Llywydd, the second way in which today's agreement represents a significant advance is that it recognises that the Sewel convention will apply to secondary regulation-making powers—the powers that will be used to put in place these new temporary restrictions on competence. The UK Government will not normally put such regulations to Parliament for approval unless the devolved legislatures and administrations have given their consent. Moreover, in the event of a legislature withholding consent, Parliament will be asked to decide if the regulation should be made on the basis of even-handed information. That is to say, legislators will not only have to rely simply on the UK Government's own account, but they will be supplied with information provided independently by both the Welsh and the Scottish Governments.

Thirdly, Llywydd, the UK Government has always claimed that the constraints envisaged would be temporary, but there was nothing in the original Bill to substantiate this. The agreement now guarantees sunset clauses, which the amendments put on the face of the Bill.

Llywydd, the fourth way in which this agreement represents a major advance is, as you will know, that the original clause 11 was constructed such that primary legislation to put in place new UK-wide frameworks, for example, on agricultural support, could be pushed through Parliament without obtaining, or even asking for, the Assembly’s consent. The agreement specifically rules out this possibility. 

In a fifth development, a significant concern about the original UK Government approach was that, whereas the current restriction on legislating in contradiction of EU law applies to all legislatures, including Parliament, there was no parallel restriction on Parliament legislating in respect of England to that imposed on the devolved legislatures by the original clause 11. Here too the agreement contains a firm commitment from the UK Government that it will not bring forward such legislation while frameworks are being negotiated.

Penultimately, Llywydd, by spelling out a more collaborative process of inter-governmental working to develop the regulations, the agreement also takes a first significant step towards an equitable approach to inter-governmental working of the sort that we argue should be characteristic of the post European Union United Kingdom.

Finally, in terms of the concurrent powers in clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill for Ministers of the Crown to reach over to make correcting amendments to legislation within devolved competence, the agreement codifies assurances already given by Ministers in Parliament that such powers will not normally be used without the consent of devolved Ministers, providing a further layer of certainty.

Llywydd, the outcome is not perfect, of course. We would have preferred there to be no clause 11 and for each Government to trust each other’s undertakings not to legislate in areas where we agree UK-wide frameworks are needed until such frameworks have been agreed. We have repeatedly been clear we were prepared to give such assurances and to accept similar assurances from the other Governments. Others have sought stronger reassurances that no part of the United Kingdom, including England, could develop its own legislation in relation to these areas where a UK-wide framework is needed until such a framework had been negotiated and agreed, and this agreement provides that reassurance.

Of course, there are those who argue that it is unacceptable, even in extreme circumstances,  that Parliament could act to impose constraints on devolved competence. But until a new constitutional settlement for the whole United Kingdom is negotiated—for which this Government has long argued—it is the constitutional reality that Parliament retains that role. This agreement, like the Sewel convention, does no more than recognise that fact while underlining the political imperative of Parliament acting on the basis of consent where devolved issues are at stake.

And, in practical terms, Llywydd, we accept that there has to be a backstop, a way of bringing disputes to a close that cannot be resolved by inter-governmental negotiation. Until and unless we agree an alternative to proceeding by consensus—and I remind Members that we put forward just such a proposal to achieve that way of acting in our 'Brexit and Devolution' paper last year—then that backstop will lie with Parliament. 

Now, Llywydd, of course, I had hoped that the inter-governmental agreement could have been agreed by all three Governments, including our Scottish colleagues. We remain strongly committed to working closely with both the Scottish and the UK Governments to take forward further discussions on future frameworks and on the negotiations with the EU 27. I have made it clear that we will continue to work with both Governments right up to the last possible moment to see if any further helpful refinements to the current agreements can be made, and the JMC(EN) will meet again next week to track any such progress.

Llywydd, this deal represents very substantial progress from where all this began, and soundly defends the devolved interests of this National Assembly. It has meant compromise on both sides. That is the art of negotiation, and I believe the outcome is a mature agreement between Governments that is respectful of each other’s interests.  

With this matter approaching resolution, we will be able to focus with renewed attention on the wider context of the UK’s future relationship with the European Union. Here too we will be advocating negotiation, realism and compromise. We want an agreement that protects Wales’s and the UK’s vital interests while showing respect and realism towards the interests of our European partners. 

I commend the agreement and the amendments related to it to Members and look forward to bringing forward the legislative consent motion in due course.