Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Counsel General and Brexit Minister, an update on Brexit, and I call on the Counsel General and Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles, to make the statement. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. When this Assembly was recalled two weeks ago, the First Minister outlined the outrageous actions of the Prime Minister in gagging Parliament at a time of national crisis for the country. At the end of that debate, we sent a clear message to the UK Government that we would not stand by while decisions are taken that threaten our democracy.

When Parliament was prorogued last week, there were 52 days left to exit day. By the time MPs are due to return from their enforced suspension, there will be only 17 days to go. For three quarters of those precious 52 days, Parliament has been in lockdown.

It’s no good claiming that a recess for the party conferences was already pencilled in. That was a decision for Parliament to make and we know that in all likelihood the House of Commons would have voted to cancel or shorten it.

So, I welcome the decision by the Court of Session, which is, in fact, a superior court to the High Court in London, despite the comments of some Conservative MPs, which ruled that the act to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. We now await the final ruling from the Supreme Court.

In the precious time that Parliament sat after the summer recess, MPs from across political parties, including those on the Government benches who were prepared to put national interest ahead of the interests of the Conservative Party, united to bring forward legislation designed to stop a ‘no deal’ exit on 31 October.

As the law officer for the Welsh Government, I take my duty to ensure the rule of law is followed very seriously. This is a fundamental principle that all citizens of the UK, and, indeed, citizens of any mature democracy, rely on every single day.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we've used strong language in this Chamber in recent weeks, but I make no excuse for calling out the UK Government Ministers when they fail to commit that they will obey the law. It is utterly scandalous that the people of the UK cannot rely on the Prime Minister to follow the law of the UK.

Last week, at the JMC(EN), I challenged Michael Gove on this and he assured me that the Government would obey the law. But, at the same time, he continued to talk as if the UK would definitely have left the EU by 31 October. And we must remember that the UK alone does not decide whether this is the case; each of the 27 other EU member states wields a veto on an extension. What is clear, then, is that the risks of the UK crashing out on 31 October remain and we need to press on at pace with our 'no deal' planning.

Yesterday, we published the Welsh Government’s 'no deal' action plan. This echoes the sobering analysis of the risks that we face that the forced publication of the UK Government’s Yellowhammer assumptions revealed to the general public. We, as a Government, have been saying for months that the sort of consequences mentioned in those documents are a very real risk of a 'no deal' Brexit and completely unthinkable, which is why we have called for it to be ruled out. We have been clear that where we have the ability to take action to mitigate against the implications of 'no deal' we have done so.

Over the next few weeks, ministerial colleagues will update the Chamber on the preparations outlined in the action plan. The Welsh Government will also bring together stakeholders from across Wales to discuss the implications of 'no deal' on Wales and what more, if anything, we can do to limit the damage that would be done.

But let me be clear: the majority of the mitigations needed for a 'no deal' are out of our direct control—they're not even in the control of the UK Government. In the recent UK Cabinet sub-committee meetings that I and other Welsh Government Ministers have attended, the dire consequences of a 'no deal' exit continue to be laid out. It is extraordinary that the UK Government could contemplate such damage to the UK as a matter of political choice.

The people of Wales should not be fooled that a 'no deal' Brexit will be the end of three years of uncertainty. Instead, it will start a new chapter of immense turbulence. The economy will suffer significant economic pain, with a crash in the value of the pound and wider instability in the financial markets. This pain will be felt by every citizen in Wales and the UK.

All the evidence shows that this economic pain will be long-lasting and permanent. The economy will be smaller than it would otherwise have been, which will hit the income of every family in the UK. Moreover, even in the so-called clean break, the UK will have to negotiate a new relationship with our closest economic partners, and a crash-out Brexit will only make these negotiations more difficult.

UK-EU relations at the point of exit look set to become even more deeply acrimonious, with an entrenchment of positions, very little likelihood of a future deal in the near term, and the UK Government focusing on blaming the European Union. Add to that the threat that the UK Government will not honour the financial commitments in a 'no deal' exit, and it is clear that, even before negotiations begin, the UK will need to build new bridges and repair damaged relationships.

