The next item is a statement by the Counsel General and Brexit Minister—an update on Brexit. I call on the Minister and Counsel General, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. At the end of April, I made a statement welcoming the decision of the extraordinary meeting of the European Council to agree to an extension to the article 50 deadline. Like many, I was relieved that the decision had averted, at that moment, at least, the prospect of a chaotic 'no deal' Brexit. But I was also very clear that, however welcome the article 50 extension was, it also entailed considerable dangers. I mentioned the risk that, during that six months, rather than making decisive progress, the Parliament in Westminster would continue to be in stasis. As I stand here today, the bleak reality is that these fears have been realised. In just a few short weeks, it’s as though everything has changed.

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

The negotiations between the Government and the opposition have broken down, destroyed by the jockeying for prominence of would-be Conservative leaders, and we know that there is no appetite in the parliamentary Conservative Party for a form of Brexit that we had consistently advocated, one that retains participation in the single market and a customs union.

The Prime Minister is quitting and her deal is in tatters. It seems inevitable, given the bizarre process and the wholly unrepresentative electorate that will provide us with her successor, that in July we will have a Prime Minister who will demand, in a show of bravado, if nothing else, that the EU-27 reopens negotiations of the withdrawal agreement. This will be rejected, and the Government will set a course to a 'no deal' Brexit. Llywydd, it is incredible that a new Prime Minister, without any public mandate, could willingly preside over the UK crashing out of the EU with no deal. But it is also clear that there is no national consensus over the way forward and little support for a soft Brexit as a way of squaring the circle. We sought to reconcile the result of the 2016 referendum with the least damaging kind of Brexit, but that effort has now reached the end of the road.

The European elections have shown that the electorate remains profoundly divided, and, indeed, the split has widened, with many of those who voted for Brexit in the 2016 referendum now supporting no deal, and many, probably a majority, wanting us to remain within the European Union. Faced by this sort of binary choice, we are clear that, almost three years on from the referendum, and more than two years after we put forward 'Securing Wales’ Future', we as a Government must recognise these realities and change course.

In doing so, we make no apology for the policy that we and Plaid Cymru put forward in January 2017. It was an honest attempt to articulate a way of respecting the referendum result while not trashing the economy, recognising that the economic fall-out from a hard Brexit would only intensify, rather than solve, the problems caused by austerity—the austerity that, with the sense of being left out, played such a big part in motivating people to vote 'leave' in communities across Wales.

In publishing the White Paper, we were clear that no form of Brexit would be as good for the jobs and livelihoods of people in Wales as remaining within the European Union. And we were also clear that delivering Brexit required a trade-off between political influence and economic prosperity. But time has moved on, the UK Government has wasted more than two years in trying and failing to bodge together a deal that could conceal the inherent contradictions set out in the Prime Minister’s red lines. The ongoing uncertainty is untenable. The Confederation of British Industry has said that the current political situation with regard to EU exit is a 'crushing disaster' for business in the UK, with investor confidence at the lowest since the financial crash a decade ago. This is not some abstract debate; there are real-world impacts for the people of Wales, with lost opportunities and job losses. 

So, as a Government, we will now campaign to remain in the EU. And to make that happen, Parliament should now show the courage to admit it is deadlocked and legislate for a referendum, with 'remain' on the ballot paper. We have been calling for months for the UK Government to make preparations in case a referendum should be necessary. Now Parliament must make sure that it happens.

Let me be completely clear: any deal will require a new mandate from the electorate, and leaving without a deal must require one also. And, of course, any referendum must include remaining in the EU as an option. We have always argued that holding a further referendum risks reinforcing divisions, but the European elections have shown that any belief that the country has come together is wholly illusory. And, of course, there is the chance that a second referendum might lead to the same result as the first. But we will campaign to remain, and we will work with those within this Chamber and outside who share that view.

