The next item is the legislative consent motion on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Motion NDM6722 Carwyn Jones

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales, in accordance with Standing Order 29.6, agrees that provisions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in so far as they fall within or modify the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales should continue to be considered by the UK Parliament. 

Motion moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I move the motion, which proposes that the Assembly should give its consent to a parliamentary Bill making new provision on matters within and about the Assembly's devolved legislative competence. There is, of course, nothing unusual about that. The Assembly has been asked to do so over 100 times. Many long weeks and months have been spent in negotiating a new outcome to clause 11 of the original withdrawal Bill. I know, however, that there are other aspects of the Bill that are of concern to Members, and I will deal briefly with those aspects first. 

Many of the more objectionable elements in the original Bill—the omission of the charter of fundamental rights, the excessive Henry VIII powers and the inadequate provisions for parliamentary scrutiny of these powers, the risk to the environment, the labour market and consumer rights—have now been modified in the House of Lords and my party will defend every one of those changes when the Bill returns to the Commons. 

Directly in the devolution sphere, the Bill was also amended in the House of Lords to restrict the use of clause 7 powers, so that they will not now be able to be used to amend the Government of Wales Act, and the Bill was further amended to remove proposed restrictions on devolved Ministers in respect of retained direct EU law within devolved competence. But from the point of view of providing legislative consent, it is clause 11 that was at the core of our objections to the Bill when it was first published, and it is the amendments to that clause and the associated inter-governmental agreement that are at the heart of our consideration today.

Let me be clear, Llywydd, that the Bill to which the National Assembly is asked to give consent today provides that every one of the 64 areas of responsibility currently exercised through the European Union remains here in Wales. As the EAAL committee report into the second legislative consent memorandum published puts it,

'the default position is that the Assembly’s competence is untouched.'

On the day that the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, that will be the position; every one of those 64 areas will be here. That's what you're being asked to vote in favour of today. Thereafter, the Bill provides that, by regulation, which, in consequence of the inter-governmental agreement, will be subject to this Assembly's consent, some aspects of some areas will continue to operate under the existing European Union rulebook—not to change the rules but to ensure that they continue as they are today, and to continue until a new rulebook can be agreed. Every time that happens, Llywydd, and a proposal made that existing European Union rules should remain in place, that will be subject to the consent of the National Assembly for Wales. That would mean that, on 24 separate occasions, this Assembly could be asked if it is prepared to give its consent to the temporary extension of the rules under which we currently operate. No wonder that the First Minister of Scotland summed it up in her letter to the Prime Minister in this way. She was referring to the work carried out in the Joint Ministerial Committee by David Lidington, Michael Russell on behalf of Scotland, and myself on behalf of Wales. Nicola Sturgeon says,

'We have made substantial progress in agreeing the areas where devolved competence intersects with EU law where common frameworks may be required and in agreeing that as we work through the detail of those frameworks, existing EU rules'— existing rules, Llywydd—

'should be maintained on a temporary basis after withdrawal.'

In other words, nothing changes. As the First Minister of Scotland says, what we're agreeing is that current rules continue until we all agree that something better can be put in its place.

Llywydd, in the agreement we have reached, the regulation-making powers that will be used to put in place these new temporary arrangements will be subject to the Sewel convention so that the agreement provides for Parliament not to approve regulations unless the devolved legislatures and administrations have given their consent. Now, entirely in line with current conventions, should UK Ministers seek to move ahead with regulations in the event of a legislature withholding consent, then this agreement secures entirely new defences for devolution—defences that have never been here before. Because, if UK Ministers decided that they thought they would like to proceed in that way—and remember, it is not for UK Ministers to decide on whether or not they can proceed in that way—then the agreement secures the position that both Houses of Parliament separately will be asked to decide if the regulation should be made, and an affirmative vote will be required in both the Commons and the House of Lords—the House of Lords, where the Government has no majority, where it's just been defeated 14 separate times on its own withdrawal Bill. The House of Lords will be asked to decide whether or not the Government should go ahead. When it makes the decision on whether or not to go ahead, it will make that decision for the first time ever on the basis of even-handed information. It will have the UK Government's own account, but it will also have, for the first time, information provided independently by the devolved administrations.

I was following that closely, but maybe he can help me here, because everyone else, it would appear—as we heard from the leader of Plaid Cymru earlier—in your own party, the Scottish Labour Party, and the leader of the UK Labour Party, believes that the provisions that you've just set out are an affront to democracy and an affront to the principles of democratic devolution. Why are you right and they're wrong?

What is it about devolution, Llywydd, that Plaid Cymru does not understand? [Interruption.] Where have they been? [Interruption.] Where have they been for the last 20 years? Scottish politicians make decisions based on what they believe to be right for Scotland. This Assembly makes decisions on what we believe is right for Wales. What is it about that simple proposition that Plaid Cymru find it so difficult to grasp?

Will you take an intervention?

Last one, Llywydd.

Whilst the devolution settlement might be different for Scotland than it is for Wales, whilst there might be different questions of what to do with different powers in Scotland and in Wales, the principle is one and the same, and the principle here is that, in relation to Scotland, senior figures in your party, including your party leader, believe this is an affront to democracy, whereas in Wales for some reason it's not. It is one and the same in terms of the principle.

It really is an abject failure of understanding, Llywydd. What happens in Scotland is for people in Scotland to comment upon, and it's for them to comment upon what is right for them in their circumstances. Scotland—where, let us not forget, a majority of the local population voted to remain in the European Union. Here in Wales, different considerations, different powers, different arrangements apply. We debate what is right for Wales, and the agreement that we bring forward is one that we know is right for devolution and right for our nation as well.

And let me clear up as well, Llywydd, if I could, once and for all, what 'consent' means in this context. Consent means that the Assembly has voted positively in favour of the draft regulations being put before Parliament. That is what consent means, and nothing else.

In a third defence, Llywydd, the UK Government has always previously claimed that the constraints envisaged in its original Bill would be temporary, but there was nothing in that Bill to substantiate that. Now, there are sunset clauses on the face of the Bill. Some have argued that these could be extended ad infinitum, but let me be clear again: this Bill simply does not allow for that to happen. The only way in which the sunset clauses could be extended would be by way of new parliamentary legislation, and that new parliamentary legislation would of course be subject to the Assembly's consent.

In a fourth development, the agreement gives an unequivocal guarantee that UK Ministers will not bring before Parliament any legislation for England making changes to retain EU law in framework areas. As the report of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee said, in its report, yesterday, this recognition of England in the agreement is 'constitutionally notable'. It is just one way, Llywydd, in which the agreement breaks new ground in defence of devolution and the future operation of the United Kingdom. A level playing field has been created, it applies to all administrations, and it is now in everybody's interests, as the First Minister said earlier this afternoon, to agree a new post-EU rulebook as quickly as possible.

Finally, the agreement makes clear that any new primary legislation establishing new UK frameworks will be negotiated, negotiated by all partners coming around the table on the basis of parity, and that the outcomes of such negotiations will themselves require the Assembly's legislative consent in accordance with normal principles.

Llywydd, I want to end by addressing some of the wider constitutional issues that the Bill draws to the surface. Many of the objections and criticisms I've heard in recent days and weeks have not really been about the Bill or the agreement at all. They've been about the Sewel convention itself, a convention that the CLAC report says that the force of it has been 'maintained and reaffirmed' as a result of this agreement.

