The next item, therefore, is a statement by the Counsel General and Brexit Minister: update on EU negotiations. I call on the Counsel General to make the statement—Jeremy Miles. 

Over the past few days, we have seen an attempt by Parliament to try and navigate the UK out of the stormy seas that have come close to capsizing our country. In a series of votes, we have seen the House of Commons edging gradually towards a different vision for Brexit. We have very little time left, but in a few days Members of Parliament have achieved a more widely shared perspective than the Prime Minister and her Cabinet have achieved in almost three years.

So, let me start, therefore, unusually, perhaps, by paying tribute to some of the MPs who have put their country above partisan loyalties and have genuinely sought to find an approach that can command a majority in the Commons. Often, that sometimes means putting their own political careers on the line—MPs such as Nick Boles on the Conservative side, Yvette Cooper and Hilary Benn on the Labour side, and indeed Plaid Cymru MPs who drew attention during voting last night to ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, a document supported by this Assembly as one way forward through this. But, there are still too many Members, I’m afraid, who are indulging a double-or-quits approach. They’re only willing to vote for their favoured options, rather than the wider options that would enable a consensus to be found to prevent a ‘no deal’ outcome, and would at least shelter us from the majority of the economic and social damage that a hard ERG Brexit would do.

It is entirely clear now that the principal obstacle to finding a widely supported solution is the UK Government. This is a Government that simply won’t take 'no' for an answer. A Government that called the vote on Friday not because they had any serious prospects of winning, but because they wanted to be able to blame Parliament for the failure to come to an agreement, rather than their own obstinacy. Ministers more motivated by their own leadership ambitions than what is best for the country’s future.

The opposition parties all voted down a legally binding withdrawal agreement that almost all of them, in contrast to the ERG and the DUP, would have signed up to. And this was because the Government had not even tried to address the legitimate concerns that the political declaration—an integral part of the Prime Minister’s withdrawal deal—was too vague and gave no guarantee that, in the next phase of the negotiations, the UK’s fundamental economic interests would be put first. Rather, they simply detached the political declaration entirely. What Government could possibly believe that replacing a list of vague aspirations with a blank sheet of paper could ever convince the doubters that the future of our country’s relationship with Europe was in safe hands? This is a Government of gimmicks.

And this less than 48 hours after the Prime Minister had promised, or threatened, to step down if her deal went through, opening the way, unless there is a general election and a change of Government, to a Prime Minister Johnson, Raab or Rees-Mogg, any one of whom would be happy to put the pursuit of a mythical sovereignty ahead of real jobs, real livelihoods and real incomes. As a result of this unprecedented failure of leadership and governance, we are again barely a week away from a potential ‘no deal’ Brexit, with all the short-term chaos and long-term economic damage that would entail. And let me remind colleagues of a few aspects of political realities that too many of the British commentariat find inconvenient.

There is absolutely no guarantee that the EU27 will grant any extension if we do not have a clear strategy for the way forward, with a majority in Parliament and a Government committed to delivering it. As I found in Strasbourg last month, many politicians across Europe just want to be rid of the endless uncertainty and disruption caused by the failure of the political establishment in the UK to grasp even the basic truths of international negotiations—for example, that you have to start by understanding the fundamental interests of the counter party and to identify and build on areas of mutual advantage, that the economically weaker party will always have to yield more, that no-one can get everything they want, particularly when some of the negotiating objectives are mutually exclusive, and that you always have to deliver on undertakings you have made. It would not be odd for them to conclude that the economic damage to the EU27—significant but manageable—and any political fall-out would be worth tolerating if they were left to get on with addressing their own priorities, not ours.

The Prime Minister’s deal is really dead. There is no prospect, as confirmed repeatedly in recent days, of the DUP backing it, while after last night the advocates of ‘no deal’ will scent victory. All the other parties will only let it pass if there is movement on the political declaration and/or a second public vote. The Prime Minister’s latest threat of a general election—now, apparently, to be linked through a confidence motion to her deal—is a hollow threat. She has no authority to write a manifesto or lead her party, and a Tory leadership contest before we either conclude the withdrawal agreement or crash out with no deal would be a self-indulgence of staggering proportions.

