The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies, and amendment 2 in the name of Julie James. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected.

The next item is item 8, the Plaid Cymru debate, and I call on Leanne Wood to move the motion.

Motion NDM6712 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the agreement between the Welsh and UK governments on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

2. Further notes that the agreement renders the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill, passed by a majority in the National Assembly for Wales, redundant.

3. Regrets the fact that the agreement grants the UK Parliament a veto over areas of devolved legislation.

4. Further regrets the agreement's undermining of the Plaid Cymru-Welsh Government White Paper on Securing Wales' Future which states 'that the UK exit from the EU must not result in devolved powers being clawed back to the UK Government. Any attempt to do so will be firmly resisted by us'.

5. Calls for a meaningful vote in the National Assembly for Wales on the agreement.

Motion moved.

Diolch. We've heard the Orwellian doublespeak that this Government has used to justify its capitulation, and the accusation that has been levelled at us is one that we are flag-waving nationalists. Well, I would say at least our flag is not the white flag of surrender.

Today, I'm going to deconstruct this deal. I want to take it apart piece by piece, and the illogical justification that has been given for signing up to it. So that the Government benches are clear, I'll break my contribution down into three clear parts. First, I'll outline the scale of their retreat and the breadth of their hypocrisy by highlighting statements made prior to the agreement and how they match up to the deal itself. I'll then move on to the substance of the agreement and amendments, outlining how their deal with the Tories fundamentally puts the principle of devolution in danger. Finally, I'll outline what this deal means for the future of devolution, and fundamentally how it affects people here in Wales.

I am genuinely sorry to say that there is only one word to describe this Government's approach: hypocrisy. Yesterday in First Minister's questions I read out a quote from the First Minister regarding his then opposition to the withdrawal Bill. As he was not there at the time, I remind him of what he said on 27 November 2017. He said:

'we wouldn't accept a sunset clause. Who is to say that it wouldn't be extended ad infinitum in the future? It's a matter of principle'. 

A five-year sunset clause now forms part of the legislation that the Government has signed up to. In January this year, the now Counsel General said:

'I don’t think for a second that the instinct of the Westminster Government or this Prime Minister is in favour of any process that would easily allow Wales to receive the powers from Brussels that we deserve and that are our right.'

The legislation you have now committed to support sees at least 24 devolved policy areas move under Westminster's control. Let me take the Cabinet Secretary back to when we co-authored 'Securing Wales' Future'. Then, the Welsh Government had a radically different position. Page 28 of that White Paper says, and I quote:

'our core standing policy is that the UK exit from the EU must not result in devolved powers being clawed back to the UK Government. Any attempt to do so will be firmly resisted by us.'

'Resistance' seems to be a synonym for 'capitulation' in the Cabinet Secretary's thesaurus. Let me explain why ceding a single power is weak and ceding 26 whole policy areas in pathetic. There are, to quote the First Minister, an almost ad infinitum number of examples that highlight Labour hypocrisy, but I will just highlight one more. Last week, in his statement to the Assembly, the Cabinet Secretary said he would have

'preferred there to be no clause 11' included in this Bill. By agreeing to do a deal with the Tories in Westminster, throwing away the continuity Bill and fundamentally conceding all of our leverage, he has guaranteed his preferred position is now lost. 

The Scottish Labour Party says that this Bill is deficient. He himself thought it was deficient. His own backbenchers think it is deficient. Yet, this Government has sold us down the river. It's embarrassing that this Government has said the things it has and now tries to tell the people of Wales that it has secured a good deal. You had a Michelin-starred meal and you made it into a dog's dinner. We will not forget and neither will people in Wales. 

Let me turn to the second point of my speech, which is the substance of this dodgy deal. It has two parts: a set of amendments to legislation and a political agreement that has no legal weight. I'll talk about the amendments first. Consent, agreement, the affirmative—not a difficult concept. 'Yes' means 'yes', 'no' means 'no'. However, in the upside-down world of the Welsh Government, 'yes' means 'yes', and 'no' now also means 'yes'.

So that we're clear, let me read, word for word, the exact phrasing of the amendment that the Government is recommending that we concede to. Amendment 89DA, tabled in the name of Lord Callanan, section 2(4), in the reference to subsection (3)—a consent decision is:

'(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, (b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or (c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft'.

Westminster can now interpret consent as (a) consent, (b) non-consent, (c) anything else that it wants to. The only parallel the legal experts in this Assembly can find is in local government planning legislation, and even that is stronger than what has been accepted here. Westminster is treating this Assembly like a local council and our Government is happy with that. 

Yesterday—.

Will you give way? In response to this point earlier, the Counsel General said, in any case, this amendment and all the amendments are subject to the Sewel convention. But, as you pointed out, of course, on seven separate occasions, the Westminster Government has ignored the Sewel convention. So, it gives us no protection at all.

And it shows exactly why the Tories cannot be trusted on this.

Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary attempted to argue the semantics of a consent decision versus consent. Again, there is no difference. What you conceded to is Westminster can interpret 'no' as 'yes', and it's a situation of, 'Heads we lose, tails they win'. 