I've also heard a lot of ill-informed criticism of the 'not normally' formulation in the agreement, as if by agreeing to that we've somehow 'sold out', as we're told, on devolution, in that offensive phrase. But the commitment 'not normally' to legislate without consent is in the Government of Wales Act, to which this Assembly gave its consent, and it's there in the Scotland Act too. Have we reached a moment where we need to move beyond Sewel and the 'not normally' formula? Well, I agree with the conclusion reached recently by Professor Michael Keating of University of Aberdeen, when he said that the Sewel convention

'has worked well for almost twenty 20 years', but it was not designed to bear the burden that Brexit is now placing on it. That is why, in 'Brexit and Devolution', this Welsh Government argued for the creation of a new UK council of Ministers, which would be able to reach binding decisions that would be supported by a dispute resolution mechanism and an independent secretariat, and which would operate with far greater visibility to the public.

Llywydd, our ambitions for devolution are by no means exhausted by the agreement we have reached, but our objective from the beginning has been a withdrawal Bill that delivers stability and certainty for businesses and citizens about the rights, obligations and responsibilities that will exists at the point at which we leave the European Union. We have defended and entrenched our devolution settlement. We have provided for the successful operation of the United Kingdom after Brexit. We have delivered a good deal for the Assembly and a good deal for Wales. I'm proud to ask the Assembly to give its consent to this legislative consent motion this afternoon.

I call on the Chair of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, David Rees. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee has been considering the legislative steps needed for Brexit since the autumn of 2016 and has considered the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in detail. Yesterday, we published our third report in relation to the Bill, in preparation for the debate today. I hope Members have had a chance to look at it. In an earlier publication on the Bill, Members will recall that we set six objectives that we believed needed to be met to safeguard our devolution settlement and the rights of the Assembly. And I'll remind Members what they were: remove the clause 11 restriction on the devolution settlement; ensure the Welsh Ministers and the Assembly are responsible for correcting all aspects of EU-derived law in areas of devolved competence; ensure powers available to the Welsh Ministers under the Bill are strictly limited and far more tightly drawn than those currently set out in the Bill; prevent UK Ministers from amending aspects of EU-derived law that affect Wales unless reserved; prevent UK or Welsh Ministers amending the Government of Wales Act using delegated powers; and, finally, to ensure that the Assembly can set its own scrutiny arrangements.

Following the agreement between the Welsh and UK Governments on clause 11 of the Bill, as numbered on introduction to the House of Lords, and the associated amendments to the Bill that were made in the House of Lords, we have reflected on the progress that has been made against each of our six objectives. It is fair to observe that, in some areas, considerable progress has been made. It is equally fair to observe that our objectives have not been met in full in all areas. But can I also remind the house that we had objectives that went further than the Welsh Government's original views?

Objective 1 is at the heart of today's bid, which was to remove the clause 11 restriction on the devolution settlement. Considerable progress has been made towards meeting this objective when we look back at the starting point we faced when the Bill was introduced. The UK Government now accepts that it cannot place a blanket restriction on the Assembly’s legislative competence in areas where European policy frameworks currently exist, and there is a mechanism for ensuring the Assembly can consider whether it should give consent to any restrictions being temporarily placed on its competence. However, parliamentary sovereignty means that in circumstances where the Assembly has refused its consent, Parliament could still proceed to impose a restriction on our legislative competence. Additionally, the mechanism established by the recent amendments to the Bill placed few duties on the Welsh Ministers to facilitate Assembly consideration of the proposed restrictions or to communicate decisions of the Assembly. We took a view on how the Assembly could take steps to strengthen this aspect of the mechanism and I'll talk about that a little bit later.

Considerable progress has been made on the second objective. The prohibition, in the Bill as introduced, on Welsh Ministers modifying directly applicable EU law, which includes much of the law relating to the common agricultural policy and structural funds, was the biggest difference between the UK and Welsh Ministers' powers. This has been removed, subject to the new clause 11 restriction mechanism.

In terms of our third objective, we concluded that whilst it has not been met in full, we do recognise that ministerial powers have been more tightly drawn. However, they remain broad and the Bill delegates significant powers to the Executive, with limited controls.

Objective 4 has not been met, and we are particularly disappointed that no provision for Assembly consent has been made for circumstances where the UK Government wishes to use its regulation-making powers in Welsh devolved policy areas.

Whilst our fifth objective has not been met in full, significant progress towards protecting the Government of Wales Act has been made. However, concerns remain around the UK Government’s powers to implement the withdrawal agreement, and we must not lose sight of that fact.

And, finally, objective 6 was to ensure that the Assembly can set its own scrutiny arrangements.

I pay tribute to the important work the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has undertaken in this regard, and particularly the recommendations it made for the establishment of a sifting committee, which were endorsed by this Assembly. We believe that, in the circumstances, giving effect to the Assembly’s preferred scrutiny arrangements through amendments to the Bill offered a pragmatic compromise, but does not detract from our commitments to the principle behind our sixth objective. However, we are disappointed that the Welsh and UK Governments chose not to implement the full extent of the scrutiny arrangements agreed unanimously by this Assembly on 7 March, and expect our Business Committee to remedy this in its proposal for changes to Standing Orders.

From this assessment of our six objectives, you can see that the inter-governmental agreement and the amended Bill have provided a stronger position for the Assembly than under the Bill as originally drafted. But it is true to say that they do not remove entirely the risks we have previously highlighted. A significant task for this Assembly remains. And if consent is granted today, we in this Chamber must use the procedural routes available to us to ensure that we play our full part in the process of managing the Assembly’s legislative competence in the months and years to come.

In our report, we recommend that the Business Committee considers the case for revising Standing Orders to place additional duties on the Welsh Ministers: to ensure that the opportunity to scrutinise any proposed constraints on our legislative competence is maximised; that we are provided with at least the same level of information as Parliament in relation to this, and at the same time; and that the Welsh Ministers are required to communicate the Assembly’s decision on consent for temporary constraints on its legislative competence. Yesterday, in our committee meeting, the First Minister committed to delivering such issues on the above points, and I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will reaffirm those assurances to the Assembly this afternoon.

At the core of this inter-governmental agreement is an inter-parliamentary process. We also conclude in our report that strengthened communication between legislatures would wrap an additional level of assurance around the process, circumventing the need to rely solely on governmental sources of information. I intend to raise this for discussion at the next inter-parliamentary forum on Brexit.

Once the draft regulations proposing constraints on our legislative competence are laid for scrutiny, we need to ensure that we have the correct procedures in place to scrutinise them thoroughly. Without crossing into the important work the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee is doing in this area, we believe that there will be a collective role for Assembly committees in scrutinising these draft regulations, if we are to bring the full range of technical and policy expertise to them. And with the Llywydd’s leave, we’ll perhaps discuss this at a future Chairs’ forum.

We shortly face a vote on one of the most significant decisions faced by the Assembly and in the Brexit process. I hope that throughout our consideration of the withdrawal Bill we have sought to ensure that the role of the Assembly and the powers devolved to Wales are protected in the Brexit process. We hope our report will assist Members in deciding whether or not to support the granting of legislative consent this afternoon. But whatever the outcome of today’s vote, we will, as a committee, continue to do all we can to protect Welsh interests in the Brexit process and to hold the Welsh Government to account for its actions.

