We move therefore to item 4: a statement by the First Minister on the draft agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. I call on the First Minister, therefore—Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. It's symptomatic of the handling of the UK Government’s Brexit negotiations that I am providing an update to Assembly Members amidst the worst political crisis I have seen. As I will explain, it is a crisis that could have been avoided. It is a crisis rooted in a reluctance to be honest about the difficult trade-offs needed in the negotiations, and an unwillingness to build a broad consensus, including with the devolved administrations, about the approach to the unprecedented challenges of leaving the European Union. Now, of course, we have the hard-line Brexiteers in the Conservative Party who are actively working to bring about a 'no deal' outcome, seeking to deepen the political crisis still further with a leadership election.

Today, Llywydd, I want to set out the Welsh Government’s position on the agreement and outline the next steps that need to be taken, and taken urgently by the UK Government. It's important, of course, to make the distinction between the withdrawal agreement and the future economic relationship that will need to be set out in the political declaration. Many aspects of the withdrawal agreement are desperately needed. Securing the transition period is absolutely essential to avoid the cliff edge in just four months' time. The protection of citizens' rights will secure the status of the EU citizens who have made their lives here, contributing to our economy and our public services, and also those of UK nationals who have chosen to live and work or retire elsewhere in Europe. It's shameful that the UK Government has used the EU and UK citizens as a tactical pawn in what is a party political chess game.

We fully recognise the importance of securing the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland to make sure that Brexit does not put at risk the peace and prosperity that agreement has brought to the island of Ireland. As I have said ad nauseum in this Chamber on a number of occasions, the border issues on the island of Ireland are at the very heart of Brexit and they demonstrate the failings of the latest agreement and those of the Prime Minister. We understand why, given the dangerous nonchalance of some in the Conservative Party about the Good Friday agreement, the EU-27 needs a robust guarantee that there will be no return to a hard border. Elements of the backstop are at best problematic, but they would never need to be implemented if the UK Government embraced a solution that recognises the importance of the closest possible relationship between the UK as a whole and the EU, short of membership. If the UK Government had adopted the position we set out jointly with Plaid Cymru almost two years ago for a future economic relationship that included full and unfettered access to the single market and a customs union, there would be no need to ever invoke any backstop arrangements. But what we have instead from the UK Government is a totally inadequate political declaration.

The real failure of the current deal is the worrying lack of progress in and lack of clarity of the political declaration. What has the UK Government been doing for the last two years? We have no idea what the UK’s future relationship with our largest and most influential trading partner will look like. The reason for this is that the Prime Minister is continuing with her failed strategy of looking inwards, focusing on managing the internal turmoil of the Conservative Party and not focusing on the needs of the UK as a whole and on the interests of Wales and the other nations. The political crisis is all of the UK Government’s own making. It needn’t have been this way.

The Prime Minister has spent the last two years, unfortunately, encouraging the expectations of militant, ideologically driven hard Brexiteers in her own party, and small wonder they feel let down by what she has tabled. She now, belatedly, needs to face down those in her party who will never support a relationship with the EU-27. She needs to listen to the views of the business community, the trade unions and the devolved Governments, and she could then begin to negotiate the right deal with the EU-27.

In Brussels, the EU-27 have been clear that if the UK Government moves away from its misjudged red lines and embraces a closer economic relationship—one that we set out in ‘Securing Wales’ Future’—then a cleaner, more coherent and favourable deal can be achieved. And while we see the UK Government’s position moving ever closer to ours, by only doing so in the most reluctant way—kicking and screaming—the Prime Minister has lost all the negotiating advantage she could have achieved. 

Rather than platitudes under subject headings, with next to nothing on key issues like future migration and participation in programmes such as Horizon or Erasmus+, the political declaration needs to be based on a firm, mutual commitment from the UK and the EU-27 to a future relationship grounded in long-term participation in a customs union and the single market across all sectors. This is on offer. Michel Barnier has repeatedly talked about his preferred model being Norway plus, but progressing this has not been possible with a UK Government intent on clinging on to their red lines.

So what needs to change, before we could even consider supporting this deal? Well, perhaps relatively little in the withdrawal agreement itself, apart from ensuring that the backstop is never needed. And if our proposal of a long-term customs union is accepted, any theoretical case for the backstop largely evaporates. But we do need a fundamental rewriting of the political declaration and a fundamental change of mindset to be honest about the fact that the UK Government has made a clear choice to prioritise our economic stability over the soundbite of taking back control of our laws, borders and money.

No-one voted in the referendum, surely, for the economic and social catastrophe of a 'no deal' departure. We need to see a political declaration that sets out the intent of both sides to negotiate a long-term relationship that clearly reflects the choices of ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, something that is no longer unrealistic given the position the UK Government has already moved to. That approach would render the backstop unnecessary and would provide certainty for our people and our businesses that there won’t be another cliff edge in December 2020. And, in practical terms, it would almost certainly command a large majority in the House of Commons.

