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

Thank you, Llywydd. Superficially, at least, much has changed since we last had the opportunity to take stock of the Brexit process. I'm sure most Members will have welcomed the decision of the extraordinary meeting of the European Council to agree to an extension to the article 50 deadline until 31 October. The decision has meant that we have averted, for now at least, the prospect of a chaotic 'no deal' Brexit, a situation that would have been impossible for the country to prepare properly for. It has provided a breathing space, and an opportunity to reflect. What is has not provided is the certainty that a 'no deal' Brexit will not happen; it has merely moved the horizon. 

Of course, as I and other colleagues have made clear, we in the Welsh Government have been doing everything we can within our control to mitigate the likely consequences of a 'no deal' outcome. And here I would like to pay tribute to the immensely hard work undertaken by staff across the whole Government and the broader public sector over many months to undertake the planning and preparations needed for this contingency. We have seen the civil service and public services in Wales at their best. Given the extension, the intensity of our preparations has been revised accordingly. We will keep this, of course, under constant review, but just as it is incumbent on us to prepare, it is also incumbent on us to manage resources responsibly and respond when the details have changed.

Yet, particularly at a time of such severe austerity, when our public services are under enormous pressure, it is nothing short of scandalous that resources have had to be diverted in this way. For what? Simply to protect the Welsh people against a threat that could have been averted had the UK Government recognised much earlier that the deal it had negotiated was unsalvageable and asked for a long extension.

The UK Government has squandered literally billions of pounds on 'no deal' preparations, on hiring new staff who now have little or nothing to do, on designing information technology systems we may never need and, most notoriously, on chartering ferry capacity from a company with no ships and then paying more than £30 million in compensation to aggrieved competitors, all in a vain effort to bolster the Prime Minister’s assertion that a 'no deal' outcome was acceptable—part of her failed negotiating strategy that keeping 'no deal' on the table strengthened her position when in reality it was only intended to keep her backbench colleagues at bay. But while at one level much appears to have changed, we should be in no doubt that the fundamentals remain the same.

There is, as yet, no majority in Parliament for any clear way forward. The negotiations between Government and opposition remain crucial. Both parties must engage fully, responsibly and creatively. The Government appears to view the negotiations with the opposition as an opportunity to try to sell its deal rather than to find a compromise—a compromise that, at the bare minimum, needs to involve a commitment to a permanent customs union and enshrining the Chequers commitments to regulatory alignment. Even more importantly, businesses still have no certainty about the long-term future—investment is on hold or being cancelled and jobs are being lost. This is the real damage of the Prime Minister’s disastrous handling of Brexit: livelihoods being lost, the economic prospects of whole communities being threatened and long-term damage to the future credibility of the UK as a major global player. And that looks set to continue. Because while the article 50 extension is welcome, it also entails considerable dangers. It’s tempting to agree with Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator, that six months is

‘too near for a substantial rethink of Brexit and at the same time too far away to prompt any action’.

The split in the Tory party is becoming a chasm, with the Prime Minister in office but not in power. Discontent and disillusion with politics and politicians is growing, with more than half the population, apparently, wanting a strong leader who breaks the rules, and nearly three quarters believing our democratic system needs significant reform.

There is a real risk that, rather than making decisive progress, the six months will be spent in Tory bloodletting, continued Parliamentary stasis and a European election, which, though Welsh Labour has every reason to be confident about it, will be bitter and divisive. It is already more than a month since 29 March. Before we know it, it will be September and we will be no further forward and facing a new cliff edge—that must not be allowed to happen.

What we need is clear: real progress on the cross-party negotiations, or a speedy recognition that the Government is not prepared to move sufficiently to gain the support of the opposition, and, in parallel, serious, meaningful negotiations with the devolved administrations to shape an acceptable deal; if there is no agreement, one further opportunity for Parliament to find a majority for a way forward; and preparations for a potential referendum, including draft legislation and the other steps required under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

As a Welsh Government, we will do all that we can to press both the UK Government and the opposition to take these critically important steps.

Thank you to the Brexit Minister for an advance copy of his statement, although I have to say that, once again, it was merely a refrain from previous statements that he has made—there was absolutely nothing new in that statement in addition to the things that he has previously said.

I think it is a bit strange that the Brexit Minister and the Welsh Government take a position that criticises the Prime Minister for attempting to bring matters to a conclusion through seeking agreement for her withdrawal agreement when you are in a position, and your party is in a position in Westminster, to support the withdrawal agreement and put an end to the uncertainty so that we can get on negotiating the future relationship with the EU going forward.