If there is a longer extension, there will have to be European elections, and the deadline for firing the starting gun for those elections is in nine days’ time. Though the risk of a legal challenge to the legitimacy of the European Parliament might be slight, it is a risk our European neighbours are not prepared to tolerate, since it could end up with the European Commission itself being declared invalidly constituted. They want a solution that can be delivered before the new Parliament convenes on 2 July. That, if it holds, would rule out a general election and, indeed, a referendum.

Revocation is not an easy way of buying more time. The European Court of Justice, in its recent ruling, was absolutely clear that a revocation must be ‘unequivocal and unconditional’. So, a revocation is not a way of simply pausing the Brexit process to give more time for a referendum, citizens’ assemblies or a renegotiation. So, our options continue to narrow.

The Welsh Government recognises the vital importance of achieving a compromise. We urge Parliament to find a stable consensus. The votes of the last few days show support for a different outcome—a closer post-Brexit relationship through a customs union and European Economic Area membership. Whereas we continue to believe that the best outcome would be a future economic relationship that guarantees full participation in the single market across the whole economy as well as participation in a customs union, we strongly welcome what I hope is an emerging coalition in favour of that kind of customs union. If this is clearly understood to be in addition to the commitments that the UK Government has already made in terms of maintaining alignment with single-market rules in terms of goods and agriculture, we could support a political declaration rewritten to reflect this as the basis for passing the withdrawal deal.

The Welsh Government has shown how the commitment of the UK Government to these negotiating objectives could be enshrined in legislation, and we welcome the indication of the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General in the House of Commons last Friday that the Government would be minded to accept such an approach. Such an outcome would, of course, make it virtually certain that the backstop would never be needed. I have also written to David Lidington to urge the UK Government at the same time to commit to a statutory role for the devolved administrations in those future negotiations.

As well as an emerging substantive outcome, there is increasing support on a constitutional outcome—a confirmatory vote. We have always advocated more than one route to resolving this crisis and it is good to see Parliament now adopting this approach. While we continue to believe that uniting around a soft Brexit will deliver the quickest route to a less damaging Brexit, Parliament must also back the option of a referendum as an alternative. Compromise is now essential. So, whilst every day without agreement is a day nearer to a 'no deal' exit, and with 12 April almost upon us, it is now a very, very real prospect. Equally, if Parliament could come together and work in the way we suggest, we are potentially not that far from an agreement that could remove that cliff edge, but there is absolutely no time to lose.

Thank you to the Minister for an advance copy of the statement that has been made. I have to say, we haven't learned anything new from the Government in terms of the statement. I'm not quite sure why you feel it absolutely necessary to keep bringing statements forward to the National Assembly on such a frequent basis when you have nothing new to say, but given that you have managed to speak for around 10 minutes to say nothing, I will attempt to actually ask you some, what I think are, important questions.

One thing that we do know is this: there's nobody else in British politics, other than the UK Government, that has a detailed plan for our future relationship that delivers on the instruction of the British people and has been negotiated with the EU. The Prime Minister's withdrawal agreement will secure us being able to leave the EU now on 12 April. It will end free movement. It will enable a new business-friendly customs model with freedom to strike new trade deals around the world. There are clear commitments in there on consumer and employment rights, and on the environment. And, of course, we'll be able to leave the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, we'll be able to end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and there will be no need for a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.  

You say as a Government that you want to end the uncertainty—so do I, as much as you do—but there's only one way to end the uncertainty very quickly, and that is to vote for the withdrawal agreement, the deal that has been secured between the Prime Minister and the European Union. So, I will ask you again, Brexit Minister, as I have done on many occasions in this Chamber: why is it that you cannot support the deal that has been negotiated, that the EU wants you to support, that the UK Government has managed to deliver and to negotiate with the European Union, that will put an end to all of this uncertainty that you're constantly bleating we need an end to? 