The reality is that the UK will be in constant negotiations with the EU forever if we leave. For this new relationship to get off on such a bad note is deeply worrying and damaging to our international reputation. The Prime Minister has been given clear instructions by Parliament. The process for avoiding a 'no deal' is set out in legislation. The steps are there to take. Yet we hear from the Prime Minister that it is his policy for the UK to leave on 31 October even if a deal cannot be agreed. If the Prime Minister was to disobey the instruction by Parliament, then this would be a decision that must have grave constitutional and legal implications.

A 'no deal' exit will be catastrophic and should be unthinkable. We remain committed to the alternative path. There is a brighter future for Wales, and that is to choose to remain in and help shape a reformed European Union.

If I could just remind the Minister today, in advance of thanking him for his statement, by the way, that there is an inconvenient truth that, for some reason, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru in this Chamber do not want to recognise, and that is that the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union. I know that you don't like that. The people in your own constituency voted to leave the European Union by a majority, and in many of your constituencies across Wales in those places where you're advocating to remain.

Now, you're doing everything you can to frustrate the will of the people. You just referred—you just referred to the Prime Minister getting clear instructions from Parliament. What about the clear instructions from the people of the United Kingdom and Wales that were given to Parliament? It's about time we had some respect for the decision and the will of the people, and implemented the Brexit that people voted for.

Now, I can see all the—I can see all of the attempt to create panic amongst the public through project fear mark 2, which you seem to have embarked upon. We saw the very thin document that was published this week in terms of the preparation of the Welsh Government, and the assumptions that the Welsh Government are working to. But, of course, we heard all of the same predictions before, and this is why people are not persuaded by the arguments that you're putting forward. We heard these predictions before about what would happen on day 1 if we voted to leave the European Union, and not one of them has materialised—not one of them has materialised. So, I'm afraid I find it very, very difficult to hear the same old arguments rehearsed again in this Chamber by the Welsh Government, and there appears to be an even more determined effort these days to abolish the will of the people and overturn that democratic mandate that everybody should be focusing on implementing.

We heard just today that Plaid Cymru have joined the Brexit extremists in the Liberal so-called Democrats in wanting to actually just completely scrap Brexit even without a referendum. That's bizarre. Your position is bizarre because you want to try to negotiate a deal and then encourage people to vote against it in a referendum. I really don't know why you don't think that that's an unusual thing to be criticised by the European Union for, which is why, of course, they have been criticising it. So, I find it difficult to listen to the crocodile tears around the Chamber when it's abundantly clear that people want to leave, people want us to get on with it, they're fed up of waiting around, and that's why I'm wholeheartedly behind the Prime Minister in seeking to implement this decision by 31 October.

Now, nobody—nobody in this Chamber is aiming for a 'no deal'. Everybody would rather have a deal, but we're only one side of the bargaining table. The other side of the bargaining table appear to be a bloc of nation states who are refusing to budge in their intransigence in terms of amending the withdrawal agreement. Now, you say that you want some continuity, you say that you want some reassurance, you say that you want the ability for people to continue to trade, and, of course, all of that was wrapped up in the withdrawal agreement, which you all voted down consistently. So, we're in a position where we have a Prime Minister who is trying to deliver on the will of Parliament in trying to secure changes to the withdrawal agreement, and he's made it clear that if he cannot get those changes agreed then he's determined to leave without a deal if necessary.

Now, can I ask you some questions? You've made it clear—. You've suggested today that the Welsh Government supports a position whereby even if we leave the EU without a deal you feel we should pay that contribution of £39 billion, which I find very alarming indeed. Can you confirm that that is the Welsh Government's position? Because that's what you seemed to suggest when you talked about the need to honour financial commitments. Because those commitments, of course, are linked to the withdrawal agreement at the moment.

Do you accept that Parliament has been given clear instructions by the people of the United Kingdom, including the people of Wales, to leave the European Union? Do you accept—? You talk about constitutional implications of disobeying parliament, but what about the constitutional implications and complications that would be caused by not implementing the outcome of a referendum? It would be the first time in the history of the United Kingdom that the outcome of a referendum would not have been implemented.

And if I can turn to your document, if I will, that you published just the other day, one thing that you don't seem to refer to—and there's very little of an update, actually, in the text of your statement today—you don't refer to what is actually going on in terms of people accessing the support that's available from the Welsh Government. You've set a £50 million transition fund aside. Not all of that has been allocated yet. I mean, how close do we have to get to the date before you actually start allocating this money and getting it out of the door into the pockets of the organisations that need to prepare for Brexit? Can we have an update on that? That would have been more useful than the claptrap that we've heard this afternoon.