In the meantime, we must continue our preparations for the possibility of leaving the EU without a deal at the end of October. Since the extension was agreed in April, we have been taking the opportunity to review the preparations that we made as the anticipated departure date neared in April. It is important that we take stock and think about how best to build on all the valuable work done across the public sector and beyond. It remains the case that it is not possible to mitigate fully the impacts of a 'no deal' exit on Wales, either in the short or in the long term. There is simply no measure that could fully counteract the effects of a lurch into trading under World Trade Organization rules. The imposition of tariffs and the potential for delays and blockages at ports because of customs checks are an inevitable consequence of leaving the European Union without a deal.

The UK Government’s own paper in February of this year, setting out the implications for business and trade of leaving the EU without a deal, conceded that the UK economy would be 6.3 to 9 per cent smaller in the long term in a 'no deal' scenario than it otherwise would have been when compared with today. Alarmingly, in Wales it would be 8.1 per cent smaller. Law enforcement experts have made it clear that the UK will be a less safe place if the UK leaves without a deal.

So, we want to make sure that our preparations are as robust as possible. Overall, I am pleased to say that reflections on previous preparations are positive. We had robust governance structures in place that provided effective co-ordination and decision-making. We established sound structures for engagement with the wider public sector—indeed, the Wales Audit Office noted in their report that the Welsh Government had provided leadership in this area. Where expenditure on no deal has been required, we have sought to ensure that, as far as possible, it was in line with wider strategic aims and ideally would be beneficial in the event of no deal or otherwise. 

We've given the UK Government our reflections on UK-wide preparations. While we did see improvements in information sharing and the same type of central co-ordination that we had in Wales, it came too late. It is also important that the relationships and structures that have been built up do not deteriorate. So, building on these reflections, we are revisiting our planning and preparations to ensure that they are as robust as possible, considering, in particular, whether any of our underpinning assumptions need to change. For example, we've been considering the implications of a potential leave date in the autumn instead of the spring, such as the different patterns of imports and exports and the availability of storage capacity.

The health and well-being of the people of Wales remains our top priority and we will continue to do our utmost to secure access to medicines and security of food supplies. We will continue to support businesses in all sectors of the economy through advice provided by the Business Wales Brexit portal and financial support through the Brexit business resilience fund, the economy futures fund and the Development Bank of Wales. And we will continue to press the UK Government so that Wales does not lose a penny of funding.

We continue to strike a balance to ensure we allocate resources on 'no deal' preparations appropriately and proportionately, whilst continuing to deliver other priorities and also to prepare to ensure that Wales’s interests are reflected in any future negotiations. But with the current parliamentary impasse, the lack of any consensus about a way forward, and the prospect of a hard Brexiteer leading the Conservative Party and the country, the threat of no deal remains very real, and so we must prepare for it.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I would encourage all businesses and organisations across Wales to do the same. Of course, we fully recognise the challenge of devoting scarce resources to planning for something that may not happen, but the risk of ignoring the threat of no deal is very great. It is simply not enough to now take the chance that Parliament or the EU will put a stop to it at the last minute, once again. We provide advice and guidance through our Preparing Wales website—Paratoi Cymru—which is regularly updated with support for the people of Wales. Businesses can access financial support and advice about trading through uncertain times on the Business Wales website, including the Brexit portal, and through the Development Bank of Wales. We have now identified a number of simple, low-cost actions to help businesses prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit and which will be useful for their businesses anyway, and those details are now available on Paratoi Cymru.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we are facing the real and ongoing threat of a disorganised Brexit. Against a backdrop of real uncertainty, we are taking action where it lies within our power to make sure that Wales is prepared. As a responsible Government, safeguarding the interests of the people of Wales will always be our absolute priority.

