The next item on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee report: 'How is the Welsh Government preparing for Brexit?' And I call on the Chair of that committee, David Rees, to move the motion.

Cynnig NDM6704 David Rees

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the report of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee on 'How is the Welsh Government preparing for Brexit?', which was laid in the Table Office on 5 February 2018.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s a pleasure to open this debate on the report of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee on how the Welsh Government is preparing for Brexit and also to move the motion tabled in my name.

Deputy Presiding Officer, last month marked a year until the UK has to leave the European Union after the Prime Minister enacted article 50 of the Lisbon accord. During the first part of the negotiations between the UK and the European Union, it was agreed that sufficient progress had been made on two key aspects of the withdrawal and that there was much still to discuss. There are many questions as to how Wales is preparing for Brexit that have emerged.

And, during this inquiry, we actually set out to explore how Wales, and the Welsh Government in particular, should be preparing for Brexit. The quality of our evidence base was greatly improved by both our traditional consultation process and oral evidence sessions in the Senedd, and visits to stakeholders at Swansea University, Aneurin Bevan Local Health Board and Calsonic Kansei in Llanelli. Our sincere thanks go to all those who contributed to our inquiry, both the stakeholders we went to meet, those who came to give evidence and those who submitted written evidence. And our continual thanks, as a committee, go to our committee team who provide the support that allows us to complete our work.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the report makes a total of seven recommendations, and I am pleased to see that the Welsh Government has accepted, or accepted in principle, all seven. Normally, I don't go through all seven, but this time I will.

Our first recommendation relates to the need for the Welsh Government to urgently examine the likely parameters of various Brexit scenarios, including a 'no deal' scenario, and to report to our committee within six months. Now, in preparing this report, we have worked in the sincere hope that the article 50 negotiations will conclude with a successful outcome for all parties, and progress has undoubtedly been made, particularly since we published our report. But it is important that we do not shy away from addressing a 'no deal' outcome still occurring. Whilst we are clear that this is not an outcome that we consider desirable in any way, we do believe that there's a need for the Welsh Government to be doing more in terms of scenario planning to prepare Wales. In its response, I am pleased to see that the Welsh Government has accepted the need for this, and we are being frequently told that this is under way.

Our second recommendation called on the Welsh Government to publish its research on the impact of various Brexit scenarios on the Welsh economy, and we are pleased to read the Cardiff Business School's analysis of the impacts on larger businesses in Wales. In the Welsh Government's response, I note that further research is currently under way. I'd like to place on the record the fact that the committee looks forward to seeing the outcome of that research in due course. It is vital that we have access to information and evidence that informs both the Government and the wider public debate about the shape of an outcome of exit. That allows us to scrutinise the Government's actions and decision making in more detail.

The third recommendation concerns a key aspect to our inquiry, which is the issue of communications. During the inquiry, we heard concerns from some stakeholders that public services in Wales simply lack the information they need to adequately prepare for Brexit. Furthermore, we heard that the lack of clarity from the UK Government and the potentially broad range of scenarios that may still arise are inhibiting the ability of public services, third sector and others to sufficiently plan and prepare for Brexit. Although we heard that Welsh Government is engaging with stakeholders at a representative level, we also heard that there are challenges in relation to cascading that information down to individual organisations and bodies and to front-line staff. To help combat this, recommendation 3 calls on the Welsh Government to improve its communications with individual organisations through encouraging representative bodies to cascade information downwards and, furthermore, for individual organisations to look at two-way engagement, because there's information coming upwards from the floor that should be considered important.

In our report, we also acknowledged that we have our own role to play in ensuring that public and civil society in Wales have access to reliable and authoritative information on Brexit. I take this opportunity—and Members, I'm sure, will indulge me—to remind everyone of the regular Brexit updates and monitoring reports produced by the Assembly's impartial Research Service, which are available on the Assembly's website and particularly, also, on our committee's website. So, please use the opportunity to keep an eye on all the information updated. The monitoring reports are excellent, and I, again, commend the staff who produce those reports.