You've said that the Prime Minister's deal is dead but, of course, we know that in terms of the total number of votes cast, it secured more votes in terms of support in the House of Commons than any of the other alternatives, including your preferred route of a customs union. There's not sufficient support for a second referendum or for a common market 2.0, but what we do have is more people voting in the meaningful votes that have been presented to Parliament for the withdrawal agreement, including in the meaningful vote that took place last week, than for any of those other alternative options. So, I would suggest that what we actually need is an end to the dithering on your benches, and allow for some support to come from the opposition in a responsible way to ensure that we can put an end to this uncertainty and move forward with our lives.   

You seem to be afraid of a general election. The Prime Minister is not calling a general election. I think you're more afraid—. [Interruption.] Frankly, most of you are more afraid of having Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister than anything else, which is probably why you're trying to talk down any idea that a general election would be a good idea. I don't want to see a general election either; I would far rather see this Government take us through with a decent withdrawal agreement, which is what I believe that we have, which, of course, is a compromise.

Now, do you accept that if your approach to Brexit were to be pursued, you would be betraying, as a party, many of the things that you have promised to deliver in terms of the commitments that you have made and your leader has made—and I refer to Jeremy Corbyn—in the past? He's talked about sorting out this issue of freedom of movement, making sure that the jurisdiction of the ECJ doesn't apply in the UK and not allowing for significant sums of money to be paid into the EU for the access to their markets. He's said all of these things on the record in the past, and yet for some reason you think that it's acceptable to now reverse all of those comments and promises that have been made in order to keep us in a customs union that would stop us being able to do our free-trade deals around the world—one of the things that people voted for in the referendum.

Do you accept that your party, the Welsh Labour Party, is simply a party of 'remain' that wants to try to keep us locked into the EU and wants to reverse the outcome and certainly not implement the outcome of the referendum of June 2016, in which the people of Wales and the Minister's own constituency voted to leave the EU? I don't know about you, but I'm a democrat and I believe that when the people of Wales vote in a referendum, we should obey their instructions as Members of this Assembly, and our Members of Parliament should also follow suit. It seems to me that all you're trying to do is to frustrate the process of delivering on that instruction by not supporting the Prime Minister's deal, which will deliver on the instruction of the British people and the people of Wales in voting to leave the EU.

So, when will you change your tactic? You're telling everybody else to compromise. When will you compromise and accept that there is a compromise deal on the table that delivers on the referendum result and will ensure that we leave the EU in an orderly fashion, with sufficient time to be able to negotiate a new relationship post the end of that withdrawal period?

Well, I will resist the temptation to make the obvious point about new content, but I regret that he feels it's inappropriate for the Assembly to have an opportunity to discuss what is the most important issue that most of our constituents face, including his own constituents, at a time when the situation that Parliament faces and we face here in Wales is so perilous. I think it's important that people look to this place to express an indication of how we feel this process should unfold in the best interests of Wales. I welcome the opportunity to have this discussion with him in this Chamber.

He makes points about supporting the Prime Minister's deal. The Prime Minister's deal comprises two parts, although she would like us to think at the moment it only comprises one part. But we know the fundamental flaws in the political declaration: it does not contain that commitment to a long-term, permanent customs union, does not contain a full commitment to regulatory alignment with the single market. It's fundamentally not in the interests of Wales. But what we are doing is we're looking at what is happening in Parliament and we are seeing where a consensus, or a sense of compromise, is beginning to emerge.

The Prime Minister has made a number of commitments in addition to what's in the political declaration, which aren't in the declaration. If they were in there—commitments around regulatory alignment to the single market on a dynamic basis and the customs union arrangement that Kenneth Clarke and others have brought forward in Parliament—and were to be capable of being enshrined in a new political declaration, that is the sort of agreement that we could endorse. You ask where our compromise is; that is an exercise of compromise in practice. It is not a question of sticking to the red lines. It is not a question of putting one's head in the sand, as the Prime Minister is doing, and ignoring what's happening all around her in Parliament with just over a week to go. That is the absence of leadership. That is the absence of compromise. 