Thank you. Darren Millar.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you, Minister, for your statement. I have to say that I'm disappointed with much of what you said. There was a lot of criticism of the Conservative Party, which, of course, has been a party that has tried, as much as it possibly can, to have delivered Brexit and gotten a withdrawal deal through the House of Commons. You've said that you don't like the fact that there's uncertainty and a deadlock, but, at every opportunity that there's been in the House of Commons to vote for a withdrawal deal that would prevent a disorderly and chaotic Brexit, the Labour Party have voted against it. Ninety per cent of Conservative MPs—[Interruption.] Ninety per cent of Conservative MPs have always, consistently, voted for that withdrawal deal, unlike 100 per cent, or almost 100 per cent, of the Labour MPs, who have voted against. So, you've had it within your gift as a party to deliver a Brexit with a deal that honours the outcome of the referendum result, and I think many people will find it pretty extraordinary that, in the wake of the EU election results, which saw a third of the vote—including some our vote, much of it your vote too—drift to the Brexit Party, which clearly wants to simply deliver Brexit—.

Now, you made reference in your statement to the fact that there are many of those who voted for Brexit in 2016 who are now supporting 'no deal' and many, probably a majority, wanting to remain, and that some people have switched their view. In my experience, most people have switched their view in the opposite direction, because they respect democracy, unlike, it would appear to me, the Welsh Government. The fact is that the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union, in a referendum. There was a debate that was conducted. I was concerned at times about the quality of that debate on both sides of the argument, but, at the end of that debate—at the end of that debate—the people of Wales voted to leave. And there has not been a single referendum, ever, in the history of our nation, where the outcome of that referendum has not been implemented. And I think that it's our duty as politicians to listen to the public when we give them the opportunity to have their say, and to implement the outcome of those votes. 

Now, you made reference as well in your statement to the fact that the CBI has expressed concern that we might be leaving the European Union without a deal. You seem to listen to the CBI when it suits you, and to ignore them when it doesn't suit you, as we've seen in terms of the M4 relief road today, and, indeed, in terms of their view on the withdrawal agreement, because, of course, they supported the withdrawal agreement that you all voted against. So, you can't have it all ways, simply selectively quoting individuals when their view has been quite clear about the Prime Minister's withdrawal deal, because they had a very clear view, and that was to support that deal in order to avoid a disorderly Brexit.

Now, let me make it quite clear that, our benches, we want a deal. We want a good deal. But, if that cannot be secured, then we are prepared to support a 'no deal' scenario, because we must be prepared to walk away—[Interruption.] You must be prepared to walk away if the deal is not good enough. Now, it's quite clear—[Interruption.] It's quite clear that the current withdrawal deal, the current withdrawal agreement, cannot command a majority in the House of Commons. It's been put to the House of Commons on many occasions. So, it cannot command a majority in its current form, and who knows what the position might be after we have a change of Prime Minister. But one thing is for certain, and that is that we must respect the outcome in terms of the referendum. 

Now, I was pleased with one part of your statement, and that was the end—not just in terms of you concluding what you were saying, but in terms of the fact that you were referring to some of the responsible behaviour that you are taking as a Government in order to prepare for the possibility of a 'no deal' Brexit. Now, as I say, I don't want to see a 'no deal' Brexit, I would far rather that we have a good trade deal with the European Union, but it seems to me that there's a lot of intransigence on the European side of the debate, where people simply do not want to give us a good deal, and that may well lead to us coming out of the EU without one. 

So, it's very important to make sure that we do obviously have some proper preparations in place. And I'm pleased to see that you are taking that risk much more seriously and have been since the start of this year in terms of preparing for a 'no deal'. Now, can I ask—? You've allocated in the past sums of money to prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit, including to various projects and activities around Government. Can I ask you whether you're going to increase that sum, given the approaching date of 31 October, and, if so, what activity you're expecting to fund from it? Because I think it is important that we understand more precisely the activity that you want to promote.

Can you also tell us: in terms of the projects that have already been funded as a result of the EU transition funding, in terms of the people actually tapping into those funds, do you have a geographic distribution within Wales where you can map exactly the interest and the engagement? Because I think what concerns me, if there is going to be a 'no deal' Brexit—and, as I say, I want to avoid that, but, if there is, we need to make sure that all parts of Wales and all industries within Wales are prepared for that possibility and that eventuality. So, I would appreciate some updates on that in particular.