Let's turn to the so-called agreement. Trust not law is what underpins this agreement, and I don't trust the Tories in Westminster to act in the Welsh national interest, but it seems like this Government does. And it's this concept of trust that lies at the heart of the issue of this deal with the Tories. As part of the deal, Labour trusts that the 26 policy areas outlined in the agreement will be all that Westminster wants to take back control of. Nowhere in legislation is this codified, and this could rise to any number as they see fit. And let's be clear: no extra powers will be devolved as a result of this deal. Powers that were already with this Assembly will simply be exercised with this Assembly, and that does not amount to extra powers. This is the bare minimum that the devolution settlement allows for, and to claim otherwise is to mislead this Assembly and the people of Wales. 

But that's not the worst of it. The short document outlining the agreement packs an impressive number of concessions. My colleagues will highlight many more, but one of the most jarring is the different treatment of Wales to England. Admittedly, this is complicated, but in the non-binding agreement—[Interruption.]—there is a vague commitment to legislate on England-only matters. 

Thank you. Just to take you back a few seconds on the question of powers, because I'm a little confused. As I understand it, powers in areas—they are devolved areas—but powers that are currently held in Brussels as a result of this agreement will come to this Assembly, rather than Westminster. So, how can you say that no extra powers will come to this Assembly? They will.  

It's up to Westminster to decide all of this. We are a junior partner in the process. 

Now, in the non-binding agreement there is a vague commitment not to legislate on England-only matters, whereas in the legally binding amendment Wales is explicitly precluded from legislating on Wales-only matters. Let me give Members an example. Westminster can legislate on farming, which is a devolved policy area, to whatever extent it likes and, for that matter, they can legislate to change the rules for Welsh farmers without the Assembly's consent. Yet, in this devolved policy area, Wales will not be able to legislate, a more obvious power grab you will not find. Fundamentally, Parliament's supremacy over us and England's special treatment shows the level of disdain, distrust and disinterest with which Westminster treats Wales. Our hands are tied by the law, where England is able to do what it likes.  

I now want to move on to the third and final part of this: what does this Labour and Tory deal mean for people's lives? The complex constitutional questions are often abstract, but this cave-in has many clear and simple consequences. Let's start with the 26 policy areas where Westminster will now hold all the cards. The Tories in Westminster will, thanks to Labour, be able to decide the framework of farm payments, support and all manner of other agricultural regulations, without any substantial consideration of what Wales wants. Now, my colleague Llyr Gruffydd will outline the implications of this deal for farms in more detail, but I'd like to ask some questions of the First Minister. Does he believe that it is the barley barons of England or the hill farmers of Wales who will win Westminster support? When trade deals require our food markets to be prised open, what does he propose that we do, knowing that we have lost all the powers to stop it from happening? 

Let's look at it another way. In this deal, we have the question of public procurement. Whether it's steel, state aid or our NHS, public procurement is critical to the Welsh economy and our community institutions. Now, powers over public procurement will sit at Westminster. Do they trust the Tories not to open up our NHS to private companies? Of course, the Welsh Government is doing this already in Wrexham, but now you've emboldened Westminster with powers you could have had, what hope do you have of stopping them prising open our NHS to more private companies? Whether it's a transatlantic trade and investment partnership-style agreement or some other trade deal, the Tories' eagerness to justify Brexit with new international agreements puts our NHS at risk, and this Government has now given the powers to the Tories to wreck our health service in this futile pursuit.

Devolution offered us a better way, a different way, and you have chosen to give that away. Over the past days, my party has spoken to constitutional experts, legislators and lawyers. They all decry this as a dodgy deal. Our leadership has gone, our leverage is lost, and our Assembly weakened, and I'm not even convinced that this Government fully understands what it has done. 'No' now means 'yes'; two devolution referendums now mean nothing; and Westminster regains its dominance over Wales. We are truly through the looking glass.

We have always accepted that frameworks and mechanisms will be needed to ensure a functioning statute book, but not like this. Tonight, we will vote on this dodgy deal, and to conclude I want to make a plea: if you believe in devolution, if you believe in a better Wales, if you believe that decisions about Wales should be made in Wales, then join with us. The law is on our side and history will be too. Assembly Members, your choice tonight is simple: join with the Brexit believers and vote through this dodgy deal or stand up for Wales and vote against this stitch-up.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. Can I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies?

Amendment 1. Paul Davies

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Welcomes:

a) the agreement between the Welsh and UK governments on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill;

b) that this will protect the UK internal market and ensure no new barriers are created within the UK for consumers and businesses;

c) that this means the vast majority of EU powers that intersect with devolved competences will go directly to the devolved parliaments and assemblies when the UK leaves the EU;

d) the duty placed 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 “freeze”;

e) the time-limit introduced on the temporary constraint on devolved competence; and

f) that this means the Welsh Government will now recommend that the National Assembly for Wales pass a legislative consent motion for the EU (Withdrawal) Bill.

Amendment 1 moved.

