Item 8 on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act 2018 (Repeal) Regulations 2018. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motion. Mark Drakeford.

Motion NDM6867 Julie James

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales, in accordance with Standing Order 27.5:

1.  Approves that the draft Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act 2018 (Repeal) Regulations 2018 are made in accordance with the draft laid in the Table Office on 8 June 2018.

Motion moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. In opening this debate, I'd like to begin by reminding us why this piece of legislation, the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill, as it then was in the first place earlier this year.

We developed the Bill, as the First Minister said repeatedly on the floor of the Assembly, as a fallback measure; a measure designed to protect the devolution settlement in the event that the UK Government would not amend its European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in a way that removed the very real threats it contained to our devolution here in Wales and the National Assembly's freedom to legislate in areas of devolved competence. I don't think there's any doubt that had the EU withdrawal Bill been enacted as originally drafted, it would have seen a real clawing back and centralisation of powers to Westminster. That is why we embarked upon a long and detailed process of negotiation involving the Welsh, Scottish and UK Governments, in which we secured a new agreement that provides strong protection for vital Welsh interests.

The agreement we reached has ensured that not a single devolved responsibility has left this Assembly. Areas already devolved remain devolved, and the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure that this continues to be the case. Devolution is entrenched in the inter-governmental agreement, not diluted by it, and not undermined by it as the EU withdrawal Bill, as originally enacted, certainly would have done.

All of that was demonstrated last week, when the UK Government published its first quarterly report about the operation of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as it now is, and common frameworks. That report that's been made available to the Assembly pointed to the significant joint progress on common frameworks and the continued collaboration to ensure that the statute book is ready for exit day. As a result of that significant joint progress, there are no proposals to freeze the current EU rulebook beyond our membership of the European Union.

We are achieving everything we set out to achieve by agreement, as we always argued we could. This progress has been welcomed, not only by ourselves, but by the Scottish Government as well. And as my colleague Alun Davies has said, the agreement established a parity between administrations that is in the best interests of Wales and of Wales in the United Kingdom.

That approach is also being reflected in the development of statutory instruments under the EU withdrawal Act that modify EU-derived law, so that it is operable at the point of our exit from the European Union, and that is action that becomes all the more urgent as the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit has strengthened over the time since the inter-governmental agreement was drawn up. Where the statutory instruments contain provisions about devolved matters, the UK Government is seeking the consent of Welsh Ministers, in line with its commitments under that IGA, before they are laid in Parliament, and we are notifying Assembly Members when they are laid.

The reality is that we have obtained every drop of leverage to be extracted from the LDEU Act and now is the time to ask this Assembly to do what we as a Welsh Government committed to doing in the inter-governmental agreement—to repeal the Act. This is now urgent. As the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has noted, a programme of corrective statutory instruments is already under considerable time pressure. Repealing the Act will remove one hurdle that impedes the progress of UK secondary legislation, which, in turn, has a knock-on effect on our own programme. If we do not do so, the risk of an unmanageable legislative log jam here in the new year will increase, and that is not in the interests of Welsh businesses or of Welsh citizens. In any event, the challenge we are facing now—how to persuade the UK Government to adopt an approach to the withdrawal deal that is capable of commanding a broad political consensus, rather than one that threatens to bring us to the very edge of the most dangerous cliff—is not one that the LDEU Act can help us to address. The Act has done its job. It is time to move on. That is why, in line with the enhanced procedures set out in the LDEU Act, the draft regulations to repeal the Act were laid for 60 days, providing an opportunity for representations to be made. That 60-day period has expired, and Members will have seen from my written statement that only one representation was received during that time. I thank the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for its ongoing engagement with the legislation and its consideration of the draft regulations. There was nothing in what the committee said that stands in the way of repeal. It is in Welsh interests that we now do so and I ask Members to support the motion approving the regulations that will enable the Act to be repealed today.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Can I thank the Government for bringing forward this motion today to repeal the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act? As the Government and all Members of this Chamber will be acutely aware, we opposed this Act when it was put before the National Assembly as an emergency Bill, using emergency procedures—a significant piece of legislation that we had just 14 days to scrutinise. We said at that time that is was an unnecessary Bill because we were confident that an agreement could be reached between the Welsh and UK Governments that respected the devolution settlement and that accommodated the concerns, the quite rightful concerns, that some people had in this Chamber, and that the Welsh Government quite rightly had with the originally drafted EU withdrawal Bill, as it was at that time. And, of course, that inter-governmental agreement was secured within weeks of the emergency legislation having passed through this National Assembly. We welcomed, of course, the ongoing engagement that there has been as a result of that inter-governmental agreement in respect of the Brexit process and ensuring that the legislation, which has been adopted by the UK during its membership of the EU, will continue to be in place going forward.

