The next item, then, is the statement by the Chair of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee on Brexit priorities. I call on the Chair to make his statement. David Rees.

Diolch, Llywydd. I've brought forward this statement today in order to give the Assembly an update on our priorities for Brexit for the remaining months of 2019, and hopefully to take some of the politics out of this as well. Members might have heard this said before many times at various points during the Brexit process, but nevertheless we are entering a critical phase between now and 31 October of this year. The decisions made over the coming months will have far-reaching consequences that will shape our politics for many, many years to come, and although many of these decisions will take place in Westminster, there are still a number of areas where we as a committee will focus our efforts on behalf of Wales.

Yesterday we heard again from the Brexit Minister a statement, and I appreciate very much the continual updates we receive from the Minister. But as we heard yesterday, it was very much a stagnant position in Westminster because not much is going on there. Llywydd, in my statement today I would like to focus my comments on three priority areas that we believe are important for Wales: Brexit preparedness, particularly in terms of the implications for our economy; the risk to devolution and the future of the union of the United Kingdom as a consequence of what may come; and the impact of Brexit on EU and European Economic Area nationals living in Wales.

During the last two and a half years, we have regularly examined the preparedness of key sectors in order to highlight the issues that are of particular importance to Wales. We have always focused on the issues that are relevant to Wales, and that's important for Members to remind themselves. This has included looking at the implications of Brexit for Welsh ports; taking a look at how public services in Wales are preparing; and examination of some of the implications for key sectors of the economy. Whilst much of this work has been done, it has to be noted that our work in this area, particularly in relation to no deal, cannot be considered to be an exhaustive list of the potential risks and benefits. In particular, it remains the case that the implications of leaving the EU without a deal could manifest themselves in unpredictable and damaging ways.

Which brings me to the challenges of the next three to four months. And it is important that we discuss this today, because we are going to have recess on Friday, a new Prime Minister will come into force next week, he will form a new Government, and we will not be returning until mid September. A lot can happen in that time. Businesses in Wales lack clarity on our future trading arrangements, and are currently wrestling with preparations for a damaging 'no deal' Brexit. The risks to the food and drinks industry, particularly the red meat sector, are considerable. We know that 88 per cent of food and drink exports currently go to the European market and that the tariffs that would be placed on these exports in the event of no deal and World Trade Organization rules could be crippling. And, moreover, the effects of non-tariff barriers and of sanitary and biosecurity checks at our borders and ports would pose a significant threat to the Welsh economy and the flow of goods and services with our nearest markets. And whilst we have been assured to some extent of the Welsh Government's planning as regards these matters, we will continue to scrutinise their activities in these areas during the coming months, and it must be said that no amount of planning—no amount of planning—can prepare us for such a scenario fully.

Turning to our second priority, leaving the EU necessitates the need for the Governments and legislatures of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom to transform the way they work together, and to ensure the interests of their nations are managed fairly as we leave the range of EU-wide common policy frameworks. Fundamentally, there appears to be a consensus emerging from all, except the UK Government, that existing inter-governmental structures must change to keep pace with our future outside the EU. We, and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, have previously highlighted that inter-governmental mechanisms within the UK are inadequate. That's a gentle word, because we were stronger in some of our other condemnations of it. And it is the inadequacy of these mechanisms that is likely to cause the increasing strain in the relationship between the UK and devolved Governments in the months and the years ahead. There are two new scrutiny challenges that we, as an Assembly, must address with some urgency, and that's the emergence of UK-wide common policy frameworks and the impact on devolution of UK international agreements.

Llywydd, I am pleased to note the action the Chairs' forum commented upon last week. They've agreed to take work in relation to the frameworks forward, and Chairs of their respective committees will pass it on with their committees. I'm very much appreciative of that fact. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the Chamber and other Assembly committees as we meet those challenges posed under these new scrutiny tasks. And a very serious question we must ask ourselves is: how do we scrutinise these? And perhaps how do we do so with other legislatures as well. In doing so, we must keep in mind that decisions on frameworks and international agreements will have a profound effect on our ability to implement policies for the people of Wales in devolved areas, which are obviously of importance. For example, agricultural policy, environmental protection, and aspects of healthcare and transport policy—they can all be impacted upon by international agreements and the Welsh Government would be required to discuss the implementation of those through its policies.

