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—.