Similarly, recommendation 4 relates to the issue of information and communication and, in particular, we call on the Welsh Government to issue clear and accessible guidelines and guidance to businesses, public sector organisations and third sector on what the implications of various scenarios will be, including a 'no deal' scenario. In its response, the Welsh Government states that it agrees with our recommendation to an extent, but argues that the timing is not right. Furthermore, the Government's response raises the important issue of a transition period and what that may mean for stakeholders in Wales. I accept all that, and I agree with it. We'll keep a close eye on how those discussions progress on transition, but we, as a committee, did not come to a firm view on precisely when this guidance should be issued. I acknowledge the arguments made by the Welsh Government on the need to avoid fuelling further uncertainty. But uncertainty exists, and we must address that uncertainty as best we can. As such, I would welcome an update from the Cabinet Secretary during today's debate on how he envisages the timescales for this guidance unfolding, particularly in light of the most recent European Council meeting, which took place towards the end of March.

Turning to recommendation 5, we heard concerns from stakeholders about the loss of future European funding and the challenge that this would present to services and organisations in Wales. That's why we've called on Welsh Government to seek greater clarity from the UK Government on how the proposed shared prosperity fund would be allocated and administered. I know this could be challenging because at the moment I don't think anyone has a clue what it even means beyond the three words 'shared prosperity fund', but it is important that you continue to press the UK Government for further detail on that. As we have previously expressed in earlier work on regional policy in Wales, it's vitally important that Wales is no worse off in terms of equivalent funding as a consequence of the UK leaving the EU than it would have been if we'd remained in the EU. Not having that information is causing difficulty for many public bodies in particular.

Our sixth recommendation calls on the Welsh Government, in conjunction with the higher education working group, to publish any work that it has undertaken in relation to research and innovation in the higher education sector and to take into account the implications of Brexit in that sector. I know that has been set up, but we have not seen any publications from that. 

We heard directly from students and the university sector about the critically important role that European funding for research, collaboration and innovation has played in the past, and the need to ensure that the university sector plays a role in preparing Wales for potential opportunities after Brexit. Since the report's publication, the Prime Minister has indicated the UK wishes to continue participation in areas of research and innovation across the EU, and we welcome that, but early preparation in Wales should ensure that we are at the forefront of this issue.

Our seventh and final recommendation concerns the anticipated Barnett funding consequential that the Welsh Government is set to receive as a result of the additional moneys being spent at the UK level to prepare for Brexit. We very much welcome the announcement of the £15 million transition fund used to prepare businesses and organisations for Brexit that Welsh Government has identified. It's critically important that the Welsh Government ensures that public services and others in Wales have the resources they need to adequately prepare for Brexit. The Welsh Government must keep the situation under review and, as a committee, we look forward to scrutinising how the deployment of the funding will be undertaken.

But it's also recognising that, in the November statement by the Chancellor, he identified £3 billion would be set aside for Brexit. We look forward to learning what consequential will be coming to Wales and how that will be spent to support businesses and public bodies that will be impacted upon by the preparations for Brexit and its effects, but also perhaps how those businesses and organisations will be supported to pursue any opportunities that may arise as a consequence of Brexit to ensure that funding is actually allocated to the purpose.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in bringing my remarks to a close, I'd like to remind the Chamber that Brexit will have important ramifications for many aspects of life in Wales and, as the process continues at pace—and it does continue at pace; it's changing almost every week—it is incumbent upon this Chamber to ensure that, in areas for which Wales has its own powers and responsibilities, we are ready for what lies ahead, not only to minimise any negative impacts, but also to grasp the opportunities that will arise following Brexit.

The Welsh Government response to our report’s recommendations claims that it

'mobilised quickly following the result of the referendum to build capability across Government to respond to the challenges and explore the opportunities presented by EU withdrawal.'

However, we know from feedback received during Brexit-related Assembly committee visits to Brussels, Dublin and elsewhere that it is us, the committees, rather than Welsh Government, that led this engagement and this agenda. We welcome their following our lead.

In accepting our first recommendation in principle only, the Welsh Government states that a 'no deal' scenario would be catastrophic for Wales, but fails to commit to providing progress reports on its examination of various Brexit scenarios.

In her Mansion House speech last month, the Prime Minister stated that:

'We must not only negotiate our exit from an organisation that touches so many important parts of our national life. We must also build a new and lasting relationship while...preparing for every scenario.'

And, as she said in Florence,

'we share the same set of fundamental beliefs; a belief in free trade, rigorous and fair competition, strong consumer rights, and that trying to beat other countries’ industries by unfairly subsidising one’s own is a serious mistake.'