Our third priority relates to the freedom of movement and the continuation of citizens' rights after Brexit. And although there's broad consensus that there should be a reciprocal guarantee on citizens' rights after Brexit, there are still large areas of future policy that need to be considered and agreed. And it's for that reason that we have launched a consultation into the implications of the UK Government’s White Paper on the future of immigration rules after Brexit. We will also be launching an online conversation through the Dialogue app in the coming weeks, and holding focus group sessions with those most likely to be affected by changes to these rules in the autumn term. We cannot fail to do so. It is critical that we support our EU citizens living in Wales, because throughout this process, the important thing for us as a committee is to state clearly to EU citizens living in Wales, 'You will always be welcomed here. The contribution you make is valued, and we hope that you will continue to make your lives here as part of our communities up and down this great country of ours.'

This was the message that I relayed during the recent visit of His Excellency the Romanian ambassador to the UK. It was frightening, in an unofficial discussion we had with him and his accompanying group from the honorary consulate in Wales, to hear them highlight how they as a family, or their children, were actually still told to go home—and they were children going to a Welsh-medium school. It's a message I want to continue to relay during the months ahead of us. It's something I think every Member in this Chamber will want to join with me in relaying—that Wales will always be a home to people who want to live here and work here and actually help us serve our people. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I begin by thanking David Rees for the way he Chairs the committee? I think it's a monumental task in a most remarkable period of our political history, and we have a very necessary part to play here in Wales, and David's leadership has been instrumental in getting that committee to work with incredible effectiveness and really deep agreement on many, many issues, which, given the passionate views that are held by people, is a remarkable feat. 

I have to say, having started on that positive note, I'm very disappointed by the poor attendance of the Welsh Government for this session. I think all the Ministers with the relevant responsibility here should have attended. I'm not sure why they haven't, because to balance my remarks, there's been excellent participation from the Welsh Government in the work of the committee and some high-quality, candid, wise evidence from Government Ministers. So, again, I think it is out of character in terms of the way they've behaved so far in our role in scrutinising their effectiveness as a Government. But, I do think it's appropriate to put those remarks on the record. 

I believe that a 'no deal' outcome would be a grave risk. I can't see how any rational person could possibly come to any other conclusion. Even if Brexit becomes more settled in the medium to long term—and it might; you can make those predictions—short-term turbulence would be severe. We've got no right to make decisions that expose the most vulnerable in our society to those risks, far apart from what we might do in a longer term economic capacity in this country. So, I think that needs to be noticed. And it's been a real problem for those who are, beyond rhetoric, committed to a 'no deal' outcome, at least as being held as a prospect. Because the other side simply see it as something that holds very little credibility given the damage it would cause to those that propose it. 

There's a danger of triggering a recession with a 'no deal', perhaps even a severe recession. What is certainly the case is that any recession would hit probably hardest in Wales. We are the most exposed part of the British economy. The pound is predicted to fall to parity with the dollar by many analysts. If anyone heard the Radio 4 financial news this morning, it was not a nice way to start your day. That would be a level last seen in the recession of the early 1980s. It would have a big impact on effective income levels in this country as so much of the global economy is enumerated in dollars. We would see our wage rates, in effect, fall quite considerably. As the Chair has said, the lamb, steel, auto and aeronautical sectors face particular challenges, and I commend the work that's been done in particular in these areas and the response of the Welsh Government in trying to prepare as much as it can to soften the impact in those areas. 

And in the world after Brexit, UK inter-governmental structures will need reform, a reform that strengthens the union and allows common frameworks to work effectively. I again commend the Welsh Government for its balanced approach. It has conceded where it has considered the UK Government to have been really constructive, and it has also inevitably brought our attention to areas that it considers deficient. But I do think there's a level of genuine goodwill on both sides—both the UK Government and the Welsh Government—in terms of navigating this period and ensuring that we do have structures that are going to be robust for the future. 