I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Llywydd. On 27 April 2018, the First Minister laid before the National Assembly the Welsh Government’s supplementary legislative consent memorandum—memorandum No. 2—on the Bill as presented to the House of Lords at First Reading. The supplementary legislative consent memorandum clarifies that the Welsh Government’s objections with the Bill as introduced related to four issues:

'all of which have been substantially addressed in the amendments made or proposed to the Bill or the Inter-governmental Agreement related to it'.

We took evidence from the Secretary of State for Wales on 16 April 2018 and from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, pre supplementary LCM, on 23 April, and again on 30 April, very shortly after the supplementary LCM had been laid. The evidence we heard informed our conclusions, and we made them in our report laid yesterday afternoon—the agreed report of the committee.

We welcome the progress made by the Welsh Government in negotiating with the UK Government the position regarding the powers to be exercised by the National Assembly following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. As a consequence, the original clause 11 has been inverted so that powers over devolved policy will now lie with the National Assembly and in line with the devolution settlement currently in place.

We believe it is unfortunate that substantial effort on the part of both sides has been spent correcting the significant deficiencies in the Bill in respect of clause 11, now clause 15—a situation not dissimilar to our experience with the Wales Bill. These prolonged negotiations could, and should, have been avoided had the original drafting shown more respect for the role that devolution plays within the United Kingdom.

The amendments tabled by UK Ministers to clause 11 of the Bill indicated an important step forward and showed significant movement by the UK Government. We welcome the fact that the UK Government, in evidence to us, and in other places, has repeatedly emphasised how important the Sewel convention is and how it will continue to be respected, although we draw the Assembly’s attention to our observations on the new clause 15, following the completion on 8 May of the Report Stage in the House of Lords.

The inter-governmental agreement will test the notions of shared governance and trust. However, we acknowledge that it is a start towards a more respectful and workable inter-governmental relationship. We hope this progress will mean improved inter-governmental working and lead to the short and long-term reform that we recommended to the JMC in our report, ‘UK governance post-Brexit’. We are committed to keeping a watching brief on the implementation of the inter-governmental agreement, including its future application, interpretation and review.

There is still considerable uncertainty around common frameworks, and the terms of the inter-governmental agreement suggest that much remains to be decided. In considering the supplementary LCM we wish to draw to the National Assembly's attention the following points, which I will detail in turn.

Point 1: the convention about the UK Parliament legislating on devolved matters is set out in section 107(6) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and specifically deals with 'legislating'. For that reason, the inter-governmental agreement—a political agreement—does not form part of the National Assembly’s legislative consent process.

Point 2: the inter-governmental agreement does not have a legal status and cannot bind future Welsh or UK Governments.

Point 3: the length of the proposed sunset provision for new clause 15 will allow restrictions and common frameworks to potentially extend beyond the life of the current Welsh and UK Governments.

Point 4: for Wales, temporary preservation of EU law will be given effect through regulations made under new clause 15 and Schedule 3 to the Bill. For England, temporary preservation will be given effect through the inter-governmental agreement. The recognition of England is constitutionally significant. Nevertheless, in the context of mutual respect and parity—

Will you take an intervention? 

Certainly, yes. 

But in terms of—. There is no parity between the devolved nations and England in terms of legislating in devolved areas for England is under the inter-governmental agreement, which is political and not legal, whereas any legislation in devolved areas for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is in legislation, so the treatment is different. 

The treatment is different, but there is a clear convention and the whole agreement, and the whole arrangement sinks or swims on the implementation of that and the maintenance. If that were to fail, then it's very clear, as we discussed within committee, that there would indeed be a constitutional crisis. 

Nevertheless, in the context of mutual respect and parity between the nations of the UK, this difference of approach is also noted.

Point 5: the new clause 15 restrictions will apply until the National Assembly passes Acts that lift those restrictions. 

Point 6: the amendments to the Bill do not require the Welsh Ministers to lay before the National Assembly a copy of any draft clause 15 regulations on the day they receive them from the UK Ministers, even though the 40-day clock on making a consent decision will start on the day the Welsh Ministers receive them. We acknowledge that the Cabinet Secretary—and we put on record—has given an undertaking that the Welsh Government would lay them immediately if they were able to.

Point 7: in the event that the National Assembly actively refuses consent for any draft clause 15 regulations, UK Ministers will be able to lay those draft regulations before the UK Parliament for approval, with a statement prepared by the Welsh Ministers explaining why the National Assembly refused consent. It will then be for the House of Commons and the House of Lords to approve clause 15 regulations. Therefore, it will be for the UK Parliament to make a decision on whether the Sewel convention will be enforced.

Point 8: UK Ministers will report every three months on whether powers that impose restrictions on the National Assembly’s competence should be repealed. UK Ministers will send a copy of each report to the Welsh Ministers, but there is no requirement for the Welsh Ministers to subsequently lay the reports before the National Assembly.

And point 9: when restrictions on the National Assembly’s competence are lifted by the UK Government, the Bill does not require UK Ministers to notify the National Assembly or the Welsh Ministers.

I think those are the comments that summarise the key parts of the report, which, as I say, was an agreed report representing the position of the committee. Thank you, Llywydd.  

I'm pleased to support the motion before the Assembly this afternoon. As the CLAC report notes, central to the recommendation to approve the LCM is the inter-governmental agreement, and I want to return to that later. This, together with the amendments to the original clause 11. As the CLAC report states: 

'The amendments tabled by UK Ministers to clause 11 of the Bill indicate an

important step forward and show significant movement by the UK Government.'

And CLAC also observed, and this has already been referred to, that 

'the force of the Sewel convention has become apparent during the Bill’s progress'.

I do believe genuinely that this whole process of difficult negotiation has been to the credit of the UK Government and also to the Welsh Government. This is what we expect in difficult constitutional areas, which many of us never wanted to occur and many of the challenges have been unanticipated. But there has clearly been constructive working on both sides and this has borne fruit.

It is clear to me that the Welsh Government secured an important and constitutionally significant concession from the UK Government on the way EU law is to be retained until frameworks for the UK are agreed. Let me again quote the CLAC report: 

'The current position whereby this temporary preservation will apply to the devolved institutions and England is a substantial development.'

I genuinely think the Welsh Government's negotiation here has been hugely significant and has obviously had an effect on the debate in Scotland. 

Immediately after the Brexit vote, which was a democratic mandate of great constitutional importance—I did not vote for it, but we cannot deny its importance—there was a strong consensus that UK frameworks would be needed when we left the EU. It seems to me that the need, overwhelmingly in the public interest, to construct frameworks has been the motivational principle driving the Welsh Government and the UK Government. Unfortunately, Plaid and the SNP have been driven by narrow political interests. On the one hand, they say we need frameworks, but on the other hand, Scotland, and presumably Wales, should have a veto.

It's appropriate to note here that the EU's frameworks do not operate on the basis of a national veto. They operate by negotiation, with an ability to use majority voting if necessary. Perhaps the public are well ahead of the nationalists. They realise the practical need for shared governance, relating to the environment and farming, for instance. There seems little support in Scotland or Wales for the narrow nationalist agenda on the process of agreeing frameworks.

Would the Member give way? 

If this is really a roll-back of devolution, as Plaid and the SNP claim, the public seem very sanguine. I will give way. 

I thank the Member. Can he name one occasion when any Member here has argued against a UK framework? 