She also said that:

'A deep and comprehensive agreement with the EU will therefore need to include commitments reflecting the extent to which the UK and EU economies are entwined.'

Well, the end stage of negotiations were started this week, with the press reporting that UK-EU relations are a lot more normalised and that EU insiders think much of the detail and substance governing EU-UK future relations will actually be worked out after the UK leaves the bloc in March next year.

In accepting our recommendation 2 in principle only, the Welsh Government states that it has worked closely with its

'sector teams…to better understand the picture across each of the sectors impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.'  

And in accepting our recommendation 3, it states that it has been working closely with

'a range of stakeholders, including businesses, farmers, trade unions, educational institutions, public services, the third sector, communities and the public…to build a detailed understanding of their priorities, concerns and vulnerabilities, while communicating the Welsh Government’s position on a range of Brexit issues and this activity will continue.'

However, as our report states, Michael Trickey from Wales Public Services 2025 told us:

'I don’t think we’re actually very much more advanced in our understanding of the implications of Brexit than we were a year ago.'

Both Mr Trickey and Dr Victoria Winckler, Director of the Bevan Foundation, recognised that any scenario planning that had been undertaken so far seemed relatively limited. Furthermore, Mr Trickey said that, although umbrella organisations were engaging with Brexit, the issue felt—quote—'very, very remote' at the level of individual delivery organisations.

Accepting our recommendation 4 in principle only, the Welsh Government states that

'Providing guidance to business and the third sector will need some further careful thought, given the diverse range of interests involved.'

However, the National Trust told us that they would like to see specific farm business planning advice relating to the various trading scenarios after Brexit. The Farmers’ Union of Wales called for the Welsh Government to

'quantify the possible impacts of different post-Brexit scenarios'.

And although the Welsh NHS Confederation of health boards and trusts e-mailed Members yesterday stating that it has been working with Welsh Government officials to consider and assess the scale of the impact for Welsh health and social care services post Brexit, the health and social care professionals we met at the Aneurin Bevan university health board in Caerleon told us that

'The lack of clarity and direction' in relation to Brexit

'makes contingency planning difficult, and as a result conversations around scenario planning have yet to begin.'

As the Welsh Government states in response to our recommendation 5, the replacement for EU structural funds must work within a devolved context. Notwithstanding this, of course, we also note that these funds were intended to close the relative prosperity gap, but, unlike many other recipients across Europe, this has widened in Wales.  

In accepting our recommendation 6, the Welsh Government refers to

'implications of Brexit for Government funded research and innovation in Wales'.

We must therefore welcome the Prime Minister's statement that

'The UK is also committed to establishing a far-reaching science and innovation pact with the EU, facilitating the exchange of ideas and researchers. This would enable the UK to participate in key programmes alongside our EU partners.'

We wish the Welsh Government well in its future engagement over this matter but hope that it will reconsider some of the aspects of its response and consider further the evidence we received. Thank you.

I would like to begin by thanking members of the external affairs committee for their work on this report and I would also like to thank Steffan Lewis, who can't be here to take part in this debate today but who has made a significant contribution to the work of the committee and will continue to do so when he's able to join them again in the future. Brexit may not have been a policy chosen by the Welsh Government, but the implementation of the EU referendum result will have significant implications for the future of our nation. Our economy, our environment, our public services—there is little that won't be affected by the terms of the separation deal between the UK and the EU. The uncertainty that this report highlights is outside the Welsh Government's control. It poses a real challenge to the preparedness of the Government, business and the public sector that our future in Wales rests in the hands of negotiators from the UK and EU and depends to such a large extent on the shape of the final deal.

This report reveals a number of worrying gaps in the work that is being done to ready Wales for the many possible eventual outcomes of the Brexit negotiations. It's vital that the Welsh Government's preparation for Brexit is properly scrutinised. We need to see improved communication and leadership so that Wales can be Brexit-ready in time for our separation from the EU. The unwillingness of the Welsh Government to even contemplate the steps necessary to prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit scenario is deeply concerning. I accept that a 'no deal' Brexit would be catastrophic. When the House of Lords EU Committee investigated a 'no deal' Brexit, they could find no possible upside. We could see empty shelves in supermarkets and a 20 per cent rise in food prices, flights to Europe could be grounded on exit day, and we could see miles of tailbacks at our ports. It's deeply negligent of the Tories to toy with the economic future of the UK by considering a 'no deal' Brexit as an option. I understand that the idea is that a 'no deal' Brexit would be a Tory-made mess and that it would therefore be the responsibility of the Tories in Westminster to clean it up, but where devolved areas of competency are affected, the Welsh Government will have a responsibility to do whatever possible to mitigate the effects. Wales must be prepared for any eventuality, and the Welsh Government has a responsibility to plan for this almost unthinkable outcome.