Time is very short until the European Council, but the political declaration is clearly a work in progress. Following my demand for an urgent meeting, at yesterday’s meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance set out again our view on the right future relationship with the EU-27.

Llywydd, the final position of the Welsh Government will be determined in the light of whether or not the UK Government at this late stage sees sense.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon? Whilst I'm disappointed with the tone of today's statement, the First Minister does confirm that, to support this deal, relatively little in the draft withdrawal agreement needs to change. And so, Llywydd, my first question is: in that case, can the First Minister explain why on earth he and his Government are not supporting this withdrawal agreement?

Of course, as the Prime Minister has made absolutely clear, although this represents a significant breakthrough, it is not the final deal, and negotiations to produce a full political declaration are now taking place. Now, in today's statement, the First Minister has made it clear that he believes the UK Government's approach shows a lack of any meaningful engagement with the devolved administrations, but I have to say the First Minister has not extended any invitations to discuss the impact of the withdrawal agreement on Wales with me as party leader in this place. And, since I have been in this job, the Welsh Government has not extended any invitations to discuss Welsh Government legislation with me as leader, so it's a bit rich to talk about engagement if that engagement only ever seems to be one way. Therefore, does the First Minister agree with me that, rather than playing party politics, it would have been far better for Assembly leaders to have met and discussed the proposals and the impact these proposals will have on Wales and the operation of the Assembly? If the genuine view of the Welsh Government is to respect the 2016 referendum result and deliver a Brexit agreement that works for Welsh businesses and communities, then perhaps the communication channels have to be open both in Wales and in Westminster.

Llywydd, the tone of today's statement, and the First Minister's commentary on UK Conservative internal party relationships, is a bit rich when you look at the discipline of some Welsh Government Ministers, and does nothing remotely constructive to support Welsh industry. Indeed, it makes Wales look weak in leadership at a time when the country should be focusing on getting the best possible deal for its people.

The draft withdrawal agreement confirmed a time-limited implementation period that provides a bridge to the future relationship, allowing businesses to continue trading as now until the end of 2020—I hope that's something that the First Minister would welcome, and I'd be grateful for his comments on that implementation period.

The First Minister makes it clear in today's statement that the Prime Minister needs to listen to the views of the business community, but let me remind him that the CBI has made it clear that, and I quote:

'This deal is a compromise, including for business, but it offers that essential transitional period as a step back from the cliff-edge.'

Unquote. Indeed, he will also be aware of the views of the chief executive of Aston Martin, Andy Palmer, who has said that the draft Brexit deal was 'good enough'. Therefore, perhaps it's the First Minister who needs to listen to the views of the business community, who have made it clear that the Labour Party should work with business, not seek to control it. So, can he confirm what initial discussions he's had with business leaders in Wales, so that we can be sure their views will be accurately reflected when Welsh Government Ministers continue to discuss the impact of the draft withdrawal agreement with their Westminster counterparts in the coming weeks?

As the First Minister is aware, the Welsh agricultural industry is closely integrated with the European market, and I'm sure that he will have seen the comments issued by National Farmers Union Cymru, again cautiously welcoming the draft agreement as a step closer to delivering the free and frictionless trade that Welsh farmers want to see with the EU.

Of course, NFU Cymru has also made it abundantly clear, as well as the Farmers Union of Wales, that there are question marks over whether the draft agreement will secure parliamentary approval, and that Welsh farmers now look to their politicians to do what is best for the country. Therefore, in those circumstances, perhaps the First Minister could tell us what he is doing to ensure that Welsh Members of Parliament fully endorse the views of the farming industry in Wales so that all Welsh politicians will put the needs and sustainability of the industry at the top of their agenda.

Of course, there's still plenty of detail that's yet to be firmly meted out in the UK Government's draft withdrawal agreement. For example, one issue is around the lack of firm detail on the impact of this agreement on Britain's fishing industry, in which Wales plays a significant role. As I understand it, the British fishing industry continues to call for the UK to abandon the common fisheries policy and develop as an independent coastal state by the end of 2020, but there's some ambiguity surrounding access for EU vessels to British waters. Therefore, perhaps the First Minister could tell us what the Welsh Government's view is on this specific issue, and what representations he and his colleagues have made to ascertain what the draft withdrawal agreement will mean for Welsh fisheries.

In the past few weeks, the First Minister has made it clear that the last thing the Welsh Government wants to see is a hard border between Ireland and Wales, and I very much agree with him. He has said that there could be huge implications, particularly on the road structure leading to our ports. First Minister, the case for dualling the A40 in my constituency has been made since the 1950s, and I have continually asked Government Ministers in this Chamber about commitments to dualling this road. We've seen nothing since the creation of the Assembly to deliver genuine improvements to existing road networks.

The Assembly's External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee report into the implications of Brexit for Welsh ports last year confirmed that Wales had previously not taken full advantage of the funding associated with the trans-European network. Therefore, in light of the Welsh Government's new concerns for the road structures around Welsh ports, can you now tell us what plans you have to genuinely start tackling these long-standing issues?

