Llywydd, I'll highlight the fact that there are real impacts upon people in this debate. Dai Lloyd's contribution highlighted some of the points. He talked about the issues our constituents will be facing if a 'no deal' happens. Let me talk first of all about the impact upon our work of proroguing Parliament, work already undertaken in this institution by committees of the institution, whether it be my committee, the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, or that of my colleague Mick Antoniw, who would have been here but he's stuck in Kiev because he can't get back in time. But those committees have worked carefully upon preparing for Brexit and the legislative agenda that is associated with it. And we seem to forget some of the things we do and the work we have and responsibilities we have in addressing those matters.

Some of that legislation has already received Royal Assent. They've had that permission. There are others still going through Parliament that proroguing Parliament would kill off: the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill. There's an immigration Bill—. We might say it's not in our remit, but it affects the work we cover because of the areas of devolution we have responsibility for. There's the Trade Bill—people talk about trade. We have an LCM in the Trade Bill. That's going to be killed off. And there are many other Bills going through—the environmental protection Bill. These will be killed and they are areas in which we have a very important role to play. And they'll have to start up all over again, and, by the way, before 31 October, because if we leave without a deal, as has been tried on—. This cynical attempt is nothing about actually having a Queen's Speech. The real cynical attempt is about getting a 'no deal' through on the thirty-first. Let's be honest about that and let's be honest with the people about that. And, if that happens, where legislatively will we be on 31 October or 1 November if we don't get these Bills through? And they're not going to get through in that time. And that would leave the work of our committees, of this institution, struggling. And we have to remember that because our job is to protect the interests of Wales and the constituents we represent, and without that legislative ability, we can't do that. So, proroguing Parliament actually does damage our ability to do our job. The actions of the Brexiteer-led Cabinet clearly demonstrate their belief that the survival of the union and the protection of citizens, including the ones we represent, are secondary to their Brexit ambition. Collateral damage that they accept and I will not.

Now, colleagues have spoken about constitutional reform, and for years both CLAC and EAAL have raised the need to get stronger, more formalised inter-governmental arrangements, something which really has been starting a debate across the UK Parliaments. In that parliamentary forum—which, by the way, I should have been at today but it was, I think, rearranged—this progress for the long-term interests of Wales and the UK is crucial, and the use of the royal prerogative has been so undermined we must now ensure that that reform does take place and we are there to ensure that our voice is heard in it.

By the way, I heard the comments about what is important, and I'd say, 'Please, for those who haven't read the reports of the committees, read them.' If you have read them, clearly you don't understand them. It's your job to ensure that what is in those reports is understood because it then might advise you as to some of the comments you've made today.

Llywydd, the other part of the debate is clearly the impact upon 'no deal'. Last time I remember being recalled to this Chamber was at the end of the last Assembly and the Tata steel issues. We were recalled just before the Assembly elections, just before we were actually dissolved to discuss the implications of Tata steel, and here we are again actually talking about 'no deal', being recalled, and, actually, the implications for Tata steel are just as crucial today as they were then, because I've met with people, clearly linked to that, and the implications for the steel industry are huge. We could be leaving with 'no deal' and WTO rules. Everybody seems to think WTO rules are fine and fantastic: no, they're not. We will end up in a disastrous situation because a third of the steel goes into Europe from Port Talbot. There'll be other elements going to the car industry. We all know the implications for the car industry. And then, when we go out without a deal, we go to WTO rules, which means that we have to also be impacted upon by the EU rules that have been put into place against USA, section 232, to defend EU steel, and we'll be facing those challenges, and we'll still be facing the US 232 sections and other issues with Turkish steel as a consequence of WTO. People don’t understand in this Chamber the implications for our constituents and the livelihoods of their families as a consequence of going out on WTO. They need to get real and they need to start understanding, not about an ideology, but about the impact on people’s lives—the people I represent and the people we should all represent.