I welcome what you said, as I say, about the range of activity that's going on and the serious preparations that are now being undertaken, but I do regret that you're in a party now that is supporting a second referendum, which is talking about campaigning to remain in that referendum, and ignoring, effectively, the outcome of the first vote. I put it to you that you are a party that has consistently in the past implemented the outcome of referendums whether you've liked the outcome or not, and you've been on different sides of referendums: some you've won, some you've lost, historically. What's so different about this one? I just do not get it.

I thank the Member for some of those questions, certainly. He started with the approach of ascribing blame, if you like, for the breakdown in parliamentary talks and the failure to achieve a parliamentary consensus. I think—and I don't seek to minimise the results of my own party in the European elections, but I think the electorate across the UK has been very clear in its judgment on where the principal responsibility for that lies, and they are right to put the blame at the door of the Conservative Party.

We have engaged until the last moment in an effort to seek to reconcile the 2016 referendum result with the kind of Brexit that we think was the least damaging form of Brexit in the interests of Wales. We have always been clear that we think any version of Brexit is less in the interests of Wales than staying in the European Union. We failed to win that argument in 2016, but we have striven in the period since then to seek to find a consensus for a path through that. And it has been from the start the Conservative Government's in Westminster and Theresa May's complete intransigence in seeking, from the start—which was the responsibility of leadership across the UK—to build that consensus, difficult though that would be, across Parliament. She failed to seek that, let alone to achieve that. So, I take no lessons from the Conservative Party about seeking to engage creatively and constructively in this process. I'm absolutely clear where the failure lies, and that is at the door of the UK Government and Theresa May as Prime Minister. 

He talks about being prepared to support a 'no deal' scenario; I just want to be very clear that, if we get to a 'no deal' scenario and we see the damage unfolding across Wales that we on these benches are very clear will be the case, that statement is remembered, that the Conservative Party in the Assembly here is prepared to tolerate a 'no deal' outcome for Wales—for which there is no mandate, by the way, and an incoming new Conservative Prime Minister who chooses to pursue that route has no mandate for that route. And I know that, in other contexts, he's called for general elections when there have been changes of national leadership, so I'm assuming in this context he'll be calling for a general election when a new Prime Minister is elected in Parliament.

We have sought throughout to—. He talks about listening to the public; it is because we have seen the failure of an attempt to reconcile those two principles that we are today saying, as the First Minister said last week, that we are calling for a referendum so that the people can give their opinion on how to resolve this and we will listen to the people and take their judgment on how best to resolve this situation. 

You asked me about preparations. You asked me about preparations. Well, you will know that we've spent—. Of the European Union transition fund, we've allocated, of the £50 million earmarked for that, around about £34 million already, and there are discussions under way about the make-up of the balance of that fund and the sorts of investments that might be made in it. Clearly, one of the issues is ensuring that we allocate it against a range of Brexit scenarios. At this point in time, we think that the risk of a 'no deal' Brexit is very likely, and so, in that scenario, clearly the focus will be on that, but we are considering the quantum of that fund at this point in time. 

In relation to the point that you made about geographic distribution, a number of the investments from that fund have been on a pan-Wales basis. So, for example, most recently, perhaps—or one of the most recent allocations is an additional £1.4 million, I believe, to local authorities across Wales to enable each local authority to recruit a Brexit-specific officer to co-ordinate local activity. But there's additional funding for the Welsh Local Government Association on a cross-Wales basis. There have been investments into the red meat sector, for example, benchmarking activity across Wales in that sector. And we encourage applications to that fund from all parts of Wales. We've tried to manage the fund in a way that is low in terms of bureaucracy, and we would encourage applications, of course, from all parts of Wales. And in particular the dedicated Brexit resilience fund, which has been very popular—we encourage applications from businesses in all parts of Wales to that fund. We recognise the importance of making sure that all parts of Wales are engaging with that and ensuring that they get the support that's appropriate. 

