The next group of amendments is group 3, relating to the repeal of the Act. Amendment 1 is the lead amendment in the group and I call on David Melding to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 1 (David Melding) moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I move the amendments. It was strange that this Bill had no repeal clause, unlike the Scottish Bill. The amendment I am speaking to will rectify that defect, and I believe this is necessary because the Welsh Government continues to state that it would prefer to proceed via a UK Bill, and I do accept that statement as in good faith. The Welsh Government continues to seek an agreement on the grounds on which it could support an LCM on the UK Bill. The UK Government is also committed to reaching an agreement, and has already made helpful changes to accommodate the concerns of the Welsh Government. Good progress was made last week when the First Minister met with the Prime Minister. Further meetings are planned to build on this good progress to achieve a final agreement. Therefore, it is clearly the hope of the main players that this Bill will become redundant. An efficient repeal process is therefore very much in the public interest.

Can I just speak to why I think my amendment is a better version than the Welsh Government's? The version that I have laid follows the Scottish model. However, the Welsh Government has introduced an option of a form of superaffirmative process, essentially allowing for consultation on repeal. I do not believe that this would be in the public interest, principally because, if an agreement between the Governments does come forward, it would be the best thing to do to repeal it quickly and ensure that there is complete clarity on the legal position. That is best achieved by this place, having gone through the Bill process, then deciding to repeal it because circumstances would have changed so much. Also, I do observe that it is slightly bizarre to have a consultation process on repeal when the original Act had no such consultation.    

Plaid Cymru will be supporting the amendments in the name of Julie James. We agree that there is a gap in the legislation as it stands not to have a repeal clause if agreement is reached with the Westminster Government—that’s the main political reason that may arise, in those circumstances. We should treasure the second when David Melding spoke against a superaffirmative process. That’s one to cut out and keep, if I may say so, and I will never forget that. I’m of the opinion that this is an appropriate process. Yes, it turns around consultation, but at least there will be a conversation between Assembly committees and the Government if the Government wish to repeal the Act. So, that is an appropriate process. We will need to understand, before voting on repealing the Act, whether the political agreement is one that we as an Assembly would accept, so it’s entirely appropriate that there should be a superaffirmative process around the repeal of the Bill.

The fact that the Bill was introduced as emergency legislation is a different argument, which we will return to in closing these discussions at Stage 4, I'm sure. But it’s not true to say that the past few months haven’t seen discussions surrounding this Bill. Steffan Lewis has raised this on numerous occasions in this Chamber and a number of external organisations have also been discussing it. We support the fact that there should be a repeal clause, but, having discussed with Government, we’re happy to support the amendments in the name of Julie James and the Government.

I call on the leader of the house, Julie James.

Diolch, Lywydd. The Welsh Government has been consistently clear that the LDEU Bill is a fallback option, and our preferred outcome continues to be an agreement on an amended EU withdrawal Bill that provides legal continuity for the UK as a whole but which properly respects our devolution settlement, as everyone in the debate has pointed out. However, the expected timescale for the passage of the EU withdrawal Bill through the UK Parliament means that if we pass the LDEU Bill today we will have done so before the EU withdrawal Bill has completed all of its amending stages. There still remains, therefore, an opportunity for a satisfactory agreement to be reached with the UK Government and for the necessary amendments to be made to the EU withdrawal Bill, and I want to assure Members that we continue to make every effort to achieve this outcome. I'm sure everybody thinks that we are doing that. This would enable us to recommend to the Assembly that it provides legislative consent to the EU withdrawal Bill. If that consent is provided, it would not be necessary to proceed with the implementation of the LDEU Bill. In these circumstances, amendment 4 would provide a pragmatic means of repealing the Bill without the need for further primary legislation. The amendment mirrors a power that has been included in the Scottish Government's continuity Bill, as was pointed out, and provides the flexibility to repeal it in its entirety or in part only. I believe that passing this amendment will be a strong signal to the UK Government, Parliament and stakeholders here in Wales that we continue to prioritise an agreement on the EU withdrawal Bill.

I have to say, David, at this point, that I too will cherish the moment in which you said that you didn't see the need for the enhanced procedure and that that was because the Government hadn't proceeded correctly in the first place. I can't help but feel that we'll be playing that back to you on numerous occasions. I don't accept that the Government hasn't proceeded correctly in the first place, but it's an interesting argument to run.

Anyway, amendments 5, 6 and 8 are consequential to amendment 4 and are collectively designed to ensure that the power to repeal is subject to the full enhanced scrutiny procedure requirements and cannot be made subject to the urgent procedure. I consider it imperative, given that this is a power to repeal primary legislation by regulations, that it is subject to the full rigour of the full enhanced scrutiny procedure. It is for that reason that I would urge Members to reject David Melding's amendments 1 and 2. While these would introduce a power, as he said, of repeal similar to that contained in amendment 4, they would make the use of that power subject to a lower level of scrutiny, which I consider would be inappropriate in this case.

David Melding to reply to the debate.

I thank the Members for their vigorous parliamentary performance and reflections on my traditional opinions on these issues.

The point is that, over this major area of constitutional law and Britain's exit from the European Union, we need legal clarity. We would need to move quickly. The whole reason that you argue you have to do this in an emergency fashion is that you need speed in the process. It makes no sense, on this sort of issue, to then hang around and cause uncertainty by having a very cumbersome process. So, it is in the public interest in this case to move quickly and establish clarity.

Now, in terms of what Simon said, you know, as a former Chair and Deputy Presiding Officer very keen on the superaffirmative process, all I can say is what a very, very senior civil servant once said to me when I thought I had delivered a knockout punch in terms of what he had said. He just looked at me and he said, 'You know, being a grown-up means sometimes you've got to live with paradox'. I move the amendment. [Laughter.]

The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 18, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 1: For: 18, Against: 35, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 2—David Melding. 

Amendment 2 (David Melding) moved.

I move.

The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 18, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 2: For: 18, Against: 35, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Leader of the house, amendment 4.

Amendment 4 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

If amendment 4 is not agreed, amendments 5, 6 and 8 will fall. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 47, one abstention, and five against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Amendment 4: For: 47, Against: 5, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been agreed

Leader of the house, amendment 5. 

Amendment 5 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 47, six abstentions, none against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Amendment 5: For: 47, Against: 0, Abstain: 6

Amendment has been agreed

Amendment 6—leader of the house. 

Amendment 6 (Julie James) moved.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. Forty-seven in favour, six abstentions, none against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Amendment 6: For: 47, Against: 0, Abstain: 6

Amendment has been agreed