Now, I have to say that I think that it is disappointing that there's been quite a significant delay, actually, in fulfilling the commitment that the Welsh Government made to the UK Government as part of that inter-governmental agreement. You said that you would repeal this Bill and I think everybody was expecting that it would happen much more quickly than the many months that it has taken before you tabled this motion today. But I think you're quite right, Cabinet Secretary, to say that this Bill offers no leverage in the future to the Welsh Government or the National Assembly for Wales, in terms of squeezing anything more out of the UK Government in terms of respect for the constitutional settlement. We've seen many legislative consent motions, some of which are going through the committee stages, which were discussed at the Business Committee this morning—the Fisheries Bill, the ​Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, and I'm sure that there will be many others. Where there is an issue that needs to be considered by this Assembly, quite rightly an LCM will be brought forward. We always felt that the LCM process was the backstop, if you like, for securing the powers of this Assembly and making sure that there was proper respect for devolution. I think that not only the inter-governmental agreement has made sure that that is the case, but, of course, the very practice of the UK Government Ministers since that agreement has come into play has demonstrated very much that there is a great deal of respect from the UK Government in terms of the settlement.

So, I do hope that other parties will be as responsible as the Welsh Government has been in respecting the decision that was made to agree with the UK Government a clear protocol for ensuring that there was a proper workable solution to protecting those rights and taking forward those laws, which had already been adopted in terms of UK legislation, and to make sure that the Welsh voice is heard as part of that process. I was very pleased to hear you refer to the progress that has been made in terms of the UK-wide frameworks, and perhaps in responding to today's debate you can just elaborate a little bit further on those. I know that, as far as colleagues in the UK Government are concerned, they've been very pleased with the engagement that there has been from the Welsh Government, and indeed the Scottish Government, in the development of those frameworks, and the Northern Ireland team—if I can call them that, because obviously there isn't an Executive at present—and I do think that it's incumbent upon all of us to work together to make sure that those frameworks are in the best interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, as well as making sure that Wales is afforded a significant voice at the table when those frameworks are developed. So, we will be supporting this motion today.

It's strange, Llywydd, looking back over the last 12 months or so at the journey that the continuity Act has taken since it was first mooted, and, indeed, contrary to Assembly folklore, I was not the first Member of this place to raise the prospect of a continuity Act on the floor of this Chamber. The person now occupying the role of Counsel General for Wales was the first Member—he was ahead of me, which probably explains why he has risen to bigger and better things in the meantime.

It's been clear from the outset, though, that Members from almost all sides were able to agree that legislating in order to uphold devolution in the context of EU withdrawal was appropriate and necessary. I happen to believe that it was among the finest hours of this Parliament that we acted across party lines in the interest of something far greater than ourselves as individual politicians or as individual political parties: our very political nationhood. And let's not forget that was at stake when the withdrawal Bill was first drafted. I think tribute also should be paid especially to those who crafted the continuity Bill in the first place. This was not an easy piece of legislation to draft. It is highly technical and intricate and it is a credit to its authors. 