This brings me to the wider point about preparing for Britain's withdrawal from the European Union, where it appears as though there are plenty of issues that the Welsh Government could be addressing within its own competencies, yet there seems to be little evidence of real action being taken.

Whilst it's easy to criticise the UK Government, Government Ministers in Wales could and should do more to start addressing some of the issues raised in Assembly committee reports surrounding the implications of Brexit on Wales, rather than just commentating on UK Government policies and announcements.

Therefore, Llywydd, in closing, can I thank the First Minister for his statement? We on this side of the Chamber look forward to scrutinising the detail of this draft agreement and its impact on Wales in the coming weeks, and we look forward to working, where we can, with both the UK Government and the Welsh Government to prepare the best possible deal for the people of Wales.   

Can I thank the leader of the opposition for his comments? He asks what the issue is with regard to the withdrawal agreement. It's longevity, really. It seems to me that the agreement kicks the can down the road. Where will we be in December 2020? Will we be in exactly the same situation again? We've already had two years, and here we find ourselves in a situation where the agreement is not permanent. Our position is quite simple, and that is: we want to see full and unfettered access to the single market and to remain in the customs union, and anything that is short of that clearly is not something that we could agree to.

He is right to say that businesses and others have cautiously welcomed the deal, but that, I believe, is because they think the alternative is no deal at all, which nobody wants. So, I can imagine why people would want to support this deal for fear that there's nothing else on the table. I believe it is possible to look again at, certainly, the political declaration, and to be more certain about the way forward. That means making a commitment to the customs union and to the single market.

I have to say, I think the Prime Minister's painted herself in a corner on this. She needn't have run the general election last year on the basis of putting before the British people the vision of a hard-ish Brexit, which they didn't accept, and she has found it difficult to get out of the corner that she has found herself in. But I have to say, he makes reference to my tone. My tone is as of nothing compared to those of his own colleagues in London. His own colleagues in London have openly called for the Prime Minister to resign. They have been openly abusive, really, actually, in terms of the way they've described her. The reality is that I have been, I think, gentle compared to the tone that's been adopted by Conservative politicians, and this is the problem, isn't it?

Yes, there are those in my party that take a different view. There are some in my party in Westminster who are Brexiteers. There are not many of them, but they're there. The problem is that the divisions in the Conservative Party are so vast that it's very difficult to see how there can be any unity in that party around a vision for Brexit. He says 'playing politics'. The worry I have is: where does it end? There's no leadership because there can't be. We have a Prime Minister who's lost a lot of Ministers—Cabinet Ministers who've resigned. We have a number in her party who don't support her own policy. In those circumstances, he says that leadership in the Welsh Government is weak. Well, we can only point at London and say, 'Where is the leadership in London, given the circumstances that exist there?'

We have always been constant in what we've called for. We laid out our vision two years ago as to what we wanted. We do work with the UK Government; I will single out David Lidington as somebody who it's possible to work with and to discuss issues with. There is a relationship there. It's not consistent, because other UK Government departments see things in a slightly different light.

He mentions that there is a need for a bridge. That may be right, but a bridge to what? At the moment, we don't know where that bridge leads, and that is the problem. Two years ago, there was talk of constructing a bridge and, now, there's still talk of constructing a bridge. We don't know what the final destination actually is. Listening to the views of the business community, their view is quite simply this: they want certainty. And whilst this might provide a temporary level of certainty, it doesn't provide the certainty that they need, particularly with regard to their ability to access skilled labour.

As far as the agriculture industry is concerned, well, there are many issues there that need to be resolved. Market access is key; without market access, sheep farming, in particular, can't survive in Wales. The UK market simply isn't big enough to support the UK's own sheep meat industry, so it's not simply a question of supporting farmers; it's ensuring that they have access to their market as well.

The same is true of fishing. It's one thing to have sufficient access, as you would see it, to your own coastal waters, but when you're utterly dependent on exporting the fish, you have to ensure that you've got a market for those fish as well. It would be no good for the UK to be able to land more fish, even if that were possible, and I don't believe that's possible because of the low level of fish stocks. The reality is that most of those fish would have no market, so that has to be looked at as well.   

He mentioned the issue of the hard border. Work is being carried out through a ports group as to how that would move forward. I have to say to him, it would be Pembroke Dock rather than Fishguard that would be the emphasis in terms of freight. Fishguard tends to take people, Pembroke Dock tends to take freight and Holyhead takes both.

He says that nothing's been done to improve the road. Well, the Robeston Wathen bypass is there and the Llanddowror bypass is there, of course, heading off towards Pembroke Dock in the other direction. So, there have been road improvements there as well, but that's not the issue. The issue is not what happens on those roads, it's what happens at the ports.

