The next item is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you for agreeing to the making of this statement about developments in respect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

As Members will be aware, over recent weeks and months, intensive discussions have taken place aimed at resolving the disagreements between ourselves and the Scottish Government on the one hand and the UK Government on the other about clause 11 of the EU withdrawal Bill.

Llywydd, UK Government Ministers are today laying amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill in the House of Lords that reflect an inter-governmental agreement that has also been published this morning. Taken together, these are sufficient to enable Welsh Ministers to recommend that the National Assembly gives its legislative consent to the Bill in a motion that we will debate next month. This should also pave the way for the UK Government to withdraw its reference of our Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill to the Supreme Court, and for the Government here to initiate a process to repeal that Bill, which, as Members will recall, was always intended as a backstop in the event that these negotiations did not reach a satisfactory outcome.

I would like to explain why the Government believes that the agreement that we have reached provides sufficient protection for our devolution settlement and allows us to support the UK Bill. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the significant contribution made by the Scottish Brexit Minister, Michael Russell, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the work we have carried out together on these matters.

Llywydd, there are a series of ways in which the agreement represents a major advance over the original proposals. Members will recall that, at its most fundamental, the disagreement was about the principle of powers currently exercised through a common European Union rulebook, and whether the UK Government had a unilateral right to decide where those powers should rest the other side of Brexit. The original clause 11 diverted all these powers to Westminster. We argued that powers in devolved areas belong here, in the National Assembly. Today’s amendment reverses the UK Government’s original position. It creates a default position in which powers over devolved policy lie with the National Assembly, as they have done since 1999. Now, we recognise that, without the rulebook provided by EU legislation, there is a need for UK-wide frameworks in specific areas to avoid disruption to the UK’s own internal market. Some of these UK frameworks will be underpinned by legislation and will be subject to a new, temporary, constraint, which simply ensures continuation of current common arrangements. Llywydd, this is clearly much more compatible with the reserved-powers model of devolution. 

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.

Unlike the perhaps predictably Pavlovian response from certain quarters, may I start by thanking and congratulating you and David Lidington, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for the measured, mature and pragmatic way you've conducted negotiations to secure agreement on clause 11—

I do need to hear Mark Isherwood, please. Carry on, Mark.

—of the EU withdrawal Bill, reversing the current clause 11 so that returning EU powers in otherwise devolved areas will pass to the devolved Governments and legislatures? I also thank you for the inclusive way you've approached this with regard to myself and David Melding, and not only the evidence that you've consistently given to the external affairs committee, which I'm sure my colleagues will refer to, but the way that you've shared information confidentially with us that's helped us to work with you as matters move forward. I think we all hoped and believed that we could reach this point and share, I think, perhaps your, if not delight in all aspects of this, relief that we are now where we are.

We've long recognised that powers and competencies held at a EU level that apply to devolved matters will pass to this place on the point of exit or the date or time of exit, unless there was UK Government intervention, and we recognise that you have now simply agreed not to legislate in areas where UK-wide frameworks are needed until such frameworks have been agreed.

You have stated in the agreement, the inter-governmental agreement, in the EU Bill, on establishment of common frameworks, that there's a duty on UK Ministers to regularly report to the UK Parliament on progress on implementing common frameworks, removing temporary clause 11 regulations and powers, that the UK Minister will formally send such reports to the devolved Governments, which, in turn, will share these with their own legislatures. In what form will that sharing with the legislatures occur? How regularly does 'regularly' mean in terms of UK Ministers? Is that a time-specified regularity or is it something that will be triggered by particular events or circumstances agreed between yourselves?

You've indicated that you will continue to engage with the Scottish and UK Governments. I wonder if you could just expand a little bit more on how, particularly given the Scottish position—and I think, the will, certainly, of ourselves, that Scotland are ultimately also part of this agreement—how that will be progressed other than through the established JMC mechanism, unless that is all that currently exists. 

There is a duty on UK Ministers to seek the agreement of the devolved legislatures each time they propose to make regulations to put a policy area into the clause 11 so-called freeze. Will these regulations first be subject to agreement with the Welsh Government prior to their presentation to the devolved legislatures? Or what mechanism will exist to seek to secure that agreement before we're asked to consider them? We understand that this will allow the UK Parliament to approve regulations creating the freeze if a devolved legislature's agreement is refused or not provided within 40 days, subject to UK Ministers making a statement to the UK Parliament explaining why they decided to make regulations despite the absence of a devolved legislature's agreement. What, in your discussions, have you considered with the UK Government to be the likelihood of that situation occurring? Or, more likely, what safety mechanisms have been put in place to minimise the risk of that situation being arrived at?

We're aware now of the sunset or time limit on the regulation-making powers: of two years after exit day if not brought to an end sooner, and, on the temporary clause regulations themselves, of five years after they come into force if not revoked earlier. How will the different approaches that could then challenge agreed frameworks be adjudicated and addressed? Because clearly, at that point, when all the powers come out of the freezer and return to this place, there's a possibility that different approaches might occur. A list of 24 areas has been consistently referred to as being in the so-called deep freeze. We understand it's still 24 areas, although there might still be discussion over a smaller number, possibly in relation to state aid. Again, if you could perhaps give us some indication of the position regarding state aid, because as far as we're concerned, there is logic to state aid being subject to UK framework agreement.

I had—if I can find it—a final question. You stated that this should pave the way for the UK Government to withdraw its reference of the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill, or the continuity Bill, to the Supreme Court, and for the Welsh Government here to initiate a process to repeal that Bill. When I questioned you on this in committee last week, you indicated a number of possible mechanisms that might be applied, but have you had any further thought about how and over what time frame you might seek to repeal that Bill? Thank you.

I thank the Member for those detailed questions. I'll do my best to answer as many as I can. Mr Isherwood referred to a duty on UK Ministers to report regularly to the UK Parliament on progress in relation to frameworks. I believe that is likely to be on a three-monthly basis. We were keen on that because it puts real pressure into the system to reach agreements quickly on those matters. That report will be shared with the Assembly, as Mark Isherwood said.