Well, you see, that's the whole point, isn't it? You argue, 'Yes, we need them', but you won't agree any process or give reasonable consent to them being constructed. You want a national veto. You want to preserve what you see as your absolute sovereignty. 

Will you take an intervention? 

There wouldn't have been an EU in the first place if that particular interpretation of sovereignty had not been reassessed. As Monnet said, we need to go through the barrier of narrow national sovereignty, and we need to create, in the UK, something analogous to the shared governance in the EU. Your approach is antithetical to that and that's the whole problem here this afternoon. 

Will you take an intervention?

Okay, I'll take one more. 

Thank you for the intervention and for drawing attention to our narrow nationalism versus your wide nationalism, if that's the case. One thing that we certainly did propose was a disputes mechanism. You have a Council of Ministers on an EU level; we need a disputes mechanism on a UK level, which we don't have. 

Can I say, Rhun, I'm genuinely pleased that you've made that point because I want to now move to my conclusion, which I do think is an area, we may find, that more unites us?

As I said at the start, the inter-governmental agreement is really important. It's only the start, however, of our concept of shared governance and this does require an overhaul and it will be the ultimate test of whether these frameworks endure and work effectively. If they don't, then that unfortunately will undermine the integrity of the British constitution and the devolved settlement. So, I do partly agree with you that issues like how you resolve disputes is really, really important.

The overhaul of inter-governmental relations needs to be accompanied, Llywydd, by an overhaul of inter-parliamentary relations, because how we scrutinise this level of governance has been little discussed so far and that's going to be very, very important. One of the main reasons we got into a mess, in terms of what the public saw anyway, of deficient EU governance was there was a lack of parliamentary scrutiny, and we do not want to repeat those mistakes. And here I conclude by commending the CLAC report, 'UK governance post-Brexit'. I do urge everyone to vote for this most reasonable compromise and the motion before us.

Today is about facts. There has been a lot of debate; there have been lots of accusations that we over here don't understand what's going on, but now the time for rhetoric is over. This is about a reasoned argument against a Bill that will weaken this Assembly. Llywydd, tonight, we'll see a Labour Government vote with the Tories and UKIP to support Westminster's EU withdrawal Bill, a Bill that is designed to take powers back under Westminster's control, and it's as simple as that. The body of evidence, public opinion and even their own party leader are against them.

We heard from the Chair of the committee who's just accepted that not a single measure of the tests set by the cross-party external affairs committee was met. Labour's own party leader called it a 'power grab', while the Conservative Prime Minister is praising their actions. Members opposite, I know that many of you believe in devolution and, for this reason, I'm appealing to you to take a stand today. Join us in defending Wales. Join us in standing up for devolution. If you take the party whip, if you follow your front bench, know that this institution will be weaker for it.

Llywydd, I know that through arduous discussions with Westminster, concessions have been achieved. This deal, however, does not deliver on the targets set out by Ministers themselves. In a lecture yesterday, the finance Secretary outlined in detail how the Joint Ministerial Committee is not fit for purpose, yet this deal commits us to using that very committee to protect our powers. The Assembly lawyers have highlighted the risk to devolution posed by this Bill, and the cross-party committees that took a look at these matters agree. Even last week, the environment Cabinet Secretary complained that Westminster had failed to consult her before publishing a new consultation. Westminster are breaking this agreement before it's even in force.

Llywydd, there will be heated contributions to this debate, I've no doubt, but I once again want to appeal to reason. If you believe in Wales, if you believe in devolution, if you believe that it is this Assembly and not Westminster that best serves our people, vote against this motion; vote for devolution; vote for Wales.

I thought that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance made a powerful unionist case for this legislative consent motion. And, of course, I understand where Plaid Cymru are coming from; they don't believe in the United Kingdom, so they therefore take the maximalist view that has been expressed, and Plaid are quite right to make the points that they have made with the force and vigour that we've come to accept. If I took their view of what nationalism meant for Wales, I would agree with them, but I don't; I'm a unionist, and I accept the fundamental reality that was referred to by David Melding in his speech that this EU withdrawal Bill is consequent upon a decision of the people of the United Kingdom by referendum to leave the European Union, and I believe it's a trust that's been handed to us as legislators to deliver on the decision that they made. It is not for one constituent part of the United Kingdom to frustrate that process. Even in Scotland, where 62 per cent voted against Brexit, I don't believe it is constitutionally proper for them to stand in the way of the passage of the Bill.

I believe that the Welsh Government has played an extremely good hand in the course of the negotiations, and there's been, I think, a deepening of the whole devolution process—a deepening of understanding of the constitutional processes that were set in train 20 years ago. I believe it is regrettable that the United Kingdom Government was so far behind the tide of events in this respect that the whole argument about clause 11, as was, was allowed to develop as it did. I thought it showed a sort of shocking failure of understanding on the part of UK Ministers of the constitutional realities of modern life in Britain, and that's highly regrettable.

I believe also that Plaid Cymru have been quite right to draw attention to the deficiencies of the leader of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom in the course of the last few days, because what's happening in Scotland is that he is playing party games with the future of the United Kingdom, and I believe that that is a fundamentally irresponsible approach. And I'm sorry to have to say this, but I believe the grown-up and mature approach that we've had from Ministers in the Welsh Government shows how unfitted the leader of the party in the United Kingdom is for the office to which he aspires. 

Now, I'll say at once that I've got no more trust in Theresa May than Plaid Cymru have. She makes Ethelred the Unready look like a model of decisiveness. I wouldn't trust her word, not because I think she's a dishonest person, but I think that she is so hopelessly incompetent that she could make the opposite happen by accident. And I do believe that for a remainer to show her colours in the way that she has done over the last few weeks over the absurd proposal of some kind of a customs union, which isn't even on the table, and which nobody on either side of the argument over Brexit is prepared to give the time of day to, shows the problems that we're dealing with. 

But the fundamental reality is that we, in this Assembly, do not exercise any of the powers that are going to be affected by this Bill at the moment. The fundamental reality is that these powers are exercised by bodies that are far from Cardiff and over which we have no practical control, whether it's the European Commission, which has the power to legislate in itself without any democratic control by the Council of Ministers—. There's a huge corpus of EU regulation that simply spews out of the Commission and is rubber stamped on the spot. We will now have the opportunity to participate in the democratisation of huge portions of technical legislation in areas such as agriculture and the environment, in particular, which are of great importance to us here in Wales. 

This is a massive—this whole process—enlargement of the democratic process and an extension in practical terms of the powers of this Assembly. I think that is hugely important, and this is why I can't understand the paradox of the Plaid Cymru position, that they regard a power grab by Westminster of constitutional tools and legislative tools that currently we don't even possess to be of fundamental importance, but they show absolutely no fear at all of handing those over to a body based in Brussels or elsewhere in the European Union, where we have even less control over what goes on than we do at Westminster. So, that seems to me to be, in practical terms, a most unsupportable position to hold. If Wales were an independent country politically then their points would have some force. But, as we are not, and the Welsh people don't show any great predisposition to adopt the Plaid Cymru position on Wales's role within the United Kingdom, and are not likely to in the foreseeable future, I think the arguments that Plaid are advancing here are very, very far from being in the world of reality. 