He says we fear a general election. I say, 'Bring it on', frankly. I would welcome the opportunity of replacing Theresa May with Jeremy Corbyn in Parliament and campaigning in constituencies right across Wales. I'd be absolutely delighted to be in that situation. But let's be clear about that. The Prime Minister, while she says she will link a confidence motion to her dead deal, is in no position to lead the Conservative Party into a general election. She lacks all authority. How would she go about writing a manifesto? How would she corral a Cabinet that's falling apart? She has a Cabinet voting in three different directions on things. She's in no position to call a general election. 

The Member asks, finally, about a betrayal. He uses that language. I don't want to use that language. I think that sort of language is language that really coarsens the debate in a way which we have seen where that can lead. I accept that wasn't the intention, but I think we should be careful about that sort of language. But if he is to use the word 'betrayal', let me say what is a betrayal: it's the kind of 'no deal' Brexit the Prime Minister's driving us towards. That will be a betrayal of those who voted leave and those who voted remain. It was not what was promised, and that is not surprising because it is a devastating outcome. And for each person who voted leave, they would not expect to be losing their job as a consequence of that, but that is the sort of situation people will be facing in Wales if we get to that point next Friday. And that is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to acknowledge that and to lead a coalition of support in favour of a different kind of deal.

I'd like to thank the Minister for his statement today. I welcome the fact that you've written to David Lidington to try to secure a statutory role for the devolved Governments in the future negotiations, but I do find it remarkable that confirmation of this only comes now, four days after we were meant to leave the EU. The Government should have issued this as a demand during negotiations around the inter-governmental agreement, rather than as a request after giving our leverage away, because experience tells us that the British state will only give concessions if the other side has something it wants. Appeals to fairness always fall on deaf ears.

We are now just 10 days away from the next designated day for leaving the EU. The final deadline in terms of making a decision is fast approaching and if we're to find a workable solution that avoids the catastrophe of a 'no deal', Labour is going to have to get its house in order. There is no point expecting the Conservative Party to support any reasonable proposals in Westminster because they've long since left the real world and are at war with themselves in a fantasy land of their own making. The MP for Grantham and Stamford, Nick Boles, came to the same conclusion yesterday and resigned the Tory party whip as a result.

In terms of the proposals put forward last night, Plaid Cymru MPs, in the spirit of constructive compromise, voted for three options that are acceptable to us as a way forward. We didn't support the Clarke amendment, which simply calls for membership of the customs union, because it doesn't offer the guarantees that we require in terms of the economy, workers' rights and environmental protection. Our MPs voted for the common market 2.0 proposal and a confirmatory vote, and we believe these two options should be combined so that a referendum could be held between a single-market-based workable Brexit plan and remaining in the EU. Of course, both these options would have passed last night had all Labour MPs supported them. Labour has got a lot to answer for in this regard, and I find it particularly astonishing that the deputy leader of Welsh Labour, Carolyn Harris, was one of the MPs to abstain on a referendum, and even more astounding that Ms Harris and the other Labour MPs who defied the whip have not subsequently lost the whip.

The other option discussed last night was Joanna Cherry's proposal, the Brexit insurance policy—a safety net designed to make the revocation of article 50 the default option instead of 'no deal' if neither 'no deal' nor an extension has been agreed by 10 April, with a full public inquiry to follow to see whether a further referendum should be held on a Brexit deal that could be both workable and garner public support.