But I do believe the following situation, or the circumstances that may emerge in the next three months, could be particularly damaging to the union and to Wales. We need to be aware that the next three months will be like no other period potentially in our political history in the last 100 years in peacetime. And that we have to realise—. This is not a normal situation; it's taken three years to get to this stage, but what happens next could be very quick and dramatic.

I think we should rule out now a 'no deal' Brexit and make that clear across the Chamber. How has it become the default position that we could tolerate a 'no deal' Brexit? Whoever voted for it? How many of us heard "'no deal' Brexit" in the referendum campaign? Not a whisper, and plenty of evidence amongst those that proposed ending our relationship with the EU that that would not be the way that divorce would be arranged.

Proroguing Parliament—well, we do have a popular, or at least a character who is regarded by many as popular, and he's referred to as the eighteenth century member. Well, proroguing Parliament would be a seventeenth century measure it seems to me. A Charles I approach to dealing with Parliament. But—

Will you take an intervention?

I fear I can't on a statement. 

This is a statement. 

But Parliament is the national forum of the British state. Now, I know some of you don't sign up completely to that, but just as we are the national forum of Wales, Parliament is the national forum of the British state, and at this time of supreme domestic crisis, to even tolerate others proposing proroguing Parliament as an option to get you over the line of a 'no deal' Brexit is utterly preposterous and it should be ruled out by all responsible politicians.

Another thing that should be ruled out is any situation, any approach, that leads to immediate acrimonious relations with the EU. We are leaving. It's for us to convince them that we're doing it with respect to all the vital considerations and interests that are out there with our partners and with ourselves. And I do fear a very ugly form of nationalism developing, in certain quarters anyway, that suddenly turns any failure on the part of the UK Government to somehow be the fault of Johnny European foreigner, and that needs to be called out. We need positive relations with the EU from day one. How are we ever going to get the sort of trading relationship that we require?

If I may conclude, the best outcome has always been a deal. I urge all those to be as generous as possible in getting a deal over the line. It has to be, in essence, what is there. What is there is not Mrs May's deal; it is the EU's deal proposed with the British state. It is above any particular politician. I know the Welsh Government has had some reservations, but we are facing the prospect of 'no deal' or the current deal perhaps slightly modified through a political statement. That's where we are. And that current deal would respect the Brexit referendum and it would also respect the economic and trading realities that currently exist, and will likely exist for many years to come. And to fly in the face of those and pretend we live in some seventeenth century world, where British dominance over world trade is emerging, is preposterous and needs to end now. 

Can I thank David for his contribution, and particularly for his kind words at the start of that? Just to inform everybody, I have received apologies from the Counsel General. I do agree that perhaps Ministers are Brexited-out a little bit, but it is an important area that we need to ensure—. And, to be fair to them, it's quite right that Ministers have never shied away from coming to the committee and being full and frank with the committee, and the odd UK Minister has done that as well. 

He also highlighted concerns again that the next three months are critical three months—August, September, October. I think, actually, four and five months, because I think November, December, after we leave, if we do so without a deal, are going to be just as bad, facing some challenging times for us. But there are going to be critical times ahead. He's also highlighted a strange task of claiming democracy, but yet proroguing Parliament, which denies democracy in one sense. So, it's something we can't have a say on, unfortunately, because we are not able to stop that, but it is an impact that we should be fully aware of, because the consequences of that are serious to us, because if they prorogue Parliament, clearly nothing gets done in Westminster for those months. It impacts upon what we do—we don't know where we will go. We clearly wouldn't understand one thing is the purpose of it is a 'no deal' exit, and that is something we would therefore clearly have to accept is going to happen. But the consequences beyond that are something we really don't understand. Because, as David highlighted, what's important is to strengthen the union through the reform, and if you prorogue Parliament, I somehow struggle to see how that will strengthen the union through reform. So it is a very serious question we have to watch.

