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.