Like the Welsh Government, I would much rather there not be a need at all, or in the first place, for Welsh continuity legislation. It has always been my view that the UK Government, if they really cherished this union, if they genuinely respected the nations of the UK, then from the outset the mechanics of EU withdrawal could and should have been negotiated between the nations of the UK before article 50 was even triggered. I believe that an 'accession in reverse' model of withdrawal could have accomplished this comfortably. The UK Government chose not to engage with the devolved Governments on the basis of respect and partnership, and they deliberately decided not to do so at every stage of this process since the referendum. Continuity legislation, therefore, became essential, because there was no other way of securing the wishes expressed by the people of Wales in two devolution referenda.

It is, Llywydd, with great sadness that the consensus that brought about the continuity Act has now evaporated in light of the inter-governmental agreement between Welsh Government and the Westminster Government. I genuinely and sincerely disagree with the Cabinet Secretary in terms of the continuing need for continuity legislation. I believe the continuity Act is still needed and should remain on the statute book, and I believe so for four primary reasons.

Firstly, I believe the inter-governmental agreement fails to deliver the safeguards needed to ensure Welsh laws are free from unilateral interference from Ministers in London. Indeed, Llywydd, section 6 of the agreement makes it clear that UK Ministers can make changes in devolved fields even without the consent of Wales. Secondly, now that we know the UK Government's intention through the draft withdrawal agreement, given that we know it fails to meet the aspirations of securing Wales's future, it makes no sense to facilitate the UK Government's withdrawal agreement through repealing our legislative shield. That seems to me to be a clear contradiction politically.

Thirdly, I do not believe the UK Government is in any position to be trusted to even attempt to seek agreement with Welsh Ministers on the future implementation of the withdrawal Act. They have form for breaking the Sewel convention, let's not forget, and in their new-found desperation I've no doubt they will do so again without a second thought.

Fourthly, I find the timing of this proposed repeal puzzling. We are awaiting the judgment of the Supreme Court on the Scottish continuity Act. Would it not be best for Members here to make a proper decision on whether or not to repeal our legislation in full knowledge of the legal and constitutional ramifications that that judgment will provide us with.

This issue, Llywydd, for me has always been bigger than personalities, parties and even politics itself. I very much fear that precedents set now during these extraordinary times may linger well into the future and cast lasting doubt over the ability of this place to legislate in key areas, and could well normalise a new-found Westminster habit of legislating in devolved matters into the future. I simply believe that no-one has the right to use Brexit or any other crisis as an excuse to change Welsh devolved laws without the agreement of the democratically elected Members of this Parliament. What's at stake here goes beyond a piece of legislation. This is about enshrining in Welsh law all those rights and standards that we cherish so that no-one can take them away from us. We often talk of future generations in this place. The generations that will be affected by decisions like this one today are countless, and I urge Members to reject the repeal of this much-needed continuity Act.

I'm pleased to take part in this debate and would like to express my thanks to Steffan Lewis for the integrity of purpose and principle that he's brought to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee in his role, particularly developing, of course, in those early days post the Brexit referendum, 'Securing Wales' Future', the paper that has stood the test of time since its inception. But I do support the Welsh Government motion today, which is no surprise, as I welcomed the outcome of the Cabinet Secretary's negotiations, which resulted in the inter-governmental agreement earlier this year, and which reflected our proposed amendments to the UK Government withdrawal Bill. I welcomed his statement last week, which provided the assurance and evidence that the route he took was the right one, and delivered the outcomes we called for to safeguard our powers.

Now, if you recall, as a result of the EU withdrawal Act, following the achievements of the inter-governmental agreement, the EAAL committee supported the need for the UK Government to report to Parliament on matters relating to frameworks and any use of the so-called section 12 freezing powers to temporarily maintain existing EU law limits on devolved competence. We called for our Standing Orders to require such a report to be laid before the Assembly within a day of it being laid in Parliament, and it was indeed laid, and I welcome the Cabinet Secretary's statement on 13 November.

