Questions now from the party spokespeople, and the Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Brexit Minister, who do you agree with when it comes to whether there should be a second referendum on the UK's membership of the EU—the First Minister or the health Minister? 

The First Minister was very clear yesterday in the Chamber about the Welsh Government's policy in relation to Brexit. We see two options for the future. One is the kind of deal that we've been describing in 'Securing Wales' Future' for the last more than two years and, failing that, a referendum. 

Well, that was a good attempt at a body swerve, but you didn't actually answer the question. You're quite right to say that the First Minister did say that it would be divisive and may not be decisive if there were to be a second referendum, and he made it quite clear that there was no support for a second referendum from the Welsh Government at this current stage. But, of course, that's very different from the pronouncements from the health Minister today, who is now actively campaigning, it seems, for a so-called people's vote, to the extent that he's organising two buses from London to Cardiff. Can you tell us where this leaves the Welsh Government's collective responsibility, whether you think that a Minister who defies the Government's position ought to resign, because, clearly—[Interruption.]—clearly, the health Minister—[Interruption.]—the health Minister may well want to organise buses, but he's not on the same bus as the Welsh Government?    

Well, that's a complete mischaracterisation both of the health Minister's position, the First Minister's discussion yesterday in the Chamber and Welsh Government policy, which is, as I say, completely clear and was made again clear in the Chamber yesterday by the First Minister. We've been very clear that a referendum is one of the options for resolving this. We have also described the kind of deal that we think we should seek and, failing that, a referendum is the way of resolving it. We've called for preparations to be made on that basis. There is no issue here; the First Minister was very clear about Government policy yesterday.   

The First Minister, as I've quite rightly said, is absolutely clear on this issue, but the health Minister seems to not be interested in this issue of collective responsibility. And, frankly, anyone who's not prepared to abide by collective responsibility in any Government ought to resign. [Interruption.] Let me just—[Interruption.] Let me just remind you—[Interruption.] Let me just remind you of the current state of play when it comes to the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union. The UK Parliament has rejected a second referendum, it has rejected 'no deal', and it has rejected very soundly membership of any kind of customs union. There's only one deal that has been negotiated by the European Union: the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister has negotiated. That deal delivers on the referendum result, it protects jobs, it protects security arrangements across the EU, and, indeed, it protects the integrity of the United Kingdom. So, when will the Welsh Government wake up, smell the coffee, get behind the Prime Minister, in a team UK approach, in order that we can deliver the Brexit that the people of Wales and the United Kingdom voted for?

Might I give the Member a little bit of advice? If he's going to choose to attack us on the basis of consistency, I suggest he looks a little closer to home. And I think a bit more focus on the national interest, as opposed to simply the party interest, would have meant that this country was not in the position that it is in now, of three years of wasted time, while his Prime Minister was not able to come up with a deal that commands the support of the House of Commons, could command the support of her Cabinet, or puts the Secretary of State for Wales in a position where he can vote consistently with his own voting record—voting for and against no deal. Completely irresponsible.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Delyth Jewell.

Minister, do you personally believe that the health Minister was right in calling for the second vote?

Well, as I've just mentioned, I'm absolutely clear that the Government's policy on this is very clear. The First Minister and the health Minister have responded about this. There is no question about the Government policy on this, as I've articulated a number of times already today.

Minister, we on the Plaid Cymru benches applaud Mr Gething for his bravery, and for being willing to put his job on the line, in order to stand up for what's best for Wales, and for the whole of the UK. Of course, in order for a referendum to be held, or indeed for the First Minister's position of a deal to be done, we will need to extend article 50. Will the Minister tell us how long the Welsh Government believes article 50 should be extended for, and for what purpose?

Well, I'm glad to see the Member now being very clear about her policy. Plaid Cymru has held three different policies in as many months on this question, so good to have her clarifying her position. What I think is disappointing is that the Prime Minister has sought an extension to the end of June, and is clearly pursuing a strategy that is completely irresponsible, of ploughing on regardless. We have been clear that what should now happen—and I've been clear this morning, in conversations with the UK Government that what needs to happen is for there to be a fundamental change of strategy, so that the Prime Minister seeks a much broader consensus in Parliament, reflecting the kinds of principles that the Welsh Labour Government, and Plaid Cymru, outlined in 'Securing Wales' Future', one which is about cross-party talks, with no red lines. That involves rewriting the political declaration that, if she were to pursue that, would be possible within the current extension time frame that she has left. But I think that, without that change of strategy, the time frame that she has sought in her letter to Donald Tusk today will not lead us to any better situation than we are in today.

Minister, I must say I am at a bit of a loss as to why Welsh Labour contests Assembly elections if the party has no desire to form a coherent policy on the great matter of the day when they're in Government. You'll know that the EU has said it's only willing to grant an extension to article 50 if the purpose for doing so is abundantly clear, and that requires a timescale that makes sense. Now, unless I missed it from your answer, you didn't say exactly how long you think that article 50 should be extended for. The Times has reported that the European Commission is unlikely to accept a short extension, because it would be fraught with legal and political difficulties, and France is unlikely to consent to that, which means that, if Labour were to—as is being reported now—call for a short delay only, that would make crashing out of the EU within 11 days with no deal a very likely outcome.