If we have a situation where the UK Government decides to take a heavy hand in terms of customs, that will lead to delays and that will mean the need for accommodation at those ports rather than further on down the roads. We don't know what that will look like. We don't know what level of checks will be implemented. We assume there'd be no passport control because the common travel area has been preserved, but will there be an element of customs checks, how will they be carried out, will they be random, will they be heavy? None of these questions have been answered, so it's very difficult to prepare our ports for a scenario that's not yet clear. But, as I said, there is a ports working group that has been set up with the UK Government to look at this.

In terms of preparing for withdrawal, we're already on track for doing that. I've said before that a 'no deal' Brexit is not something that can be prepared for. It can't be militated against. It can't be seen as one option amongst many. It's a disastrous outcome and we have, through the EU transition fund and through working with businesses and with our farmers, put in place what needs to be done in order to promote Wales in the future, to give Wales more markets in the future by expanding our overseas offices. But of course, ultimately, if we cannot get the trading relationship right with our closest, biggest market—which will always be our closest, biggest market—then we will not get it right with any other market. 

I'm very grateful to the First Minister for the statement today. I think it was a useful and fair summary of where we currently are. What I was struggling to discern in it was a strategy as to how we go forward, how we avoid the political cataclysm that is opening up in front of us.

It is, of course, I think, the key salient fact of the draft withdrawal agreement—all 585 pages—that it doesn't mention Wales even as a footnote. Even the 1888 version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica did better than that. And it says something pretty central, doesn't it, about the attitude of the Westminster Government to Wales and the devolved administrations? The First Minister himself has rightly complained about the fact that the draft agreement wasn't even shared in advance with the Welsh Government. Indeed, perhaps the First Minister can say whether the same is going to be true of the redraft—the 20-page version of the political declaration that we're told is being worked on at the moment. 

But in the light of that, surely the Welsh Government's decision to place its trust in the Westminster Government in handing over our powers to them is at best naive and at worst reckless. Can the First Minister explain—I understand the point that he made earlier at First Minister's questions in terms of wanting to keep to the inter-governmental agreement—but can he explain the timing, not just in the light of the case that is before the Supreme Court, but also the very simple fact that the UK Government may collapse in the next few weeks? Therefore, why not postpone this decision to see how things develop, as he said, at this time of the greatest political crisis probably in our lifetime? 

Plaid Cymru has clearly said that we will not support the withdrawal agreement as it currently stands. It rips Wales out of the single market and the customs union. It actually ignores Wales completely and our particular interests, and it's silent, as the First Minister said, in terms of the parameters and the shape of the future economic relationship.

I'm glad to see that we're going to have a meaningful vote on the meaningful vote, to use the parliamentary jargon of the day. Can the First Minister confirm that we will also have the opportunity for a range of amendments that will reflect the range of views between parties and also within parties, in terms of possible solutions to the political crisis that he referred to? And in particular, can we have a commitment to allow those Members on his backbenches who take a view of unequivocal support for the people's vote as probably the best solution going forward—not just on his backbenches but also on his frontbenches, as we've heard during the course of the leadership campaign—so that we can have a free vote for those Members who wish to voice that position?

You mentioned that you asked for an urgent meeting of the JMC, which took place last night. Can you say, given that these are extraordinary times, whether you've sought a meeting of the plenary of the JMC before you leave office? We agree with you that there have been two years of prevarication, time is not on our side now to provide a workable solution going forward, whether that's single market membership, membership of the customs union, whether it's a people's vote. Do you agree that now is the time to extend article 50 in order to allow us that time to provide that sensible way forward?

Finally, I note his earlier remarks that, actually, there's been a complete failure of Westminster politics. I couldn't agree more. I was down in Westminster earlier today meeting with the First Minister of Scotland trying to provide some kind of sensible way forward, trying to find common ground among opposition parties in order that we actually can provide the kind of leadership that's been sadly lacking. Would he agree, though, that that vacuum of leadership that's certainly characterised the Conservative Government has also been at play within his own party at Westminster because of divisions within the Labour Party at the Westminster level on this issue as well? Surely we should take the opportunity, when it comes to a vote in this Parliament, to provide the kind of leadership that has been lacking and send an unequivocal message that we do want to see, at the very least, Wales retaining its membership of the single market but, better still, for us to have a people's vote to remain within the European Union.

I thank the leader of Plaid Cymru for his comments. He asks about the strategy going forward. There will be a debate in this place either next week or the beginning of the week after. Our understanding is that the vote in Westminster will take place in the final week of Westminster sitting, which is a week after, of course, the Assembly rises, so it'll be essential that there is a debate in this place so that the MPs can be aware of the views of AMs. I understand that discussions have taken place around holding it possibly Thursday next week or possibly another day. It would have to be, I think, a specific day allocated for such an important debate, rather than trying to shoehorn it into Government business between now and Christmas. So, I certainly accept that that needs to be done.

I can say to him that Cabinet agreed a motion yesterday. That motion needs to go, of course, to our group, as he can imagine. It tries to be as all-encompassing as possible. It includes, for example, the need to look at extending the article 50 period. I think that's inevitable if there is to be a look again at the political declaration particularly. It also, of course, makes reference to the need for the public to be involved and the need for there to be options on the table that do not exclude any option, and that will form part of the motion, and perhaps that's something that he can see when that motion is produced.

