and large, all accept that the Welsh Government's constitutional analysis is correct, and that is that those powers, in the absence of the withdrawal Bill—all those powers that are currently in Brussels that relate to devolved areas of responsibility come back where Parliament has already decided they belong, and that is decided by the various devolution statutes.

The withdrawal Bill, if it is not amended, is, in fact, a centralisation of powers Bill. It drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlements. This is a point that has been made time and time again to the UK Government. We have to go back to the very beginning of this whole process, post the referendum: that is, we were promised that there would be proper engagement and consultation. That didn't take place. We were promised that there would be amendments that were put in. Scotland were promised key amendments with regard to clause 11. That hasn't come in. We were promised that all sorts of arrangements would come in hand—that this would be resolved. [Interruption.] Yes, I will.

Thank you very much for taking an intervention. If the Welsh Government was so concerned about this lack of action on the part of the UK Government, why didn't they introduce this sooner?

Well, I think the reason is because we had the belief—and I believe it was right to have the belief—that the UK Government would listen to the legal advice that was coming forward and would do the right thing. Now, I believe there probably are those in the UK Government who want to do the right thing but have been incapable of actually delivering the sorts of changes that are actually necessary to resolve this, and proposals have been made.

Now, I hope that there is an arrangement, but I see three scenarios that take place. The first one—and I hope no-one's going to intervene, so I have to go back and say, 'No, there were four scenarios'—but I see three key scenarios. The first one is that there is no agreement on clause 11. Therefore, we will not be able to give legislative consent. Therefore, we must take steps to protect the Welsh interests and the devolution settlements. The second scenario is that there is agreement, that we are able to reach agreement, and, no doubt, this proposed Bill will contribute significantly to achieving that, if it is achieved. And if that agreement on clause 11 is achieved, then the continuity Bill need not proceed, because the correct devolution arrangements and powers will have been established.

The alternative—and I think it's unlikely, but it is a disastrous alternative, but nothing is beyond the competence of the current Government that we have in Westminster—is that the withdrawal Bill fails for some reason, and that would leave us with no arrangements whatsoever the moment we leave the EU in terms of all those areas of our responsibility. In my view, it would be wholly irresponsible not to actually bring forward this legislation, and there are good reasons why it wasn't brought forward, not just that I think we've held the high ground—we've worked in the best interest to achieve agreement and are still doing so—but it is also the case that it enables this Bill now to actually exert the influence and show the determination that we have, that Scotland have, that the devolution arrangements, the constitutional arrangements we have, have got to be upheld. We've been promised they will be upheld, but, unfortunately, the withdrawal Bill in its current form is a form of constitutional mugging, where the sole promise that is given is to say, 'We've mugged you of your powers and responsibilities, but don't worry, as we run off, we'll give them back to you at a later stage.' That is not good enough. It is not respectful to the Parliament that established the devolution settlements, and it's not respectful to the devolution Governments.

There are difficulties, there are problems with it, but the continuity Bill has to be started. I believe if we do not take this step today in passing it, it will not happen. That will weaken significantly our negotiation position, and I remain in full agreement with the position that the Cabinet Secretary has taken that we still hope we will achieve agreement. But let's be absolutely clear, if that agreement cannot be reached, if we cannot reach a stage where there should be an LCM, then we have to protect Welsh interests, and that's what this Bill does.

As the person chairing discussions between the UK Government and the devolved Governments on the EU withdrawal Bill, Cabinet Minister David Lidington MP stated, at Airbus Broughton in Flintshire last week, we must protect the UK internal market whilst respecting devolution. As I noted last week, he also said that eight out of 10 goods lorries leaving Wales go to the rest of the UK, highlighting the importance of the UK common market for Wales, as well as the rest of the UK. Mr Lidington, in Broughton, added that

'we have to ensure, as we are determined to do, that Brexit means more powers going to the devolved governments and not fewer...So our proposal is 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. Westminster would only be involved where, to protect the UK common market or to meet our international obligations, we needed a pause—I stress pause—to give the governments time to design and put in place a UK-wide framework.'

Governments—in plural. Responding to me in the—[Interruption.] Sorry?

[Inaudible.]—on that point? 

Yes, I'll take one intervention.

I'm grateful. Just on that very point, he's talked about a pause, a need to look at this new creature called a UK common market, but, more importantly, who decides if that pause is needed and who decides whether we need to retain powers at Westminster? Is it just Westminster, which I think he's suggesting, or is it the four countries together agreeing that? If it's the four countries, I'm with him, but I think he's suggesting Westminster.

As I said, to give the Governments—plural—a time to decide and put in place a UK-wide framework.

Responding to me in this Chamber last week, the finance Secretary, Mark Drakeford, stated that Mr Lidington's speech

'did move a step forward in relation to our clause 11 concerns.'

Mr Drakeford then added,

'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'— we agree—that he will go to the next meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations with constructive proposals as to how those questions could be resolved, that his preferred course of action remains an agreed amendment that all three Governments could see put down at the House of Lords, that if an amendment cannot be agreed he will continue to pursue the amendments jointly laid with the Scottish Government in the House of Commons and will re-lay in the House of Lords, and that only if they don't succeed there, then they 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.