Last week, the UK Government and Welsh Government confirmed that they had reached an agreement on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill for subsequent tabling in the UK Parliament. This means that the Welsh Government will now recommend that the National Assembly for Wales pass a legislative consent motion for the Bill. So, let me repeat the thanks and congratulations I gave to Mark Drakeford and to David Lidington, Minister for the UK Cabinet Office, for the measured, mature and pragmatic way they've conducted negotiations to secure agreement when we discussed this here at length last week.

Once again, having done an issue to death one week, Plaid Cymru seeks to follow it into the afterlife the next. Trapped in an ideological straitjacket of false perceptions and divisive prejudice, they just can't help themselves. The agreement reached required compromise on both sides, where each recognised the need for UK-wide frameworks in specific areas to avoid disruption to the UK's own internal market. It is regrettable that Plaid Cymru seem not to share that recognition.

The proposed changes to the Bill will mean that the vast majority of EU powers that intersect with devolved competencies will go directly to the devolved Parliaments when the UK leaves the EU. Whilst powers over devolved policy will continue to lie with this National Assembly, the UK Government will be given temporary powers over a small number of returning policy areas, so that UK-wide frameworks can replace the EU rule book in order to ensure that no new barriers are created within the UK for consumers and businesses.

I therefore move amendment 1, which proposes that this Assembly welcomes the agreement between the Welsh and UK Governments on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, welcomes that this will protect the UK internal market and ensure that no new barriers are created within the UK for consumers and businesses, welcomes that this means that the vast majority of EU powers that intersect with devolved competencies will go directly to the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies when the UK leaves the EU, welcomes the duty placed 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 so-called 'clause 11 freeze', welcomes the time limit introduced on the temporary constraint on devolved competence, and welcomes that this means that the Welsh Government will now recommend that this Assembly pass a legislative consent motion for the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. 

The agreement between the UK and Welsh Governments means that, although UK Ministers will be able to specify through regulations policy areas where devolved competence would be subject to a freeze whilst new frameworks are agreed, they must seek the agreement of the devolved legislatures each time they propose to make regulations to put a policy area into the clause 11 freeze. Although the UK Parliament will be free and able to approve the regulations creating the freeze if a devolved legislature's agreement is refused or not provided within 40 days, this will be subject to UK Ministers making a statement to UK Parliament explaining why they've decided to make regulations despite the absence of a devolved legislature's agreement, and laying any statement from the Welsh Government on why consent was not given by this Assembly. Members will then be free to debate and vote that in the UK Parliament.

Contrary to Plaid Cymru claims, Assembly lawyers informed the external affairs committee on Monday that the UK Parliament will be unable to assume that the Assembly has consented when its consent decision was to refuse consent. That was the advice from Assembly lawyers. We have long called for a time limit or sunset clause on any temporary restriction of devolved competencies, and this agreement delivers a time limit of two years after exit day on the regulation-making power if not brought to an end sooner, and of five years after they come into force on the regulations themselves if not revoked earlier.

Quoting the First Minister here both yesterday and again today, Leanne Wood asked who is to say that a sunset clause wouldn't be extended ad infinitum in the future. In reality, this inter-governmental agreement means that although a sunset clause cannot be extended, it can be shortened. As Labour's amendment also states, any UK-wide frameworks to replace the current EU frameworks will be freely negotiated between the Governments, will be subject to the Sewel convention, and, while these frameworks have been negotiated, no Government, including the UK Government in respect of England, will be able to introduce legislation that departs from the status quo. I am pleased, for the first time in 15 years in the Assembly, to actually quote in support of a component of a Labour amendment. Thank you. 

Thank you. Can I now ask the First Minister to move formally amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James? 

Amendment 2. Julie James (Swansea West)

Delete all after point 2 and replace with:

3. Agrees that this positive outcome to the negotiations with the UK Government secures the National Assembly’s powers over devolved policies in the changing circumstances created by Brexit and entrenches the Sewel convention, based on a default position that changes to the Assembly’s competences require the Assembly’s consent.

4. Welcomes the fact that any UK wide frameworks to replace the current EU frameworks will be freely negotiated between the governments and will be subject to the Sewel convention; and that while these frameworks are being negotiated, no government, including the UK Government in respect of England, will be able to introduce legislation which departs from the status quo.

5. Notes further that the National Assembly will have the opportunity for a meaningful vote on the agreement when it considers the Legislative Consent Motion to be brought forward by the Welsh Government.

Amendment 2 moved.

Formally, Deputy Presiding Officer. 

Diolch. Llyr Gruffydd. Come on, wake up.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, it says it all, doesn’t it? For the first time in 15 years, the Conservatives are pleased to congratulate the Labour Government on their actions, but they will be known through their actions, of course.

A week, of course, is a long time in politics, but in this case, a week and two days have passed since the finance Secretary visited the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee at this Assembly, claiming there that the Welsh Government hadn’t been able to reach agreement with the UK Government on amendments to clause 11 in the EU withdrawal Bill. But, less than 24 hours later, we had a personal statement from the Cabinet Secretary confirming that the Government had reached agreement. Since that point, of course, the implications of that agreement for rural communities particularly, which will be the focus of my contribution over the next few minutes, have emerged.