I repeat my commitment to continuing to engage with the Scottish Government and the UK Government on outstanding matters, as the Scottish Government sees it, within this agreement. I spoke to Michael Russell, the Scottish Minister, last week and earlier this week. We commit ourselves to continued work on the issues that the Scottish Government has identified, and if anything can be done to improve the agreement in a way that would allow the Scottish Government to sign up to it and is acceptable to other parties, then we will work right up to the last minute to try to bring that about, and that's why we will go to the JMC again next week, with Scotland and the UK Government, to track progress on that. 

Mark Isherwood asked me how likely I thought it was that there wouldn't be agreement in relation to the matters that are to be placed in the freezer. I think that is very unlikely, because, as Members will have seen in an annex to the inter-governmental agreement, we set out the 24 areas that all three Governments are agreed are potentially subject to framework agreements, and there are two other matters—state aid and food geographical indications—that remain the subject of continued discussion between the administrations.

On the Supreme Court, as you will see, this is a reciprocal agreement that we have come to. The Attorney-General, if and when a legislative consent motion is passed on the floor of this Assembly, will go to the Supreme Court and seek to withdraw the reference that has been made there. We will then come forward with proposals to the National Assembly that would lead to the proposition being placed on the floor here, but the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill, as it still is, would be repealed. You cannot repeal a Bill that has not yet received the Royal Assent. This Bill is yet to be in that position, and the timings of matters are therefore dependent on that course of action. But we will come forward once the Attorney-General has taken the actions he has committed to taking, and put that proposition before this National Assembly for its determination.

I apologise, Cabinet Secretary, for missing your opening remarks, but I have read your statement in full.

'A significant achievement', 'A strong statement', 'Let's get on with making the most of the opportunities Brexit brings'. These are the statements from Alun Cairns, Ruth Davidson and Andrew R.T. Davies. Even the Prime Minister was thanking you today. Tories are clamouring over themselves to hail Labour's capitulation and their willingness to hand our Parliament's powers back to Westminster. Now, I believe that, by co-authoring 'Securing Wales' Future' with us and voting to support our continuity Bill, Labour in Wales had understood the threat to Wales and the undermining of our powers that Brexit brings. Our leverage has gone, leadership lost, and Parliament weakened. This is a Labour-Tory stitch-up like no other.

Llywydd, an answer to my letter, received this morning from the Cabinet Secretary, claimed that my tone was inflammatory. When he sells this Parliament and my country's democracy to Westminster, he can excuse my lack of conciliatory tone. The fact that he and all of the rest of you are not as incensed by this idea that this Assembly will be weakened by Westminster, as I am, shows where your priorities lie. 

In his oral statement, the Cabinet Secretary said that he would prefer if clause 11 were not included. My first somewhat obvious first question is: why has he therefore made a deal with the Tories that allows for clause 11 to stand? Does the Cabinet Secretary believe, as he has previously said, that this will lead to fewer powers for the National Assembly, or does he agree with the Prime Minister that this deal means more powers for Wales? Can I phrase it in another way? How many, and what powers, are you handing back to Westminster?

Llywydd, I have many more questions, but I have one final crucial question, for now. In his letter to MPs—and as you have outlined in your letter to me, and in your statement today—the UK Parliament retains the authority to legislate over this Parliament if agreement is not reached on issues. Can the Cabinet Secretary explain why he is happy for Westminster to act on devolved issues without, as is stated by David Lidington, the devolved legislature's consent?

Well, Llywydd, thank you very much for those questions.

I continue to regret some of the language that has been used by the leader of Plaid Cymru. The progress that she describes as capitulation and as a stitch-up was described by the First Minister of Scotland, in her letter to the Prime Minister today, as 'substantial progress having been made'. That is what Michael Russell said to the Scottish Parliament yesterday, when he described the many—the many—advances that have been made as a result of the negotiations. Considering the many steps that we have gained through collaboration with our Scottish colleagues, to call what we have achieved a capitulation and a stitch-up is so far removed from the facts that the Member is a victim of her own hyperbole. I'm afraid, really, it bears no relation to what is in front of this National Assembly.

When clause 11 was inverted in the amendments put forward in the House of Lords earlier in proceedings, we said, Llywydd, that there were four unanswered questions. All of those questions are answered by this agreement. We said, 'How are powers to be placed in the freezer?' to use Mark Isherwood's analogy. Well, now we know that they will be placed in the freezer with the agreement of this National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We said, 'What use can be made of the powers while they are there? Because we are prevented from using those powers by legislation.' Now, English Ministers are prevented from using those powers as well. Then we said, 'How will those powers be taken out of the freezer?' And now we know that we have a process for agreeing the frameworks that moves us into an entirely new constitutional space, and I think represents a major step forward in achieving the sort of arrangements that we want to see for the future of the United Kingdom.

Now, of course it is true that this party is a devolutionist party. We therefore recognise that in the constitutional arrangements we currently have, if agreement cannot be secured, there is a need for a backstop arrangement to ensure that arrangements can go forward, and as things stand, that lies with the UK Parliament. We have put forward proposals that would amend that and place all of that on a far more equal footing, but that's because we believe that Wales's future is best secured in the United Kingdom—in a United Kingdom that operates effectively, that operates on the basis of parity, that operates on the basis of equal esteem. If you are a nationalist party, then it is absolutely proper that you are clear with people that you do not share that belief. You are not a devolutionist, you are a separatist. You simply believe that Wales should be entirely responsible for everything that goes on. It's a perfectly respectable position to take, but I think people are entitled not simply to have it respectably, but also to have it openly and in a way that is clear about what people believe. That's why, when the Member asks what powers are being retained at Westminster, I point her to the list agreed with the Scottish Government—the list that is appended to the inter-governmental agreement. It's there for everybody to see.

'What happens if agreement is not reached?' the Member asked. I believe that this agreement puts us clearly in a space where we are dedicated to achieving agreement. If you can't, somebody has to be able to take action to resolve matters that cannot be operated otherwise. Our proposals, and this agreement, take a step on that journey that would make that position resolved by all four component parts of the United Kingdom, coming together for that purpose.