Can I again acknowledge the importance of the inter-governmental agreement? It was the Cabinet Secretary who succeeded in getting the UK Government to change its position so that all devolved powers and policy areas should rest in Cardiff and Edinburgh, unless there are areas where common frameworks can be agreed. As a result of intensive negotiations over the past few months, we have this positive outcome with regard to these UK common areas, and I think it's worth putting on record again today what the UK Government ministerial foreword said last week:

'On the basis of the significant joint progress on future frameworks, and the continued collaboration to ensure the statute book is ready for exit day, the UK Government has concluded that it does not need to bring forward any section 12 regulations at this juncture.'

Again, the positive impact of this outcome is clear as it goes on to say:

'Scottish and Welsh Governments continue to commit to not diverging in ways that would cut across future frameworks, where it has been agreed they are necessary or where discussions continue'.

The Cabinet Secretary has indicated a positive response today from the Scottish Government to this outcome as well. So, taking forward the continuity Bill was important, but it was always a fallback, as the Cabinet Secretary said, and the First Minister—and the Cabinet Secretary said that on a number of occasions during the debate about the continuity Bill—and that the preferred outcome would be to see changes in the withdrawal Bill to reflect our roles, powers and responsibilities. It was leverage that was needed, as the Cabinet Secretary has said. And it must be acknowledged that is the result of cross-party action, and the impact of this leverage is so important, and we must record it clearly today; it is evident.

And I recall an article by Ian Price of the CBI in the Western Mail at the time of the inter-governmental agreement. He was taking the long view when he said the deal was very good for the Welsh economy and its people and:

'What has been agreed...is a sensible collaboration between the Welsh Government, Westminster and Whitehall to agree a common way forward on areas that impact the whole of the UK'. 

So, I'm sure businesses in Wales will be welcoming the Cabinet Secretary's statement last week and Welsh businesses will be reassured, in the context of so much uncertainty as to the state and terms of Brexit for Wales, and agree that the integrity and purpose of the inter-governmental agreement must be safeguarded.

So, it's for that reason that I support the repeal of the continuity Act. As the Cabinet Secretary said devolution is entrenched in the inter-governmental agreement and this is the positive outcome, which has commanded respect in the Houses of Parliament as well as this Chamber and the UK Government. 

Can I say what an honour it is to speak about what I still call the continuity Act, a law passed by this Assembly using its legislative powers? We haven't passed that many laws using our legislative powers, and it owes much to the craft and artistry of my colleague here, Steffan Lewis, although he was obviously deflecting attention onto others in his speech.

Now, there's been much talk of respecting the result of a referendum. Well, how about also respecting the result of the 2011 referendum in Wales, when 64 per cent of the Welsh electorate voted for the National Assembly for Wales to gain more powers—more legislative powers? Wales has not voted to lose powers, yet the Wales Act 2017 has seen us lose powers—193 retained fields. And, with the EU withdrawal Bill, legislative consent was granted by this Assembly on 15 May this year so that powers in 26 devolved areas—powers that we always had since 1999; devolved powers—were frozen for up to seven years. Our devolved powers limply given away; any leverage we ever had gone—in agriculture, environment, fisheries, public procurement and the rest. Public, public—[Interruption.] Plaid Cymru voted against that. Scotland refused such legislative consent as well. Mark Drakeford, in summing up on 15 May, was proud to call himself a unionist and trumpet the common frameworks aspect of the EU withdrawal. Shared governance was the talk of the day. A new spirit of respect and trust would break out between the Governments of these islands. Westminster and Welsh Government would be equal partners in these new sunlit Brexit uplands. Wales would be involved and respected in all decisions in devolved frozen matters.