He has made quite clear again the challenges that a 'no deal' would bring to the UK as a whole, and the risks that we would be facing. And he's quite right on the parity of the pound; I read this morning that they anticipate the pound will drop to $1. I remember the time when it was $4 something to a pound; actually, I do remember an awful lot $2.50 to the pound. I know it's dropped dramatically, but I've never seen it to $1 to a pound—that's absolutely crazy. And those are the figures they're talking about. So we do need to be very wary of the consequences, because, yes, a lot of global products are actually purchased in the process through dollars—oil being a perfect example of that—and that will impact upon everything we do, because it impacts upon the transport costs of everything we deliver. So, it is challenging ahead of us if that does happen as a consequence.

I'd also like to thank David Rees for his excellent chairmanship of the committee, and the officials who do such a sterling job in assisting our work. I consider it a privilege that I'm able to play a part of a committee that's doing this important work relating to Brexit in this crucial, bizarre time in our politics, and with people from across different parties who want to take the issues we face seriously, and want to work constructively, to scrutinise decisions, and put forward suggestions for the future. And in that regard, I'd like to associate myself with much of what David Melding has said.

Chair, these are worrying times, and something I've talked about before is the opportunity cost that's been thrown up by all of this planning for 'no deal', and all of the resource that we could have otherwise spent on building up our nation and improving services. The Wales Audit Office, I know, are alive to this—they gave evidence to us along those lines. Do you agree that when we finally get to the other side, whether it's 'deal' or 'no deal' or 'remaining'—whatever it is that faces us—that that's going to be a big job of work for us to look at?

You've also talked about the absolutely vital role that our committee is going to be doing in speaking to EU nationals living in Wales, and the impact that the uncertainty has on them. A few weeks ago, I met a constituent of mine who is an EU national and she presented me with a book of Brexit testimonials, called In Limbo. The name says it all, doesn't it? So many people's lives have been just caught in suspension at the moment because of this uncertainty. And you referred, Chair, to the fact that one person we were speaking to recently had spoken about how their child had been told to, 'Go home.' Well, some constituents who are EU nationals have said very similar things to me as well. It's not right and I'd like to associate myself with the remarks that you've made to all the EU nationals living in Wales—please know that you are welcome, that your contribution to our economy and our society is valued and it enriches us profoundly.

I'm delighted that, as a committee, we will be considering the future of the union as part of our future work programme. There is a pressing need to scrutinise inter-governmental structures, and to keep the UK Government's feet to the fire, in terms of the draft principles that were published recently, given that, so far, they've given no indication that they intend to change their brazen ways. I look forward to scrutinising the common policy frameworks and working to ensure Westminster does not get away with signing international agreements that have the potential to degrade devolved services without Wales having a voice.

At times like this, with revolution almost in the air, it is the duty of this place, and the Government, to prepare for the future. Yes, this means preparing for all sorts of different Brexit eventualities, but it also means preparing this country for different constitutional eventualities. The First Minister himself told the committee that there are moving parts to this union, of which the Welsh Government is not in control, and that it may be possible that Wales will need to consider its constitutional future very soon, were Scotland to become independent, for example. There is therefore a duty on the Welsh Government to prepare the groundwork for this eventuality—something that, I accept, is outside the scope of our committee.

So, I repeat my call—speaking as an individual member of the committee, rather than for the committee as a whole—for the Welsh Government to give urgent consideration to convening a constitutional convention to consider the different constitutional options available to Wales. There’s no point calling for a UK-wide convention of this sort. The former First Minister spent years trying his best to achieve this and got nowhere. Scotland are on their own constitutional path and England has no intention of playing fair. As far as we can see, this is something we have to do for ourselves.