Since the result of the referendum in June 2016, of course, the Welsh Government has made a number of policy statements relating to the future of agriculture, including ensuring that Welsh farmers would receive every penny that they currently receive following Brexit. Just a fortnight ago, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs said that the Government has a unique opportunity to reformulate our agricultural policy in relation to a unique and integrated Welsh approach to our economy, our society and our natural environment. But of course, following this agreement, well, there’s total confusion about that now, and the ability of the Welsh Government to deliver the ambition that she has been espousing.

For example, the Minister of the UK Government for agriculture, George Eustice, confirmed yesterday at the Welsh Affairs Select Committee that it’s the UK Government that will decide how much funding will be available to farmers, reliant on the comprehensive spending review of the Government, including, of course, how it will be distributed across the United Kingdom. Now, immediately, farmers have made it clear that they are concerned that if that happens, we may be moving to a three-year cycle rather than a seven-year cycle, as was the case under CAP. There are questions as to their ability to plan in the long term for an industry that is reliant on substantial capital investment and an industry whose strategic management is reliant on the seasons; you can’t change direction overnight or in a cycle as short as three years, very often. And if it is reliant on the CSR, then that funding will compete with all of the other priorities. We’ve already heard the question asked as to how high on the agenda of the UK Government Welsh hill farmers will be when it comes to these issues. Farming, of course, represents a larger proportion of the Welsh economy than that of the other nations of the United Kingdom, and therefore, the risk is greater of being adversely affected.

There is nothing in the agreement between Labour and the Conservatives that gives me confidence that the Welsh voice will be strengthened in these negotiation processes on the future of the agricultural industry. And if we are in any doubt as to what has happened here, then the letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—I wasn’t going to try and translate that—has made it entirely clear that unless consent is given by the devolved Parliaments or Governments, then the UK Parliament will approve them in any case. It’s in black and white, so there can be no confusion about this. This Government is gambling with the future of rural Wales in order to assuage its unionist tendencies, in my view.

The question I would ask is: what assessment has the Government made of the impact of this agreement on the well-being of future generations Act? As someone who was involved in the scrutiny of that Act, this is a central organising principle—that was the line—for the public sector in Wales, and policies such as agriculture, the environment and public procurement are expected to meet the requirements of that piece of legislation. There are questions in my mind as to where we go, in that regard, and perhaps we can have some clarity from the First Minister. Where does that leave us in terms of anti-GM policy, in terms of hormone-pumped beef that could be imported into this country; chlorinated chicken, following a possible agreement with Donald Trump; and changes to animal welfare regulations and so on and so forth?

Finally, as the clock is ticking, it’s not just Labour who are part of the administration that has come to an agreement. Unfortunately, the Cabinet Secretary for Education isn’t in her seat, but I would like to know what the view of the Welsh Liberal Democrats is on this issue. Are they, as Labour are, siding with the Conservatives and UKIP, or are they with the Liberal Democrats of Scotland? I think we need to know exactly where they stand.

And to close, Labour knows—you do know—that when UKIP and the Conservatives are queuing up to congratulate you on doing something, you know that you’ve either been conned, or you’ve made a mistake. The sad truth here is that it’s the people of Wales who will pay the price.

I want to start my contribution this afternoon, actually, by giving recognition to the work undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. Everybody in this Chamber should recognise the commitment that Mark Drakeford has given in that work. But not just to Mark Drakeford, but also to his officials because many people will not appreciate, perhaps, that it's the intensive discussions that have been taking place between Welsh Government officials and UK Government officials that have allowed the opportunities for where we are today to be reached. We must give recognition to all the work done by those officials, led by Mark.

But also, the approach taken by Mark Drakeford and his counterpart in the Scottish Government, Mike Russell, have been constructive and focused. They've been making sure that the position of both Governments have been presented to a series of Secretaries of State within Westminster because we must remember there have been various chairs, and it's only latterly that we've seen chairs who have started to listen to them.

As a consequence of this determined negotiating position, we've seen the UK Government move away from their ridiculous initial position of prevarication to a position that now offers a workable solution that will be considered in detail when we debate the LCM in less than two weeks, and that's when we will have the meaningful vote on the agreement and the amendments.

I hope to avoid any technical aspects in my contribution this afternoon because I'll put those forward perhaps during that debate when I think it's more meaningful to have the debate on technical aspects. But unfortunately, there are a couple of points I wish the First Minister to perhaps clarify for me as soon as possible. There's no doubt that the clause 11 that emerges today, if those amendments are passed in the House of Lords today, is far different from that which currently exists in the Bill. And the continued question from both the Welsh and Scottish Governments, along with the committees from their respective Parliaments, have been able to influence that change. The question to be answered before we vote on the LCM on 15 May, not today, will be: have those changes gone far enough to allow Members to support the amended Bill? That's the question we will all have to answer on 15 May. Again, not today. However, I do seek clarification on a couple of points from the First Minister. 