For individual organisations, many already feeling overstretched, there just isn't the capacity to think about Brexit when there is so much day-to-day business to be getting on with. It is the Welsh Government's responsibility to provide the guidance and to ensure that the right information is getting to the right people, particularly in our public services. It's alarming that this report finds that a number of sectors have felt that they are lacking the information that they need to prepare adequately. We know that the implications of Brexit on our public services could be huge. There'll be the loss of the £680 million of European funding every year, with no real assurances yet from the UK Government that we'll see that funding replaced.

A report published today by the Global Future think tank suggests that a final agreement in line with the UK Government's desired bespoke deal would cut the amount of funding available for public services at a UK level by £615 million per week—equivalent to 22 per cent of what is currently being spent. Meanwhile, we know that there could be disruption to our access to medicines and medial research. Theresa May's plea to be allowed to retain associate membership to the European Medicines Agency after Brexit was rebuffed by the Commission because she also wants to leave the single market. Welsh patients could find themselves missing out on treatments that they need and the most cutting-edge research. Canada often gets new drugs six to 12 months after the EU. If the UK ends up with a similar style deal, will we be in the same boat?

We cannot be complacent about the scale of the challenge we may face, but the ongoing uncertainty we face about the outcome of Brexit negotiations makes any preparedness very difficult. This report is a valuable contribution to the discussion about how Wales can begin to get ready for the impact that Brexit could have, and I urge the Welsh Government to act upon its recommendations.

I firstly welcome the report and also the really important contribution that the committee has made to our understanding of the challenges that we're going to face as we approach Brexit. There are two areas that I particularly want to refer to.

One is that the Chair of the committee, Dai Rees, and myself attended in Edinburgh the interparliamentary forum, a body of nearly all the parliamentary constitutional committees across the House of Lords, Westminster, Scotland and Wales. And one of the key areas of concern there, on a number of these issues, is what happens, post Brexit, in terms of the constitutional structure we've got and in terms of the need for agreements in respect of issues such as state aid, agriculture and so on. And it was very, very rare that across party, across all these committees, with the plethora of research and evidence and reports that have been produced, they unanimously agreed that the Joint Ministerial Committee, in its current form, is not fit for purpose. 'Not fit for pupose'—a devastating comment and one that the UK Government seems not to have addressed, but I know that the Welsh Government is one that has continually raised it. It is a vital area that needs resolution.

The other one, of course—and Leanne Wood referred to the issue of funding and lost funding—is comments that have been made recently by the Secretary of State for Wales in evidence with regard to the shared prosperity fund. It appears serious consideration is being given that this will be a Westminster-controlled fund. What is the point of us winning the continuity legislation argument, winning the clause 11 argument, if the UK Government takes control of those funds and is able to turn round to us and say, 'You can have all the powers you want, but you can only have the money that goes with them if you do things the way we say'? That is a coach and horses through devolution. That is undermining fundamental devolution principles, and is something that we seriously do have to address.

In itself, this report and the acceptance of its recommendations by Welsh Government are all well and good, and it's right that there's a high level of analysis and scrutiny as we head towards Brexit. If there'd been as much scrutiny of the transition that was taking place leading up towards a united states of Europe, the UK would have made the sensible decision to leave a long, long time ago. But there was very little or no scrutiny or debates in this place or in Westminster when extra powers were being given away, largely because every party in this Chamber at the time were supportive of further integration, even though it's now obvious the Welsh public were not.

The report is sensible and valuable, of course, but it all comes down to the content of this Government's communication with the stakeholders concerned and the public. There are many in this place and others who will do all they can to ignore the will of the voters and attempt to reverse the democratic decision made at the referendum, or who aim to leave the EU in name only. My concern is that the Government will use its contact with stakeholders to continue its project fear to get backing for the softest, most meaningless Brexit possible. In their discourse, I suspect they will attempt to paint a scene of stability within the EU that simply doesn't exist.