I’m pleased to welcome the fact that the Welsh Government has changed its policy. It’s not a reaffirmation, as the First Minister said, it is a change of policy on the need for a referendum in order to put the final say on our relationship with the European Union in the hands of the people. I’m not sure how many times we’ve discussed this issue in this Chamber with the Government insisting that a sensible Brexit remains possible, but at least now, thanks to the European elections, perhaps, you have come to the conclusion that Plaid Cymru came to many moons ago, that a referendum is the only way of resolving the Brexit dilemma.

Now, I agree with what you’ve had to say about how appropriate and constructive the publication of ‘Securing Wales’ Future’ in 2017 was, and I’d like to pay tribute to the excellent work of my predecessor, Steffan Lewis, in drawing that up jointly with your Government. But it did become apparent at a very early stage for us that we couldn’t reason with the UK Government, who simply refused to listen to the voice of Wales. There was no choice then but to seek a public vote. I would like to ask, therefore: in light of your u-turn, what actions will your Government now take in order to deliver this objective? What steps will you take to put the necessary arrangements in place to hold a referendum? How will you go about campaigning in order to secure a referendum and to win that referendum on the ‘remain’ side, and what pressure will you put on the Labour Party centrally, which continues to refuse to give a clear policy statement?

Clearly, the referendum itself is only part of the picture. Major work is required in order to bring society back together, in order to start to reintegrate our communities and to alleviate the splits that have developed over the years. So, what plans do you have in relation to this?

I’d also like to ask for details on the process of how the Government decided to change the policy. When was the decision taken? Was it before the vote at the European elections or after the results of the election? What was the process? I’m asking for the sake of transparency, to try to understand how the Government makes major decisions such as this one.

Finally, I would like to ask for clarity on something that you said in a meeting of the external affairs committee yesterday. In discussing a disagreement between your Government and the UK Government on state aid, you said, and I quote, 

'We have a shared view on how state aid should work.'

—so, a shared view with the Westminster Government.

Plaid Cymru agrees that state aid is a devolved issue, as it isn’t listed in the Wales Act as a reserved power, but can you explain how your Government, under a socialist leader, can share a vision with the Tory Government in Westminster on how state aid should work? Why don’t you believe that the Welsh Government should have the ability to support industries that could be at risk as a result of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, for example? I’m particularly concerned about the steel industry, which is facing a torrent of uncertainty as a result of Brexit, major changes as a result of the unstable markets and the trade war between China and the United States. In a Guardian article recently, Carwyn Jones stated that the UK Government hadn’t offered any support for our steel industry. How, then, can you say that you agree with their vision in this area?

I thank the Member for the questions that were tied to that contribution. Could I just explain first, in terms of the policy in terms of supporting another referendum, that it wasn’t the electoral results? They weren't the only factor in that. The First Minister, here in the Chamber, about 10 days before the election, mentioned that the time was approaching to look at the question of another referendum. The discussions between the front benches were going on at that point, and it became clear by mid May that that wasn’t going to bear fruit, and that was a very important factor, because that was the most likely process that was going to lead to an agreement on a soft Brexit.

Then, the morning after the election, before the results came out, Theresa May, of course, decided that she was going to resign as Prime Minister. Although it had been difficult to come to an agreement with Theresa May on the kind of Brexit we’ve been calling for here, it would be much more difficult to do that with any of the people who might succeed her. It was, obviously, in the wake of those factors together that the question of having an agreement on the kind of Brexit that has been described in ‘Securing Wales’ Future’—that the question of securing that came to the end of the road.

Following that, given that this Senedd had decided—also, the Member’s party, as well—and supported on several occasions motions that put a referendum as one option, it was important that we recognised that policy and the pressure of that policy in calling for a referendum. Of course, we’ve been clear that we would campaign to remain in the European Union, as we did last time, and we’re willing to do that with other parties, to answer her question, to ensure that result, if there is another opportunity to do that.