Can I welcome the statement and commend the finance Secretary for the serious, reflective and unmelodramatic approach that he has brought to this negotiation, and, I think, has produced a conclusion that is acceptable to all those in this Assembly who believe in Wales being a part of the United Kingdom? I said at an early stage that the Welsh Government's approach to this by promoting a continuity Bill was not necessarily a position that would be expected for any member of UKIP to go along with, but I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a delaying tactic to avoid the consequences of the referendum, and I'm pleased that today's announcement fully justifies the confidence that I had in the Welsh Government in that task. Of course, I realise that those to the left of me on these benches will not agree with what I have to say on this, but I appreciate that it doesn't give Plaid Cymru all that they would like to see, and that there is a certain element of confidence that the UK Government will not resile from the promises of good behaviour—if I can put it that way—which are included as part of this agreement. 

I do think that if, in due course, there were to be an attempt on the part of the UK Government to launch a power grab that that would provoke a constitutional crisis of a very serious kind, and in those circumstances even Members of UKIP, who believe in respecting the results of referenda, would be on the side of those who want to preserve the powers of this Assembly. I don't believe, therefore, that any United Kingdom Government would be likely to wander into that territory, even inadvertently. 

I must say, I think it's rather bizarre that Plaid Cymru have taken the hyperbolic attitude, as the finance Secretary described it, to this, considering these are all powers at the moment over which we have no control whatsoever because they're vested in Brussels, in the hands of European Union Commissioners who we can't even name, let alone elect or dismiss, an in which institution, through the Council of Ministers, the United Kingdom has only 8.5 per cent of the votes. The European Parliament, which has very limited powers to effect legislation in the EU—in the European Parliament, Wales has only four MEPs out of 750-odd. So, there is a massive enhancement of democracy and prospect here, even if temporarily some of these areas of policy will remain in the hands of the United Kingdom Government rather than being devolved to the Assembly here in Wales. 

There are three aspects of this agreement that I think are worth while pinpointing on this point, in particular the sunset clauses that are referred to in paragraph 7 of the inter-governmental agreement, which really establish that these powers are going to be returned to the Assembly in full measure in a relatively short time. Up to seven years is not a tremendously long time in the life of a legislature, even one as young as the National Assembly for Wales. We all accept that to have a working internal market in the United Kingdom there will have to be common frameworks and there will be a process of negotiation that will be ongoing, in which, although we don't ultimately have the power to legislate, the voice of the Welsh Government and the Welsh people will be heard in its negotiations with the United Kingdom Government.

The second point I'd like to draw attention to is in paragraph 8 of the inter-governmental agreement, the last sentence of which says that

'the powers will not be used to enact new policy in devolved areas', by the United Kingdom Government, but that

'the primary purpose of using such powers will be administrative efficiency.'

So, what we're talking about here is just a working arrangement, the very opposite, actually, of the power grab that is said to be taking place. 

The last point I'd like to make on this is on paragraph 9. It says that the National Assembly for Wales of course can amend directly applicable EU legislation in all the areas that are not covered by that part of the agreement that gives the power of legislation to the United Kingdom Government. So, we will be getting powers back, even in this period of seven years when we don't have complete control over these areas. So, this is a great advance in democracy in Wales.

I do hope, though, when we do have complete freedom, ultimately, that the existence of common frameworks will not be too sclerotic and that we will have the capacity to diverge, because I see one of the great advantages of returning powers from Brussels to Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast, as well as to Westminster, is that we can have a certain amount of legislative competition between the various parts of the United Kingdom. There are different ways in which we can work together, and we don't all have to do things in the same way and move together at the same speed. By a process of internal competition, we will discover which is the better process and which is the better form of legislation, and everybody in the United Kingdom, not least the people of Wales, will benefit from that process. So, I congratulate the finance Secretary on his achievement, and I think it bodes well for the future.

Llywydd, thank you very much for those questions.

I'm just going to reply to a small of number of them. What would happen, the Member asked, if the UK Government were to resile from the inter-governmental agreement that we have reached with them? Well, he is right: it would then be a genuine constitutional crisis. I don't think that will happen, because I think I have to proceed on the basis that if a Minister in another Government, after many weeks and months of patient negotiation, comes to a conclusion on which they have to seek agreement from all of their UK colleagues to turn it into legislation and into that agreement, when they have gone to all of those efforts and it is codified between us, I think we have to assume that they mean what they say and that they will abide by it. There is no other possible basis on which inter-governmental relationships can be conducted.

He pointed to the sunset clause. I think frameworks will be released far faster from the freezer than the seven years that it sets out, and there's an additional reason in this agreement why that should be the case, because this agreement prevents English Ministers from making changes in English policy until those frameworks are agreed. There is every incentive now on all partners equally to come to those arrangements as fast as possible, and I believe we will see rapid progress in that area. Of course, that was the second point that the Member made himself: that the powers cannot be used to enact new policies. It simply preserves the status quo—the status quo in the European Union rule book—the European rule book that many Members in this Chamber took to the people of Wales and tried to persuade them that we should remain in perpetually, which I agreed with. All this does is to say that this position, which was supported, will remain the case—will remain the case and not change. It will remain the case—the position we argued for in the referendum will remain the case until we have an agreed way of change.

Finally, he asked about what happens to the areas that are not being kept in the freezer. Well, he was right on that: they come back here immediately. In the original clause 11, all of them were to be held at Westminster. Now, the bulk of them return here immediately, and we can get on with the business of devising policies and ways of doing things that suit Welsh circumstances.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement, and can I put on record my recognition of the commitment he, personally, has given to this work? He has undoubtedly been leading from the front. Also, I thank Mike Russell, the Scottish Minister who's been involved, and, if I have to, David Lidington as well—also, the officials of the Welsh Government, who have, behind the scenes, on a far more frequent basis, been involved in these discussions. We have come a long way from where we were in the original European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I think the word 'maturity' has been mentioned, and it is important to recognise that if we wish to be considered as being in a mature relationship with the UK Government, there are things sometimes we have to expect and agree on. Perhaps my concern is that history has shown that it isn't always reciprocated, and we have some concerns in relation to other sides being able to also show maturity.