The Minister in his answer to me last week suggested that I had misrepresented the situation in this regard, since he believed revoking article 50 with a possible further referendum to follow this was impossible. I wonder whether he would be willing to make a clarification about this, since his colleague Keir Starmer said very clearly yesterday that he did not reject the principle behind Joanna Cherry's revocation proposal, or, to put it another way: does the Minister agree with Mr Starmer or himself on this point? It is a simple point of logic that the right to revoke cannot be both unilateral and conditional, and EU law experts have said that there would be no legal avenue to challenge revocation in the European courts, since the only conditions it needs to satisfy are in relation to the revoking member state's constitutional requirements. Mr Starmer said that Labour's reason for not backing the proposal last night was because the time to confront the issue had not yet arrived. I welcome the First Minister saying this afternoon that the Welsh Government would prefer revocation to no deal, but I would suggest strongly that the time to confront the issue has indeed arrived and that it is now time to act.

I'd like to close by asking the Minister to state for the record Welsh Government's top preference in terms of the options now on the table and also whether the Minister agrees with Plaid Cymru that, if a Brexit option does end up securing a majority, this should be put to a confirmatory referendum with an option to remain.

I thank the Member for a number of questions. I hope I manage to do justice to all of them. Just firstly in relation to the point that she opened with, around the statutory protection for devolved administrations in negotiations, she'll know from previous statements that I've made here, and the First Minister has made, that it's been a consistent theme of the Welsh Government's engagement with the UK Government in relation to this that we feel that, on the ongoing negotiations into the future, the Welsh Government, and the Scottish Government, and the Northern Ireland Executive, have a fundamental role to play.

The reference I made in my speech was a letter I sent in response to comments made by the Prime Minister at the despatch box on Friday, where she committed to giving a statutory footing to the negotiations of the political declaration itself—not the future negotiations more broadly. The Member will know that, about a week or 10 days ago, I made a statement, and wrote to David Lidington and Stephen Barclay in the UK Government, proposing language that could be used by way of amendment to the withdrawal agreement Bill, which would do that job, which would provide Parliament with oversight, but also provide a role for the devolved institutions in the reform of the declaration itself. Having heard the Prime Minister and Attorney General give a commitment to some of that, I felt it was important to seek a commitment to the balance of it, which is the reason that I wrote.

She refers to the inter-governmental agreement. She will perhaps recall that the purpose of the inter-governmental agreement was indeed to secure a significant number of statutory concessions. And it is that inter-governmental agreement that has enabled frameworks to be developed between the administrations in the UK, on a way that has, by and large, been very productive. She—and her colleagues, perhaps, prior to her joining the house—routinely used to say that it was a mechanism for taking powers away. I have yet to hear a single power enumerated in that list of powers taken away; the very simple reason for that is because there aren't any.

In relation to the votes in the House of Commons last night, I was hoping to have made it clear in my statement that the Clarke amendment, when taken together with other commitments that the Prime Minister has subsequently made, would need to be together taken into account in a reformed political declaration. I welcome the tone with which her parliamentary colleague last night engaged in the votes around this, and made a particular point of advocating 'Securing Wales' Future' as principles that Plaid Cymru still endorse, and I welcome that continued commitment, even in the House of Commons.

She mentioned the comments made by Keir Starmer around the interpretation of the European Court of Justice's decision in Wightman, which is the relevant case here. The judgment is clear: that the revocation needs to be unequivocal and unconditional, and that it isn't a mechanism by which a member state can simply pause the article 50 process. And the reason for that is obvious, isn't it? There is a mechanism in the legislation that gives other member states the power to consent or not. If a member could simply exercise that right independently, that would drive a coach and horses through other member states' rights. So, it's not surprising that that is the conclusion of the court.

And I will simply echo, if I may, the comments the First Minister made earlier in the Chamber: this is not the time at which a decision of such constitutional magnitude can possibly be made. In the final analysis, there may be a different conclusion around that, but at this point in time, we haven't reached that moment of decision where the alternatives are revocation or no deal.