Remainers try to argue that leaving would create uncertainty, while ignoring the obvious truth that remaining would create uncertainty also. With all the moves towards greater political integration, more powers being given away to Brussels, an EU army and so on, there was no status quo option on the ballot paper, and there's no such option now either.

The notion that the Welsh Government will provide objective and impartial guidance on the implications of the various Brexit scenarios is frankly laughable. They have not managed to say anything accurate about the various Brexit scenarios to date, and they painted themselves into this corner by embarking on project fear during the referendum campaign. They went so overboard with painting a picture of doom and gloom that unless they continue that narrative when reporting back to this place or another, they would be discovered as having been wrong again. If they go back to businesses and say, 'We know we told you a leave vote would be a disaster, but, actually, now we know it's the opposite,' they will lose the tiny wisp of credibility they may still possess.

This Government never admits that it's wrong, and no more obvious is this than when they attempt to say what the people voted for and what they didn't vote for. Rather than accept that the public disagreed with them, they try to redefine what Welsh people were expressing through the 'leave' vote to keep it in line with their party political agenda.

So, finally, whether it's a question of exploring a 'no deal' scenario, publishing the nine sectoral analyses, improved communication with organisations, issuing guidance or any of the other recommendations, the report and the acceptance in principle from the Government are all well and good, but the Welsh Government must make sure that it puts the will of the Welsh people ahead of its bruised pride and party political agenda when delivering on the recommendations. Thank you.

I'm pleased to take part in this debate as a member of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, and, given the unpredictability of outcomes in the Brexit negotiations, there are areas, of course, where committee recommendations and views have already been overtaken. It was helpful to have confirmation of a transition period in March, as this was uncertain at the time of the committee inquiry. We can see, I believe, that the committee has already had an influence on Welsh Government, but I agree with the Cabinet Secretary's statement in his response to our report, when he says that his response to the committee's recommendations demonstrates

'that we have intensified our Brexit preparedness work'.

But I'm particularly interested in the Welsh Government's response on the proposed shared prosperity fund. This has been mentioned more than once this afternoon. This does have a direct impact on many organisations who gave evidence to the committee, raising their concerns about the financial implications of Brexit, with Wales currently benefiting from £680 million European funding annually, and also looking at stakeholders such as Cytûn and the Welsh Local Government Association, drawing attention to the need for any future fund to be administered by the Welsh Government rather than the UK Government, and to be on the basis of need rather than population share. So, it would be helpful if the Cabinet Secretary could clarify how this evidence from this committee is being used in the case that the Welsh Government's making for future funding arrangements, which are very clearly outlined in your 'Regional Investment in Wales after Brexit' report, and if he can confirm that the Welsh Government is seeking assurances that Wales will not be any worse off in terms of equivalent funding as a consequence of leaving the EU.

Now, Mick Antoniw has already given the feedback from the Secretary of State on the concerns that are arising as a result of evidence given and comments by the UK Government regarding the shared prosperity fund. It is worrying, and we do need to mobilise Welsh voices and represent Welsh interests here in this Chamber to ensure that the proposals for a Welsh Government partnership approach for the administration of funding is adopted.

It is relevant to draw attention to the committee views in the report on the need to address equality issues and preparedness for Brexit. Stakeholders raised their concerns in this inquiry about the implications for equalities, saying that the EU served as a safety net, and concerns were raised about the absence of provisions in the withdrawal Bill to transpose the EU charter on fundamental rights into domestic law after Brexit. The committees addressed these concerns further and I hope you will welcome the joint letter to the First Minister from David Rees and John Griffiths, Chairs of the relevant committees, on the equality and human rights implications of Brexit. In the letter to the First Minister our committee Chairs refer to the shared prosperity fund and state that the fund should be administered by the Welsh Government in relation to Wales to ensure that it is sensitive to local needs and inequalities. They also state that the funds should be targeted at tackling inequality and socioeconomic disadvantage.

Finally, Deputy Llywydd, yesterday I raised the question with the leader of the house regarding our new power to commence the Equality Act 2010 socioeconomic duty. I would ask again that the Welsh Government consider this as a matter of priority, and acknowledge that this would be a way in which the Welsh Government could help in the preparedness for Brexit in terms of tackling the inequalities that have been addressed by the investment through European programmes. These programmes have helped to reverse the structural inequalities that have blighted communities and disadvantaged groups in Wales and the deepening inequalities as a result of austerity, low pay and aggressive UK Government tax and benefit policies that will only be exacerbated unless we use all the powers at our disposal to address this. This is part of, I'm sure, how Welsh Government should prepare for Brexit.