Can you tell us also how many businesses have accessed the Business Wales Brexit portal? Because I don't think many people are accessing it, frankly. I mean, you can put me right if you want to. I'll be happy to—. If that's the case, I'll be happy if many thousands have and are actually not just clicking on it once but actually using the website in order to access the support that they need.

Are you winding up, please?

And what about the Paratoi Wales website, as well? I am winding up, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can you tell us how many people have accessed that in terms of the other organisations that aren't businesses that might need support? So, instead of being like a scratched record, I'd like to hear precisely what progress you're making by working with the UK Government to deliver on the will of the people of Wales in delivering Brexit as soon as possible. 

Brexit Minister.

I hope the selectors of the Clwyd West Conservative Party found that more informative than the rest of us in this Chamber did. The Member talks about a 'no deal' Brexit with a kind of equanimity that I think most of us on these benches find really very disturbing. He purports to care about the statistics in relation to access to Government-funded services and the contributions that we've made to resilience. I don't believe for a second that that is a genuine set of enquiries, but I'm happy to answer some of the questions.

He talks about honouring the referendum. What about honouring the promises that were made to people in 2016? Let's start with that. Let's start with the promises that trade deals would be a walk in the park and yet we're now in a position where we've normalised the idea of walking away from a trade network, which would cripple parts of our economy, and parts of this Chamber regard that as perfectly acceptable. It's a disgrace.

He talks about an attempt to create panic. The Government that he supports in Westminster has revealed their planning assumptions. That is a Government that's content to proceed to a 'no deal' Brexit despite the stark illustration in that document of the damage that would be caused—[Interruption.] He mutters from a sedentary position that that is a worst-case scenario—[Interruption.] If he listens, he'll get the replies. That is a document that shows what a reasonable person's assessment is of how bad things can get.

If not all of that happens, what is he prepared to tolerate going wrong in that list of things? Is it electricity prices going up? Is it civil unrest? Is it low-income groups being disproportionately affected by price rises? Is it delays to medicine supplies? What of that is he prepared to tolerate as he describes with complete calmness the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit? We are taking steps that are proportionate in the face of that kind of threat to mitigate, as best we can, the damage on Wales. But let's be absolutely categorical: no amount of preparation, however effective, however collaborative, can begin to touch some of the damage that is described in that document, and he should focus on that rather than the synthetic anger that he's demonstrated today.

And just to be clear, we do believe the UK Government should pay its debts. We do believe the UK Government should pay its debts. These are contributions to current programmes, to current commitments to the European Union, and he treads a very dangerous path indeed if, in a world where he thinks we should be negotiating new trade deals, he's prepared to trash the UK's reputation by walking away from its obligations.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thank the Minister for his statement. What an almighty mess the UK Government is making of things. The Prime Minister is found to have lied to the Queen and is happy to gag Parliament and to flout the rule of law. As you've said, Minister, if prorogation continues—and it's no guarantee, considering how the Supreme Court case seems to be going—but if prorogation does continue, MPs will return with only 17 days before the day when Boris Johnson continues to insist against the law, against all reason, that we will leave the EU, come what may. 'Do not waste this time' is what we were warned by Donald Tusk. Well, the Westminster Government has shown how tin eared it can be—how deaf to all cries of reason, compassion or sense.

The Yellowhammer documents published by the UK Government make hardly any mention of Wales, so it's useful that the Welsh Government has decided to publish its 'no deal' action plan. Given it is a hefty document, I won't offer any criticism of the plans before I've fully finished analysing them, but I'd also like to place on record my own thanks to public sector workers who are working tirelessly in the back rooms, behind the scenes, and diligently, to prepare for this possible disaster.