Unlike Darren Millar, I welcome these opportunities, because it gives us another demonstration of how out of touch this institution is—as indeed the House of Commons is—with popular opinion. The fundamental problem that has created this chaos and confusion is that we have a remainer Prime Minister, with a strongly pro-remain Cabinet, and a parliamentary party—the Conservative Party—in the House of Commons that has a majority of people who wanted to remain, that in Wales we have a Government that's strongly pro-remain, every single Labour AM, every single Plaid Cymru AM was for remain, and still is. And what's happening here, with all the chaos and confusion in the House of Commons over the last few weeks, is that implacable remainers are just trying to string out the process until, ultimately, they hope, they can undo the referendum result. The statement says that the problem is a Government that simply will not take 'no' for an answer—and of course that's true in relation to the Theresa May deal. But beyond that, the problem is that it's a Government that will simply not take 'leave' for an answer, and that is a problem with Welsh Government as well. We know that the majority of the public in Wales and the United Kingdom, and some areas represented by Labour MPs, by very, very large majorities, were for 'leave', and there's no real evidence that public opinion has shifted in the last two and a half to three years. The problem is that we cannot deliver on the referendum result, which occurred despite the best efforts of the Government, big business, the media and so many other vested interests in favour of 'remain'. The famous booklet, which the Government sent at our expense to every household in the country, which said, without qualification or equivocation, 'This is your decision'—to the people—'the Government will implement what you decide, with no ifs or buts'—the problem is that nobody who is in a position to deliver wants to deliver, and the consistent attempts of the establishment, in one shape or form, to frustrate that decision is ultimately what has produced the situation that we're in today. 

As regards to the customs union proposals of various kinds, the latest ComRes opinion poll on this was published yesterday, and 57 per cent of the public say that staying in a customs union means that we haven't left. So, there's no point in fantasising that, if the Welsh Government were to succeed in its ambitions that we effectively do not leave the EU, that's not going to produce widespread public anger, which could turn very nasty indeed, which we would all—[Interruption.] I'm not saying this is what I want to happen, but we do know that there is a very significant proportion of the public that feels betrayed, not just on this particular issue, but on a whole range of issues, by the political establishment. And the Brexit vote was very complicated, and it wasn't just, for many people, about the EU, but it encapsulated a feeling of alienation from the political processes altogether. If we do not deliver on the Brexit result of the last referendum, that will be exacerbated further, and if we were to have another referendum, why would we think that that should be definitive if the first one wasn't definitive? Should we make it the best of three? Best of five? Best of 10? Should we make it an annual event like Christmas, which we can celebrate consistently every year?

Ultimately, this is a question of trust between politicians and the people, and fundamentally I think that is now what is has resolved itself into. The British public generally feel—[Interruption.] Yes, you are being lectured by me, because you're the one who wants to betray the trust of the Welsh people and the British people, because you take a different view from them that Parliament at Westminster—

You don't need to respond to Members who are sitting—you're not responsible for responding, Neil Hamilton.   

Parliament at Westminster decided, when the referendum decision was taken, that they couldn't take that decision at Westminster, for reasons that have amply been borne out in what we've seen in the last couple of weeks, and, therefore, it was the people who would decide. And the Government said unambiguously, 'We will implement what you decide', and because they do not want to do that, and because the establishment doesn't want to do that, this confusion is being perpetuated.

So, I do hope there is no deal on 12 April, because there's no prospect of anything else on offer that will work, because then Britain strong and free can make its way in the rest of the world with countries that do want to do trade deals with us in the part of the 85 per cent of the global economy that is expanding, unlike the EU, which is now in recession. 

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint the Member, but the notion that he's not part of the establishment is really quite ridiculous, and I'm certainly not going to take any lessons about integrity and trust from him, and I think we'll see on Thursday how closely attached he is to popular opinion when the voters of Newport give their opinion. The point, in all seriousness, which he makes—the notion that people are going out of their way not to respect the result of the 2016 referendum is part of a broader narrative that has created the corrosive nature of the debate around Brexit in this country.