This convention, which could be similar in scope to the Kilbrandon commission, convened by Wilson’s Labour Government, should consider the different possibilities available to Wales and how these would function in practice: from home rule to devo-max; from federalism to confederalism; and, yes, independence too. If this work is not done, we may find ourselves sinking as part of a dysfunctional and unbalanced England and Wales ship of state, ruing the fact that we did not build a lifeboat when we had the chance. We have a duty to our citizens and future generations to give very serious consideration to this matter. The time to prepare for the future is now. 

I thank Delyth for her contribution and the points she's made. I think the opportunity costs are something that we should be looking at, because I don't hear any Brexiteers challenging the costs that have been put towards leaving the EU, other than the divorce bill. But there are additional costs behind that. We all talked in the referendum about the costs of being in the EU, but we don't get any figures for how much it's actually costing us now, the amount of money that's being spent, the departmental disruption that's being caused, and those figures. That's something perhaps we will want to ask the Welsh Government at some point, as to the types of figures that they're spending on this, irrespective of the transformation fund, Minister, because I can see you looking there, but the amount of money that you're spending on other activities as well.

I'd also agree with Delyth on the EU nationals—they're still in limbo. We are not a nation of Donald Trumps, where people say, 'Go home.' People come here and are welcome here and want to be a part of here, and we want them to be part of here. I think we've always been a multicultural society. I'll open up. My mother's from Belgium. She came over just after the second world war. We are a nation of people who've always welcomed others, and we should never, ever, ever change from that. If anyone wants to emulate Donald Trump, I suggest you go to America and not be here. 

The future of the union is a very strong thing. We may have different views on what a constitutional convention should be, but at some point, we do really need to get to grips with: what will the union look like? And if we don't do it, what could it look like? We need to get to that position, because I do fear that there are some ostriches in Westminster who keep burying their heads, who do not want to know and don't want to look at what it could look like if we don't take action now.

I thank the Chair of the committee for his statement. It's good to see that the Counsel General and Brexit Minister is in this place now as well. Also, I thought the statement was very considered actually, and was less partisan and more balanced than the contributions we've heard so far from the floor. Also, I thought, better than what I saw at his committee on Monday, where the future work programme had a section on having a referendum Bill work programme, as if Wales and the UK hadn't already voted to leave, and it was coloured in green for September and October for evidence gathering. [Interruption.] This is not a debate; this is a statement, David, and the remarks we heard from you, David Melding, I thought were more suited for a debate than a statement, but this is a statement and I will try and reply appropriately. 

And then apparently, we're going to have red reporting in November on a referendum Bill. We voted to leave, and to date, you've been very good about that and recognising that we need to leave, David. But it's hardly a surprise, when there's such a consensus on the committee, if that's the contribution from the Conservative benches. 

What we see about this is, I think, something that just is not a balanced contribution. We've never seen parity with the dollar and to suggest that the early 1980s recession led to parity with the dollar is just so ahistorical and wrong. In the early 1980s recession, we had a $2.40 or $2.45 peak in the sterling/dollar exchange rate. Many blame it for the shutdown of much of heavy industry across Wales. It was a high exchange rate, not a low exchange rate, that was the problem with that recession. It was in 1986-7 that we saw the lows in the currency with the fall in the oil price. 

You speak about proroguing, but, actually, it's a fairly standard thing in the politics of some other countries with our system. Canada, for instance—you're not aware of the situation in Canada, with Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister there? He prorogued in 2008, and he prorogued again in 2010, and then for three months in 2013—all to help him get through political—[Interruption.] But not unprecedented, not unprecedented. [Interruption.] We will see what your new leader says, David, which I think will drive much of what happens in politics over the next few months. But I think what we're hearing—[Interruption.] I think that's totally fair, Llywydd. What we have, in terms of this statement and the preparation for 'no deal', I think were very sensible comments, and I agree with what the Chair has said on that.