Yesterday, the First Minister informed the external affairs committee that the Welsh Government had received more detailed information from the UK Government than has been published in Yellowhammer, and it's obvious that this information has informed your action plan. The contingencies the Welsh Government is preparing for, based on that advice, are nothing short of sickening. I think it is shameful that the Conservative spokesperson is claiming this is project fear and can so easily dismiss major disruption to the movement of people and goods, chaos at ports and airports, possible food and medicine shortages, major disruption to trade, which could, and I quote,

'risk the sustainability of some businesses and have a negative impact on jobs and wages', rising inflation, lower economic growth, with low-income households worst affected, a perfect storm of job losses, wage decreases, and rising costs, the farming and fishing sectors being, and I quote again, 'hit particularly hard', advanced manufacturing facing disruption due to problems with just-in-time supply chains, service sectors likely to be significantly affected, an increase in inflation having a significant impact on social care providers, a possible loss of citizens' rights and the imposition of a hostile environment. The list goes on and on.

And let's be absolutely clear about this. Even though these effects sound like the ramifications of war or a natural disaster, they are the expected consequences of current UK Government policy. If they take us over the cliff edge, if they inflict 'no deal' on Wales and the rest of the UK, they will never be forgiven. This could even eclipse the disastrous effects that Thatcher's deindustrialisation policies had on Wales.

So, I do find it startling, Minister, that the very first matter that the 'no deal' action plan discusses is making the case for the union of the UK. Surely, if the UK Government inflicts 'no deal' on Wales, there would be no case. Leaving the union would be a priority, once we've dealt with the short-term emergency. Forty-one per cent of the Welsh population say they would vote for independence as a way to remain in the EU, and that is now, before the disaster of 'no deal' has happened, and that figure is happening now when people know more of the facts as well. The Welsh Government must stop shoring up a union that will have failed us. The First Minister himself has said that the UK is a voluntary union. If support for independence rises further, then the calls for an independence referendum will become impossible to ignore. You need to start preparing for it now.

I'd like to finish by asking a few questions. Can you tell us how much the Welsh Government has spent preparing for 'no deal' and whether you agree with me that these funds should be reimbursed to Wales in full, as it's a UK Government policy that has necessitated the expenditure? I noticed, as well, that there was no mention in Yellowhammer, or your action plan, about the future of the Pembroke oil refinery, even though the leaks to The Sunday Times suggest that hundreds of jobs there could be at risk. This is apparently what redacted paragraph 15 of Yellowhammer refers to. Are you concerned for these jobs, or is the Secretary of State for Wales correct to say that they're safe? And finally, can you give assurances today that the Welsh Government will make extra funds available over and above the £2 million already earmarked for foodbanks if 'no deal' leads to funding crises for low-income families and individuals, which will almost certainly be the case?

I thank the Member for her questions. Can I first associate myself with her comments in relation to the thanks for all those people in public services and, indeed, across society in Wales who are working hard to take steps to prepare Wales for some of the sorts of things we saw described in the Yellowhammer document? 

She mentioned the Supreme Court case. I will just say to her that I've had reports of the proceedings today in court and the justices are taking a real interest in the impact on the work of the Assembly of the prorogation in Parliament and the consequence that that has on the legislation and the work that Members here have put in to scrutiny and consideration of those. I would hope, at least, that most people in the Chamber would support the interest that has been shown in the impact here on our work.

She makes a number of points in relation to the future of the UK as a consequence of a hard or 'no deal' Brexit. What I would say—I'll repeat the point that I made earlier—is that those posing the greatest threat to the union are those advocating a hard or 'no deal' Brexit. We know what consequences that that could easily have in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and I think that the future of the UK is imperilled in a way that it hasn't been by the sorts of arrangements that those people are perfectly content to contemplate, and I include the Prime Minister in that.

She asks specifically about the expenditure and so on, and I'm very happy to confirm to her that I do think that money that is being spent in relation to preparation could be spent more productively on other things. None of us, I think, believe that the resources and energy and time that has been spent by Government, by local government and by public bodies and organisations and businesses across Wales could not be more productively spent elsewhere. And we absolutely will be making sure that we have a series of very clear financial asks to the UK Government if the sorts of circumstances described in the documentation we've seen come to pass. It is not possible for us to deal with the consequences envisaged in that document without very, very, very significant financial support from the UK Government, and I know that the Minister for finance is very focused on that task.