So, do you accept that the Labour Party in Westminster is a roadblock to securing an end to this uncertainty, because of the ability that it has to back the Prime Minister's withdrawal deal? You've accused the UK Government of squandering literally billions of pounds on 'no deal' preparations. Isn't that the responsible thing to do—to prepare for all eventualities? You could easily criticise your own Government for making similar preparations, yet, of course, you wouldn't dare, because the reality is that you have to prepare for these eventualities because it's not in our gift—it's not in the gift of one side, in a discussion and a negotiation, to determine what the outcome might actually be.

Now, you know full well that the EU has made it abundantly clear that the withdrawal agreement is the only agreement on the table. You're telling the Prime Minister and the UK Government to go away and to compromise and yet I've heard no compromise from you. I've heard no compromise whatsoever from the Welsh Government on its position, which it set out in the aftermath of the EU referendum result. You know, no compromise whatsoever—you're still regurgitating the same lines, frankly, that you were regurgitating almost three years ago when the referendum result actually came about. Now, you know that there's no majority for your proposals either in the House of Commons, frankly. They've also been rejected, the proposals that your party has put forward. So, get over the criticism of the Prime Minister. Get around the table and start working to put an end to this uncertainty. And the one way that we can all do that—the one way we can bring an end to this uncertainty is to back that withdrawal agreement. 

Now, I want to ask you, in terms of the criticism as well of the discontent in the Conservative Party—of course, there's division in all parties, including your own. There's even division just a few seats down from you on that front row. You've got someone who takes a contrary view to the view of other colleagues in Government. I don't hear you criticising your own side for those divisions. We've seen divisions even in your literature for the EU elections, should we regretfully have to have them, in recent weeks over recess. So, I think pointing fingers and trying to highlight some of the difficulties in securing agreement within parties—you ought to have a look in the mirror at times, Minister, frankly, to see those contradictions on your own side. You say that you've got a lot of confidence for the European elections. I think that a lot of that is very misplaced indeed, because, of course, we've been seeing the problems, as I've just highlighted, already.

Now, you've highlighted a number of different options—things that you think need to be done. You think that it would be helpful to prepare for a potential referendum although it wasn't clear in your conference speech recently whether you felt that we should have one after we've exited the EU, before we've exited the EU, or what principally your position might be on the questions that might be asked in that referendum. Do you accept that holding another referendum before implementing the outcome of the referendum in June 2016 would be an affront to democracy, would be an affront to the democratic processes that this country has always abided by and would be an affront to the constitution? Because, of course, we have always, as a country, implemented the outcomes of referendums regardless of whether the political establishment have always been happy with the outcome of those referendums. Quite rightly so too. So, do you think that it is wise to not implement the outcome of that referendum when it was very clear that Wales, and especially your constituency, voted to leave the EU?

Well, I'll just start by saying that I do regret the Member's lack of welcome for the opportunity for this Chamber to continue to discuss the impact on Wales of, surely, the single biggest issue that any of us face, including his constituents. I think it's important that this forum, this Chamber, is able to give its opinion on the evolving situation in Parliament, in Europe and in Wales on this most vital issue, and I would welcome his engagement with the debate with that spirit.

He talks about my party being a roadblock in Westminster. The truth of the matter is that the Prime Minister could have avoided the situation that we are in and could have avoided the affront to democracy that he referred to obliquely in his last remarks if she had done what national leadership demanded that she should do and not seek to placate competing factions in her own party, but seek to reach out across the House of Commons and across the country, in fact, to seek to find, difficult though it would be, a form of consensus coming out of the result of the 2016 referendum. That was the task that lay in front of her. That was the responsibility of national leadership, and she has failed it, and his remarks fail to recognise that. She looked inwards rather than looking outwards at a point when that was the challenge ahead of her. He talks about compromise: we have been absolutely clear on these benches that the task for both the Government and the opposition is to enter into those discussions seeking to find an agreement and that that will require compromise. We have been clear here for more than two and a half years in the paper that we put together with Plaid Cymru, 'Securing Wales' Future', of the sort of arrangement we would see as in Wales's interests post Brexit. We have been absolutely clear that those things must be principal to those discussions but the discussions must be allowed to continue to seek to find, as I said in my statement, fully, responsibly and creatively, an outcome for that discussion. And I absolutely reject his view that the House of Commons's position hasn't moved on this. The reason we are only now discovering what the House of Commons's view is on these matters is that the Prime Minister has consistently prevented them from debating this in a democratic forum by imposing on them constraints that meant that only her deal—which was never acceptable to the House of Commons and barely acceptable to most of her party—was to be debated in the House of Commons. We are now at the eleventh hour dealing with this when we should have been dealing with it in June 2016, and it's her failure to approach that in the right spirit in June 2016 that puts us in this position.