As David Rees has already said, the promise during the referendum was that we would be no worse off if we left the European Union, and it's up to the UK Parliament to ensure that whatever deal is agreed by Mrs May, and she brings back to the UK Parliament, meets those criteria. Otherwise, they ought to know what to do with it. What our job is is to articulate the needs of Wales and how Wales will not have its devolved powers rowed back on as a result of leaving the European Union. We have already rehearsed the problems around the LDEU and the referral to the Supreme Court, so this is a discussion that's going to go on and on. But I think that we need to be wise to the rhetoric that has been surrounding this versus the reality.

When members of the committee visited Toyota in Deeside in February, it was made very clear to us that it would be a disaster if the just-in-time goods that they import into Felixstowe were going to be delayed as a result of us no longer having a single market arrangement, and that if there were additional customs checks in Felixstowe, it would obviously put a major question mark over whether or not Toyota would continue in the UK. It was therefore a very pleasant surprise to see that Toyota has actually agreed to build the latest engine at Deeside, which was announced after our visit. 

I think one of the issues for me is not just the time that all the big brains in Welsh Government are having to deploy on this subject when we could be dealing with other more pressing matters like eliminating poverty or sorting out homelessness, but that the cost of leaving the EU could be huge. Mrs May, in her speech at the Mansion House, for example, identified a number of EU agencies that she wanted the UK to continue to be involved in as an associate member. She mentioned the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency as ones that she had in mind.

Our discussions with stakeholders made it clear that those three are very important to the continued functioning of Welsh organisations. Cardiff Airport warned that if they were not part of the European Aviation Safety Agency, it would have a considerable impact on their ability to compete with other European airports and would certainly put new costs and new delays on their operations. The NHS Confederation, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association were all clear that we need to be part of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control as well as the European Medicines Agency. Leanne Wood has already referred to the fact that if we're not part of the European Medicines Agency, we will be at the back of the queue in terms of getting new medicines, because we will no longer be a large-enough economy to merit new medicines being given priority to our country, so that is obviously a very serious matter.

When we were in Brussels at the end of last month, one of the people we saw was Mr Stanislav Todorov, the permanent representative of Bulgaria, who is an extremely important figure at the moment, because Bulgaria holds the presidency of the European Union, so what he had to say is very important. He was perfectly clear with us—he was refreshingly clear and candid, in fact—about the expectations being raised by Mrs May and others. He said, 'Look, these agencies are all about strengthening the single market, and if the UK is not part of the single market, ergo they are not going to be members of these agencies.' Obviously, we can negotiate some sort of observer status, but it doesn't look very promising if the hard line adopted by Bulgaria is played out across the rest of the EU. Therefore, we have to then ask ourselves what the cost is going to be of setting up similar regulatory bodies in the UK, which is money that we, therefore, don't have to spend on other things like insulating all our homes.

So, I think there's a real tendency to want to have our cake and eat it on this one, but I hope that this report is a useful summary of some of the issues that we need to continue to pursue to protect Wales's interests.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking the very industrious members of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee. I want to thank them firstly for their report and secondly for the opportunity that was given to me and the First Minister to give evidence as part of the inquiry by the committee into how the Welsh Government is preparing for Brexit.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the position, as I see it, is this: where matters lie in our own hands, I think we can show that the Welsh Government has acted promptly and persistently to assemble the evidence and to set out key priorities for Wales as we move to Brexit. Where preparation depends critically on decisions that are made by others, then our ability to prepare is inevitably less certain—as Leanne Wood put it earlier, it is outside our own control.

Even when we are dealing with our own responsibilities, the changing context means that we have to renew our efforts and reshape our actions according to the developing story. The committee's report is especially helpful in drawing together the views of a wide range of organisations with a direct interest in Brexit and drawing conclusions about how we can work together even more closely in the future.