Having already achieved so much, it's therefore apparent that there's a will in both the UK and Welsh Governments to conclude an agreement that would allow the EU withdrawal Bill to go forward. I'm sure that a final push, combined with constructive engagement with Scotland, will enable this now to happen. Of course, we, the Welsh Conservative official opposition, fully recognise the constitutional principles at stake. We have consistently called for agreements on common frameworks between the Governments of the UK as a basis for a UK free trade agreement, and argued that there is no reason why the EU withdrawal Bill could not state that the restriction on devolved competency would end when common agreed frameworks come into force. We also welcome the finance Secretary's response to me in yesterday's meeting of the Assembly External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, to which he referred when he stated that

'very detailed work has gone on at official level', involving Welsh Government, UK Government and Scottish Government on the consent issue, and he added that there was

'more than one way in which those different positions could be bridged', and that Thursday's meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations will be focusing on practical ways that could be done, where all share the same ambition to get an agreed amendment. We also understand that discussions on this will go forward at a meeting attended by both the Prime Minister and the First Minister next week. In noting both this and the inappropriateness of introducing major constitutional legislation under emergency procedure, which would make necessary and effective scrutiny impossible, we must oppose these motions. In so doing, however, we recognise that the view of this Assembly, including ours, can be expressed by voting against the legislative consent motion if our collective concerns are not then addressed. The constitutional integrity of this Welsh Parliament must be protected, and the Welsh Conservative official opposition won't hesitate to vote down the legislative consent motion, alongside other parties, if that is compromised. Thank you.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I thank all Members who have taken part in this very thoughtful debate? Let me begin with the last contribution by Mark Isherwood and confirm to Members of the Assembly that I will indeed be going to a meeting with the UK Government and the Scottish Government on Thursday of this week, and that I will go to that meeting in exactly the spirit that Mark Isherwood set out, looking to find ways in which we can craft an amendment between us that both secures continuity, so that EU law can be transferred into domestic law in an orderly way, but also that respects devolution in the United Kingdom. And I'll go there to do that in as determined and purposeful a way as I can.

This Bill is about what happens if that does not succeed, and I want to go to David Melding's contribution, because David Melding identified two issues that are directly relevant to this debate. He argued that the LCM process is where the proper check and balance in the system lies, that what we should do is to rely on the LCM process—and you've heard Mark Isherwood say that his party would have no hesitation in voting against legislative consent if the UK EU withdrawal Bill didn't respect devolution. But the question I have to ask the Conservative Party is: what happens then? What happens if this legislator denies legislative competence? Leanne Wood said that the UK Government had already ignored, once, a refused LCM, but they have never refused to respect an LCM where they themselves had said at the beginning that an LCM was required. They denied it was necessary in relation to policing, arguing that it wasn't devolved, but the UK Government itself has said that it requires the consent of this legislature. So, we have to assume, in taking David's point, if the checks and balances are genuinely to work, that if we denied legislative consent, then those parts of the Bill that affect Wales would no longer go forward, and where would be the certainty then?

I assume you've given way. [Laughter.]

I certainly do.

I apologise. In our view, it's simply not plausible for a UK EU withdrawal Bill to operate if it doesn't get the express consent of this place and the Scottish Parliament. That's the reality of the political situation, and that's what we should rely on.

It just is not sufficient, Llywydd. It just doesn't measure up to the seriousness of the position. Mick Antoniw got it exactly right, that if there is no agreement, if this legislature could not provide its legislative consent, then we have to act to put in place a set of arrangements that would operate for Welsh businesses and Welsh public services in the event that the UK Government did what they should do, and respect the decision of this National Assembly. That's why this Bill is a necessity, and that's why, in the end, it is not enough to rely on the LCM process, important as that is, because if we were not to give consent and the UK Government were to respect that, there would be no statute book for Wales to provide the continuity and certainty that this Bill, the continuity Bill, provides. 

The second point that David Melding made was about scrutiny, and I share lots of his anxieties about the timetable that we are now having to operate against, but the real finger does have to be pointed at the UK Government. Had they operated in the way that they told us they would and gave us the certainty that was needed earlier in this process, we would either have not needed this continuity Bill at all, or we would have been able to offer this Assembly greater time in which to scrutinise it. In the event, Leanne Wood asked why we didn't bring it forward earlier. She will know how closely we have acted in concert with the Scottish Government on this matter, how we have worked together to try and give the UK Government as much opportunity as possible to bring forward an amendment with which we could agree, how we have acted with the Scottish Government to a common timetable in introducing our continuity Bills, and how we are now in the position where speed will have to be of the essence. An explanatory memorandum will be published tomorrow alongside the Bill, if it is to be introduced.  

Leanne Wood rightly pointed to the fact that Plaid Cymru have long advocated a continuity Bill, and I think that she will recognise that part of the impact we have been able to have at the UK level has partly been by working together with Scotland, but also by being able to demonstrate the unity of purpose in this National Assembly on these very important matters. That's why we were so pleased to publish jointly 'Securing Wales' Future' with Plaid Cymru, and I'm sure that she will recognise that the First Minister responded positively from the very beginning to the concept of a continuity Bill, and has taken responsibility himself for the oversight of the development of that Bill, and the formidable amount, as Mick Antoniw said, of work that has gone into its preparation, including liaison with the Scottish First Minister along the way.  

I've heard what parties have said here this afternoon, Llywydd. I know we will not be unanimous. I regret that. I think it doesn't help us in getting the maximum leverage that Leanne Wood referred to. But I think there will be a substantial majority here on the floor of this Assembly so that we can bring this Bill forward, we can bring it forward as an emergency Bill, we can attend to it as best we can within the timetable that we have got, and if we are in the position that we do not seek, where we cannot secure agreement of the UK Government to a proper amendment to its own Bill, then the future of Wales and legal certainty and continuity here will have been secured through this Bill if we are able to take it onto the statute book. 

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 9. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on this item until voting time. As we have not disposed of the vote under item 9, I will defer the vote under item 10 until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

And unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move immediately to voting time.