So, consequently, I think it is very important that we do pass this legislative consent motion today, not just because it gives us the scope for increasing the powers of this Assembly, but, as part and parcel of this process—and I'm not sure that this point has been drawn out today, although it has on previous occasions when we've debated this topic—actually England is restricted now in many ways that it wasn't before as a result of this agreement, and that gives us the greatest possible assurance that the United Kingdom Government will want to conclude this transitionary period as quickly as it can, because I don't believe that the United Kingdom Government does want to have the legislative power for Wales in these devolved areas and that we can, I think, be as confident as we possibly can—. Even though I accept that this is not something in which the i's have been dotted and the t's crossed in legal form, I think it's inconceivable almost that the United Kingdom Government would want to resile at this stage from the devolution settlement, and, as Mick Antoniw pointed out in response to Dai Lloyd earlier on, there would be a fundamental constitutional crisis of great importance, where I think you would find that across this Chamber there would be, to all intents and purposes, unanimity in opposing such a venture. Therefore, I don't believe, personally, there is any constitutional risk in allowing this legislative consent motion to proceed; I believe there's every constitutional advantage and practical advantage for the people of Wales in doing so. 

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for bringing the LCM forward for debate this afternoon, and once again acknowledge the major gain that this agreement delivers for Wales and for the people we represent. Now, last night, I was fortunate to hear Mark Drakeford speak to a packed audience at Cardiff University on Brexit and devolution. He gave a formidable account, a formidable account, of Welsh Government and not just himself as the key Cabinet Secretary, the First Minister, all Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers, of their engagement in the Brexit process, but also focused on options, opportunities that we can consider that lie ahead through towards the transition period and beyond, but he delivered the message very clearly on his inter-governmental agreement, and, of course, was questioned on it, but was so clear. And we must make sure that we get this message over to the people that we represent, that all powers in our devolved policy areas will be held in Cardiff except those areas where UK frameworks are needed, and repeat the fact that the original clause 11 in the EU withdrawal Bill would have retained in Westminster all returning EU powers in devolved policy areas. We must show clearly what we have moved from, what this inter-governmental agreement has achieved. 

Will you give way? Thank you. 

What they're doing is taking powers from Brussels that ought to go to Scotland, Wales and the regions of England and instead hoarding them in Whitehall. That's totally unacceptable, and we've made that clear. Jeremy Corbyn: what have you got to say about that? 

The powers are coming back to Cardiff; they're going to Edinburgh. Indeed, what is so important about this agreement is that it was developed over a long period of time with negotiations with the Scottish Government, with the Scottish Minister, acknowledged in terms of substantial progress by the First Minister of Scotland. And this agreement will deliver for the people of Scotland, not just for the people of Wales. It will deliver for the people of Scotland. It will ensure that those powers are retained in Cardiff and Edinburgh. So, securing this substantial agreement is a major achievement, but I think it now will enable the Welsh Government to constructively engage at inter-government level in the Brexit negotiations that lie ahead.

I also want to recognise the opportunities and responsibilities that we have as an Assembly as we move forward. We did conclude in our LCM report, and, of course, David Rees has spoken of this already, with a strong message from the EAAL Committee, a strong message to the UK Government, and that conclusion was that we hope that the UK Government will seek to engage meaningfully with the Assembly through its committees at an early stage when it comes to future Brexit legislation that affects Wales, and, in particular, the proposed withdrawal agreement and the implementation Bill. And that is what we must focus on. I do welcome the inter-parliamentary forum, and that's been mentioned by Mick Antoniw as well. It has given Wales a strong voice in Westminster and with the devolved administrations. I'm glad that that forum is there to ensure—. It will have a close watch on the delivery of this agreement, but also a close watch on those amendments that, of course, will now go back to the Commons, which we need to make sure are delivered and are supported by our parliamentary colleagues.

Now, Mark Drakeford has told our committee that the Welsh Government has had to prioritise 40 strands of Brexit negotiations, and it's vital that there is robust machinery to enable the Welsh Government to take this forward and to be held to account by this Assembly. There are areas where we can unite and should unite in this Chamber as we move from this LCM with a strengthened message from all parties that the UK Government must now deliver that more robust inter-governmental machinery, and, of course, we only have to turn to 'Securing Wales' Future', which Mark Drakeford mentioned more than once last night, and look at that section in 'Securing Wales' Future' on constitutional and devolved matters, and that section, which says, 

'Withdrawing from the EU is a major constitutional turning point for Wales and the UK as a whole.'

'The current inter-governmental machinery will no longer be fit-for-purpose and new ways of working—based on agreements freely entered into by the UK Government and the three devolved administrations and subject to independent arbitration—must be developed.'

Let's move forward together on that all-important objective. We do need a council of Ministers, we do need a strengthed JMC machinery. And, Llywydd, we have an agreement that has forced the UK Government to respect devolution, that not only protects but entrenches devolution with entirely new defences, an agreement that has broken new constitutional ground, a remarkable achievement. Let's make sure we do share this good news as clearly as possible as much as necessary. Now, let's move on and engage fully in the next phase of the Brexit negotiations, in particular the withdrawal agreement and all Brexit forthcoming legislation.

Historians often say that British rule, while it often was unfair, was almost always polite, and here we are in this Welsh Parliament presented with a consent motion that, effectively, is asking for our consent to be removed.

We are joining a very select club of national Parliaments, if we pass this motion today, that have voluntarily decided to cede their own authority. You have to cast about and think of the Scottish Parliament in 1707, the Irish Parliament in 1800, for examples in history—albeit, of course, we are ceding our authority for a time-limited period in certain areas. But the principle is there. Now, I was expecting the former honourable Member to intervene on me, and say, 'Well, isn't that what we did with the European Communities Act?' And, indeed, it was echoed, really, in David Melding's point. But an essential difference was there: we were joining a community of equals, and through mechanisms like weighted voting, et cetera, then the interests of small nations in particular were protected. That isn't the case in this unitary state. Effectively, the dominance of one nation in these four islands, it's almost a kind of Bagehot-like part of the dignified constitution of the UK; it's a principle that underpins everything, and, actually, it's now written into statute. And therein lies the problem. Indeed, this debate actually has laid bare, hasn't it, the fractures, the fault lines, of what is an entirely imbalanced and unstable constitution in these islands.

What we're asking for is parity for this nation. That is surely a principle that we could all actually get behind. Now, of course, the constitution is where politics and law meet, and I think that the note that we got from the Assembly lawyers, it's incredible reading:

'The words "consent decision" suggest that the Minister can only lay the draft regulations before the UK Parliament if either the Assembly has consented to their making, or the Assembly has done nothing about them for 40 days. But this is misleading.'

Those are rare words coming from any lawyer because, of course, as we know, as indeed Nicola Sturgeon, who was quoted earlier, I believe—as she said, if we say 'yes', UK Ministers will take that as consent, if we say 'no', they will take that as consent, and, if we say nothing at all, they can take that as consent. It is heads they win and tails we lose.

Now, I've heard the argument that this is actually—[Interruption.] Yes, certainly.

You're referring, of course, to the Assembly legal opinion. But, of course, in paragraph 15 of that, it says, 'The amendment has been described by some as defining the concept of consent as including refusal of consent.' The legal opinion actually says, 'In our view, this is not accurate.'

Yes, but it goes on to say—. There's another 10 paragraphs, by the way. It goes on to say, the key point remains

'the Assembly’s competence can be restricted without its consent.'