What I would like to say, in terms of looking at the meat sector, we talk a lot about lamb, and I think it's right to do so, because it is a sector that will face some of the toughest challenges if we do exit without a deal. What I wonder, though, is: should much more be done to market lamb within the United Kingdom? I remember the beef war that John Major had, and we actually saw an increase in domestic demand for beef, particularly of prime cuts. If we were to see those difficulties for lamb farmers, surely you should be working to try and say to the majority of voters in the UK who voted to leave, 'Actually, this is one sector that's suffering difficulties, actually—if we buy more Welsh lamb across the UK, it will help to mitigate those difficulties.' And what about the beef sector? We were hearing earlier about Ireland and beef prices falling. Well, yes, because they fear there may be a tariff against their exports into the UK. I hope not as high as we see, in terms of the maximum tariff it could be, but if there were, beef prices here would go up. What are we doing to help Welsh farmers benefit from that, increase their production and mitigate that increase in prices for consumers?

The institutional architecture of the UK—the UK Government is not giving it enough attention. It's a lot of other pressures—I know that the Member understands that as well. But I would like to see it do more, and, to the extent that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament agrees with us, why not work with them on this issue? The only times we seem to work with them is when an anti-Brexit alliance wants to try and stop the result of the referendum, as if Wales voted to remain and wants to leave the UK. That's not the case. But why don't we more constructively work with the Scottish Parliament on the frameworks? [Interruption.] Why don't you listen to what I'm saying, Lee? I'm talking about these frameworks, and why we've got to co-operate across the UK. If we agree with Scotland, why don't we work with them and try and do something jointly, to get the UK Government's attention, to make sure things are dealt with appropriately in this area?

And finally from me, I'd like to associate myself and my party entirely with the latter remarks made by David that people from the European Union and the European Economic Area who are in Wales are welcome, we want them to stay—[Interruption.]—and that message should go out from across the political spectrum. And when some people heckle, and when some people suggest our party isn't in any other position but that, it is very unhelpful, because it mutes that—[Interruption.] It mutes—[Interruption.] It mutes that message.  

Allow the Member to complete his contribution. 

You are muting that message, which should go out from everyone across this Chamber, from all political parties and groups, that we want those people to stay. They are welcome in Wales: please stay. [Interruption.]

Llywydd, I welcome the last point made by the leader of the Brexit Party in the Assembly, because it is important that people understand that, hopefully—everyone—and that when they use language in debates, they continue to use that same language that people are welcome, that they're not foreigners, that they are individuals who are here and who are here to help and work with us. So, I welcome those views made by the Member. 

I am disappointed that he used the issue of our forward work programme, in which we highlighted the concept of a referendum, but because we don't know what's coming, and we wanted to make sure that this was available in our forward work programme as a possibility. And it was therefore important that we didn't leave it out, so that we were in a position, as a committee of this Assembly, to be ready to address issues if and when they arise. It was clear that this was still a possibility, because we do not know what could happen in the future, whether it's proroguing Parliament, and what would be the consequences of that? It could be a general election, as a consequence of that—who knows what happens then, otherwise than that. We don't know whether a general election will be called before that situation, in which a party may win and which actually puts forward another referendum. We just don't know, and we needed to put in position, in our work programme, the possibility that we may need to address this if it came along. And that's why it's there, not because the committee or members of the committee thought that this was a great idea. This is a committee being responsible in the way it takes things forward, and that's important. It's disappointing the Member tried to belittle that responsibility. [Interruption.]

On the exchange rate—well, it was interesting to hear that he believes low exchange rates are good, because clearly that puts our exports at a disadvantage, but there we go. And he challenged proroguing as acceptable because it happens elsewhere. To me, personally, and I think to this institution, if someone tried to tell us, 'I'm sorry, I'm going to stop you sitting for the next two or three months', so that they could get a piece of legislation through, we would not be happy. We would think that that was a failure of democracy and, therefore, just because it's being used elsewhere doesn't mean it's acceptable or should be used by the UK Government. And anyone who thinks that way—and I have heard, and it's only a rumour, I accept that, but I have heard the rumours that those supporting Boris Johnson are keen to see the proroguing of Parliament, and I think that that would be a huge mistake for the new, incoming Prime Minister, if he becomes that, but let's wait and see, and let's hope he comes to some sense in that position. 