The agreement, Cabinet Secretary—obviously, we haven't seen the amendments, and we look forward to that. The committee will look forward to seeing those amendments, and the particular legal implications of those amendments, in the coming weeks, before we debate the LCM, which you have indicated that you will be laying at some point in May. But on the agreement, and the memorandum, there are a couple of concerns that I have on that. The word 'normally' is often used, as has frequently been commented on. I think we do need to have an understanding of what 'normally' means, because the law courts often talk about what is normal and what is unreasonable, and there's clarification there, because there's a question that we shouldn't withhold things when it's unreasonable to do so, but perhaps the UK Government could also move faster on what is reasonable force upon them to ensure that they deliver. This agreement says, 'Nothing can go on in England whilst that's in the freezer', but what happens if it suits us to actually get it out of the freezer but not England, and therefore they're being unreasonable? How do we take that measurement forward, to push the agenda, so that we get a solution that suits everybody, if that agreement comes? I think that's important, because it could otherwise perhaps be used to block progress within the devolved nations. 

The mention in paragraph 7 about the time span and the temporary five-year period on it—the sunset clause; I couldn't remember the word. That's seven years in total, actually, it could be: two years to the time at which that expires, and from that point another five years. That actually takes us halfway through, if not all the way through, the next Assembly. So, it actually does restrict us as an Assembly to make policy decisions, and even for those policy decisions to be put to the people for decision during elections. So, it is a long time span, and I think we need to look at what circumstances will actually be five years, and which ones we can get done quicker that, because there's a blanket five years at this point in time, and it is a long period to restrict us on making some decisions that would be of benefit to Wales, and would be of benefit to the policies of Wales. I think that's a very important issue there. 

The progress report in paragraph 9 of the inter-government agreement indicates that UK Government Ministers will formally send reports to the Ministers, and the Ministers will obviously share these reports with their own legislatures as part of the reporting arrangements. But how can we feed back on that report as a legislature? Where is our input into the debates on that report, and the progress on that? That's not quite clear. 

In the memorandum that also accompanies it, it says that UK Ministers may make recommendations where they are approved by the UK Parliament, but will they ever be presented to us? It's approval by the UK Parliament, but it doesn't say that we'll actually have any consideration, in circumstances where there is perhaps a clause 11 regulation being made. It says that if the consent of the legislature has not been provided, they can take action with a written statement setting out why they've done that. You consider the written statement, but where's our input into that? Where do we get that information? Where is the report to us as to why they've made that decision, and how can we respond to that report? I think it's important that we also address that. 

And finally in point 9 of the memorandum, the final sentence says: 

'which cannot be amended by the devolved administrations because clause 11 regulations have been made, the UK Government commits that it will first consult the relevant devolved administration(s)'— the word 'consult' is there again, and not 'seek consent', either of Ministers or the devolved administrations. So, again, we have a situation where only consultation takes place and no consent is sought, or agreement is reached.

So, I still have some deep concerns over the issues that there are still areas where we will not have an opportunity to have an input into that process as a legislature, never mind as Ministers, and I would hope that you will perhaps reflect upon those, because the 24 areas identified are actually quite huge—agriculture, organic farming, animal welfare, environmental quality, food labelling, fisheries management and support, hazardous substances—and I assume that includes hazardous waste—public procurement, nutritional health claims. There's a lot in there that those 24 areas cover. A lot of areas could be frozen for the next seven years.  

Llywydd, thank you. First of all, can I provide the Member with an assurance that an LCM will be brought forward between Report and Third Reading Stages in the House of Lords? He's right to say that the 'not normally' obligation on the UK Government is balanced by the 'not unreasonably withheld' obligation on the devolved administrations. 

Let me deal with what he said on the sunset clause. Let's be clear that the first two-year period will be covered by the transition agreement that the UK Government has now agreed with the European Union, So, for that period of time, we are all committed to the existing rule book and existing arrangements being in place. I said in my earlier answer to Neil Hamilton that the five years that would follow thereafter is a long stop, and let's remember that the original clause 11 had no long stop at all. Those powers could have indefinitely been retained at Westminster, and securing a sunset clause, I can tell you, has required weeks and weeks of argument between our Government and the Scottish Government on the one hand, and the UK Government on the other. And it is a very significant step forward on the part of the UK Government that they have been prepared to insert that backstop into the legislation. I think we will be over and done with on all of this well before we reach that time.

I echo what David Rees said about the work of officials in this area. Officials of the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the UK Government have worked tirelessly, particularly over the last two months, to secure the position that we have arrived at today. They deserve the thanks of all Members of this Assembly.

David Rees referred to the progress reports that are identified in the agreement. I said to Mark Isherwood that I think they will be produced every three months and they will be made available to this Assembly. David Rees, as Chair of a major committee of the Assembly, quite rightly points to the need to flesh out the detail now of how scrutiny of this agreement will be carried out by the National Assembly. I'm absolutely happy to commit on behalf of the Government that we will want to talk with the committees that will discharge those responsibilities about the best ways in which that can be carried out.

It would, Llywydd, have been premature, I believe, for me to have agreed anything with the Scottish and UK Governments on the actions that lie with the parliamentary side of this institution without first having had an opportunity to talk to those who are responsible for discharging those scrutiny responsibilities. We have provided, I believe, in this agreement the raw material that guarantees that those scrutiny opportunities will be available to the National Assembly. Now we need to work with you to make sure that the practical ways in which that is discharged here are ones that meet the requirements of committees and allow the Government to discharge its responsibilities too. 

I'm sorry to heap another encomium on the Minister, but I think his commanding performance throughout this matter—I've not always agreed with what he's done, but I do think we're now seeing the fruits of a very imaginative compromise that will respect the results of the referendum and strengthen the British constitution.

Llywydd, devolution was predicated on EU membership. It probably would have been designed very differently if Britain had not been in the European Union in the 1990s. We ended up with a very maximum type of devolution—remarkable really, given our history as a unitary state. As a result of your negotiations, that nature of the devolution settlement is not only unchanged, but it appears to me that it will be radically strengthened.