And the reality? Well, the Royal Welsh Show this summer—that gave us a view of the new order. The main foodhall full of Welsh produce branded with red, white and blue union jacks—no Welsh language—'Food is Great—Britain & Northern Ireland.' Very, very pithy. The UK Agriculture Bill and Welsh Government's consultation on the future of agriculture blithely following the policy in England in ditching single farm payments despite farming in Wales being totally different and more akin to farming in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are retaining single payments.

The tortuous Brexit negotiations—is Wales involved at all? Welsh Government complains they're not being listened to. Is there shared governance? The shared prosperity fund—Wales does not know what's going on with the replacement for European funding. Much eloquence from Labour Members last week, and from a couple of Labour Members in First Minister's scrutiny on Friday, about Westminster ignoring Wales. Five hundred and eighty-five pages of a bad Brexit deal with no mention of Wales; a bad Brexit deal that Labour here opposes. One hundred pages on Northern Ireland; zero on Wales.

Now, 'We have an inter-governmental agreement', Labour say—the non-statutory, non-enforceable inter-governmental agreement. Surely, it's in jeopardy, tied to a Brexit deal that Labour here opposes. The present Westminster Government pays precious little attention to it. Government has been coming back here saying they don't listen. What hopes has our non-statutory inter-governmental agreement got with a different UK Prime Minister or with a Labour UK Government Prime Minister? What hopes? Inter-governmental, non-statutory agreement—I'm not holding my breath. 

With rampant uncertainty all around, we need to keep the devolved powers that we've always had. What a mess. The Welsh continuity Act is on the statute book. Let it stay there. 

I'd perhaps like to thank Plaid for promoting my question at the scrutiny of the First Minister so widely on social media. It always does my career the world of good. [Laughter.] Can I also say, though, that, on the several occasions I've raised those questions, they were raised very sincerely, and the points that Steffan makes and the challenges you make are very valid ones and ones that do deserve, I think, considered replies. I think it is a question of considered judgment and strategy as to where we go on this. 

I have to say, I've been in two minds about the issue of the continuity Act, as I will call it, as it's much loved, as to what it represents and what it will achieve. Certainly, when it was introduced, it was absolutely vital. We had clause 11 in the Bill, which clearly was an agenda that took away powers. It certainly gave us leverage. It was certainly a very effectively drafted piece of legislation and I think put forward very, very succinct arguments that set the parameters in terms of how we see Welsh powers returning from Brussels. And I think it set exactly right the constitutional position.

The point about it is, though, is that a consequence of that was that we then came to the inter-governmental agreement, and, that inter-governmental agreement, the question now is: is the continuity Act better than, does it put us in a stronger position than, the issues that arise from the inter-governmental agreement? And that's a very serious question to ask, that Steffan has asked, and that I've asked that as well. I've thought about it very, very carefully, and I want to say this: the first thing about the inter-governmental agreement—which is, I think, a remarkable piece of negotiation by Mark Drakeford, by the Cabinet Secretary, for a number of particular reasons—. Firstly, it is based on a recognition of those very devolved powers that we have argued—it actually enshrines as a matter of principle those devolved powers that we say belong to us, that are part of the devolution settlement. Secondly, it doesn't involve the transfer of any powers elsewhere. Thirdly, it actually incorporates an enhanced Sewel process. It's quite remarkable. When we were at the inter-parliamentary forum, when we were down in Westminster and in the House of Lords, telling the House of Lords members that they now actually have a veto on steps that might be taken by the UK Government to override the refusal of consent from this place—I think it's actually quite a remarkable step forward.

I'm not actually sure that when the UK Government negotiated this they were actually aware of what they were doing. It's quite remarkable. I've never been in favour of the House of Lords or in fact giving it more powers, but on this particular occasion I'm perhaps prepared to make a bit of an exception. Importantly, what it also does is something that is very important to us at this present moment, and that is the development of frameworks. Whatever happens, we need a mechanism for those frameworks to proceed. Now, if we don't repeal the Act, and if the inter-governmental agreement collapses, does it therefore provide us with any silver bullet of protection? That's the question I've asked myself, and I can't say where it does. At no stage do we at any stage challenge or are we able to challenge that, ultimately, the sovereignty of Parliament enables it to override in all sorts of ways. 