Other than that—oh, the market lamb. I want to highlight one thing: we often talk about our markets and our exports, and our lamb does go abroad, large proportions go abroad, but we all accept that, actually, one of the biggest markets is next door to us, it's England. We understand that, but we also understand that we have to get into that market and be competitive as well. And if you are going to a 'no deal' scenario and, whatever happens, if you go to WTO rules and you decide to go for getting rid of tariffs, you open up the markets for exports from other countries across the world, which would then also be challenging the lamb we put in as well. So, you've got to look very carefully at what those markets will be acceptable for and how you can get into those markets as well, and the decisions of the UK Government to allow that to happen. So, I think it's going to be more challenging than simply to say, 'Let's go to England to sell our lamb.' It's a bit more complex than that. 

I'm grateful to the Chair for bringing this statement this afternoon. I'm also grateful to him for the way in which he chairs the committee, and to the secretariat, who provide support for the committee. Presiding Officer, Members will be aware of the wide range of issues that the committee tries to cover in its time, and I've found my time on the committee to be one that has provided me with an insight into both the work that's being undertaken at the moment in dealing with Brexit, but also in being able to scrutinise Government across a broad range of its activities. 

Now, it isn't my purpose this afternoon to rehearse arguments over Brexit itself. I had intended to make a point in this statement that we do need to focus hard on the rights and position of EU citizens in our country. I was glad to hear that that point has been repeated already today. But I will say to the leader of the Brexit Party that his party has introduced language into this Chamber and into our debate that I have never heard before. I've never heard members of our society, our communities, being referred to as 'foreigners' prior to you sitting in this Chamber. I'd never heard a differential in any debate we've ever had from any part of this Chamber where the words 'foreigners' and 'immigrants' have been introduced into our debate. In the years that I've been a Member here, all people living in Wales have been treated equally until you arrived in this Chamber. It is your language, it is your tone and it is your attitude that leads directly—directly—to attacks on people in this country and to people feeling unwelcome in their own homes, and you should be ashamed of that. And you should be ashamed of what you've done to debase the political debate in this place and in this country. 

Let me say this: in terms of taking forward the work of the committee, I agree with those who spoke in this statement about some of the extraordinary statements we've heard about our democracy in the United Kingdom. Whatever our feelings on the nature of the UK and British democracy, it is ours and it belongs to all of us. It is not the plaything of the leaders of the Conservative Party or for those people seeking the leadership of the Conservative Party. They have no right to attempt to undermine our parliamentary democracy, or to use that parliamentary democracy to deliver a purpose for which there is no majority and no support. It may be acceptable in some places, and it may be acceptable in some political parties to prorogue the UK Parliament because the views of parliamentarians are inconvenient to their political purpose, but I do not believe that that is what people believed when they wanted to take back control. I remember no conversation and no argument being made—'If you vote to leave the EU in this referendum, do you know what we'll do? We will cancel parliamentary democracy, we will prorogue Parliament, we will prevent Members of Parliament from voting.' Nobody ever said that, and anybody who makes that argument should be deeply, deeply ashamed of the deceit that they are perpetrating on the people of this country, and I want no part of that at all.

There has been a recklessness, a carelessness and an un-British care for the people of this country in the debate we've had over a 'no deal' Brexit. I care deeply about people in all of the communities of this country, not simply the community I represent. And it is not good enough for people simply to say, 'We will have a "no deal" exit and damn the costs, damn the consequences, and damn the futures of people's lives that we are wrecking.' That is not good enough in any debate at any time. Let me say that this is an un-British—[Interruption.] It is not simply a criminal carelessness, it is deeply un-British in your approach. So, I care deeply for the future of agriculture and for manufacturing. I care deeply for the communities that are sustained by those industries. I care deeply for the families that are sustained by that employment, and I will never, ever use my vote and my place in this place in order to undermine their futures.