The original Bill allowed the UK Government to change aspects of the Bill without going before Parliament, and this would have included the opportunity to extend the sunset clause—I think that's been highlighted already by several people in this afternoon's debate—possibly indefinitely, by keeping the powers within Westminster, amending the Bill time after time after time. If that's the case, that is obviously wrong.

Now, I understand that the agreement will now require the UK Government to go before both Houses of Parliament, including the House of Lords, before such changes could be made, which therefore puts a stronger safeguard in place to ensure that continuation of an indefinite possibility is no longer a reality. So, therefore, can the First Minister provide the Chamber with any further clarification on that particular point? Because—my personal view, five years is still too long; it takes us into the next Assembly, and actually into the next UK Government as well. That's if it doesn't go sooner. But it does hinder us perhaps in having a discussion as to what we can put in our manifestos, as to what policies we can apply, when we go for the Assembly elections in 2021.

Secondly, I am disappointed that the agreement does not actually provide a requirement for Welsh Government to lay reports or regulations before the Assembly as soon as it gets them from the Westminster Government. Now, the 40-day period, I understand, is initiated when UK Ministers give their counterparts in Wales those reports or regulations, but there's no requirement for you to actually lay them immediately before the Assembly; there's the possibility of a delay. I would seek reassurances that that's the intention of the Welsh Government, to lay any report or regulations before the Assembly—and I'll give you some time—no later than 48 hours after you've received them, so it gives us as much time as possible to scrutinise what comes before us.

Now, other technical matters, Dirprwy Lywydd, I will leave until the debate on the LCM, but, moving forward, we also want to focus upon the frameworks and ensure that these work for the people and businesses in Wales. That's what this is about: working for the businesses and the people in Wales, making sure that continuity exists, making sure that we can continue operations and we can grow our economy.

But we must also pay attention to other Bills that will come through—let's not just talk about the EU withdrawal Bill. The Trade Bill is another one that has similar issues and we need to ensure that that is amended along the same lines, so that we do not allow one Bill to actually change something that another Bill has—and if you need to look at that, check it up—and that's the important aspect of that. We also addressed the aspect of the JMC. We talked about the agreement, how is it governed, how is it adjudicated, how do we ensure that things happen: there are still issues on the JMC to address.

I'm conscious of the time, Dirprwy Lywydd, so I'll leave it at this point, but I will just stress that I'm disappointed with the contribution at the start of the debate from the leader of Plaid Cymru, because it felt to me much more like another example of what is termed 'project fear' than actually looking at the aspects of this agreement and where we can move forward. And that is what we all want to do. No-one in this Chamber wants to see things going backwards; we want to move forwards. That's why we put the amendments in that we suggested beforehand. Let's make sure that we get the best we can.

Donald Trump yesterday extended his decision deadline over whether or not to continue the exemption of EU countries to his 25 per cent steel and aluminium tariffs into the United States. Let's not play down the business and market uncertainty that tariffs and trade barriers can bring to industries across the board, but particularly export-reliant industries such as steel. This is crucial to Wales's largest industrial centre and one of Wales's largest private employers at Tata in Port Talbot and elsewhere in Wales. 

It's also no secret that the UK Government is desperate to prove it is handling the result of Brexit, and the long-term economic decline it looks set to usher in, by promoting the idea of trade deals across the world. Of course, these will have to be bespoke deals, and, contrary to the economic fantasy world that UKIP and Tories seem to inhabit, where Britain is still a global trading empire, other countries are clearly not queuing up to develop free trade deals with the UK. Theresa May came back empty-handed from India, I think I saw recently.

So, what is of grave concern to me and others, particularly those who work in industries such as steel, is what exactly is going to be given up by the UK Government in order to get some trade deals under their belt. We're all familiar with the prospect of cheap, chemical-filled US food flooding our markets, but what about the insistence by other countries that we sacrifice other areas of our economic base and strength in order to facilitate trade deals? Given that President Trump—to continue to use the example—has shown a propensity for making policy decisions that are entirely related to appeasing his base and little else, it isn't unrealistic to assume that UK steel and other industries could be placed on the table as part of future trade deals. 

It is therefore beyond reckless, in my view, to surrender state-aid and procurement powers as part of this Brexit deal on powers. One of the very few silver linings, I must say, of exiting the EU is that there is a freer hand in terms of state-aid rules and public procurement, which the Welsh Government should have grabbed with both hands, but instead it has been given away. There may well be a sunset clause, but how much power and influence is the Welsh Government truly going to have when it comes to consent arrangements where the decision of the Westminster Tories is one of a UK trade deal? Are they really going to prioritise elements of the Welsh economy so crucial to maintain the fragile economy we have here in Wales?

Let's not forget that, when Tata Steel was faced with the serious threat of closure or major job losses in 2015 and 2016, it was the Welsh Government that committed to state aid as part of a wider package of measures to save the industry here in Wales. Will that power be changed? There were state-aid announcements for steel as part of the most recent budget, as we know. That power will no longer technically reside with the Welsh Government as a result of the EU withdrawal Bill deal—this at a time when many Labour Members are still wearing 'Save Our Steel' badges.