Steffan asked another very important question as well: should we wait until the Scottish judgment? Do you know, I would really like to wait until the Scottish judgment? I know there are pressures as to why we have to do this now, because of the potential of collapse of the inter-governmental agreement at this current moment in time, but the adverse side to the Scottish judgment is this: firstly, if it's successful, it doesn't put us actually in a stronger position; if it is adverse to us, it actually puts us in a much worse position. We not only don't have the inter-governmental agreement and the protections there, you then have a judgment of the Supreme Court that is confirming the power of Westminster to override on constitutional matters. So, I don't think it gives us that particular silver bullet that we actually want. 

I don't think that it also—. Our taking the position that we're taking now and repealing this, it doesn't take away the constitutional challenges, which are very fundamental challenges that still exist, in respect of the reform of the JMC, the fact that we do need a clearly delineated Sewel arrangement, one that is justiciable. We need, clearly, a more federalised constitutional structure. And, interestingly, the inter-parliamentary forum that we've been participating in—Dai Rees and myself as Chairs of our respective committees—is actually almost saying that very thing itself. So, at this moment in time, I think we have to separate this very carefully from some of the other political issues that are going on—the very serious issues at the moment as to whether the Government's going to collapse, whether there's going to be a general election, what the consequence might be of that, or, if there isn't a general election, of alternative constitutional steps being taken.

But, at this moment in time, in terms of all the things that we have responsibility for and are doing, are we better off as a result of the inter-governmental agreement that we've got, which makes us clear in the position that we're in and the powers we have and sets a clear structure for that, or are we better off by throwing that away and relying on a piece of legislation that can be so easily overturned? The answer I've come to is: it is correct to repeal this. Strategically, it is the most prudent decision and the best decision in the interests of Wales—not one I particularly want to take but I think, at this moment in time, it is the right decision to take and I think the recommendation from the Cabinet Secretary, our Brexit Minister, Mark Drakeford, is the correct one and he's put forward the correct proposal, and I think it is right that we do take the step that's being mooted today. 

Presiding Officer, I'm pleased to have attracted your eye. I'm very grateful. I hadn't originally intended to speak in this debate, but I do think Steffan Lewis has raised points that are important and deserve a response, in what I thought was a thoughtful contribution. I enjoyed Dai Lloyd's contribution, but I'm not so sure it was quite as thoughtful, but it was certainly plangent and full of that spirit that we're used to seeing from the Plaid benches. 

I spoke for the Welsh Conservative group when the Bill was going through its very speedy passage through this place. As an emergency piece of legislation, I think I'm right in saying it received less attention than any other piece of legislation that we have ever passed, and we have passed a couple of emergency Bills. And this, I thought, was really troubling. But the reason I particularly objected to the Bill was that I always thought it was a distraction. It was the inter-governmental agreement that was always central. And I argued this case very strongly then. I am pleased, actually, that both Governments—the Welsh Government and the UK Government—were able, despite the passing of the Bill and it becoming an Act, to work at that agreement and to secure it. 

The need for UK-wide frameworks has always been recognised over such fields as aspects of the environment and agriculture and other key areas—recognised by the Scottish Government; I think, in fairness, recognised by Plaid. And, indeed, these frameworks require powers that were previously vested in the EU to sit somewhere so that they could be crafted, and they do need to be crafted between the Governments, with, I argued then, the UK Government, with its capacity, taking the lead, but as a partner and not imposing. I do think that that is what has transpired. As has already been referred to in this debate, the UK Government has not driven over us—the section 12 powers have not been used.