He is right to say that neither my colleague the First Minister of Scotland nor I have access to these documents at what I think is an appropriate time. I could understand a reluctance in Government to share documents with another Government for fear of what might happen to those documents. Well, I've said over and over again that if we receive documents in confidence, we'll keep them in confidence. If we breach that confidence, all that happens then is that we don't get those documents again. Besides, of course, a lot of documents could be shared with me on Privy Council terms, which would mean that those documents could be shared in confidence at that time.

He mentions the inter-governmental agreement. He takes a different view to me on this. My view is that we have an agreement. Part of that agreement was that the continuity Act would go. As I said, Westminster could simply repeal it anyway with one line, but what the continuity Act has delivered for us is an inter-governmental agreement, which has been signed up to by both Governments. There is no indication that the UK Government would want to move away from that. It may be that there's a new Government in Westminster in the next few weeks, or a new leader in Westminster in the next few weeks, and the same is true here, although I doubt very much that any of my successors would want to move away from that agreement. So, I think that, having sought and negotiated an agreement, it is essential that we keep good faith with that agreement and honour our obligations under it.

He mentions the JMC(P). I am meeting the Prime Minister tomorrow. We have made representations regarding JMC(P). The date that so far has come back is a date where I can guarantee I won't be there because it's after my time as First Minister. So, we are seeking to have a JMC plenary sooner than that. It is essential, and it would be hugely important.

In terms of, well, leadership in Westminster, we've all seen what's been happening in the last few days. It does nobody any good to find a situation where it's not possible, almost on an hourly basis, to know whether the Government will survive or not. In the business world, that's something that they certainly wouldn't welcome, which is why, of course, we've urged the UK Government—and we've worked with Plaid Cymru on this, with the White Paper—to adopt a pragmatic, sensible approach to Brexit that recognises the importance of the single market, and unfettered access to it; that recognises the importance of the customs union to Wales; and recognises the importance of providing certainty whilst delivering on the referendum result. So far, of course, we are far from that position.

I, too, welcome the First Minister's statement, and like the leader of Plaid Cymru, I think it is, by and large, a fair summary of where we are now. And I certainly agree entirely with the First Minister in his criticisms of Theresa May and her conduct of the Brexit negotiations. I wonder if he'd agree with me that the catastrophic outcome of two years of utter incompetence in these negotiations has produced the greatest national humiliation for Britain, certainly political humiliation, since Suez.

Theresa May does have a certain genius. Last year, she contrived to make Jeremy Corbyn look electable and to come within an ace of winning a general election that she need not have held. This year, she has contrived to produce a deal for leaving the EU that is even worse than staying in. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Prime Minister's actually been intent upon sabotaging the whole Brexit process. I mean, it's absolutely irrational to me to do no preparation whatsoever for leaving the EU, during the last two years, on WTO terms, then to run negotiations so close to the wire, as we are now, which has limited everybody's options, including her own, and then to agree this transition deal—so-called transition deal—which seems to be worse than staying in, unless there's a subtext here that we're actually in Hotel California, where you can book out but never actually leave.

And I note that Monsieur Barnier this week has been talking about extending the transition deal, even to beyond the projected date for the next general election into 2022–23. And I certainly agree with the question that he poses in the statement: what on earth has she been doing for the last two years? I don't think she's been so much managing the internal turmoil inside the Conservative Party as actually causing it in the first place. This is a deal that has been designed by a remain Prime Minister, endorsed by a Cabinet of remainers, to ensure that Britain never actually leaves the EU. We won't even leave in name only because this deal commits us to regulatory alignment with the EU for an indefinite period to come. And after we leave the EU, of course, we won't even have a voice, let alone a vote, on the laws that are going to be made and which we'll be obliged to implement.

It can't be explained, in my view, by incompetence alone. This is treachery by an establishment determined to frustrate democracy, and we've seen it before: in Denmark, in France, in Ireland, in Holland, where referenda have been held, the people voted 'no', but they've been told, 'You've got to keep on voting until you vote the right way.' [Interruption.] So, we remain, as a result of this so-called deal, inside the EU, subject to its regulations and directives, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice, in which we won't even have our own judge, without representation in the Commission, without representation in the Council of Ministers.

And furthermore, whereas under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, we have the right to leave, under this deal the EU has a veto upon whether this deal is concluded or not, enforceable at the orders of the European Court of Justice. That's the opposite of taking back control, which was the Prime Minister's stated objective. At least at the moment we have 8 per cent of the votes in the Council of Ministers. After 29 March next year, we will have 0 per cent of the votes. And we are paying £39 billion of taxpayers' money for the privilege of giving up what little control we currently have. And, in the process, we are prevented from taking advantage of the greatest boon of leaving the EU, which is to enter into free trade deals with the United States, Australia, India, China, et cetera, until an indefinite period, and possibly permanently.