Can I just make one point about this question of Plaid Cymru’s commitment to a referendum? It’s not true to say that this was a very early decision. In my mind, this happened when the leadership swapped from Leanne Wood to Adam Price. It’s fair enough to say that it happened, but I don’t think that that was an early decision that was made. Our parties worked for a significant period after ‘Securing Wales’ Future’ to try and realise the principles, as she recognised, that Steffan Lewis did so much to co-operate with the Welsh Government to describe.

In terms of the process of organising a referendum, on the whole, as the Member will know, the responsibility lies with the Westminster Government for that. In recent weeks I, and the First Minister also, have continued to push for that. I did that in mid April with David Lidington, and in May, and also with Stephen Barclay when he came here to Cardiff. Various steps in the necessary legislation need to be taken before these measures are taken. In terms of our work here in Wales, the First Minister has written to the Permanent Secretary to ask her to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to allow us here to be ready for that. The kind of steps tied in with that are dealing with the registration officers at a local level and considering whether we need different guidance for the administration of Governments during the referendum period. So, those specific steps are being taken.

She asked me what the opportunity was to persuade the Labour Party centrally on this. Well, we’ve been arguing consistently about what we think is in the best interests of Wales and the kind of Brexit that we thought we could achieve. It’s obvious now that there’s no hope of achieving that, and it’s obvious as well that the First Minister has been arguing the case for a referendum with the central Labour Party. But can I be clear? What I’m accountable for here is the way of thinking of Welsh Labour and the Welsh Government on these issues. At the end of the day, as has been made clear since last week, when we feel that we need to do something different, but in the interests of Wales, we’re going to do that, and we’re clear in our opinion that we need a referendum here to resolve the situation we’re in at present.

And just to clear up this question on state aid, the Member is clear, I think, that she wants to have a close relationship with the single market, but in order to ensure that, I say that we need to have the same state aid arrangements. We need a consistent floor for these across the markets that we want to export into and trade with, and that’s the principle that was being shared with the UK Government. I think that that principle is shared also by Plaid Cymru. It’s clear to me that there is more flexibility in the state aid rules than it appears the Government has taken into consideration so far, and so in the future I hope that there will be more consideration of these issues. But the principle that we’re committed to here, and I think her party is as well, is that we need a level playing field for these issues for the European markets that we would wish to be able to trade with in the future.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I also welcome the statement that we’ve heard this afternoon? I do think there has been a welcome, perhaps not in all corners of the Chamber, but certainly on these benches. We warmly welcome the statement given today, and we’re also pleased with the tone that you have adopted this afternoon, Minister. It is important that the Government leads on this, and doesn’t simply respond to what we hear and see as events develop.

May I ask three things? First of all, you’ve said in response to previous questions how you intend to implement this policy and what your approach will be. Can I have some confirmation that this will be the subject of debate in meetings that you will have with UK Government Ministers and also whether you have discussed this with Ministers in Scotland too? Because I do think it’s important that we broaden out the discussion on a referendum and how we ensure that we can generate the necessary tempo to do that.

And can I ask you what the status of the White Paper is? You’ve already mentioned the White Paper this afternoon, and you mentioned it in your statement, but what is the status of that White Paper now? Does the White Paper stand as a policy objective of some kind? Does it remain as the Welsh Government’s policy? And will you still be making the case for the objectives set out in that White Paper?

Finally, the other question I’d like to ask you, Minister, is this. We know, and I know, as one who represents Blaenau Gwent, that the reasons for people’s decisions in previous elections and previous referenda on Brexit are very often nothing to do with Brexit and relate to many other issues. We’ve discussed this in this place previously. Is there any way in which the Welsh Government can ensure that we can communicate clear messages about Brexit and the impact that that will have on communities that are already economically vulnerable, such as Blaenau Gwent, and also ensure that there is a clear message about the damage that Brexit could do to communities such as those in Blaenau Gwent, and that that should come from the Welsh Government? Thank you.