Let us not forget, a lot of these powers that will be frozen—the things that will be required to run frameworks—at the moment, in reality, are not with us; they're at the level of European governance. It does seem to me that you have strengthened the role the Welsh Government and this legislature will have as we now see the emergence of shared governance over vital matters to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Indeed, the Scottish Government, from the start, as the Welsh Government has, has accepted the need for frameworks to govern areas of common interest. We are hearing constantly from, for example, environmental groups, that this is very, very important. So, I think framework governance is essential and I particularly welcome the inter-governmental agreement and I hope this sets a precedent for the future conduct of these frameworks where they will need to operate and be amended in years to come. So, I do congratulate him on defending the powers of this Assembly and, indeed, as I said, on preserving in a very imaginative way the expansive form of devolution that we have. 

Can I finally say that I think the equal treatment principle of those powers in the freezer—I have to use that analogy as well—is a remarkable achievement? It does preserve our rights and interests, and it forms a basis, I think, as I said, for proper shared governance in the future. 

Llywydd, can I thank the Member for what he has said and for the very careful attention that he has paid to all of this and for the opportunity along the way to discuss developments with him, as I have with other parties here? He is absolutely right to say that this agreement delivers a strengthened role for the Welsh Government and for the National Assembly for Wales across a whole swathe of very important responsibilities.

The UK Government have said today that everything that we have agreed will be made available to the Scottish Government, and I believe that the Scottish Government has also indicated that, despite the fact that they wish that this agreement could go further and we continue to work with them on that, they too will operate fully within the frameworks that our agreement has laid down, and that means not simply that our powers have been strengthened, but that devolution across the whole of the United Kingdom will be in a different place than it would have been had we not been able to reach the agreements that we have. And the equal treatment principle that we have secured, in which English Ministers will be in exactly the same position as Welsh Ministers and Scottish Ministers is, indeed, a fundamentally important new piece of ground that we have gained, and I think it will put a new impetus into the whole of this agreement to get the processes that it sets out done, completed, and powers entirely returned to the institution in pretty short order.

Can I say how personally devastated I am by your statement, Cabinet Secretary? And, in the interests of time, I will just concentrate on some questions. Over the years, we've gained powers here in response to referendum results that we've had here in Wales. Twenty four of our powers are about to be frozen for up to seven years in a deep freeze. That's handing powers from this place to elsewhere—powers that have always come to this place from Brussels to Cardiff without any intersection.

On Monday afternoon, in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, we had a discussion on clause 11. You say in your statement: 'This outcome is not perfect.' I agree with you there, Cabinet Secretary.

'We would have preferred there to be no Clause 11'.

I also agree with you there. And obviously you made the point in CLAC on Monday afternoon that the inversion of clause 11 in March that the UK Government had suggested still wasn't enough for you—still wasn't enough for you; there was too much ambiguity. It still looked as though Westminster were going to run the timetable, the powers and everything, despite the fact that they inverted it. In other words, the powers weren't going from Brussels to Westminster and then, potentially, on to Cardiff. Now they're going from Brussels to Cardiff with some retained in London—the inversion bit. So, I was with you up to that point and I was with you with your dissatisfaction at the current state of play on Monday afternoon. So rapid things have happened in those 24 hours. Obviously, 24 hours is a long time in politics, but can you just explain what exactly happened between Monday afternoon and Tuesday afternoon—yesterday?

In the interests of time, my only other question is about shared governance, because we are where we are. It's about the frameworks and who decides. In other words, what we want is confirmation that the old diktat of 'Westminster decides and then it tells us what to do' is not good enough. There is lots of creative use of the word 'normally' here, and people can interpret 'normally' in several ways. We want an assurance in this desperate situation that the shared governance as regards vitally important frameworks is actually truly shared. In other words, that our input here from the National Assembly for Wales and from Welsh Government will actually be acknowledged, and that there will be parity of esteem and parity of performance, as opposed to just Westminster deciding and us lamely following. Because it is disappointing that Welsh Government has put its trust in a Tory Government in Westminster. 

Daily here, we hear disparaging remarks from Labour Assembly Members about the Tory Government in Westminster, the very same Tory Government now that you have entrusted with the details to make sure that we do not lose powers. Trust is a very fragile commodity, particularly when you're dealing with the Conservatives. We've had people judging Conservative performance today, even, as regards austerity, welfare reform, women's pensions, all the rest of it—last week as well. Now, you are trusting that very same Government that has driven our people into poverty.

And my final point, people always say: why has Wales got fewer powers, less influence than Scotland, than Northern Ireland, than Manchester, where there's devolved policing, than the London assembly? Well, you know why? Because, at the end of the day, Westminster Government always knows that Labour in Wales will always capitulate.

Well, Llywydd, I feel sure that when the Member has an opportunity to study what has been agreed, that some of the anxiety he has expressed this afternoon will be assuaged. He is a reasonable individual, I know, and I genuinely believe that when he comes to look at the detail, some of the points that he has made he will feel can be regarded differently.

He said that inversion of clause 11 was not enough, and of course he's right, and of course we agreed with that. And then he asked what had happened yesterday to reach such a rapid agreement. Yesterday was a very rapid day of to-ing and fro-ing between all three participants in the Joint Ministerial Committee. It was a judgment: it was a judgment that this Government made, that if we had not indicated yesterday that we were prepared to bring a legislative consent motion before this National Assembly, that everything that we had achieved during these negotiations, everything that I've set out this afternoon that is different and an advance for devolution on the original clause 11, that without an agreement with ourselves and without an agreement with the Scottish Government, the UK Government would simply revert to the original amendment that it had put down in the House of Lords. Everything that we had achieved, everything that the Scottish First Minister refers to as 'substantial advances': none of that would have been secured. And that's what changed yesterday: the statement from the Scottish Minister; further negotiations and discussions between ourselves and the UK Government; and the securing by this Government of everything that jointly we had secured over weeks and months of painful and detailed negotiation. I think that that is why I think of this as a major achievement.