But can we also say that we do need a real debate about the future of the United Kingdom. I'm grateful that the Minister has been able to join us for this conversation this afternoon, and I'm grateful also to the Minister for his remarks and his openness in attending committee, and not simply answering questions but actually seeking to have a conversation, a debate and a discussion with the committee. I think Members on all sides of the Chamber are grateful to the Minister for his approach.

But we are seeing a very profound change in the nature of the United Kingdom, the creation of new structures where I do not believe we have the certainty of openness, transparency and accountability that we require. I welcome many of the changes that are being seen, which will create a far more equal United Kingdom with home rule Parliaments, particularly here and in Edinburgh, taking decisions that will shape people's lives in our countries, but working together with the Parliament in Westminster in order to ensure that we have an equal arrangement where we are all able to contribute to the future of this UK.

I hope that part of that will be democratic oversight and scrutiny, and we need to work hard—and I may address some of my remarks to the Minister here. I think it's a matter for all of us, Presiding Officer, and perhaps even you as the Presiding Officer, to ensure that there is institutional democratic accountability within the United Kingdom that holds the structures that are being created by the common frameworks to account for their decisions.

Let me just make one final remark, and I know I'm testing the patience of the chair, if not other Members. It was Gwyn Alf Williams, of course, who famously asked, 'When was Wales?', and I think it's for us now to ask a similar question, but 'What will Wales be?' For me, this country's always been a country that has looked outwards and looked at the world and embraced the world. We experienced globalisation before anybody had coined the phrase. We understood what internationalism is, and here in this place, in Cardiff Bay, was one of the first metropolitan, cosmopolitan communities in the world. And we have a responsibility, I believe, not simply to play our full part within the United Kingdom and other structures, but we have a responsibility to work alongside the Welsh Government to ensure that Wales continues to be represented in international capitals and in international affairs. I hope that the Welsh Government will work alongside the UK Government and others to ensure that we strengthen Wales's position internationally on the international stage, and we strengthen Wales's representation across the world.

Presiding Officer, I'm grateful to you for allowing this statement this afternoon. I do believe it's essential that committees are able to bring these statements to the Chamber, and, with certain exceptions, I think we've had a very positive debate on this statement.

Can I thank the Member for his comments? I also want to praise the fact of the experience he brings to the committee in understanding the workings particularly in the inter-governmental relationships side of issues and how we need to address the weaknesses that are starting to show as a consequence of Brexit and the realisation of, without the EU, what devolution actually now does mean. Because we've always operated devolution under the concept of the EU, and now we have to look at it in a different structure, so his input into that work is very much appreciated in that sense. He also, once again, highlights the importance of citizenship and the importance of people who come to this country who want to be part of this country who are active and bring life to this country, and we should always be welcoming to that.

Llywydd, I did think actually that I did say previously that anybody should go to America—I think I shouldn't have said that. I think we don't want to see anybody necessarily go, but it's the mental attitudes we don't want in this country. And those attitudes need to be disposed of, and so everyone should be as welcoming as possible.

Can I—? I'm not sure if there are any other Members speaking.

No. Definitely not. [Laughter.]

Then, can I thank all Members for their contributions? Can I also put on record my appreciation of the clerking team, because they do tremendous work, and this has been very complex—it's not just the clerking team; it's the team representing the Assembly in Brussels as well, the research team. They do a tremendous amount of work and, when you consider the to-ing and fro-ing that's going on, the ability they have to keep up with what's happening both in Westminster, in Cardiff and in Brussels—I think they do a fantastic job on behalf of this Assembly in keeping us updated on what's going on, and I put full praise to their efforts.

It's been an interesting set of contributions, but I think what's clear is that the work of the committee is critical to understanding the implications for Wales. I do appreciate Ministers—all of them, and I know that the Brexit Minister is there—for their frank and open discussions with us, and that has to continue because, if we want to serve the people of Wales, we have to have the answers and that discussion. And it's always been good in the committee that Ministers have come and done that for us. I look forward to them continuing to do so, and I look forward to them reminding their UK counterparts that they can also come and do so, because sometimes it's not so easy to get them to come as well. Thank you.

I thank the Chair.