He asked about the waste of money, and I do recognise that there's been money spent in all Governments in all parts of the UK, but who is in control of that decision? It's the Prime Minister, and, actually, she's pursued a negotiation allowing 'no deal' to remain on the table while irresponsibly not taking steps to prepare for that eventuality for the last three years. That lies at her door, not at this Government's door. And flattered though I am to hear that the Member listened to my conference speech, perhaps if he'd listened a little bit more—[Interruption.] Perhaps if he'd listened a bit more closely he'd have heard the answer to some of the questions he's raised today.

Thank you for your statement, Minister. I'll begin with matters that we agree on. I'd like to support your words of thanks to Welsh Government and public sector staff who have been working so diligently to prepare Wales for the catastrophic possibility of a 'no deal' Brexit. Their hard work is appreciated. I agree with you as well that it is scandalous that resources are being squandered on preparing for an eventuality that should have been ruled out from the outset. It's particularly galling to consider how this money could otherwise have been spent, given that our public services are under such financial pressures as a result of the austerity policies of the British Government.

The Prime Minister's actions in this regard are truly disgraceful, throwing money away for the sake of appeasing the extremists within her own party—money that could have been spent otherwise on the NHS, on schools, on improving infrastructure, on improving people's lives. It goes to show that the welfare of Welsh citizens means nothing to the negligent British state and that the only way to secure our own future is by taking it into our own hands as an independent country. Westminster is not exactly doing itself any favours at the moment.

But, Minister, I'd like to turn to your criticism of the length of the article 50 extension as being neither short enough to force an outcome nor long enough to rethink the doomed endeavour. I asked you on 30 March how long you believed the extension should be, but you chose not to answer my question. At that point, you relied on strategic ambiguity rather than stating a view, and it's ironic that you're now critical of others for doing the same. Plaid Cymru was clear that the extension should be a long one, up to the end of 2020, to give time and space to deal with Brexit appropriately. Do you, therefore, now regret not supporting our call in this regard?

I'd also like to ask you for some clarity in terms of your claim that you're putting pressure on the opposition, that is, your own party, to achieve real progress in cross-party negotiations. Does this mean that Welsh Government's negotiating priorities differ in some respect from Jeremy Corbyn's, and, if so, could you please provide this Chamber with details in terms of what Welsh Government is asking for specifically?

You also say that you're pressing for discussion with the devolved administrations. I welcome this, and I hope that you're successful in securing the parallel meaningful negotiations that you've mentioned. Of course, in a parallel reality, the Labour Party would have taken a principled stand on Brexit and would have a clear policy on holding a public vote so that any deal goes back to the people to decide whether to accept it or remain in the EU. Instead, we have an incomprehensible policy wrapped in convolution. When asked by BBC journalists today about how he would vote on the matter in Labour's NEC, Welsh Labour's representative, Mick Antoniw, gave an answer that succeeded only in raising the level of confusion to a new level. He said he supported a legitimisation of any Brexit deal through a vote, but that this should not be in the form of a referendum, because referendums give a range of options, as opposed to, presumably, letting people have a narrow choice of accepting or rejecting a deal that does not exist. If the definition of a referendum is 'a choice between a range of options', then I'm not sure what exactly happened on 23 June 2016. What he seemed to be saying was that the policy has now morphed into actually supporting a referendum—without calling it that—as long as remain is not an option on the ballot paper. I may have misunderstood him, so I'll quote his response. He said, 'A referendum can give you a number of options. You could actually put the key issue of whether we want to remain in the EU or not; a legitimisation could actually be saying, "This is the deal we have. Are you prepared to accept this deal and these negotiations?"' Minister, can you therefore confirm whether or not Mick Antoniw is reflecting Welsh Government policy on that committee, or is the stance of Welsh Labour somehow not the same as that of the Government? I'm unclear as to whether Welsh Government support having a confirmatory vote on any deal or just on a deal it doesn't agree with. If so, what is the democratic justification for this stance?