I won't comment, if she doesn't mind, on the question of the oil refinery; I will just direct her to the public comments that the company have themselves made about their concerns in relation to Brexit. And I will confirm—and I hope that she will have detected this from the document disclosed yesterday—we do think that the impact on vulnerable groups of the sorts of Brexit described in these documents is going to be very, very considerable. And the cumulative effect of a number of these impacts could be very, very damaging indeed to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. The plan does contain commitments to support various vulnerable groups. Those remain, of course, under review and we will do everything we can within our power and resources.

Can I thank the Minister for his statement? I also thank the Welsh Government for their action plan that was published yesterday. At least we here in the Assembly have an opportunity to actually scrutinise the Government on its action plan, unlike our colleagues in Westminster who've been blocked from scrutinising the work on Yellowhammer.

Minister, it's all well and good saying—. You know, we've had speeches from various Members. This is not about speeches; it's about asking you questions. So, I'll try and focus on questions, because what you are saying is what we all think. Now, the point is—. A couple of points. I would've hoped that we'd have had—[Interruption.] If the Member would give me a chance to ask some questions. Thank you. Minister, we haven't had an update on the common frameworks, which I would've hoped for in this speech, because it is important we know where we are in those common frameworks. Because if we do leave without a deal on 31 October, it will be nice to know exactly how progress is being made on those common frameworks so that we can ensure that things are progressing as well. But also, perhaps you could comment upon the differences you are experiencing as a consequence of the new Government, because I know with the previous Government we seemed to be progressing, where we had the report—we published that as part of our papers yesterday in the committee—and three of the members involved in that report are no longer in Government, so it is interesting to see whether the new Government is actually taking the progress on common frameworks seriously or not.

Can you also tell us about any future legislative needs for Wales? Again, are there any SIs outstanding that need to be put into place prior to 31 October? Are there any SIs in England or Westminster that we still need to be aware of that need still to go through for us to be able to be in a position where the legislation is in place for a 'no deal' Brexit on 1 November? Also, again, have you assessed the actual specific needs in Wales? We know that proroguing Parliament—we've discussed this, and the First Minister has mentioned it quite clearly. The decision to prorogue Parliament meant all those Bills that are not completed and did not have an Order placed upon them—and none of them did—to actually be allowed to continue are dead, and anything has to be started all over again. There are several Bills that have huge consequences if we don't have a transition period following departure.

Have you also done any further analysis, following the work done by Cardiff University's business school, which you published before, because that was a few months or a while back? Where are we today in your analysis of the economic impact? Because you, I'm assuming—and it's been mentioned by Delyth Jewell—have based your analysis and your action plans upon the data you receive from the UK Government as part of Yellowhammer. Have you done any other analysis yourselves or sought any analysis on the follow-up from the Cardiff business school work?

We haven't discussed this today, but the shared prosperity fund—where are we on that? What discussions have you had in relation to that? The First Minister's already highlighted that that would actually be more than the £600 million being offered to us in an agreement that hasn't yet been passed by Parliament. So, where are we on that, and how does that have implications for the actions you will be taking and these action plans following on, because, as you highlighted in that action plan, some of them are short term and there are other, longer term implications to these? Again, one of the things in the action plan highlighted to me was where you say

'the Bank of England has estimated households are £1,000 worse off every year'.

Now I know, whatever Darren Millar said earlier, constituents in my constituency did not vote to make themselves or their neighbours £1,000 a year worse off. So, we need to look at exactly what the implications are for those.

Can I ask one thing? We've seen the Prime Minister go to Europe eventually and try to persuade Europe that his ideas are actually working and have meaningful content—questionable, but he's tried. But, yesterday, he actually didn't even turn up for a press conference with the Luxembourg Prime Minister. He decided to get himself out of it. Now, that doesn't help relationships with our EU partners. So, what is the Welsh Government doing to ensure we strengthen those partnerships and those relationships in a situation where we might see an acrimonious departure because of the way the UK Government is behaving? Because, for Wales, the continuation of strong relationships with the EU nations and the regions within the EU are going to be crucial for our continuing business needs.

I thank the Member for that range of questions. I'll deal with them as succinctly as I can. In relation to the question of common frameworks, work continues in relation to those. He will know from exchanges in committee that we've had in the past that we would like there to be faster progress in relation to that, but I think the distraction that we will have faced in planning for 'no deal' has had an impact, unfortunately, on the time frames. He will also know that those are intended to support policy development over the longer term, and what is obvious is that there may be a need to make policy adjustments in the interim period before a particular common framework has been agreed and been scrutinised and had stakeholder input and so on. So, we are currently looking at what we need to do in order to accommodate that need.