I thank the Member for those questions. There are three main questions that he asked. In terms of the first question, this will be a subject of debate with UK Government Ministers. I can confirm that that will be true. As I mentioned earlier, we have raised this question, but we will continue to do that and continue to press for specific action to be taken. This has been the subject of debate for a long time with the Scottish Government, and that relationship mentioned the importance of collaboration. We’ve seen in this Chamber where we have succeeded is where we’ve co-operated between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru in the White Paper, and also with the Scottish Government. That collaboration has been a very important factor in the successes we’ve had along a very turbulent journey since the 2016 referendum.

In terms of the content of the White Paper, well, if it was possible to have an agreement in Westminster, then that would be the kind of agreement that we’d like to see, but we don’t think that’s possible, and just to be clear, I’m not just seeing that as something that’s different to a referendum. We think that we need a referendum on any kind of deal. I don’t want that to be misunderstood. But if a deal was possible, then certainly that’s still the kind of deal, from our perspective, that would be best for us. But the possibility of that, in our opinion, following the elections for the Tory party leadership specifically—we think there’s no realistic possibility of that in terms of my personal analysis.

In terms of the final question that the Member raised, I think this goes to the heart of the issue, because we have been discussing the relationship between the UK and the EU for three years, and every second of that time that we’ve been discussing that is a second where we could have been discussing the issues that are really at the heart of the decision of people to leave the EU—austerity and pressure on public services and so forth. I believe that when we can communicate directly with people and explain, for example, that voting for the Brexit Party means a vote for putting the NHS on the table for discussing that in a trade deal with the US Government—that’s the kind of policy that’s at the heart of the party behind me, not the relationship with the EU. That’s a starting point for the kind of UK and kind of Wales we would not want to see, and undermines the communities that we represent.

Of course, it was the EU who put the NHS on the table in its TTIP negotiations. But if I may try and find a little common ground with the Minister, in terms of the 'no deal' preparations, which I did see, in terms of the Minister's knowledge of and exposition of, through my membership of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, I think it is good that Ministers have sought to spend money, where possible, in a way that also supports other objectives. I think Ministers also had some success, from a Wales perspective, in improving communications with the UK Government, which were poor initially but have improved at least to a degree. I think when one compares the 'no deal' preparations—certainly, Ministers here have been subject to fewer successful legal challenges than UK Ministers have on some of their preparations and I would like to recognise that.

The Minister refers to the Wales Audit Office reports saying they've given leadership, and I'm sure he likes to cite that. He also refers to the robust governance of the programme and sound structures. Could he clarify: is he referring there also to the Wales Audit Office or, on those bits, is he more marking his own homework?

The bit we've seen—I find this insouciance absolutely extraordinary. People who aren't in his bubble listen to him say that there needs to be a referendum and that, 'Of course, any referendum must include remaining in the EU as an option', as if we haven't had a referendum less than three years ago, which he promised to respect the result of but now is doing the opposite. I mean, he argues a bit with Plaid Cymru about which went back on what they promised earlier, but the fact is that they both promised to respect the referendum result, and both of them don't respect the referendum result and are telling people they need to vote again, as if that will solve divisions in our society. We took a decision; you refuse to implement it. Why, if you ask people to vote again, would they expect you to implement it any more next time than you have this time? And you may rightly observe that it's the UK Government at Westminster that bears a particular responsibility for this.

We have heard one face of the Conservative Party speaking today, and I agree with much of what Darren has said. I do wonder, though, what the Minister's assessment is of the probability of our leaving with no deal on 31 October and how that compares with the probability that he'd previously assessed of our leaving on 29 March, because real hard spending decisions follow from his judgment. The First Minister would have us believe that everything has changed and that it's now definitely going to be no deal or almost certainly or very likely, I think as the Minister said. But, actually, the reality in this Conservative leadership contest is that we have Michael Gove saying, 'Oh, well let's stay in until at least the end of 2020', Jeremy Hunt saying it would be political suicide to have no deal, and I don't know if the Minister puts more stress on the promises of Boris Johnson than I do, but he says we'll leave with or without a deal, but that's what 500-odd MPs said when they voted for article 50. It's what Theresa May said over 100 times. How likely does he really think it is that that's going to happen when he's reaching into taxpayers' pockets and trying to make sensible judgments about where to spend that contingency money in preparing?