Finally, I welcome your call for the UK Government to begin preparations for a referendum, even though it's currently unclear whether or not you would wish this referendum to actually happen. This Assembly agreed on 13 January that work should begin immediately on preparing for a public vote. Could you set out what steps your Government has taken in this regard, either in terms of Executive action or making the case to the UK Government or the opposition?

I thank the Member for that series of questions. I do welcome the remarks that she opened with, to thank civil servants and people across the public sector in Wales for all the work they've been doing. That will have been very well received by those who have been engaged so hard over that period. And I also welcome the attention that she draws in her question to the relationship between Brexit and the preparations for a 'no deal' Brexit in particular and the pressures of austerity. Those twin challenges, I think, place particularly acute pressures on all parts of Government, public services and, indeed, the third sector and the private sector as well, so I welcome that remark.

In relation to the question of duration, I was actually quoting Guy Verhofstadt's remark about the duration. She will know that we have indicated that, in our view, the renegotiation of the political declaration to reflect the kinds of principles that her party and mine set out jointly in 'Securing Wales' Future' was something that could be done in relatively short order that would not require that level of extension—the kind of extension that's been now given by the European Council. But it's evident, equally, that the existence of that extension reflects, really, I think, on their part, a sense of exhaustion about continuing discussion, dialogue, and, as they perhaps would describe it, the distraction from the other business and priorities that our European Union colleagues inevitably will have. But, having provided that significant extension, my point was simply to say that we need to continue to press to make sure that the discussions under way are meaningful and not regard that period as a period in which to retrench into preferences and perhaps into a sense that we don't need to engage. That would be the wrong interpretation of that period of time, of that extension.

In relation to discussions that we've had with the frontbench, obviously, those are discussions within the party, but it's absolutely clear that those reflect the principles that we've espoused publicly here, and, again, as I will say, jointly with her party in 'Securing Wales' Future', for dynamic alignment of rights, a close relationship with the single market and membership of a customs union, amongst other things. And she'll be familiar, I know, with the priorities that we have both jointly set out. I have been clear and I've provided statutory language that would enable there to be parallel discussions with the devolved administrations in relation to the development of the negotiation of the political declaration. I know that that is also an ambition of the Scottish Government, she will be unsurprised to hear. And, having written to David Lidington on exactly that point, I also followed that up in a conversation with him perhaps two weeks ago to reiterate how important it was for that to continue. I welcome the engagement that the Member continues to make in relation to this issue. I think, on the question of preparations in particular, her closing point, just to be clear—I think I've said this publicly before—we have pressed the UK Government to make sure that steps are taken by the UK Government, which is principally responsible for this, and the Electoral Commission. I raised that again with David Lidington in that same conversation only two or three weeks ago. And I know also that the First Minister has written to the Permanent Secretary asking her to reflect on what steps the Welsh Government at large need to take in order to prepare for that. But she will hear from my statement the statutory basis for most of those steps, and those steps largely lie in Westminster.

Well, there was nothing new in the statement today, but I still welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, because it does point out the utter absurdity of the Labour Party's position on the deal that it wants with the EU, encapsulated in one sentence of the statement, which says that they want

'A compromise which at the bare minimum needs to involve a commitment to a permanent Customs Union over and enshrining the Chequers commitments to regulatory alignment.'

Well, what a preposterous position that it is. We will remain subject to decisions taken by the EU, but in which we have had no part to participate and in which we've not had a vote. The Commission—. We've got at the moment one commissioner out of 28. The Council of Ministers—. We've got 8.5 per cent of the votes on qualified majority voting decisions and we've got roughly 10 per cent of the seats in the European Parliament. If we were to leave the EU on the kind of arrangements that the Counsel General has set out today, we would have no votes whatsoever in any of those decisions, and yet we would be subject to whatever decisions the EU made. That, whatever it is, is not Brexit. And this, I think, points out the fundamental hypocrisy of the Labour Party's position, because they claim to want to respect the result of the referendum whilst on the other hand committing themselves to a policy that actually produces the exact opposite of leaving the EU except in the even more damaging situation whereby we can actually have no influence whatsoever over decisions in which currently we do at least have a minimal part to play.