In relation to the impact of the new Government on that work, I think that work has been under way at an official level and I think that work is progressing in relation to those. There have been, I think, two or three that have been with stakeholders for input. We're very conscious of the fact—I think all Governments are conscious of the fact that we need to make sure that there's time for legislatures and stakeholders to scrutinise those frameworks as they become more mature and before they are agreed.

He talked about legislation and the legislative impact of prorogation. There are five Bills that have fallen as a consequence of prorogation. One at least was one that we'd provided formal consent for here, for that Bill; one would have extended our competence here in the Assembly; and one provided for important powers to enable payments to farmers and so on. So these are not small pieces of legislation of no relevance; they are important Bills that the Assembly here was expecting Parliament would have an opportunity to pass. We are looking at the moment at what that means in terms of possible additional legislation here. Certainly with regard to statutory instruments, there will be a need for further SIs to be brought forward, either because of things that we've learnt in the interim period or changes that have happened in European Union law in the interim period. So, those will be brought forward in due course.

In relation to the economic impact, we know of course, as he outlined in his question, how significant the adverse economic impact of a 'no deal' or hard Brexit would be, and we also know that no form of Brexit will be as beneficial to the Welsh economy as membership of the European Union. The Government will be releasing an update on the economic impact of Brexit shortly. That will be available for Members to see.

He talked about the shared prosperity fund. I'm afraid I'm not in a position to give him any update in relation to that. We simply do not know what the current plans are in Westminster in relation to that. The Minister for finance indicated earlier, I think, that she had begun to lose confidence that there even was a plan in the UK Government, and it's hard to resist that conclusion sometimes.

With regard to the Prime Minister in Luxembourg, I think at the end of the day it's important to be available for scrutiny, isn't it? I think that just demonstrates a pattern of behaviour in not making oneself available for questioning and so on. But the broader point there: I was at the JMC(EN) last Thursday and asked for an update on the negotiations that the UK Government says it's undertaking, and I'm afraid I left with no confidence at all that we were looking at a negotiation as we would understand it—a substantive, advanced process of bargaining and exchange. So I'm not at all confident that I can give him any reassurance that there's a negotiation in the way that we would understand it, meaningfully, under way.

I'm pleased to hear that the Government will be publishing its own estimate on the economic impact of 'no deal', because the Minister just now adopted David Rees's reference to the Bank of England estimate—£1,000 coming from a 5 per cent estimate. Yet his colleague just now, Rebecca Evans, referred to a 10 per cent estimate from the Treasury, which led to this £2,000 estimate. Yet even the lower of those estimates, does the Minister recognise, is based on an assumption by the Bank of England that a 'no deal' exit will lead to the Bank of England raising its interest rates from 0.75 per cent to 4.5 per cent, and he's aware that almost any private sector economist who has commented on that thinks that it's simply an incredible thing to say?

I'm still no clearer, really, as to where the policy of the Minister is in terms of the overall Brexit position. Does he want to see a UK Government under his party go to Brussels to seek to negotiate a new deal so that they can then come back to this country and campaign against it in a referendum? And does he agree with the two letters used by his colleague the health Secretary to describe that policy—BS?

He says in his statement that the UK Government is focused on blaming the EU, but many people listening to our debates will see the Welsh Government as being focused on blaming the UK Government. Whenever there's a dispute, whenever the European Union refuses to move its position and remains intransigent, this Welsh Government can be counted on to take the side of those European Union institutions against the UK Government. The previous Member talked about a threat to the union. Is not a threat to the union that this Welsh Government refuses to act for the people of Wales who want to stay in the UK but leave the European Union? Your predecessor, Counsel General, said

'we will not work against the referendum result.'

When did that policy change?

You talk about paying our debts. Are you not aware that our treaty with the European Union provides for an exit mechanism? We give two years' notice. For those two years we're on the hook to continue paying everything we would as a member. After that there is no continuing, international legal obligation. We are not contracted to pay. There is not a debt. Even the House of Lords' European Union Select Committee—hardly a hotbed of leavers—said that if we leave at the end of an article 50 process, there is no continuing financial obligation. The only area where that might be different is for the European Investment Bank, because it’s separately constituted with its own capital. And if we were to go to the International Court of Justice, why is it that we're only getting back £3.5 billion of the capital we initially put in, not our share of £7.5 billion extra of the accumulated reserves? No doubt he'll back the European Union on that point too.