He said earlier in his statement—. And I don't know how he reads the tea leaves on this, along with Alun Davies; they know much more about how people vote than they do themselves. Perhaps it's a sort of false consciousness: 'Of course the EU referendum had nothing to do with the EU; it was all about austerity.' I mean, very convenient for you, but how do you know that? You say today that the European election showed that probably the majority were wanting us to remain within the EU. I mean, what tendentious way do you get this? Is this sort of adding up all the losers votes and telling them what they all think? Is the Minister actually aware that there has been an exit poll that surveyed 10,000 voters on a representative sample who'd voted in European elections, asked them how they voted in the referendum and 45 per cent said they voted to leave, 50 per cent said they voted to remain—suggesting that turnout was higher amongst remain supporters—but notwithstanding that, that exit poll said that 46 per cent would now vote to remain, while 50 per cent would vote to leave?

Finally, can I ask the Minister: we've heard what Darren has to say, but a fellow doyen of the remain establishment said that when people voted for the Brexit Party—and this was Nick Ramsay, the AM for Monmouth—it reflected the ignorance of voters in Wales; does the Minister agree with him?

I thank the Member for some of those questions. On the question of preparations, I thought we were off to a good start, then, until he asked me whether I was marking my own homework. Just to be clear, what we are doing is perfectly proper and appropriate for a Government in this situation. So, the Wales Audit Office has given the report that he is aware of and that Members all know about, but, as I've been very clear, we've undertaken a separate exercise to ascertain whether we are comfortable with the actions that we have been taking, and that's been the content of my statement. The UK Government, completely appropriately, is doing its own exercise. It's running to a slightly longer timescale than ours, and we will be drawing all of that together, which is exactly what we should be doing as a responsible Government, so I make no apology for that. The judgments in this speech reflect my understanding of where we are today, but I'll be making further information available in due course to the Chamber in relation to that.

He talks about respecting the referendum. Let's be absolutely clear: we have sought to do that. We have spent the last three years seeking to do that, and I've made it very clear today that we feel a kind of Brexit that's not destructive of Wales, but which recognises that referendum, is not—. We've reached the end of the road with those discussions. And he sits there—. He's an advocate of a 'no deal' Brexit, for heaven's sake: a Brexit that has no mandate at all. None of that was aired in the referendum campaign in 2016. We were told quite the opposite: that a deal was a walk in the park, and absolutely that has been morphed into a vision that that was an endorsement of a 'no deal' Brexit. It's precisely because of the failure to get to any other alternative that we're advocating a referendum at this point because we know that a 'no deal' Brexit is so catastrophic to Wales.

In the question that he asked the First Minister earlier, he was talking about low wages in Wales. The 'no deal' Brexit that he advocates would lead to £2,000 less in people's incomes in Wales. That probably isn't very much to a man of his means, but the people who he's pulled the wool over their eyes for the last—. [Interruption.] Absolutely, that kind of Brexit that he advocates is not in the interest of Wales, and if we end up having that kind of Brexit, people need to remember who was advocating for that sort of Brexit.

With regard to the planning assumptions, there is a very, very significantly increased risk of leaving with no deal, and that is the basis on which we're allocating our resources and making the preparations that we are making. I'm afraid to say that there's a hint of complacency, I'm afraid, in the Member's question. Yes, we were working towards 29 March; yes, we were working towards 12 April; and, yes, now we're working towards 31 October. We don't want to be in this situation, but we are making the best planning assumptions based on the circumstances that we find ourselves in. And he would do well, I think, to recognise the work that's been undertaken in Government to prepare adequately and appropriately, and recognise that the judgments we are reaching are ones that are balancing the pressures that we face from 'no deal' with trying to ensure that Wales's interests may be protected as far as they can be in any future negotiations that we might end up having with the European Union.

Thank you very much, Counsel General, in your Brexit Minister role.