Dr Lloyd asked a very important question about who decides on the frameworks that will emerge as powers are handed back to the devolved administrations. Well, decision making will happen in two different ways. First of all, we have secured a parity set of arrangements in which all three—and if we have a devolved administration in Northern Ireland, all four—Governments will jointly work to secure those frameworks. It will not be a matter, as it far too often has been in the past, of the UK Government working on these things alone and producing a piece of paper at the eleventh hour and saying to us, 'There it is, you can have it if you want it.' No. This is completely different. We all work together on the frameworks, and that's how they are agreed.

And then, who decides? The National Assembly for Wales decides. Because where these frameworks require a legislative underpinning, whether that is through primary or secondary legislation, the Sewel convention will apply. And that, as well, is a major step forward in this agreement. For the first time, Sewel is guaranteed in regulations. It's always applied to primary legislation, and it will if frameworks need primary legislation. Now, it will apply to frameworks that require regulation making as well, and that will come here, to the floor of this National Assembly to decide. That's why, in the end, if you are negotiating in good faith with other governments, trust has to be allowed to operate.

It's not a trust, of course it's not a trust in the policy programme of a Government with which we have so many profound disagreements, but it is a trust-based arrangement between Governments when those arrangements are set out in legislation, when they are accompanied by an inter-governmental agreement, and to which all parties that are prepared and able to do so have formally and publicly signed up.

Can I, first of all, welcome your statement and the detail with which you've answered the various points that have been raised? It is right, as you will expect, that we adopt a cautious approach until we actually know the full details, until we've actually seen the amendments themselves and where they actually fit within the legislation. That is our role as a legislature: to scrutinise that, to also look at the interaction of all those sections. And, I have to say, having read through the papers on a number of occasions, the interrelationship between them is extremely complex; it's almost going back to the resurrection of dialectical material as I'm trying to work out precisely what the arrangements are. But I do recognise also, as you've said, that there will be a full debate and decision in this Chamber, in the sense that there will be a legislative consent motion. Can I also recognise that, in many ways, it has been a testimony to your input and the Welsh Government's input that, at times, the statesmanship from Wales has almost been the only part that has actually created a certain degree of sanity and kept these negotiations and discussions in movement? I think it's very, very important that that is recognised.

There are a number of questions I want to ask, but I will make one comment on the point that you made about the section about consent not being unreasonably withheld. It seems to me that that's a bit of a tautology in the sense that any decision that might be taken in this place to not give consent could in no way ever be unreasonable, because, as a Parliament, we take decisions on behalf of the people and as such those decisions clearly cannot be unreasonable in the constitutional sense. So, I'm not quite sure what that phrase means, and I would like you to comment a little bit, in due course, on whether you think this would eventually lead now to a proper consideration of the inter-parliamentary arrangements and the actual JMC structure, because much of what you've mentioned about the framework arrangements and discussions continuing are absolutely dependent on that procedure actually being reformed, and the make-or-break, in some ways, of that actually working is going to be dependent on those changes taking place.

It's clear that the issue of consent is not in the strict sense a red line, and one of the areas that I will want to explore and consider very carefully is the way in which consent or agreement is achieved, but also the particular implications this agreement will have, for example, for the Trade Bill, because the trades agreements that could be achieved—you'll be aware of the concerns that have previously been expressed—could undermine frameworks. They could have a significant impact on frameworks, potentially overriding frameworks, and it is absolutely fundamental that the legislation that is pursuant to the withdrawal Bill also reflects the principles of agreement—if they are approved and if an LCM is eventually granted to those—or the whole arrangement, the whole agreement, could actually fall apart or be overridden. 

I'd just like a view on the reference in the memorandum—clause 11 regulations—because there is in there, of course, the 40-day arrangement, whereby action won't be taken for a 40-day period. But, of course, we have a slightly different constitutional arrangement to Scotland because, in terms of secondary legislation here, there is a requirement for legislative consent that doesn't exist within Scotland. I wonder if you could clarify how that might actually operate, because my reading of it seemed to imply that, after the 40-day period, the UK Government could proceed, and that would seem to be a lesser position than we have at the moment in terms of legislative consent. Now, I may be misinterpreting that, but I'd be grateful for some clarification on that.

The only final thing is, in respect of the ongoing discussions that are taking place, particularly with regard to Scotland, I welcome what you say in terms of the ongoing nature of this agreement being available and so on, but were there to be an agreement with Scotland that offered a position that actually was what we could see as better than what we have at the moment, is it the case that there'll be no question of anything other that arose that we thought was preferential that we would not be able to take advantage of as well?

Other than that, what I'll say is that I do look forward to your attending the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, because the scrutiny side of this is really the key, and that's why I think it is so absolutely important that we don't come to premature judgments of what has been agreed and what its full implications are.

Llywydd, can I thank the Member for all those observations? Can I begin by just expressing my regret that Members have not actually seen the amendments? They had to be laid in the House of Lords by 4 o'clock this afternoon. With your help, Llywydd, we scheduled this statement for 4 o'clock here—that was our best way of trying to ensure that those amendments would have been available to Members. It's not in our own hands, as you can see, but we have done our very best to engineer things so that Members would have seen the amendments. They will see them, of course, now, and Mick Antoniw is quite right to say that the amendments have to be seen in their interrelationship with both the memorandum of understanding that we have agreed and the inter-governmental agreement.

Can I just say to the Member that, in negotiations, there are, as he will know very well, trade-offs always between what different parties require? We required the UK Government explicitly to commit themselves to not normally refusing to do things in the way that we would expect, and, in return, they wanted us to commit to not unreasonably refusing to give consent. He may well be right that when you burrow beneath the words both of them are statements simply of the way things are always done, but that's the way that negotiations are conducted. If you want to gain something, you sometimes have to give something too.

He made three very important points, Llywydd, that I want us to deal with. Parity of esteem is not simply parity between Governments, it's between Parliaments as well. A very good point was made to me in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee yesterday that if information is to be supplied to this legislature in relation to frameworks, for example, then that should be the same level of information that is available to Parliaments elsewhere, that there should be parity of treatment across the United Kingdom to make sure that no Parliament is treated less advantageously than anywhere else, and there is a real and necessary pressure to conclude new inter-parliamentary arrangements to ensure that the rights of Parliaments are fully observed.