What we actually have happening, in Parliament principally—and I hope that he would have known this, as a former Member of Parliament, and acknowledged it—is people wrestling with a very complex set of judgments around how best to respect that referendum in a way that doesn't damage the livelihoods of the individuals and communities that they and we represent. 'Securing Wales' Future' was our attempt to do that—recognising the result of the referendum and describing a kind of relationship post Brexit between Wales and the EU, which works best in the interest of Wales. And the, sort of, reductionist view that 'leave equals leave', as though that had some kind of independent meaning from this complicated process, I think does no service to the debate at all. And I will just repeat the point I made to Darren Millar clearly, that, in our language, it is no part of public leadership to be throwing around words like 'betrayal' in a particularly febrile context. These are people of goodwill reaching difficult judgments in a very, very heated environment, and we should all do our best to seek to engage with the issues on that basis.

Can I thank the Minister for his statement? It is important that we in this Chamber have an opportunity to discuss these events because they are fast-moving, fast-changing, and they have huge implications upon the constituents we are here to represent, and, therefore, I very much appreciate the statement from the Minister regarding the current situation. I know also that there were discussions last week—the First Minister in London discussing various matters. It's crucial we have an opportunity to ask questions of the Welsh Government in relation to events going on, and it is particularly important that we look at the chaos in Westminster and the shambles that we see in Parliament. Darren Millar was right—I checked the figures—the last vote actually did claim the most. The two previous ones, of course, were some of the worst, but not one of those votes last night got against them the number that the Prime Minister's deal had against her. Not one. The Prime Minister's deal went down by 58, and that was the best time she had it. These deals last night were three, 12 and 21, of the three major ones, so it's clearly close and within this range.

But there are some questions we need to be realistic about because what we haven't yet discussed is the possibility that the deal will come back, because I think Darren Millar's quite right. I saw the face of the Prime Minister last week, on Friday, and I got the clear impression she was not finished yet with this deal. It might come back, and she might manage to twist enough arms and blackmail enough people to actually get them to vote this deal through. Now, if that is the case, and the agreement is reached, can you tell me what timescales the Welsh Government will be working to to deliver a verdict on any necessary LCM that will come as a consequence of a withdrawal Bill that will be laid? On what timescales have you had discussions about on that withdrawal Bill? Because, clearly, we may still well be working to the 22 May date for the European Union, which means that we'll have a long period of—. We're in recess for three weeks. We need to understand when we need to come back and discuss LCMs and the implications of that withdrawal Bill, particularly as I know the Welsh Government did suggest some clauses on that Bill. We don't even know if they've been included yet or the implications of that.

Also, could you tell me what further preparedness for 'no deal' we've had? Everyone knows the preparedness. The EU's now saying it's ready—it doesn't want one, but it's ready for a 'no deal' exit. Michel Barnier said this morning, in fact, he believes that we are far closer to a 'no deal' Brexit than ever before. So, where is the Welsh Government in preparing for a 'no deal'? Are we in a position now where if it does happen, we can secure ourselves in the thought that we've done everything possible to protect Wales as best we can in those circumstances? I appreciate the First Minister has on many occasions indicated we could never protect ourselves against all the issues, but we can look at what we can do to mitigate some of the issues that will arise.

I appreciate the political declaration is where we have very much a weakness, and I personally believe that that is the area that needs to be addressed. Can you give confirmation as to what type of discussions you've had with the UK Government, because where we have Theresa May giving promises, we all know that she won't be there following the situation, and any political declaration she may sign up to may not be honoured? So, what commitments do you have from the UK Government that they will honour any political agreement that is reached, irrespective of who is Prime Minister in the Tory party, because the Raabs or the Boris Johnsons or the Michael Goves—we want whoever is there, if they continue in power, to actually honour a commitment that works for Wales.