The EU has got everything that it wanted out of the Prime Minister, and more. We have a £90 billion a year trade deficit with them. They export £340 billion-worth of goods and services to us. Why on earth would the European Commission want to allow us to enter into free trade agreements with other countries to undercut their prices on cars, food, clothing, footwear, et cetera? Of course they don't want us to reduce taxes on fuel because that would make our industries more competitive with them. And the most shocking thing—I'll conclude on this—about this agreement is that, as regards Northern Ireland, in future, laws will be made for Northern Ireland in which Dublin has a voice and a vote, but Belfast and the UK do not. That is the very reverse of partition.

The leader of the Conservatives during his questions to the First Minister—[Interruption.]—I'll come to you in a second—talked about the need for engagement. Well, the Prime Minister has gone behind the backs of two Brexit Secretaries to make far-reaching concessions to Brussels, and twice tried to balance the Cabinet to agree with her plans in ruthlessly plotted manipulations at Chequers and No. 10. There was no engagement with the Cabinet by the Prime Minister, let alone with the Welsh Government. And a 558-page, densely worded document was produced for people to comment upon at five minutes' notice. The Conservative and Unionist Party is certainly no longer a unionist party. This is not a deal but a capitulation. I wonder if the First Minister would agree with that description. 

It's rather strange, Llywydd, that I find myself standing up to almost defend the Prime Minister against attacks made on her rather than on me because it was all about what was happening in Westminster. I have to say that what is noticeable about Brexit is that those who smashed the window have run away and left those who didn't want the window smashed to put it back together again while claiming that they are doing it in the wrong way. I did notice that those people who said it will be the easiest trade deal ever and all that nonsense that we heard that hasn't come about—. And what is the narrative now? That the EU is being unreasonable. Well, the EU is looking after its own interests. And this idea that the EU needs us more than we need them, the EU doesn't see it that way at all, or not as the EU-27. Their view is, 'Well, we'd like to give the UK a good deal, but, actually, there's a whole world out there that we can talk to and we can trade with—big blocks that we can sell our goods to.'

Now, he asks fairly what's been done in the last two years. Well, when you have David Davis and Boris Johnson in place for so long, the question is answered. I'm not sure what David Davis did, if I'm honest with you, in terms of moving this forward. Boris Johnson seemed to think that any problem could be resolved by a quip of some kind. His greatest contribution to the job of Foreign Secretary was to jeopardise the release of a British national in Iran because of something that he said. So, she did not choose her personnel wisely when it came to her Brexit Secretary and her Foreign Secretary. And here we go again: 'This is treachery by an establishment.' No evidence at all to back that up, despite the fact that there are many leavers, of course. David Davis was a leaver, Dominic Raab was a leaver, and yet, despite the fact that he was the one who put this agreement before the Cabinet and then decided to leave, and David Davis, a leaver—he was the Brexit Secretary—are they part of the establishment that was so treacherous? And here we have the start of a narrative: 'All this would be fine if it wasn't for traitors in our own ranks.' The stab in the back theory. Now, where have we heard that one before? The British people have been stabbed in the back by people who sold them down the river. That's familiar ground from another country nearly 100 years ago. Perhaps we see now why Tommy Robinson will be so welcome in UKIP because of the historical parallels that seem to be playing out. 

And when it comes to free trade agreements, I have to say to the Member: a free trade agreement with America is no substitute for having a good agreement with Europe. It's further away and it's a smaller market. India is further away. Australia is both a small market and even further away. None of these markets will make up for the European market. And I have to say to him: these countries, India particularly, will say, 'If you want a free trade agreement with us, we want our people to be able to move and to arrive in Britain without a visa.' They're not going to accept visa restrictions at all. They will want something close to freedom of movement for their own people, and then what's he going to say at that point? He's opposed to freedom of movement for European nationals. Does that mean he supports it for Australian nationals, for Indian nationals, for American nationals? That's something that UKIP have never addressed. 

And then, of course, finally, he came up with a comment that belies, really, the sort of raging free-marketism of many in UKIP. He said that we would lose out on the opportunity for cheaper cars, cheaper food, cheaper clothing and cheaper footwear. What of the British workers that work in those sectors? What does it mean for our farmers if we allow in inferior—inferior—food products to undercut what they produce? What does it mean for our car workers if we allow in cars that are produced at a much lower cost that don't meet our current environmental standards? His view seems to be: let's cut the standards right down and let them in, undercut our own workers. Clothing, footwear—all these industries that are important to Britain. I do not believe that those who voted 'leave' voted 'leave' to jeopardise their own jobs. Many, many people said to me that one of the reasons why they were voting 'leave' was because they felt that their jobs were insecure and their lives were insecure. They will never vote for anything that looks like a laissez-faire, low-regulation economy. That's exactly what—I was going to say the leader of UKIP, but it's a rotating chair—the Member has said. That is not, I believe, what the British people voted for, it's not the vision that they voted for. I believe what they want is a sensible Brexit that protects their interests and the interests of Wales. 