However, I would finish with this, and this is the point where I do recognise some of the reservations and concerns that the Plaid Cymru group have: we now start with a model of shared governance. It's still a little clumsy—it's being crafted—but, in our post-Brexit existence, which will come into play sometime next year presumably, the way the UK deals with its inter-governmental arrangements and the need for shared governance over key areas, which does involve all of the Parliaments of the UK—that will really test the strength of the union. I think Steffan was hinting in his contribution, 'Where are the unionists? They need to be talking up this need for a new, more federal, perhaps, dimension'. I think Mick hinted at this as well. I agree with that and I think that will be the real test—it's how it will work after this obviously difficult process of leaving the EU.

But, as a piece of legislation, I never thought it was particularly necessary. It was part of the wider debate in the end, and let bygones be bygones, but I do think its time has now passed, and it is right, I think, to fully honour—for the Welsh Government to fully honour—the inter-governmental agreement, and that will strengthen its position in the future.

I do have great confidence that the Welsh Government's general approach—. It's critical of many of the priorities the UK Government has over its own domestic fields, but it has been prepared to work constructively and I do welcome that fact. It does give me a lot of optimism that our shared governance models will become more and more robust with time. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Thanks to all Members who've taken part in this important and thoughtful debate. Let me begin by reflecting on what Darren Millar and David Melding just said. The point at which I don't agree with them is when they have argued that the continuity Bill was a distraction to the process of securing the inter-governmental agreement. In my experience of being in the room and in those discussions, it was integral to achieving the inter-governmental agreement. I'm very proud of the Act and what was achieved here, because it genuinely did provide us with leverage at a very important point in the process. The fact that we had it undoubtedly made the achievement of the sort of inter-governmental agreement that we were able to negotiate more likely, not less likely.

Our belief is that the IGA is better than the Act—that's why we regard it as right today to move to repeal of the Act. But I don't agree at all that the Bill and the debate here, and the fact that we put it on the statute book—that that did not play an integral and pivotal part in allowing us to get to that inter-governmental agreement. Darren asked why we had delayed in bringing the repeal forward. The reason for that is that we needed to allow the process that we had set out in the inter-governmental agreement to be demonstrated—we needed to see that it was being honoured on both sides. The report that was put in front of Parliament last week, I think, provides us with that evidence and allows us to move to repeal this afternoon.

Darren Millar asked about frameworks. It is because we are making such progress with frameworks that there is now no prospect of the freezing parts of the withdrawal Act being used. So, a great deal of work has gone on. We are now at a stage agreed in the Joint Ministerial Committee earlier this month that, in December, we will see the first of the frameworks come in front of the JMC for review. They are in fisheries management and support, animal health and welfare, hazardous substances planning, and nutrition. The Scottish Government, as Darren Millar said, has played a full part in all those discussions, and will be part of the JMC consideration of them in December, and then we will go out to consult with stakeholders who have an interest in those four areas, before they come back to the JMC for that final part of the shared governance that the IGA sets up and which is being delivered in that way.

Let me turn to the two Plaid Cymru contributions this afternoon. There is no doubting at all the integrity and the sincerity with which Steffan Lewis has played his part in the whole history of the continuity Bill and in the remarks that he has made this afternoon. And I share some of the things that he said, certainly the tribute he made to those who have crafted the continuity Bill; it was a very skilful and successful piece of legislation. And I agree with him, too, that too often the current United Kingdom Government is careless about the future of the United Kingdom, and it's been a constant part of what Wales has contributed to the JMC and other discussions—that we continuously put forward the need for time to be found before we leave the European Union for thought to be given to the way that the United Kingdom will operate when the rulebook that we share between us, through our membership of the European Union, is no longer there. One of the reasons why it is right to emphasise the inter-governmental agreement, however, is because it breaks new ground in that way. It moves us forward into territory where greater shared government in the future beyond the European Union is more likely, not less likely.