He made a very important point, Mick Antoniw, about legislation that will follow the withdrawal Bill. Another reason why we were convinced that we needed to come to an agreement is that everything that we have agreed here, everything we have agreed about consent and so on, will cascade forward into the Bills that the UK Government will now bring forward, such as the Trade Bill. So, this is not simply about gaining ground in the withdrawal Bill, it's about permanently securing the advances we have made here in all the subsequent EU Brexit legislation.

And, finally, let me give him that assurance that if any further refinements can be obtained to the agreement that take it further forward and can secure Scotland's participation then anything that is secured will be secured as a result of the three Governments working together, and all of those advances would apply equally to us.

We are way over time on this statement, but it is an important statement. I've got four more speakers wishing to speak. I'll call them, but you all need to be very succinct in your questions. Simon Thomas. [Laughter.]

Diolch, Llywydd. I'll do my best. Can I say to the Cabinet Secretary that the disagreement here, I think, is not around the work that he has undertaken or the hard work that he and his officials have done? It's between those of us who do not have the touching faith that he has exhibited today in the UK constitution to deliver for Wales, and who want to take a much more critical and much more robust line on protection of this Parliament's powers. If I may say, he over-relies on an inter-governmental agreement to deliver equity for this Parliament, and I think that's where I have a fundamental disagreement with what he has set out today.

As I don't have much time, can I just urge him to listen and revise the very pertinent questions put to him by both Mick Antoniw and David Rees, who have gone to the heart of some of the questions I would have wanted to rehearse with him as to the weaknesses in such an inter-governmental agreement delivering on a parliamentary side? In effect, though we have a reference to the Assembly in these agreements and in the memorandum, ultimately, Westminster, after 40 days—not in the wilderness, but after 40 days—can take action in these 24, plus 12 other fields that have yet to be agreed on. So, that could increase by 50 per cent. And if I can also just make the point that we are talking about eight years, not seven years—this agreement comes in on leave date plus two years, plus five years. That's eight years. So, all of us who have an interest in being Government in Wales have to realise that we are selling away our ability to take action in these 24 fields for eight long years. 

Now, there are practical ways that the Cabinet Secretary set out as to why that won't happen, because England's frozen as well, but I don't see much progress in England, thank you very much. And when we're talking about the devolution of agricultural support policy, for example, I don't want us to wait eight years for England to decide what they want to do; I want us to take action from day one. We are stopped from doing that in this regard.

If I conclude with two particular questions, first of all, he talks about this agreement having the ability to move on. He says it's a significant step in terms of working co-operatively. Yet the agreement only sets out what he has in the past described as little better than St Fagans parish council. What actually in this agreement sets out that co-operative working? He hasn't got the joint council of Ministers that he wanted to have, working in the way he wanted. There's no independent arbitration. There's no way of referring things to an alternative dispute mechanism. If you compare this agreement with the fiscal framework that he agreed and which Plaid Cymru, by the way, fully supported, you see those elements there, and you don't see them in this agreement. That's the first weakness, in practical terms, that will happen here.

He describes the final decision of Parliament here as a 'backstop'. I would describe it as a veto. When we look at the agreement that has the exercise of this veto, it is peppered with the term 'normal'. It's been raised several times, but you have not yet replied to this: what does 'normal' mean in these circumstances? It's clear from the agreement that—. We've talked about clause 11 here, but it's also clear from the agreement that it's now allowed for the UK Government to use clauses 7, 8 and 9 to interfere directly in the other areas that already are devolved—not the 24 that are being returned, but the ones that come here. The UK Parliament can still reach in and scoop out our powers in those areas—again but will not normally do so. What does 'normal' mean? I put it to him that politics has changed the meaning of 'normal' in politics over the last two years in a very fundamental way.

Llywydd, the first proposition that Simon Thomas made, I think, is an entirely reasonable statement of how a disagreement between two parties can be understood. If the position of his party is that they are welcoming the ground that has been gained but believe it doesn't go far enough and that there's more that could have been done, that seems to me entirely reasonable for them to take. That isn't what I think I've heard from other Plaid Cymru members, I have to say; they have described what we have achieved in very demeaning terms. The way Simon Thomas put it, that what we have achieved is something that he welcomes—I don't want to put words into his mouth—but that there is more that he thinks ought to have been done and therefore he can't accept it as it is, that seems to me to be an entirely proper way to put it and, indeed, that is the way that Michael Russell put it when he made his statement in the Scottish Parliament yesterday. And, in that sense, there is a disagreement between the way that the Government here has concluded and the way that Simon Thomas would have wished to see things. We do put weight on the inter-governmental agreement, because we think that the effort that went into securing it, the public way in which it has received commitment, means that we can put some trust on it.

Simon Thomas says it doesn't deal sufficiently with the rights of the Parliament here, and I see the point he made. It was, indeed, a point that was made by David Rees, but I provide the same answer: that it would have been an odd thing indeed for me, as a member of the Government, to have made commitments on behalf of the legislature in an agreement between Governments. What we now need to do is to do the work that David Rees pointed to, and to make sure that the parliamentary processes that go alongside the inter-governmental agreement are agreed here—not agreed between the Scottish Government and the UK Government and the Welsh Government, but agreed here, on the parliamentary side, where those responsibilities will lie.

Simon Thomas made three points at the end. As I say, I don't for a minute myself believe that this will take eight long years, as he put it, for powers to return here. Let me just say to the Assembly just what hard work it was to get an agreement that English Ministers would not use the powers while these things were in the freezer. Do you think they just signed up to that on the spur of the moment? I can tell you that they were very reluctant indeed to be in that position, and they will want to be out of that position, as we do, as fast as we can possibly agree it.