To many people watching what has transpired in recent weeks, it will seem very clear that Labour has decided that key economic intervention powers are better exercised by Westminster, rather than here by themselves and their own Government.

I think we need to reflect on where we started from in this process. Clause 11, as originally drafted, was, effectively, a recentralisation of powers Bill, driving a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. It was the product of a UK Government mindset that has still not attuned itself to devolution, and it continued the sort of thinking that has resulted in a total failure to honour all the promises that had been made to engage with, to involve and to consult with the devolved Governments.

What we now have is, indisputably, a very different clause 11. It is clear the UK Government has moved substantially from its original position, and I believe this is due to a number of factors: the robust rejection of the original clause 11 model, the strength of the common position with Scotland on an area of common interest, and the leverage of the continuity Bill. The effect of all this has been to put the constitutional importance of the Sewel convention at the forefront of negotiations as a matter of principle, in addition to the principles of shared sovereignty underpinning the devolution settlement. The influence of the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in the article 50—the Miller—case on Government thinking and, in particular, the political importance of the convention should also not be underestimated. In addition to this, the statesmanship and leadership of the Cabinet Secretary Mark Drakeford in what were intensely difficult and complex negotiations have also proved decisive. The skill that he has shown in these negotiations needs to be recognised.

As in any negotiation, the agreement we have does not give us absolutely everything we wanted. The simplest solution would have been the removal of clause 11 in its entirety. I'm still of the view that this would have been the best solution, but I repeat that compromises in these complex inter-governmental situations are inevitable. Governments do not have the luxury of intransient and indefinite opposition. The question before us is whether the compromises and concessions made by the UK Government are sufficient. Have we achieved enough change to protect Welsh interests? Ultimately, that is a matter of political judgment.

What has been achieved is a transformation of clause 11. It is a reversal of the UK Government's original position. Devolved areas remain devolved. Certain powers that we all recognise as being essential to the development of mutual interest frameworks are to be frozen and subject to an enhanced Sewel consent process, a sort of superaffirmative Sewel. The amendments allow some restrictions on Welsh powers, but, at the same time, impose restrictions on the UK Government and English Ministers. This is not only a constitutionally innovative approach to overcoming the fairness argument that was outlined by the First Minister, it is also a constitutional first, a landmark precedent, of a federal nature—a recognition of an English ministerial function in our constitutional settlement that places Welsh Government in a position of parity for the purpose of the development of the frameworks.

It is also a constitutional first in that, were the UK Government to seek to override consent, it can only do so with the explicit permission of both Houses of Parliament and with the explicit right of the Welsh Government to present a statement outlining its objections—as I have said, a sort of superaffirmative Sewel, which raises the constitutional status of Sewel, putting it into a formal and justiciable parliamentary process.

Now, in judging the success of the Welsh Government’s negotiated position, we need, of course, to consider the consequences of not giving consent. That would, as we all know, result in a serious constitutional crisis that would be damaging to Wales, and also damaging to the UK. So, the question is: have we achieved sufficient to give consent? I am of the view that we have.

This, however, is not the end of the matter. Moving forward, this new clause 11 enables us to proceed with the development of the frameworks, which are vitally important to Welsh business and the Welsh economy. It also sets the parameters for the Trade Bill and other consequential legislation. It also enables us now to focus on the issue of the customs union and Welsh interests in tariff and regulation free trade, and it enables us to proceed with the development of inter-parliamentary procedures and reform, which are vital for the post-Brexit Britain and the development of more federal constitutional relations. We have little to gain by a constitutional war or stand-off, and much to lose, and I believe that, by supporting the agreement, we are putting the interests of Wales and the Welsh people first.

Now, I have to respond to what I believe were the fairly insulting comments made by the leader of Plaid Cymru referring to capitulation, white flags and so on. I say this: I look forward to the day when Plaid Cymru will put the interests of Wales first rather than Scotland. It is with great regret that Plaid Cymru is unable to stand up for Wales, preferring subservience to the Scottish National Party in pursuit of their narrow separatist ideology. Our obligation is to promote the interests of Wales, not Scotland. Welsh Labour will always put Wales first, because we are the real party of Wales and of the Welsh people. 

Can I now—[Interruption.] Can I now call—[Interruption.] Thank you. Can I now call the First Minister, Carwyn Jones?

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. If I could deal, at the outset, with the issues raised by David Rees and Bethan Sayed, first of all, in relation to the agreement situation, he's correct about that. We will look at how the Assembly receives reports as quickly as possible. I think that's in everybody's interests. Of course, there are issues that have been raised today that are more properly dealt with when the Trade Bill is looked at, and are outside the purview of the withdrawal Bill. And, of course, more work will need to be done on inter-governmental machinery, but the fact that there is an inter-governmental agreement now, for the first time ever, is a sign that that machinery can be shown to work.