And let's be in no doubt that the EU would have no interest whatsoever in taking decisions that were in our interest and indeed, very often, would have every interest in doing the opposite to favour their own member states over the interests of Britain. We would actually be in a worse position than Turkey is now, but at least Turkey is prepared to accept that ignominy because it is, at least theoretically, a candidate member of the EU, whereas, we would be the opposite; we would be on the point of departure, so why on earth would we want to make those commitments whilst we were legally outside the EU? It does go to the very heart of what leaving the EU should all be about—taking back control, making decisions for ourselves, making our own laws and having the British people, ultimately, as the sovereign body that determines the way in which Governments behave. Because the European Commission has made it absolutely clear what the customs union is about. It's about a system of common rules—I'm quoting from one of their documents—that goes beyond 

'the Customs Union as such—with its common tariff—and extend to all aspects of trade policy, such as preferential trade, health and environmental controls, the common agricultural and fisheries policies, the protection of our economic interests by non-tariff instruments and external relations policy measures.'

That is everything that goes to the very heart of trade and we would be giving up all that under Labour's proposals. We would, in fact, be in a state of vassalage, as Boris Johnson has previously pointed out. And as Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, has said, there are arguments for remaining in the EU and there are arguments for leaving the EU, but there is no case whatsoever for giving up the benefits of remaining without obtaining the benefits of leaving. And that is exactly what the Labour policy would mean.

And does the Counsel General not agree with me that the customs tariff that he wants to commit ourselves to in perpetuity is actually a tax on the poor, a tax on working people? There's a 15 per cent tax on footwear and clothes imports, for example, an 11.5 per cent tax on coffee, a 17 per cent tax on oranges, which we can't grow in this country anywhere, anymore than we can grow coffee. And there are lots of senseless tariffs as well. There's a tariff of 1.7 per cent on swords, cutlasses, bayonets, lances and scabbards; a tax of 15 per cent on unicycles. Now, I don't know what threat the importation of unicycles poses to the British bicycle-making industry, but I can see no justification for that whatsoever. There's even a 4.7 per cent tax on umbrellas with telescopic shafts. There are 12,160 of these absurd impositions upon working people. But also, of course, in many other respects, there are taxes on food and other necessities of life—a 5 per cent VAT on central heating fuel, for example. These are all things that are going to hit the poorest hardest, and that's what the Labour Party is committing itself to.

So, I do agree with the Counsel General in one respect: that the tragedy of the situation we've now arrived at—and he said this in answer to the Conservative spokesman—is that Theresa May has made no preparations whatsoever for coping with the dislocation that a 'no deal' arrangement would inevitably involve. We should have spent the last three years actually putting together, in outline, our trade deals with the rest of the world. We haven't even begun that process. And also we should have put in process the technical infrastructure for how to cope with trade flows across the United Kingdom borders, with a tariff regime if one were to be imposed. But also—and my last point is this—part and parcel of what the Labour Party proposes is a permanent open-door immigration policy, in effect, because that also is an essential part of the four freedoms that the single market entails.

And we end where, I suspect, the Member would have preferred to begin. I'm glad he welcomes the opportunity to discuss the issue in the Chamber. He talks about the loss of democratic influence as a consequence of leaving the European Union, and that is inevitably the case. But if I am presented with the choice between the kind of hard Brexit that he evidently favours and the kind of Brexit that I've been describing, which, whilst it comes at the cost of direct political influence, does what it can, outside the European Union, to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the people of Wales—we on these benches will always choose that second option.

His antipathy to a customs union is predicated on the positive alternative of a flourishing UK trade policy, entering magnificently into free trade agreements with grateful nations across the world that felt shut out by our relationship with the European Union. We were promised 40 trade deals by the point of exit day. We are now on 29 April, and we have eight mutual recognition agreements, none of which—apart from one—makes any significant contribution to Welsh exports, thus imperiling not just the 60 per cent of Welsh exports that go to the European Union, but the 10 per cent of Welsh exports that go to countries that are the subject of those trade deals. It harks back to some fictitious past when we had a fantastic capacity to negotiate an independent trade agreement, which is simply not a reflection of the political realities of the UK for decades, perhaps even a century or more. And it is a dangerous folly to persuade people, or seek to persuade people, that that is a responsible alternative future to describe to them.

He finishes by talking about the impact on the poor. Well, all I will say to him is that the kind of Brexit that he favours, by any measure, will lead to an economy in Wales that is between 8 per cent and 10 per cent smaller than it would have been otherwise. And that is not just a number on a graph, it is not just a statistic, it's not just a mathematical calculation—it's jobs, it's livelihoods, it's standards of living, it's communities, it's organisations, right across Wales. We will always stand up for those people.