Everything we have done as a Government since June 2016 has been through engagement with as wide a range of Welsh views and voices as we have been able to assemble. The European advisory group, for example, set up by the First Minister in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, brings together a real breadth and depth of expertise. The Brexit round-tables chaired by my colleague Lesley Griffiths have proved a really well used and highly regarded forum for rural Wales. The council for economic development's EU exit working group, chaired by Ken Skates, has created a context in which key economic interests in Wales speak directly to the Welsh Government on Brexit preparation. And, Dirprwy Lywydd, I could go round the whole Cabinet table setting out the direct engagements that colleagues have taken forward with the education sector, with the health sector and so on, and we will continue to do this and to do more in the next period. 

From the outset, and the joint paper produced with Plaid Cymru in January of last year, we have argued that proper preparation for life beyond Brexit could not be accomplished within the two years of the article 50 process. At first, we were alone in arguing for a transition deal. Of course, we now welcome the provisional agreement on a transition period, even if we continue to believe that preparation will need to extend well beyond the 21 months currently on offer. 

The response made by the Government to the seven recommendations of the report were set out by the First Minister on 12 April, and they're shaped by this context. The Chair of the committee stole part of my speech by going through all seven recommendations, but it's been a wide-ranging debate, Dirprwy Lywydd, touching on a series of really important issues. I completely agree with what Mick Antoniw said on the operation of the JMC and the need for far stronger inter-governmental machinery for the United kingdom to prosper on the other side of our membership of the European Union.  

Jane Hutt and others draw attention to the shared prosperity fund. Let me make it completely clear once again, Dirprwy Lywydd: the Welsh Government is entirely opposed to the shared prosperity fund. It is yet another example of a power grab back to Westminster. The responsibility for regional economic development belongs here, and everybody who has reported on it independently makes the same argument. It is vitally important that regional economic development is aligned with those organisations that have a presence on the ground here in Wales, that are able to be responsive to our partners, able to deliver the services on which economic development relies, and a shared prosperity fund put in a manifesto for which no majority was secured at an election, and in which the Government proposing it went backwards rapidly here in Wales, lacks both intellectual coherence and a democratic mandate. 

Jenny Rathbone got to the heart of a series of Brexit preparedness issues in relation to trade barriers that Welsh businesses will face if we are beyond full participation in the single market and outside a customs union. She and Leanne Wood identified a series of specifics there: aviation—the real prospect that we will not be able to fly out of this country in the way that we are able to today; access to new and to nuclear medicine—vital public health arrangements. We are part of a European-wide set of arrangements that protect the health of people here in Wales every single day, and if we don't have access to that surveillance, to that information, to the threats to public health that we know can take place anywhere across the continent, we will be poorer as a result. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to focus just for a minute on one key theme in the recommendations of the committee—that of scenario planning. Already, we have produced scenario planning material costs to the Welsh economy, the results of the scenario planning workshops of the Brexit round-table group, the differentiated scenarios we have published for the future of the fishing industry, the detailed paper setting out possibilities for the future of regional economic development, the work of the Cardiff Business School analysing different post-Brexit options for large and medium-sized firms in Wales, the work of the Wales Centre for Public Policy into the implications of Brexit for agriculture, rural areas and land use in Wales—all of this demonstrates our determination to go on planning, preparing and shaping the future, a future we face on the other side of our membership of the European Union. But, Dirprwy Lywydd, as I said at the start, there are real limits to which reliable and definitive advice can be provided when so much uncertainty remains. The report asks the Welsh Government to issue clear and accessible guidance on the implications of various Brexit scenarios. The problem is that so little clarity exists.

Imagine if we had produced such guidance on the basis of the Prime Minister's Lancaster House speech of January last year. We would have told the many interested out in the report to plan for a Brexit based on no to a transition period; no to paying any exit bill; no to any role for the European Court of Justice; no to continuing participation in EU institutions, and no to a deal for citizenship rights. By the end of the same year, and the agreement at the December European Council, we'd be issuing a completely different set of guidance. Now, we will be telling Welsh interests to prepare for a transition period, for a financial future, and we will, quite rightly, pay our bills in billions of pounds, lasting up until 2064. We will be telling people to prepare for a guaranteed role for the European Court of Justice, undiminished through the transition period and continuing far beyond it. We'll be telling them to prepare for continued involvement in key institutions where we can persuade the EU 27 to allow for that to happen, and for a set of citizenship rights that, thankfully, go far beyond anything that Mrs May was willing to contemplate less than a year earlier. Little wonder that the Caerleon health professionals told Mr Isherwood that scenario planning was problematic.