In response to what Bethan Sayed said, I can say that state aid we do not agree is something that should be reserved to the UK Government. There are two outstanding issues that are not yet agreed: one is the nature of state aid, and whether that is devolved or not; the other is food geographical indication. So, we are not in agreement with the UK Government that state aid should be something that sits entirely within their purview, or something that necessarily should sit within the larder, freezer, call it what you will.

Well, Llywydd, can I say, first of all, that reaching agreement with the UK Government to protect devolution from the juggernaut of their Brexit policies was always going to require determination, as well as give and take, but I do sometimes wonder whether there is a full understanding of what this agreement actually says. In essence, it deals with all the problems that were identified with the original withdrawal Bill. As others in this Chamber have said quite properly, originally, the UK Government was not prepared to concede anything on clause 11, and all 64 policy areas would have sat in Westminster, with no guarantees as to when those powers would have been released to the devolved administrations, and what would, in effect, have been an indefinite sunset clause.

The Bill originally reserved to the UK Government a whole raft of devolved matters after we left the EU, and the original Bill would undoubtedly have been the most fundamental attack on devolution since the establishment of the National Assembly. But the agreement has removed that threat. It represents a major step forward, which anyone who believes in devolution should embrace. It protects devolution as fully as possible as we grapple with the endless and chaotic consequences of Brexit, and I'll spell out the key reasons, including the protections we have secured.

Firstly, and hugely importantly, what we see now is an agreement that confirms the inversion of clause 11. I don't think anyone can underplay how significant a change that is. It shows the UK Government has come a long way from its original position, that clause 11 was something that could not be interfered with in any way. It confirms that everything is devolved, except for a specific category of matters—it's a reserved-powers model, effectively, in its inversion—where we agree that UK frameworks are needed.

Now, the original proposal would have retained all EU powers over devolved policy areas at Westminster. Ministers of the Crown would then release them as and when they alone determined. That was the original proposal. That's now reversed. Powers over devolved policy areas will be held in Cardiff and Edinburgh, except for framework areas, which will be covered by a set of detailed restrictions that apply to all governments. That is important, and I will return to that.

In short, the agreement is wholly consistent with the reserved-powers model embedded in the Scotland Act and the Wales Act 2017, and in some respects it strengthens that model, as I'll explain. The second point to make is that frameworks will be identified and agreed through a collaborative inter-governmental process, underpinned by Sewel. Originally, Members will recall, the view of the UK Government was that frameworks would be drawn up and determined entirely by the UK Government. Again, we see an enormous move away from the position they originally adopted. This process will now develop the draft regulations that specify which EU powers will be frozen. And let me be absolutely clear: we have not agreed to any restrictions on devolved competence. So, it would be wrong to claim that the current EU powers over the 26 policies in the annex to the agreement will now sit in Westminster. The reality is that the Bill and agreement themselves do not give anything away. It's the draft regulations, which have yet to be developed, that will propose preserving the existing EU restrictions in relation to some elements within those 26 areas—some elements, not all of them in their entirety.

Now, crucially, those draft regulations will come to this Assembly for our consideration, and to decide whether we give our consent to these restrictions before they are laid before the UK Parliament. That agreement then applies the same principle as currently applies to primary legislation affecting devolved matters. In effect, what Lord Callanan's amendments do is to extend the Sewel convention to secondary legislation in a way that's not happened before. So, in fact, it's an extension of devolution. It means the UK Government will not normally proceed to put the draft regulations before Parliament if the Assembly has refused consent. Now, some will say, 'not normally', but that is simply what the current devolution arrangements say. That's what the Acts that provided devolution to the people of Wales following the vote said—it's expressed in exactly the same way in the Scottish devolution settlement. So, all that does is simply use the same approach and language that has already been established as part of the devolution process. Whether that should continue in the future is a debate that I think needs to be had, but that is where, constitutionally, we are. So, it takes Sewel a step forward. Sewel, remember, is something that applied originally to primary legislation. It has, in effect, been extended now to secondary legislation as well.

Now, if, in extremis, the UK Government wished to press on with regulations in the absence of consent—which it can do legally, we all know that, because of the sovereignty of Parliament, whether we agree with that or not; I happen not to agree with that, but that's for a different day—well the UK Government can't just present its own views, but the views of the devolved legislatures are put before the UK Parliament. The fact that this legislature would have refused consent is considered by the UK Parliament. So that puts the UK Parliament in a position where it doesn't just have to listen to the view of the UK Government.