And that is the essential point in any democracy. I heard the Member say, 'Well, this is Sewel. This is Sewel.' Well, this is Sewel on steroids. This creates a legal pathway, a streamlined mechanism whereby the exception can become the rule if the politics of Westminster so decides. And that's the tragedy. That is the tragedy, you know. Thinking in particular of the words of Rhodri Morgan—his last words in this Chamber—when he talked about this National Assembly we built together, it will outlast us all, it will continue to develop and grow and serve the party of Wales, he was echoing the words of Henry Grattan, who actually created the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament and talked about a nation and a new character when they won their legislative independence:

'I hail her and, bowing to her august presence, I say, "esto perpetua"'— it will continue. It didn't. It didn't. And therein lies the danger, because, if we pass this motion today, we are accepting the principle that this place is no longer sovereign.

Mark Reckless. [Interruption.] Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm delighted to speak today in favour of the National Assembly for Wales giving our legislative consent to the European Union withdrawal Bill. This is, of course, the UK Government's legislative mechanism for leaving the EU with maximum certainty, continuity and control, and I'm delighted to support it.

Back at the first First Minister's questions after the summer, I was rather critical of the First Minister for the degree to which he had, I think, been palling up to the SNP Scottish Government over the summer. I questioned why he was working hand in glove with a Government that wanted to break up the United Kingdom and with a Government that was impeding our exit from the European Union. And he responded by saying that he was only doing so to the extent that we had a common interest in protecting the devolution settlement. Now, I was surprised by that, not least because the First Minister and Welsh Government had spent considerable time working with Plaid Cymru to come to a joint paper on what the objectives should be for the future migration or the future trade arrangements of the United Kingdom. I feared that the First Minister and the Welsh Government, potentially working with Plaid Cymru, would use this process of legislative consent to this Bill as a way to seek to impede the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. It has not done so. The First Minister has been as good as his word. The Welsh Government has succeeded far more than I would have expected in improving this Bill to protect the legitimate interests of our devolved settlement. And I think they deserve respect and congratulations for doing that.

Of course, some people have a different objective—one of staying in the European Union, even though the majority of people in Wales voted to leave, or the intention of being independent from the United Kingdom, even though only a tiny minority of people in Wales support that. And, of course, they will, therefore, oppose this, just as Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP will oppose it, because almost nothing would've settled what they were requesting, because their objective isn't to make this withdrawal from the European Union work while protecting the devolved settlement; it is to impede Brexit and to break up the United Kingdom. And of course—

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

Thank you. Just on a basic point, will you understand that the purpose of Plaid Cymru is not to break up the United Kingdom? It's to build up Wales. 

The purpose of Plaid Cymru is to bring about an independent Wales, breaking up the United Kingdom. I respect, but I do not agree with, your objective.

Returning to the legislative consent motion and what we are debating today, this Bill has been hugely improved by the efforts, yes, of Welsh Government, but also, I think, others, and I'd like to congratulate both Mark Isherwood and David Melding for how they have dealt with this issue, and actually the unity of this group in supporting and trying to improve this legislation while noting what others were doing, including the threat and the actuality of a continuity Bill. I think what Mick Antoniw said about how this would've been a much better process if, at the beginning of it, UK Ministers had shown, in how they drafted the initial Bill, an appropriate level of respect to the Welsh Assembly and the devolved settlement—that that would've been better. But it is the case that, with some exceptions, UK Ministers are not as knowledgeable—and it's not at the top of their mind through most of what they do—about the mechanisms, the assumptions and the understandings, as well as the legal basis of the devolved settlement, as we in this Assembly are. But during this process, they have been educated on that. Damian Green and David Lidington in particular I think had reasonable knowledge to begin with, and that knowledge has become more expert as the process has gone on. I think, helped by Alun Cairns as Secretary of State, as well as by Andrew R.T. as leader of the Welsh Conservatives, many more Ministers at a UK level have come to appreciate and to understand the devolved settlement and how it functions. We now have a Bill that reflects and understands that in a way it didn't before.

When we talk about what a committee may have asked for before, it didn't ask for one of the things that, actually, the Welsh Government has succeeded in getting, and that is for the UK Government to commit not to legislate for England in these fields until there is an agreement on UK-wide frameworks, when England has 18 times the population of Wales. People often, with justice, complain about Wales not being treated with respect by the UK Government, but in this case the UK Government is binding, or at least giving a commitment to, itself in respect of England, the same as will be for Wales, as to what will actually happen, and there is a great motivation for everyone to agree on getting sensible frameworks up and running so we leave the European Union successfully, and go forward together as a United Kingdom.

I stand here today to state that I’m against this LCM that is before us, and against it because it could open the door to undermine the National Assembly. Over two years ago, I had the thrill of coming here as an Assembly Member for the first time to join with this Parliament, and in coming here I was very aware of the work of patriots who had been campaigning so hard to establish this Assembly in the first place. So, today is a very depressing day for me.

Devolution is a process. Many people have said that over the years. So far, we’ve had a story of progress and a process of development and growing and maturing. Passing this Bill today is a step backwards. The legislative clause that includes the sentences about the consent decision is what counts today, not any political agreements. This clause undermines, this clause takes us backwards. Two years is a long time in politics and I’m afraid that the thrill that I felt two years ago may become a huge disappointment before the end of the day.

I welcome the Welsh Labour Government's robust and highly proactive work in negotiating with the United Kingdom Government to stand up for Wales over the complex consequences of Britain's withdrawal, still to unfold, from the European Union. It is evidence, if any was needed, that the Welsh Labour Government stands up for Wales and Welsh interests within the fabric of our family of nations within the United Kingdom. As the First Minister said in the Chamber earlier today in First Minister's questions, much tribute needs to be paid to the expert negotiation skills of Mark Drakeford, and I wish to strongly echo the First Minister's praise.

Nationalists criticise this critical, important legislative consent motion—a good-deal motion—but let's be candid; the avowed aim is for an independent Wales that fundamentally breaks away from the United Kingdom, and I believe nothing less than this would ever please Plaid Cymru. If the Welsh public, in the expression to leave the European Union in 2016, and their expressed wish delivered in election after election and opinion poll after opinion poll, is for Wales to remain within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, calling us unionists is not an insult on these benches. Indeed, it is an act of description of the majority of the Welsh people.

This historic and, let me say, hard-fought agreement—let's be under no illusion—that has led to this LCM means any changes to power held in Westminster would need the consent of all the devolved legislatures. Indeed, finance Secretary Mark Drakeford articulated Welsh Government, saying that the aim throughout these talks has been to protect devolution, to protect the economy of Wales and to protect the livelihoods of the Welsh people, and make sure laws and policy in areas that are currently devolved remain devolved. This has been successfully achieved with the Westminster UK Government fundamentally changed in its position, in clause 11 to clause 15, so that all powers and policy areas rest in Cardiff unless specified to be temporarily held by the UK Government. It is right to say that there is a factual element of 64 areas to come home to Wales that were previously held in Brussels. Surely this must be understood by Plaid Cymru.

Will the Cabinet Secretary and First Minister confirm for me, then, that these will be areas where we all agree that common UK-wide rules are needed for a functioning UK internal market—

Will the Member give way?

I will.

Just picking up on something the finance Secretary said earlier on, he basically said that we need to note, in considering different actions taken in Wales and Scotland, that Wales voted to leave the European Union, whereas Scotland voted to remain. That, to me, sounds like an admission that, in terms of what it means for devolution, what the Welsh Government is settling for is inferior to that which the Scottish Government has decided to continue to fight for. How come this Government thinks it now has the right to decide that what a 'leave' vote meant in Wales was a vote to undermine devolution?