Can I just ask about the legal situation? Because he describes the Court of Session, saying,

'which is in fact a superior court'.

In what sense is it a superior court? It is in a different jurisdiction. It also hears cases of first instance in judicial review in the same way that the High Court in London, or indeed sitting in Cardiff, does. It is in a different jurisdiction. Why is it a superior court any more than an eighth district of federal appeals in California might be a superior court? It’s not; it’s in a different jurisdiction. Is it not the case that its rulings are at most persuasive? They are not binding in our jurisdiction of England and Wales. And, Counsel General, you complain that the UK cannot rely on the Prime Minister to follow the law of the UK. Can't the people of Wales rely on their First Minister and Counsel General to follow the law of England and Wales?

Okay. For a man so expensively educated, he certainly hasn't learned to do his homework. That last point: it’s a matter of fact that the Court of Session is a senior court, and it is not hearing this judicial review as a first instance, and I would have thought that he would have known that.

He claims to know the mind of the business community as though it was of one mind and he has some direct access to it. We know from our contact with people across Wales, businesses across Wales, how terrified they are of the levels of uncertainty that Brexit and the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit are causing. That is why we've been so focused on giving all the support that we're able to give.

I think it is absolutely cavalier of him to talk about the UK not paying the sums it owes to the European Union. Even on his view of the world—which I don't share in any respect—it must surely be the case that any government seeking to negotiate international treaties and international obligations with other partners must be able to point to its good word and its honesty and its integrity when it comes to paying sums it has already agreed to pay. And I think the UK Government imperils that reputation very significantly if it seeks to evade those payments.

He asks about our policy. Let me be absolutely clear: we could not be more categorical in the Welsh Labour Party that our position is that people should have an opportunity to have their say and that we will campaign for remain. I hope that we can persuade our colleagues in Parliament to commit to remain in all those circumstances, but let’s be absolutely clear that that is our commitment. We've made that repeatedly here in the Chamber. Actually, the case is, in 2016, people were made a set of promises that have fallen apart. And while he talks about respecting the referendum result, it's about time people started respecting the promises made to people in 2016.

And finally, very briefly, Jenny Rathbone. 

What did you campaign for in 2016?

Thank you. I've called Jenny Rathbone. Thank you.

Thank you. One of the contingency plans mentioned in the Welsh Government’s statement published recently is on this potential disruption to chemicals that are used in the water industry. I wonder if you could tell us what discussions you've had with the UK Government on this and what discussions with Dŵr Cymru. Could you elaborate on what these chemicals are and why they can't be stockpiled, or can they only be stockpiled for a certain amount of time? And how long would it take for what is currently imported from other parts of Europe to be manufactured in Wales? That’s my first question.

The second question I have is on the food industry. The First Minister has already said that supermarkets have given reassurances that they will be supplying even the most remote parts of Wales, ensuring that people have food, but I just wondered what advice has been given to schools and to communities about growing winter vegetables so that schools won't simply have to rely on tinned and frozen vegetables as substitutes for fresh vegetables.

I thank her for that question. In relation to the question of water treatment chemicals—I think she was asking about that—there have been advanced discussions with the water companies and with UK Government in relation to that so that there are contingency plans in place in relation to those that have been tested.

She's right, if I may say, to highlight the importance of food supply and food availability generally. We have been clear in focusing on that as part of our planning and making sure that we have commitments from supermarkets and distributors in order to ensure that all parts of Wales and all parts of the UK, in fact, are fairly treated in the distribution of food. We are in regular contact with local education authorities and, indeed, schools directly in relation to planning around food supply. She makes an important point, I think, which has a bearing on Brexit but has a broader bearing, doesn't it, in relation to the capacity of schools and communities to grow their own food and to ensure that people have access to fresh locally grown produce in any circumstances? But I will reassure her that, from the perspective of ensuring fair distribution and fair access of food into our public services, we are very focused on that as a priority.

Thank you very much, Minister.