The third point: of course, what will happen now is that, on the face of the Bill, sunset clauses will be there, yes, in terms of the power to create regulations two years from Brexit day, and any regulations made for a maximum of five years. So, any restrictions on competence therefore are temporary. Now, Members asked the question: can the sunset clause be extended? Well, in the sense that the UK Parliament can do what it wants, theoretically that's possible. But there is an agreement now, and something that is far more tangible and real, that that will not happen. In fact, there's also another pressure on the UK Government that provides us with the comfort that we need that we will not see an extension of the sunset clause, and it's this: the agreement places further important restrictions on the UK Government in this way, because it gives an unequivocal guarantee that UK Ministers will not bring before Parliament any legislation for England making changes to retained EU law in framework areas. It means we're all on the same level playing field, and one of the issues I argued strongly with David Lidington in the negotiations I had with him was that it is not fair that England should have freedom that is denied to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This removes the freedom. So, actually, there's every incentive now for the sunset clauses to be shortened, because it's not in the interests of the UK Government acting in relation to England to be restricted in the same way as we would be, but in a way that they wouldn't have been without this agreement. They could have done whatever they wanted, whereas there'd have been restrictions on the other Governments in the UK, and that's an important change. It establishes a level playing field in order to retain, yes, the current EU frameworks—we need that—but until such time as new frameworks are negotiated and agreed. So, we see there a strong incentive for the UK Government to agree frameworks long before the five-year maximum term, because otherwise they can't make changes in England, for example to reform agricultural policy in England.

Can I deal with the point raised by Llyr Gruffydd? It's a very important point. There are two important things here: first of all, where the powers lie, and secondly, where the funding is. That is something that hasn’t been resolved yet. My view is that what the UK Government should do is to ensure that there is funding put to one side and that that should be provided to the Governments and Parliaments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland at the same level as is currently provided. In my view, it cannot be Barnettised. If it is Barnettised, then the formula would ensure that we would lose 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the funding that we currently receive. That is something that we have to continue to discuss and to resolve. It would be entirely unfair to Wales if there were less funding provided to Wales and to Welsh farmers, and that would never be something we would agree to. But that is something that is part of other negotiations, rather than discussions on this Bill, I would argue.

The fifth point is that the agreement guarantees that Sewel will apply to any parliamentary legislation that is used to put in place UK-wide frameworks. That ensures, of course, that there's no prospect of anyone suggesting that, as matters are temporarily beyond our competence, Sewel doesn't apply—in other words, 'While powers are in the freezer, don't worry about Sewel, because these powers are not yet powers that are wholly within the role of the devolved administrations'. And it means then that the Assembly will have to give consent to any such Bills.

I see, Dirprwy Lywydd, that I'm way out of time. And so, I hope I've given Members the answers, whether they accept them or not. What I can say is that we have come a long way through a process of negotiation and we have made sure that Wales's interests are protected as we are buffeted by the waves of Brexit.

Can I now call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate?

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I'll begin on that point: we have come a long way. It's an argument that Mick Antoniw also made, and certainly when it comes to clause 11, we certainly started off in a very dodgy station on this particular journey, and there's no doubt that as the journey moved on, we moved to a better place. But I cannot feel any other way than to see that the Government has decided to get off this train just as it's parked at the top a cliff. And I would rather be continuing now to see how much further we could be going on this journey. And it may well be that the clock is—[Interruption.] It may well be that the clock is against us, but we do see, whatever your thoughts are on what's happening in Scotland, that there is a relevance, and that the finance Minister for Wales has sat alongside Scottish Ministers as part of these negotiations, and they, with the support of Labour, of course, in Scotland, have decided to continue to fight. I would rather we were continuing to try to make a stand to protect Wales's interests, because you're right; we don't agree that we have got the best deal possible for Wales.

What happened to make the Labour finance Minister change his mind so fundamentally last week? I'm still not sure, because we know that that change of mind happened in a very short period of time. What we do know, though, is that the climb-down, as we see it, will have long-term implications for devolution and for Wales. Government was defiant to the last minute: 'Would you accept the sunset clause?', 'No, it's a matter of principle, give us real assurances that only when consent is given here in Wales can UK Ministers make regulations in areas devolved to Wales.' What we have now though, bizarrely, is an agreement that UK Ministers can legislate in devolved areas once a consent decision has been made, because a consent decision could include a rejection of consent. And that is something that our lawyers again confirmed to us this afternoon. It may be a point on which we disagree, but that is our analysis of what that means.

Picking up on what David Rees said—that we somehow are continuing project fear that was related to European referendum in the eyes of some, or the Scottish referendum—we're not objecting to UK frameworks here. We're not objecting to UK frameworks and the need to work pan-UK on a number of issues. We simply believe that those frameworks should be the result of working consensually and collaboratively across these islands, and we think that what we have in this agreement—that the other parties in the Assembly are about to sign up to—is a threat to devolution. 

I'll very quickly pay tribute, if I can, to Steffan Lewis for giving us the seeds of the continuity Bill that today, I think, should be forming the basis of a continued stand to protect Welsh interests. It's thanks to that that the negotiations were able to go on as long as they did. Devolution is still young. Neither processes nor events can happen overnight. I know, as many of us here know, that devolution still has its enemies. We here have all been trusted to nurture Welsh democracy and not to bow to pressure or underhand UK Government tactics to give it away. You may have a limitless trust in the UK Government, but we here feel that Wales deserves a more cautious approach on that front, and so did you on the Labour benches until very, very recently. But also, we think we need a bolder approach in terms of protecting Wales's interest. So, let's stand up and be counted and support our motion today.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I'm now going to declare voting time. Okay. Thank you.