Fundamentally, I don't agree with the connection that you have made, and I hate to say this, but I think in regard to what David Melding said earlier, I think some of his points are extremely valid.

So, finally, would the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that in a devolved UK—[Interruption.] I did caveat it. I did. Would the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that in a devolved UK—[Interruption.] I'll start again. Would the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that in a devolved UK, respective, mature Governments need to deal with each other as mature equals, that a council of Ministers and a disputes framework is a good idea, and that this agreement is a good step forward in the right direction for that goal? Thank you.

In Plaid Cymru, we believe that you should respect the result of every referendum, including the 2011 referendum in Wales, when the people of Wales voted decisively for more powers. Since then, we have lost hundreds of powers with the Wales Act 2017. That's why we had to rush through Stage 1 of the minimum alcohol pricing legislation, otherwise we would lose those powers, and we face losing more powers now, with the EU withdrawal Bill and the deal over clause 11—now clause 15—meaning 24 devolved areas have gone back to London and are frozen for seven years, some people's definition of 'transient'. They're frozen, and can be changed by UK Government without our consent. Even when we refuse consent, they can be changed by UK Government. So, we have lost power. We have lost leverage over environment, agriculture, fisheries, public procurement and another 20 devolved areas. They can be changed without our consent, and in the teeth of our opposition. [Interruption.] My Chair.

I do appreciate you reciprocating the intervention. Thank you. We do, of course, recognise that Government can't change anything; it has to be Parliament, not the Government. The UK Government has no powers whatsoever.

Keep on listening, Chair.

Now then, in terms of public procurement, for instance, we have seen large parts of the health service in England fall into private hands already. The public procurement process there has enabled companies such as Virgin Care to run the NHS in several areas, such as Surrey, Kent, Staffordshire and Lancashire. Huge swathes of NHS services are run by Virgin Care, all in the private sector. Virgin has 400 separate NHS contracts in England, worth over £1 billion, and if UK Government decided on a similar course of action with our frozen public procurement powers here, this Assembly would be powerless to resist. Imagine: obstetrics and maternity services—[Interruption.] Just imagine—[Interruption.] No. I'm getting to it. Imagine: obstetrics and maternity services in Swansea could be outsourced to Virgin Care in future. That's what public procurement means, obviously—and doubtless called 'Virgin Birth' as a result. Our woodlands could similarly fall prey to Sir Richard Branson as well. What price for 'Virgin Forest'? Welsh Government has conceded any leverage, conceded devolved powers, and it is gambling on an inter-governmental agreement based on trust and shared governance that has no basis in legality. [Interruption.] Lee Waters.

Just on the point of gambling, had we not reached an agreement, this would have been decided by judges. It's entirely possible that judges would have constrained and constricted the devolution settlement. So, in terms of gambling, would you rather put our powers in the hands of judges, or reach an agreement here where the powers will come to us?

You know what, Lee? Standing up for Wales means responding to a threat like that and saying, 'Bring it on', because I'm standing up for Wales, all right? [Interruption.] Wales's frozen powers are frozen by law. This trust in a UK Tory Government is a political convention. It's not a law at all. We have Labour AM after Labour AM in recent weeks laying into the UK Tory Government about how they cannot be trusted on women's pensions, on welfare reform, on reorganising Department for Work and Pensions offices, now, yet, all of a sudden, the UK Government can be trusted with powers that we have always had here, and now no longer will have.

Will the Member give way?

Go on, then. In for a penny, in for a pound. [Laughter.]

Is it not the case that, as well as the inter-governmental agreement, we have, as far as the Sewel convention is concerned, an extension to regulation-making powers and a requirement that the House of Lords must approve them too?

I wish I could share your confidence, Mark; I really do. But the inter-governmental agreement is a political convention not in statute, as is the Sewel convention. It's a political convention that is not enshrined in law. Our devolved powers that we've had are enshrined in statute, and we're about to lose them, frozen for eight years—seven plus one. So, that is enshrined in law. Others are conventions. So, we've lost powers, we have lost leverage. Now, Scotland can see that. Scottish Labour can see that. Even Jeremy Corbyn can see that. Why can't you? Vote against legislative consent.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I'd like to start off by congratulating the Cabinet Secretary on all his hard work in turning the situation around so that the Government is able to recommend voting for this LCM today. I think there's no doubt that, originally, this was a power grab by Westminster, and I think it does reflect badly on the Conservative Westminster Government that they weren't able to realise at an earlier stage how their plans would undermine devolution. I think it's to the credit of our Government Ministers that we were able to change that around.

I think it's absolutely right that we put forward a continuity Bill as a stopgap, but the intensive work that now has been done I think has produced significant changes, and certainly make me feel able to vote confidently for this LCM today, because, as has been said many times today, this transfers all the 64 areas to us. The most important change, I think, is that clause 11 is inverted. The original proposal was that all powers would return to Westminster and Ministers could then release them in a colonial way. That's all changed now: all the powers will now be held in the devolved bodies except where the UK frameworks are needed. I think we all accept that UK frameworks are needed. It fits in with the reserved-powers model, and there are lots of safeguards built in in what will be a collaborative process.

I'm very pleased that the sunset clauses are on the face of the Bill—two years for the power to create regulations, and five years maximum for any regulations made. The Cabinet Secretary has said that he thinks that those periods will not be as long as that because the pressure of having to three-monthly report on the procedure for the continuation of a freeze will be quite an onerous duty. So, it's likely that those periods will be much less.

So, I think that this deal with Westminster represents huge progress, and I think it's very lucky that, at this point in time, we have a Labour Government here in Wales—a Labour Government that is committed to devolution and to being part of the UK. The Cabinet Secretary said that in his introductory remarks, that we are—Labour is the party of devolution. I think that this LCM is an illustration of how we have used that commitment to devolution and to the well-being of the people of Wales. That is why we're putting forward this LCM here today. I know that Leanne appealed to reason when she spoke earlier in the debate. Well, my view is that reason would tell you to vote for this LCM.

I don't know if it's true or if it's an Assembly myth, Llywydd, but I'm told that if you stand on that piece of glass in the middle of the Assembly Chamber, it will crack and let you fall into the fault that lies below. I don't know if that is true or not, but the debate here—[Interruption.] I'm not going to try it, don't worry. You can try it, though, Alun. It would be a good place for you to go. Go on, have a go. [Laughter.] But the debate here today has definitely shown a fault between those parties here who believe in the indelible rightness of parliamentary sovereignty at a UK level, and those of us who have spent our political lives questioning the ability of the British constitution to deliver for the people of Wales. When the Cabinet Secretary first introduced his statement on this agreement, I challenged him at the time, and I said I thought he had a touching faith, I think I put it, in the UK constitution. Over the last couple of weeks I think that touching faith has been revealed, but I think all the weaknesses have been revealed as well.