The point I make, Llywydd, is simply this: of course we want the best possible advice to citizens in Wales, but we have to do so in the inevitable circumstances of uncertainty. No-deal Brexit simply cannot be planned away, no matter how sophisticated the analysis or how granular the sectoral insight. That's why we are determined to go on working together with others here in Wales, closely following the work and the advice of the committee, so that we prepare together for a very different future and a future that works for Wales.

Thank you. Can I now call on David Rees to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank Members for their contributions today and to thank the Cabinet Secretary too.

I think it's important that we clarify some of the points. And for Leanne Wood's purposes: yes, I think, can you also pass on what an important role Steffan Lewis plays in the committee? We will also look forward to him coming back to the committee because he has an important role and he does take a deep interest in these issues and it helps the committee tremendously. So, we look forward to seeing him coming back as well.

It's been clear that many Members highlighted similar issues. We've had the questions of the funding aspects, and I'm very pleased the Cabinet Secretary highlighted how strongly the Welsh Government is opposed to the possible intentions of a Westminster-controlled fund, where it should actually be more focused upon the needs of Wales and should be allocated to Wales as a block to allow that to happen.

Again, can I thank Mick for his kind words and his contribution to the committee, to the work on Brexit? And he's quite right: we're not alone in this issue, it occurs across the various institutions within the UK because the meetings we attended represented Scotland, the Lords and Commons and there was a unanimous feeling about the failure of the JMC. And we cannot let the UK Government control any funding that should have been coming to us anyway.

Mark highlighted the point that he's deeply disappointed that only some were accepted in principle—so am I. There's no question about that. But we are moving forward, and we do need to have clarity on the guidance for allowing bodies to establish contingency planning. That is critical. I know the Cabinet Secretary has highlighted that there are limits to being able to know how much he can give because there is so much uncertainty that still exists, and I also appreciate that, but we've got to get preparing for this. We now need to know there's a transition period, so we can start working towards preparing for that transition period and whatever happens afterwards. And I totally agree with the Cabinet Secretary on a personal view: I do not believe we will get everything resolved before October, by which time they have to go to the Parliaments for the consideration of any withdrawal deal. So, this is going to be a long game to be played.

Can I also remind everyone of Jane Hutt's championship of the equalities agenda on this? She has been to the fore, pushing the committee to look at these issues and the implications as a consequence of Brexit on equalities and what we need to do on that, and we will not be going past those issues. 

Jenny Rathbone highlighted something about the Bulgarian representative, and it was mentioned about the agencies. He reminded us, actually, of an interesting question: that membership of agencies is complicated because some of the agencies are linked to the single market and, as such, we've got to look very carefully. If Theresa May doesn't want to be in the single market, that limits our access to agencies. So, there's some serious thinking the UK Government has to have, and we need to have those discussions, and preparations, for what implications they may have for Wales.

I now turn to Michelle Brown, and I have to express my huge disappointment that she used the opportunity to give what I considered a rerun of the referendum arguments. There is no project fear, there's purely a look at how we can deliver the best for Wales; that is what we are trying to do. In my opinion, I think she's misrepresented the Government's work. And they are responding; the number of times they've mentioned that they're responding to the will of the people. I suppose President Trump would say that section was actually more like fake news than genuine news.

So, let's refer it back to what we are focusing on: how does Wales prepare for Brexit? And that is critical. We face many more months ahead of us—11 months now, actually, until we leave, probably about six months of negotiations to the withdrawal agreement, and then the discussions on the withdrawal agreement. And in that time, there will be many, many issues that will arise, both at EU level and UK level, that will have to be negotiated to ensure that Wales gets its best deal. And we prepare our businesses, we prepare our public bodies, we prepare our third sector for ensuring that, when it happens, we're in a strong position to move forward, and that we are going to be impacted minimally by anything that arises as a consequence of Brexit.

We will continue to hold the Welsh and UK Governments to account, because I will give credit to Robin Walker, who has attended the committee, and he has committed himself to come back. We will hold them to account. It would be nice if David Davis, the Secretary of State, would also attend because it might reflect that, perhaps, his understanding of devolution as well—it seems to be lacking at the moment. But we will continue our work to safeguard the interests of the people of Wales. So, I hope that Members will therefore accept the report and let us move forward, keeping an eye on what happens in Brexit. And don't take your eyes off it because if you blink, you'll miss something.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

The proposal is to note the committee report. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.