He asks about what does 'normally' mean. Well, 'not normally' is not used in this agreement for the first time, either in legislation or inter-governmental agreements. It means here what it means in all the other places where that phrase is used, and the way that this—[Interruption.] I think that he will struggle to find too many examples—I'm sure there will be some—where that way of working has been used to the disadvantage of this legislature, and we would expect the commitments that have been made here, echoing, as they do, that phrase from other ways in which legislation and agreements are drawn up, to operate just as effectively here as they have in other places.

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement. I know that this represents many months of hard detailed work by the Cabinet Secretary and by his officials. I think he has listed significant achievements today, and I'd like to congratulate him for those results. I think it's absolutely right that the Government feels able to recommend that we do give legislative consent when this comes before us.

Most of the questions I wanted to ask have already been asked, thankfully, I'm sure, Presiding Officer, but one thing I did want to ask: during these months of negotiation, was there, at any point, a tipping point when you felt that, now we've achieved that, there is, really, the hope of getting to an agreement?

I thank the Member for what she said. I don't think I would describe the negotiations as having a tipping point. Right up to Monday of last week, when the three Governments last met together, there were further points that both Scotland and Wales wished to include in the agreement, further ground that we wanted to gain. It has been an incremental process in which, step by step and bit by bit, we have inched our way to the point where I feel able to come to the Assembly today and to say that we will put a legislative consent motion and recommend its agreement to you. Scotland are committed, and we are with them, to inching that process even further forward. If we can achieve that, we'll be very glad to play our part in it. But that's the way I think these negotiations have worked—not a sudden point at which things tip from being unacceptable to being acceptable, but a long slog, week in, week out, with officials particularly putting long, long hours into things to reach the point that we have finally reached today.

I do understand, of course, that a great deal of hard work has gone into it, but that's our job—to work hard on behalf of the people of Wales. As a Welsh person and a democrat, I've been shocked at how easily you've given in to the Tories and have transferred these powers to them in London—the powers that the people of Wales have stated in two referenda that the Welsh Parliament should hold.

I will restrict myself to one question. You do say in your statement that the outcome of the negotiations with the Tories aren't perfect, and that this agreement is a compromise. Now, we need to compromise, of course; we need to compromise occasionally in politics and I’m enough of a pragmatist and a realist to compromise, quite regularly if truth be told. But compromising on the democratic future of Wales is unacceptable. A power grab is a power grab, and we cannot compromise on such a fundamentally important issue as that.

A little over a month ago, this Parliament voted in favour of a continuity Bill that would have ensured that the UK Government couldn’t have undertaken that power grab. All of the cards were in your Government’s hands. So, why on earth did you need to compromise on this?

I thank Siân Gwenllian for what she said at the outset in recognising the hard work that’s gone into the agreement that’s before the Assembly today. No-one is making any power grab from the National Assembly, because we’ve agreed on things and the National Assembly will also have to agree when the powers come onto the floor here.

On the continuity Bill, we said from the outset that that wasn’t our first choice. I said and the First Minister said and the Counsel General said, on every occasion, that if we can come to an agreement with the UK Government on the Bill, that was the best way to deal with the problems in the original Bill. That’s what we’ve succeeded in doing and that’s why I had thought that I could come to the Assembly floor today and tell Members that this is an agreement on which we can all agree. 

Finally, Jane Hutt.

Can I finally thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement this afternoon? We're aware in the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee of your unwavering commitment to deliver the best deal for Wales in your negotiations, and I think it is important to remember that the Cabinet Secretary and indeed the First Minister have always said that the Welsh Government's preference was to secure an agreement on the withdrawal Bill, and of course that's why we put forward those important amendments.

The two questions I want to raise are about your response to whether you think you've secured a commitment to a real step change in inter-governmental working in terms of, particularly, the crucial role of the JMC European negotiations vehicle, because that's crucial in terms of being able to deliver on this agreement, and for us also to be confident that we can scrutinise you and the Welsh Government and indeed the inter-governmental implementation of that agreement. And, of course, that has to be supported by, as a result of your good working relations with the Scottish Brexit Minister, Mike Russell, and I'm sure that that will be strengthened. So, just that one point.

Secondly, last night I attended with Eluned Morgan and a few others the Gina Miller lecture. There were hundreds of people there. I think we have got to recognise that people will want to know about this agreement, not just here in this Chamber or in your external advisory committee, but how can we actually share this news and explain to the people of Wales what has been achieved.

I think it's so important, finally, that we just translate: what does it mean? Today's amendment reverses the UK Government's original position. That's such an important statement. It creates a default position in which powers over devolved policy lie with the National Assembly, as they have done since 1999. The people of Wales want to hear that.

Can I thank Jane Hutt, Llywydd, for what she has said? She asks about the process of inter-governmental agreement. It was a point that Simon Thomas raised and I failed to address it in my answer to him. It's there in paragraph 7a of the memorandum of understanding, and that is one of the very late additions to this agreement, secured in the very final run of discussions between the Scottish Government, ourselves and the UK Government, because it commits us all to a process that lies behind the bringing forward of regulations. It guarantees that there will be discussion between the Governments on the basis that we have been conducting discussions to reach this agreement, to agree the scope and the content of the regulations. As I said earlier, it will not be a matter of the UK Government alone coming forward with proposals for us to accept or reject. We will have been there at the table on the basis of equality, and that's why this does represent a way forward. Of course, it doesn't achieve everything that we want to achieve in the way that Simon Thomas set out, but you have to find a way into these discussions. You have to find a step forward that allows some things to change for the better, and then to use that as a platform for achieving more. That clause in that part of the agreement will allow us to do just that. 

Jane Hutt is absolutely right to say that there's a simple message at the heart of all of this. When we started on this process, we had a clause 11 that said, 'Nothing comes to the National Assembly, everything stays at Westminster, any decisions on what happens after that will be for UK Ministers alone to decide and we can't tell you how long it's all going to take'. Now, we have exactly the opposite of that: everything comes to the National Assembly unless we agree that it should be retained at Westminster, while it is at Westminster, the only use that can be made of these powers is use that we agree, and we have a final backstop beyond which no powers can be held away from us, and everything will return here. That's why this agreement is such a difference, and that's why people in Wales do indeed deserve to know all about it.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.