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

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary—sorry, the Minister for Brexit—for his statement this afternoon? And can I also join with Delyth Jewell in supporting the comments about the hard work and dedication of the public servants who work on this, and have been working on it for so many months? You've highlighted clearly in your statement the shambles that we are seeing as a consequence of the failed leadership of the current Prime Minister. This afternoon, we've heard the Conservatives trying to defend the indefensible, and we've heard UKIP trying to deny the economic evidence that has been put in place with regard to the impact of Brexit on Wales, particularly of a 'no deal' and World Trade Organization rules, which would damage this Welsh economy severely.

But you focused on a few things as to what's been going on, and we all know that the only thing really that's changed since we last met is the fact that there is now an extension that's been put in place—until Halloween, of all nights—of the departure date. But we are still in an impasse, because the Prime Minister has failed to convince her party that her deal is worthy of being supported. And we all know why: because it actually is not good for the country, and she needs to start changing her red lines. She has not made any compromise whatsoever. Her red lines are still the same as they were 12 months ago, and I think that's the reason why we are where we are. There's no doubt about that.

There are few questions I want to ask, perhaps beyond the negotiations, but which are consequential upon those negotiations and which actually impact upon Wales very severely. This involves, perhaps, your discussions with your UK Government colleagues in relation to some of these things. Where are we on getting the movement towards a Joint Ministerial Committee on international trade so the Welsh Government can have a say in future trade agreements? Because it's important that, as we move forward, we now have an extra bit of time to do some work on getting a forum that works for Wales, and not just works for the Tory party in London. 

Could I also look at some of the actions taken by the UK Government on state aid? I understand that there is a regulation being put forward that would give powers to the Secretary of State on state aid. There is a claim that it's a reserved matter, but clearly we have a very important say on the implications of using state aid. There has also been talk about changing it to the Competition and Markets Authority. But where's the Welsh representation on that? Where's the Welsh Government representation? On other public authorities—. We had an argument on the Trade Bill about Welsh representation or Welsh nomination for the trade remedies authority. What about other bodies, such as the Migration Advisory Committee? Where are the discussions going on during this time that we have to ensure that the Welsh Government voice is actually being heard in these bodies that are making important decisions?

Also, the joint scrutiny committee, which is part of the withdrawal agreement—is there going to be any involvement of the devolved nations in this joint committee scrutiny process? Are we there yet? Are the UK Government moving in that direction? Do they recognise that devolution exists, and that actually we should be having a say in some of these bodies, particularly this joint scrutiny committee, which will oversee the transition period, if there is one? 

Minister, only this week we've seen the uncertainty of the student fees fiasco going on, where clearly it is possible that EU students may be now required to pay full fees—full overseas fees, I might add—which is completely going to put people off coming here and it's going to affect Welsh higher education institutions—a devolved area. It's going to affect Welsh HE research collaboration—a devolved area. So, are you having negotiations on those matters?

You haven't mentioned much in your statement about the preparations for 'no deal', other than we've gone a long way. Have you learnt lessons from it? We've passed the date of 12 April. We've gone beyond that now. We know Halloween is our next deadline. Have you learnt lessons? Or are you undertaking a review to ensure that lessons learnt on the 'no deal' preparations up to 12 April can be put into place if we have to—because we may still be in that situation on 31 October—look at a 'no deal' scenario? Are you learning lessons? How much of what you've done to date can be transferred to October?

Now, we know about the Welsh Government's purchase or lease of a warehouse. Is that going to continue until 31 October? What's the situation? Where is the stock that we may need to put in place for that and other products? Where are we in those situations? And how much does the Welsh Government expect to spend in the next six months holding those situations, whilst we await a possibility of a deal or no deal? We just don't know. Our businesses, I'm sure, would want to know exactly what support they'd have from you as well. 

I thank the Member for that range of questions. He started by talking about the parliamentary response to the Prime Minister's deal reflecting the very simple principle that it was not good for the country, and I think in that simple phrase he's hit the nail on the head. That is fundamentally the reason why there is no progress being made in Parliament.