Steffan set out four reasons why he opposed the repeal of the continuity Bill. He said that the IGA fails to safeguard Welsh powers against unilateral action by the UK Government. But it does defend Wales against that. There are no unilateral powers that can be used without our agreement, and not with the agreement of the Government, but with the agreement of this legislature, because any move to freeze powers would have to be agreed by us and put to the floor of the Assembly here. He said that it didn't help us to withstand the withdrawal agreement, but the LDEU Bill is no shield against the withdrawal agreement. It simply doesn't operate in that area.  

He pointed to Sewel, and I have worked closely with the Scottish Minister at the JMC to try to get the UK Government to revisit Sewel and to find a more satisfactory way of entrenching the defences that it provides. But, as Mick Antoniw said, as far as the IGA is concerned, it extends Sewel. It requires a separate vote in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and not only a separate vote in both Houses, but those legislatures making that decision will, for the very first time, have an independent account provided by the Welsh Government of our perspective on the issue that they are resolving.

And as to the Supreme Court, I agree with what the First Minister says here on this issue—that the risk of the Supreme Court for Scotland is that it is left without an Act and without an inter-governmental agreement, whereas we have succeeded in an IGA that is not dependent upon Supreme Court action at all. That's why we come back in front of the Assembly this afternoon.

I'm going to say once again—I say it every time—. Dai Lloyd began by saying that the inter-governmental agreement allowed for powers in 26 areas to be frozen, and that they'd already gone. Now, not a single part of that is accurate. Not a single power has left this Assembly. Every single power on that list of 26 is still here. Not one of those areas has been frozen, not one of those areas has left the jurisdiction of this National Assembly, and the risk of that happening—[Interruption.] Of course. 

On that point, say I were to pick at random one of the 26—say food labelling or hazardous substances planning that we've always had here from Brussels—so, tomorrow, you could decide to legislate there, could you, or is it frozen and you could do nothing about it? 

No, let me explain because I really think I need to be clear what the position is. We are today still members of the European Union, so we couldn't legislate tomorrow because we are part of a common European rulebook. Your party, as I myself would want to say, believes that we will be better off remaining in the European Union. If those powers were to be frozen, and they haven't been in that area or any one of the 26, all that freezing would do would be to guarantee that the current rulebook would continue. That's what freezing means. It means the current arrangements—the arrangements we all support as part of our membership of the European Union—would go on being in place until something else was agreed to be put in its place. And nothing else could be put in its place unless it was agreed and agreed by this National Assembly. That's why the anxieties that Dai repeated this afternoon about powers being gone from the National Assembly simply don't measure up to the facts of the matter. Nothing has gone. All those powers are here. They remain here as they always have, exercised as they are now and have been since the start of the Assembly through the common European rulebook. [Interruption.]

I realise the clock's against us, but thank you for taking an intervention. Isn't the reality, though, that we are at the beginning of a protracted period of seven, eight years, over which there will be changes of Government at UK level, changes of Government here and non-statutory inter-governmental agreements could end up as worthless in the context of different opinions and different relationships? You clearly think you have a good relationship with people you've been negotiating with. That might not always be the case. 

Llywydd, governments can't proceed on that basis. Governments have to proceed on the basis that an agreement struck with a government is an agreement that goes on being honoured. That's why the fiscal framework has been successively negotiated with different UK Governments—Labour Governments, Conservative Governments—over 20 years. Those things go on being honoured as governments pass from one to the other, until you reach a point when it is renegotiated by mutual consent. You can't go on as governments always on the basis that you can't trust the person who you've just come to an agreement with.

Let me end, then, Llywydd, if I can, by thanking Jane Hutt and Mick Antoniw for what they both said, emphasising the importance of the inter-governmental agreement, explaining what a reversal of the original clause 11 it demonstrates and saying that we have reached a point where the LDEU Act, vitally important as it was at the moment that it was agreed, its usefulness has now been extracted in full. Now is the moment to repeal it because that is what is in the best interests of Wales.  

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

Voting deferred until voting time.