When I think of this idea of parliamentary sovereignty trumping everything, when I look at my political history from 1979 on—from the miners' strike, from the erosion of workers' rights and trade union rights to the poll tax, to austerity as a result of the crash—I don't see parliamentary sovereignty protecting the people of Wales. I see it as an entrenched narrative to justify inequality and privilege, and I see that it needs to be challenged time and time again until we get a better narrative of where power comes from amongst our people and how it's held by Parliament in trust for our people and then utilised. I think the disruptive forces unleashed by the referendum on Brexit are ones that will change politics, and it's actually not Plaid Cymru that's talking about the break-up of the UK as a result of this—it's the Cabinet Secretary himself, last night, who said he was convinced that there was a real threat. In his speech last night—a real threat to the future of the UK, which was why he made this agreement. And I'm going to argue over the next couple of minutes that he's made the agreement too early and he's sold out too short. I hope to do that by recognising the fault line that's between us, but by challenging this Government on what they said they would achieve, and what they've actually brought to us today and asked us to vote for.

I fundamentally believe that I trust the people of Wales to exercise all these powers that were exercised at the EU level responsibly and in solidarity with other nations in these islands. I thought the Welsh Government also took that view, because we were told at the outset that they wanted to negotiate from the point of view of equality and parity between the nations here, that they wanted to negotiate from the point of view of having a constitutional approach to how these things get sorted out—the council of Ministers was suggested—that they wanted to negotiate from the point of view that there would be a legal framework, including a disputes mechanism, for working out how this would be resolved, and they wanted to negotiate from the point of view that they could always be reviewed from the point of view of equal partners coming together.

So, I invite you to look at the inter-governmental agreement and ask yourself: are those features there? They are not. There is a political agreement and a sense of trust that has grown up between the Welsh Government and the current UK Government, but that sense of trust, we are told, to take on trust ourselves, but then to extend it not only for this Assembly, but for the forthcoming Assembly, and also to take into account goodness knows how many changes in Parliament and Government that might happen in Westminster as well—I'm not prepared to take that risk. I'm not prepared to take that risk for Plaid Cymru, and nor, I think, should we as Assembly Members take that risk. It's clearly set out in the report of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee. Yes, as David Rees said, as the Chair, that committee set out principles that went further than the Welsh Government's position, but so it should, because that committee should protect the Assembly, not the Welsh Government—the Assembly. And those principles—six principles: two of which have not been met at all; two of which, you could argue, if you want to take a very generous view of the Welsh Government's position, have been met in part; and two, the report says, have substantial progress. But I don't think that's sufficient to have trust in this process.

The Welsh Government itself said that it wanted, in order to take this forward, a proper council of Ministers, and proper approach post Brexit to the fundamental relationships between the nations of this United Kingdom currently put. We don't have that in this inter-governmental agreement, and a reliance on temporary party agreements, which is what an inter-governmental agreement is, is not constitutional, it's not legislative and it's not a strong enough legal ground for us to give our consent to this legislative consent motion.

Now, this debate has revealed some of the weaknesses in the individual aspects of the agreement: whether the consent decision is consent or not—we've looked at that; the 40-day period; the fact that the Welsh Government itself said, 'No sunset clause, thank you very much', and has now agreed to a sunset clause; the fallacy that England is treated the same as Wales. It is not. It may be novel to have England included in an inter-governmental agreement like this, but it's not treated the same—Wales and Scotland are constitutionally frozen. England has voluntarily put itself in the deep-freeze. Well, let's see how long Michael Gove decides to stay in the deep-freeze when it comes to changing environmental policies. There's a fallacy here that this is new constitutional ground being made. But it's not—it's just an inter-governmental agreement. That's a political agreement, not a constitutional agreement. And the Gina Miller case itself does demonstrate that, ultimately, this can be challenged.

My final point, if I may—the final point I would make to the Welsh Government—is that you threw away your strongest weapon. What was your strongest weapon in challenging what was happening in Westminster and clause 11 as it was? Your strongest weapon was time. The Westminster Government is up against it. They can't negotiate their way out of a paper bag at the moment, they've got two sub-committees of Cabinet just to see what their customs union options are. You had time on your side to grind this out through the Supreme Court, to grind this out until the Westminster Government gave you a better deal. Time is a wonderful wearer away of entrenched positions in politics. You sold out too short and you sold out too soon.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate, especially that majority of speakers whose grasp of the decision we were asked to make bore a strong relationship to the realities at stake?

Can I begin by responding to Simon Thomas in the serious way that he made his points? It was good to hear a serious contribution from Plaid Cymru this afternoon. And I'll answer three or four of the points that he made, and I'll explain why I take a different view to him. I take a different view to him on the business of touching faith. This agreement is not based on trust, it is based on the negotiated outcome of weeks and months of Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, reaching an agreement with the UK Government that is set out for all to see. Now, he says, 'It's an inter-governmental agreement', as though it was written on the back of an envelope. It has exactly the same status as the fiscal framework—that's an inter-governmental agreement. And think how carefully—[Interruption.]. Yes, and your party supported it. You did. I don't remember you saying then, 'It isn't worth the paper it's written on; it's only an inter-governmental agreement.' And inter-governmental agreements are serious things and when Governments put their name to them, it's not trust in the Government that you're putting, you're putting trust in the institutional ways in which serious Governments have to react and negotiate with one another.

The Member talked about the doctrine of time—that we should have waited longer. Well, the Scottish Government has waited longer. Where is the better agreement that they have got as a result? And the heart of the difficulty in Simon's argument is this: he wants to suggest to you that there was a choice between what we have agreed and some mythical nirvana that would be even better. But that nirvana doesn't exist. The real choice was between what we have negotiated and a reversion to the far less satisfactory amendment that the UK Government first put down. Of course we should be ambitious for even more ground to be gained, and we are too. And I said in my opening remarks: there is more that we want to achieve. We have ambitions beyond the agreement. But the agreement is a serious step in the direction that we want to go in.

Llywydd, there are only three positions, really, at play in the debate this afternoon. The first: the UK Government began with an ultra-centralising set of proposals, which in a 'care less' way rode roughshod over devolution. In the second position, there are those—and we've heard them today—whose political ambition is to leave the United Kingdom. It's a perfectly respectable political ambition—I'm puzzled as to why those who hold it aren't willing to speak up for it a bit more directly. But the fact that they wish to leave the United Kingdom means that they have no long-term interest in creating a successful future for it. And then there is the third position, which I believe is preferred by the majority in this Chamber and, quite certainly, the wider population here in Wales, that both devolution and the UK matter. And that's what this agreement and the amendment to the Bill deliver. I set out earlier this afternoon how the amended Bill breaks new ground in cementing the defences that devolution provides. And I set out the way in which it is reforming—[Interruption.]

Thank you. He said that the alternative was to go back to the unsatisfactory draft of the Bill before, but is it not the case that, actually, his Government has protected the Scottish people and their devolution settlement, and that it's his negotiation of what he's agreed for Wales that will now apply to Scotland, even though Nicola Sturgeon has not done the sensible thing that his Government has?

Llywydd, I am very glad that everything that we have negotiated will, indeed, apply to the Scottish Government, just as we agreed with the Scottish Government that had it been possible to agree on any further advances in the agreement they would have applied to all three nations as well. I say nothing against the Scottish Government and the efforts that it put into reaching the point that we have been able to reach today. 

As well as the new ground that we have broken in relation to devolution, the agreement begins the essential process of reforming the way in which business is conducted between the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. That is why the amended Bill, and the inter-governmental agreement that goes with it, does both things we set out to do. It safeguards devolution and it safeguards the future of a successful United Kingdom, and that's why, emphatically, I ask Members to support it this afternoon.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.