Minister, your position is illogical, irregular and irresponsible. And I have to wonder whether you are really serious about offering a sensible strategy out of this mess, or whether Labour's real aim here is to implement a scorched-earth strategy, by facilitating a disastrous 'no deal' Brexit as a means of getting Jeremy Corbyn into power. Plaid Cymru is absolutely clear about what should happen now. Article 50 should be extended for 21 months so that a referendum can be held at the end of that period, when we know what that will mean—between whatever deal is negotiated in the meantime, and remaining in the EU. This would avert the impending 'no deal' catastrophe, and allow time to sort out this mess, once and for all, as Mr Gething clearly understands. Yesterday, the First Minister accused the UK Government of providing

'no leadership, no collective responsibility and no control' over Brexit. Minister, is the same not true of your Government?

Well, I will make the point clear again to the Member: what I said this morning to the UK Government in a telephone conference is that there needs to be a fundamental change in the way the UK Government is approaching this question. What they're doing is completely irresponsible. If 30 June is the extent of the extension, which the EU will consider—. By the way, as we stand here today, it isn't clear that that is even acceptable to the European Union, so let's not be complacent about the prospect of leaving without a deal at the end of next week. I think that is something that we need to remain focused on. But if that is the extent of the extension required, then renegotiation of political declaration is certainly possible in that time frame. And, if it were us doing that, we would be seeking to do that in a way that reflects the principles that her party also signed up to in 'Securing Wales' Future', and which I believe strongly, and the Welsh Government believes that there is a majority for in Parliament and that there is certainly enthusiasm for in the European Union. And, as I have said, and as the Welsh Government has said repeatedly: if that is not possible, then another referendum would be required to break that deadlock. 

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. As the First Minister knows, the Prime Minister has now formally made an application to the EU to extend Britain's membership of the EU until 30 June, but would he agree with me that the decision to be made is not simply a political one, but also has legal implications as well, and that the advice that the European Commission has received is that, if the UK is allowed to extend its membership beyond 22 May, it will be a legal requirement for Britain, therefore, to take part in the European Parliament elections? And given that 148 Labour constituencies voted to leave in the referendum and only 84 to remain, does he view that prospect with equanimity?

Certainly, the issue around the legal implications of an extension are one of the consideration that I know are live in the minds of European Union partners. Clearly, there is a point at which the constitution of the new Parliament at the end of June/early July, poses very significant change in the environment. And there are concerns, I think, around whether, if the UK was a member beyond that point without having elected Members of the European Parliament, there might be challenge to the constitution of the new Commission and so on, which feels to me like a risk they would be very disinclined to run in practical terms. So, there are very real constraints to the question we've been discussing in the last 10 or 15 minutes around the extension that might be possible.

What advice has he given to the Welsh Government on this point? Is it his legal opinion that if Britain's membership is extended beyond 22 or 23 May, we will legally be obliged to take part in those European Parliament elections that will be taking place in every other EU member state throughout Europe?

Well, I'm not answering questions in my capacity as the Counsel General, but I will assert the privilege that I'm inclined not to use usually and I will just remind him that I don't disclose advice that I give to the Welsh Government in relation to this.

I thank the Counsel General for a wholly uninformative answer, of course. But just to revert to the question that Lynne Neagle asked earlier on about the effect of a 'no deal' on the automotive industry in her constituency, as she alleged at any rate, has the Counsel General seen that today, in fact, Toyota has announced that it's going to begin producing a new generation of hybrid cars at its factory in Derbyshire next year, despite the global car industry downturn, and that these cars that will be built for Suzuki will also use engines produced at Toyota's Deeside plant in Wales—all despite Brexit, of course? Meanwhile, Ford has also announced that it is cutting 5,000 jobs in Germany, which, of course, is nothing to do with Brexit, and, therefore, what is happening in the world, certainly in the automotive world, is that the tectonic plates are changing and that Europe, as a whole, is going to suffer from its addiction to over-regulation and inward-looking protectionist attitudes, and that if we were outside the common external tariff and the customs regime, we would have the opportunity to exploit the 85 per cent of the global economy that is not part of the European Union and that is expanding, unlike the European Union, which is contracting economically.

Well, we are living in a global economy, which is shifting very dramatically. That's precisely the point. That's why we think that taking the view that the Member takes, which is crashing out of the European Union with no deal, is particularly catastrophic. At a time when we are all managing global change, seeking the kind of traumatic change that he's advocating for would be completely irresponsible. Where there have—[Interruption.] Where there have been examples of investment, as he points out, it is because of diligent work by the Welsh Government, by the economy Secretary, over a long period of time to ensure that companies understand the level of commitment that the Welsh Government is prepared to make to significant employers in Wales. And that work of preparedness is exactly the kind of work that needs to happen and continue to happen across the UK so that we ensure that the disruptive effects of Brexit are minimised and that, where we can encourage businesses to invest, we are able to do so.