First Minister, we were given very, very clear assurances during the referendum campaign and subsequently that there would be no denial of workers' rights, no reduction of workers' rights, that those would be protected all the way along. But when one reads the agreement, or the draft agreement as it's set out, superficially it seems quite attractive, because it talks about non-regression. But, First Minister, you will know, as well as I do, that non-regression clauses have very little legal status, are effectively unenforceable, have been rejected as giving any real grounds of support to workers' rights in European law and indeed in British law. The actual clauses that are set out there are ones that really aren't worth the paper that they are written on. Now, that's the view that I've taken of this, and I've also consulted with some of the country's leading employment lawyers, and this is what they say: they say it is therefore abundantly clear that the commitments on non-regression of labour standards and compliance with international labour organisation, the European social charter obligations, will be ineffective and will not achieve what the Government set out in its White Paper; in particular it will be almost certainly be impossible for trade unions and workers to rely directly on these commitments anyway. It is even more abundantly clear that these commitments do not even begin to meet Labour's fourth test of: does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

Do you agree, First Minister, with that analysis? And in this Assembly, as well as the debate that takes place in Westminster, one of our fundamental commitments is that working people in Wales will not have their rights taken away from them, and that this draft agreement, as it stands, significantly undermines and removes protection from Welsh workers in terms of the rights that they've enjoyed up until now? 

Well, yes I do. We know that there are many in the Conservative Party, and indeed we've heard it from UKIP today, who take the view that this is an opportunity to whittle away all those rights that have been hard-earned for so many years. They see it as a burden on business, whether it is a right to statutory leave, which 20 years ago didn't exist—there were workers in Wales who had no right to leave at all—whether it is statutory maternity pay, whether it is maternity leave or adoption leave. All these things are seen as unnecessary burdens by some on the economy, which they would like to do away with. But he will know, as I will know, that there are many, many people who, even though they voted 'leave', didn't vote for that vision. They wanted greater security, not some kind of buccaneering attitude that left them behind. So, yes, I am greatly concerned about where we will go in terms of social rights, in terms of workers' rights, but one thing that the Welsh Government will resist absolutely is any attempt to dilute those hard-won rights that workers in Wales and the rest of Britain have had for some years. 

I'd like to thank the First Minister for his statement and also for your swift actions, First Minister, last week, in writing to the Prime Minister, jointly with Nicola Sturgeon, calling for a Joint Ministerial Committee as a matter of urgency. As far as the draft withdrawal agreement is concerned, I'm dismayed by the apparent disregard and low level of importance given in the political declaration with regard to future relationships with the EU. We've been focusing on this as a committee, taking evidence from the Welsh and UK Governments as well as partners in private, public and third sectors. Do you share this dismay? Will you be relaying these concerns on the political declaration to the Prime Minister when you meet with her tomorrow? As the Cabinet Secretary for Finance said yesterday after the JMC, which was called in order to respond to your letter, the focus should now be on Wales. Will you be asking her, as Mark Drakeford has, to claw a bit of time to think about the future of her country—a country that has four different Governments, each with their own responsibilities? And, First Minister, at a fair funding Brexit round-table meeting last week, where the socioeconomic context of the impact of Brexit was discussed, questions were asked about the impact of the draft withdrawal agreement in addressing the poverty and inequality caused by this Tory UK Government in its relentless pursuit of austerity. The question was also asked in terms of the draft withdrawal agreement about the protection of equalities and human rights. I support Mick Antoniw in this point and thank you for your response to his questions.

But, finally, in terms of securing Wales's future objectives, what will it mean for the Welsh Government, this draft agreement, already investing in our poorest citizens and communities, as we experience a disregard in terms of consultation on future prospects for funding, in terms of the shared prosperity fund, following the loss of our structural funds?

Can I thank my friend and Member for the Vale of Glamorgan for her comments? We were promised that we wouldn't lose out on a single penny of funding, and that's a promise we intend to hold the UK Government to.

I think one of the lost opportunities here was that the Prime Minister very much took the view before the general election that she was the one who would take this forward and did not see the need to engage the devolved administrations at that point. Now, I think it's probably fair to say that if the Conservative Party had won with a handsome majority of 90 to 100 seats, then I daresay that we wouldn't be in this position where they have to talk to us as they do today. But that's not, of course, what the outcome was. Of course, the lost opportunity was that if the Prime Minister had not painted herself into such a corner, a hard-ish Brexit corner, there might have been the opportunity to work with the UK Government on the kind of Brexit that we would have wanted. We maybe would have been in the position where we could have said, 'Okay, look, we need to leave the EU, people have voted for that, but let's have full and unfettered access to the single market—that's important to us. There is no better alternative to the customs union, so let's stay in the customs union.' Now, if that had been the attitude of the UK Government at the start, that would have been close to our position; we could have been in a position where we could have been supportive, but all that was lost. It's a hypothetical question.