I also agree with you on the language used, but I will also highlight, unfortunately, the language used by Nigel Farage when he indicated last Friday—'Here we are in enemy territory'. He was inciting people against the Parliament and parliamentarians, and I think that is disgraceful for any politician. I hope that no-one in this Chamber repeats language like that either inside or outside of this Chamber. I also welcome you writing to David Lidington. You know full well that the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee and the CLAC committee have been pursuing this agenda for a statutory commitment, because, again, if we don't have that statutory footing, where do we have the commitment and honesty from a future Prime Minister to deliver that type of relationship that is needed for Wales to be partaking in these negotiations? It's not just the UK's future, it's our future, and it's our citizens' future. We need to have it, and we need those commitments.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

I thank David Rees for those questions; I heard them come in three categories, really. Firstly, in relation to the withdrawal agreement Bill, we have been consistent as a Government in pressing the principle that the constitutional conventions should be observed in full—i.e. that an LCM is presented to the Assembly, and we've obviously had that commitment from the UK Government. But the timescales are the question that he's addressing himself to, and I think that is a serious question. What is clear is that, if and when that is brought forward in Parliament, it will obviously be going through Parliament in a very, very, very shortened time frame. So, what would be going through customarily in months will be going through in weeks, perhaps less. So, clearly, our time here for reflection, for consent, will also be curtailed proportionately as well. So, the period that we would expect to enjoy to consider these things is likely to be very significantly curtailed, given where we are at the moment. I think we need to recognise that that is just a political reality of the situation in which we find ourselves at this eleventh hour without settled arrangements for resolving the situation that we're in. It certainly will have an impact on the time available to us here to consider those important questions.

In relation to 'no deal' preparedness, he asks: is the Welsh Government doing everything possible? Well, we are doing all we can, but there are constraints of powers and constraints of resources, and there are constraints of the general exigency of things—just simply some things not being within our control. But there is an immense amount of work going on within Government and a reallocation of resource in order to prepare for that sort of outcome that is the last outcome that we want to see for Wales. But, as we have said consistently here, despite that, it's our responsibility as a Government to take those steps. But we would all feel, I hope, that that money and time and resource and energy, whilst necessary to be spent, hopefully will not be needed in due course, and just reflect, I think, on the other purposes to which that could have been put if we'd had a more orderly set of discussions than we are currently looking at.

In relation to ongoing commitments, well, I think, in a sense, that comes back to the point that the Member started with—a statutory footing. The whole point of seeking a statutory footing for the involvement of the devolved administrations in the political declaration, in the supervision of that—which is the language that Welsh Government has suggested as a means of amending the withdrawal agreement—the whole point of that is to provide that level of assurance. Clearly, what we seek is a set of relationships that can survive any one individual or any group of individuals—that's a stable basis on which we want to be able to proceed. And the reason I know that's so important is because I felt the chill running round the Chamber when I said the words Prime Minister Johnson, Rees-Mogg or Raab.

Can I thank you for your statement, Minister? Unlike some in this Chamber, I think it's vitally important that we have regular opportunities to discuss what is the biggest threat we have faced for decades. I also very much welcome your calls for some in this Chamber to ramp down the rhetoric on Brexit because, as you know, some of the rhetoric that we hear here—the talk of betrayal, et cetera—is being magnified and addressed at elected representatives on an ongoing basis.

I did just want to ask, because I don't feel you did give a clear answer to Delyth Jewell earlier when she asked you: if a compromise approach is agreed in the House of Commons around common market 2.0 or a customs union, which are both a long way from what people voted for in the referendum, do you believe that any compromise needs to be put back to the people in a confirmatory vote?

Well, yes, thank you for the points that the Member makes in relation to the language and the magnification of what happens, what we say, in these places in terms of politicians here and elsewhere. We've been clear that there are two means of resolving this impasse. One is the sort of principles reflected in 'Securing Wales' Future': a customs union, common market 2.0, Norway plus. Those are all sets of arrangements, relationships, that are in a similar place, and I think, in terms of the precise detail of that at this point, all of us should be looking at ways of compromising around that. If Parliament comes forward with a confirmatory vote for that, we would support that. Our view, as a Government, is that that isn't essential, so, if there was a means of agreeing a deal that commanded the support of Parliament and reflected the sort of principles we've described, we don't feel that that requires endorsement, a second referendum. But, obviously, if Parliament feels that that is the best way of resolving the impasse, we would support that.

Thank you very much, Counsel General. Diolch.