He asked a question in relation to state aid. He will, I think, have seen the correspondence that I sent to the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, which dealt specifically with the question of state aid and the way in which the statutory instruments converting EU law into domestic law had operated in the context of state aid, which, as he will know, the Welsh Government was not happy with. From a policy point of view, in terms of the end result, the objective, of the statutory instrument that I referred to, in fact, we agree that that is the right outcome: to remain aligned with the EU-wide state aid arrangements and to have a UK-wide system that reflects that. But the process and the democratic principles—the devolution principles that inform that process—we disagree about with the UK Government. The UK Government's position, as he knows, is that state aid is not a devolved matter, and our position is that it is. So, from the UK Government's position, they had proceeded in the way that they had described to themselves and to us as the way they felt it ought to work. We disagreed with that, we've made that very plain to the relevant Minister and, indeed, I'll be writing shortly more broadly on the question of respecting the devolution settlement in discussions like that.

He asked for assurance that the Welsh Government is making representations to ensure that the Welsh voice is heard in the arrangements on monitoring the transition, and I can confirm to him that those discussions are under way. They have been under way for some time. They haven't yet reached the outcome that we would wish to see, but we continue to press UK Government Ministers in relation to that so that those arrangements obviously reflect the voice of people in Wales, but, importantly, are also credible and can command confidence, which is so important in this process in its entirety.

Finally, he asked about the preparation that we've undertaken to date and how much of that is relevant to a potential 'no deal' scenario delayed to the end of October. Of course, the bulk of that is going to be relevant. Clearly, though, moving, if we do, to a position where—. I described in my statement the risk of simply moving the horizon, didn't I? If that is what happens—and we fervently hope that that is not what happens—clearly, there will be considerations around departure at a different time of year, for example, and having experienced a further five or six-month delay. So, all those factors are being assessed at this point to ensure that we have the full picture.

I would like to welcome strongly the actions of the Welsh Government and, in particular, the First Minister and the Brexit Minister. At a time of febrile political discourse, Welsh Labour leaders have offered a calm, measured and constructive approach to safeguard the Welsh economy and people, whilst recognising the political decision of the people of Wales, and also upholding the democratic position supported by the Labour Party conference and members that where there is failure to uphold single market and customs union access and environmental and workers' protections, the option of a public vote is on the table. And we are seeing clearly in Westminster that, as yet, there is no majority in Parliament for any clear way forward, and, therefore, a clear prospect of a vote of no confidence in the UK Government, and I welcome this. I equally welcome the responsible and creative approach that Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party have displayed in the present negotiations between the Government and Her Majesty's opposition. But, once again, time is running out, so what dangers does the Brexit Minister foresee if a 'no deal' hard Brexit is the outcome, and what are the likely consequences for my constituents in Islwyn? What actual confidence is there in getting the UK Government to agree to include the Welsh Government in its discussions about any reform of the political declaration?

I thank the Member for those questions. She asked me about the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit and our assessment of the impact of that on Wales. Well, she will know that we regard that as the worst possible outcome for people in Wales. Just the impact on the economy is extremely adverse—between 8 per cent and 10 per cent smaller than otherwise it would be. And that has a very real effect on people, businesses and organisations in Wales, and on the public services at large. It is the worst outcome. We hear in Parliament that there is no appetite for 'no deal', but we need to be absolutely clear that without the prospect of an alternative deal, that remains on the table. Whilst the time frame within which we're preparing for that is now significantly different, clearly, we keep under review those preparations to ensure that they are current.

She asked, in relation to her final question, about levels of confidence that the Welsh Government would be involved in reforms to the political declaration. I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, David Lidington, in relation to this, providing statutory language that would enable there to be a legislative footing to enable the Welsh Government, Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive to be involved in parallel discussions, if you like, in relation to the evolution of the political declaration, and I reiterated the importance of that in a conversation with him very recently.

With regard to the broader set of relationships between the Welsh Government and the UK Government, she will know that there is an ongoing inter-governmental review of those relationships, which we had hoped would have resulted in some outputs around this time, but because of the diversion of energies in Governments to deal with other aspects of Brexit, including 'no deal' preparations, that has not been possible. But the First Minister, I know, has been pressing very hard to ensure that that work comes back to the plenary session of the JMC at the next available opportunity. And with regard to involvement in negotiations for future phases of Brexit negotiations, I met with the relevant Government Minister only last week, to impress upon him the importance of resolving our requests in relation to fuller participation in those negotiating structures, and I very much hope that that will be a subject of discussion at the next JMC(EN).

Thank you. Diolch.