And now, what the UK Government finds itself in is a position where nobody is happy. Remainers are not happy, leavers are not happy, we're not happy, the Scottish Government isn't happy, the DUP—well, they're rarely happy, but they're particularly unhappy at this point. And where does that leave us? The problem is that this wasn't handled as it should have been at the beginning, but this situation could have been avoided. I'm not saying that it would have been avoided, but it could have been avoided. But sadly, of course, it was that lack of consultation and engagement that led us to this position, and certainly I hope that in the future lessons are learned by UK Governments that in order to be more effective, they have to talk to us and, of course, have to make sure that we feel that we're not just listened to, but that what we suggest is actually taken up. Because it's happened, of course, with Brexit. They have moved onto our turf—not entirely, but certainly in part—but much of this could have been avoided two years ago if the lines of communication had been more open.

First of all, I also want to reiterate how shameful it is that Wales has not been consulted meaningfully on the withdrawal agreement. It's not good enough, as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance said yesterday, just to listen to what we say and then go away and we hear no more. The last of the Labour Party's six tests is: does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK? And it certainly does not. Does the First Minister believe, in fact, that the withdrawal agreement meets any of those six tests that the Labour Party has put forward?

The withdrawal agreement lays out how EU citizens and families and UK citizens will be protected after we leave the EU. Those are people who have chosen where they would live under the freedom of movement, which, up to now, has been our right, within the EU. Now that we're losing the right of freedom of movement, does he not agree that the uncertainty about who is going to be able to stay in this country and who will come here in the future is causing great uncertainty for businesses? I had a meeting yesterday with a company director from Cardiff North of a medical products manufacturing company who relies heavily on European staff. He was telling me, in fact, how much he felt for those staff at the moment, because they were so uncertain—they felt so uncertain about their future. And, of course, we have had some information laid down in this withdrawal document today, but we don't know what the future will hold. He is very uncertain about how his company, which is a very valued company in Cardiff North, will prosper in the future, with the future proposals for immigration and no freedom of movement, and, of course, we do know what the CBI's view is about the Government's plans for immigration.

So, doesn't he agree as well that some of the rhetoric that has been used around the immigration issue does not foster good relations—Theresa May's words were that her deal will stop EU nationals 'jumping the queue'—and how unnecessary it is to use that sort of expression? It's building up division again, and I think we had such a spike in hate crime when we had the referendum, and there are more hate crimes now being reported than have ever happened before, and I think it behoves us, all of us politicians, that we must be very careful with the words that we use in order that we, in this very, very difficult time, don't increase the feelings of insecurity that many of our citizens have as a result of this very divisive vote and the very divisive politics that we're experiencing at the moment. So, has the First Minister got any comments he could make about that particular issue?

Yes. It was certainly very much an issue in the aftermath of the referendum that we saw a spike in hate crime. One of the things that I did was to go and visit communities around Wales—a Polish community in Llanelli, of course, and I went to a meeting in Swansea—just to reassure people that the Welsh Government and the people of Wales are welcoming, and that it wasn't the case, as some people did believe, that they would somehow be thrown out of the country very soon, even to the extent that one person said to me that she feared the knock on the door. That's how bad it was as far as their perception of what might happen.

On the issue of citizens' rights, the withdrawal agreement does take us further and provides some kind of certainty compared to where we once were, but, of course, what businesses are saying to me is that, yes, they understand the point that there is a need to get skilled labour and professionals in the health service—we've all talked about that—but also there's a need for unskilled labour as well, people who are going to work in jobs that are not as highly paid, which are unattractive in a climate of full employment, such as the abattoirs. I keep on mentioning them; I'm not running a kind of vendetta against them, but they do find it difficult to recruit because the nature of the job is unpleasant for most people. Where will they get their people? If they can't get their people from the EU, that means they won't be able to function, and people who live locally won't be able to get a job there either, because the opportunities won't be there. So, these things have been missed by the UK Government.

And, of course, the tragedy of this is that people celebrate the ending of freedom of movement. What does it mean in practice? It means that UK citizens will not be able to travel and live freely in 26 other countries that they previously could—it's a wall. However, if you're Austrian or German or French, you can travel to 26 other countries, but not freely to the UK. So, actually, you can travel to all these countries around Europe without any restrictions. If you're Irish, you can travel to them all—UK and every other country in the European Union. So, what in fact has happened is that restrictions on freedom of movement have actually applied more strictly to our own people than to anyone else in Europe, because it's our own people who now won't be able to live and travel and work as they used to, whereas every other citizen in Europe will be able to do it, except they won't be able to come to the UK in the same way. So, actually, it's been a self-defeating action to limit the places where UK citizens can actually go and live long term, and work long term. Those strictures will not apply to other countries in Europe. So, it shows that what we've done here is not actually to create a situation where immigration is in some way better controlled in the UK; it's meant that UK citizens will now have controls put on them when they have to travel to other countries in Europe.

Thank you, First Minister.